Q_A Government Responses.pdf

RFP HQ0516-21-R-0080 Web Enterprise Business Services Defense Media Activity

# Reference Question/Comments THE GOVERNMENT RESPONSES

1 RFP 3. Background (Page 20)

Can the Government please provide further guidance on expected throughput of “High-Performance” requirements under given workload of concurrent end users/customers (internal vs. external), overall volume and types of OLTP/Batch transactions to be supported for current network latency of Defense Media Activity Web Enterprise Business (DMA-Web.mil) world-wide content distribution network (CDN)?

Origin throughput averages 95 Mbit/s outbound and 7 Mbit/s inbound. Average volume per day is 1TB outbound and 75GB inbound.

2 RFP 3. Background

Can the Government please provide further guidance on AWS/Azure commodity?

Is the Government planning to leverage Amazon Web Service (AWS) and/or Azure Cloud Software- as-a-Service (SaaS) since we have not found any references about AWS in RFP document except in this section?

The current primary WEB.mil platform and services are being migrated to Azure.

AWS is currently the WEB.mil COOP platform. There may be other small applications which reside in AWS in the future.

3 RFP 4. Objectives

Can the Government please confirm that no sensitive, classified, sensitive-but-unclassified (SBU), secret, proprietary, private-personal-information (PPI) etc. will be exchanged and/or hosted to meet strategic priorities and listed objectives of Defense Media Activity Web Enterprise Business (DMA-Web.mil) to provide public web hosting and integrated services to all DOD components under this contract?

Per the Information System Categorization, the platform contains no CUI, PII, or PHI.

The overall impact is MODERATE and the appropriate Cloud Impact Level is IL-2.

4 RFP 5. Scope

Can the Government please provide further guidance on reasonable growth of the GCDN?

Linear reasonable growth is defined as a year-over-year 10-15% increase in TB delivered. Currently WEB.mil serves 957 websites.

However, please note that DTM 21-001 instructs DMA to begin the process of hosting all DOD Public Websites – estimated between 3,000-5,000+ in the next 5 years.

5 RFP 6. Performance Requirements

Is the Government planning to award all listed task areas to one contractor or to multiple awardees based on the overall rating of the proposal for each task areas?

There will be a single awardee.

6 RFP 6.2 Task 2 (Page 23)

Can the Government provide the sample monthly CDN service report that provide current state of all meaningful metrics as listed in this section?

A copy of the report is not publicly releasable, however WEB.mil currently uses 8 reporting groups with offload percentages between 75-96%.

Current available thresholds include 760TB / month HTTPS Content Delivery, 525TB/month Client Reputation, 1,000 million hits / month Image Manager, and 30 TB/month NetStorage.

7 RFP 6.3 Task 3 (Page 26)

Can the Government provide the list of all technologies currently in operation besides all futuristics technologies those are necessary to support the listed objectives of this solicitation?

The RFP describes current state of operations. The only optional/futuristic services listed are those in 6.15 Optional Tasks. All other technologies and capabilities are current-state. Contractors may propose additional or differing solutions for approval.

8 RFP 6.4 Task 4

Is the Government intention to continue using Collaborative Communication Platform Subscription beyond the set expiry date OR Contactors can provide a better integrated solution that is already approved and in use with other US Federal agencies?

Government is open to a better integrated solution that is already approved and in use within the DoD.

9 RFP 6.5 Task 5

Is the Government intention to continue using LMS/Accord Subscription beyond the set expiry date OR Contactors can provide a better integrated solution that is already approved and in use with other US Federal agencies?

Government is open a better integrated solution that is already approved.

10 RFP 6.5 Task 5 (Page 28)

Is all end user training and certification for the Government’s CMS for the Department of Defense, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Army, and all other websites hosted by DMA-Web.mil are currently managed thru online/Computer Based Training (CBT) and/or in-house class room facilities?

If so, what percentage is online/CBT vs. class room?

Training for WEB.mil CMS is primarily CBT. However, customers may request on-site training on an ad hoc basis.

11 RFP 6.6 Task 6 (Page 28)

Do the Government have Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QAQC) Program already setup for current environment?

If so, can the Government provide QAQC measurable matrices so that contractor can meet those qualitative requirements?

Yes, the Government has a QAQC program already set up. The awardee will be provided documentation on the QAQC program after contract award.

12 RFP 6.7 Task 7 (Page 29)

Can the Government provide guidance on the frequency and when is the last time C&A being completed by the Chief Information Security Office (CISO) in collaboration with the Security Management Team of current incumbent for current environment?

The DMA CISO is regularly engaged with the AFPIMS ISSM. The team is currently collaborating on C&A activities for both the on-prem version of AFPIMS, as well as AFPIMS in the commercial cloud.

The Assessment and Authorization process in the DoD is iterative and continuous.

The maturity and effectiveness of the implementation of Technical and Operational Security controls by the selected vendor will drive the timeline for required A&A activities.

13 RFP 6.8 Task 8 (Page 33)

Can the Government provide guidance on the current size of the software development and management team is supporting current environment that includes contractors and the Government employees?

The following historical data is provided to offerors to be used as a “guide”. This information is not intended to limit any offeror’s ability to submit alternative solutions to accomplish task requirements.

Historically, Task 8 has been accomplished with the range of FTE’s below. These are given as a reference only and the offeror is encouraged to propose what they determine is the optimal technical solution to accomplish task requirements.

10-12 Contract Developers 1-Contract Developer Chief 1-2 Contract Enterprise Architects

14 RFP 6.9 Task 9 (Page 36)

Can the Government provide the list of all COTS (commercial off-the-shelf) and GOTS (the Government off-the-shelf) security products those are in operation to manage and support various activities listed this section?

The DoD mandates the use of the following COTS products;

Tenable Assured Compliance Assessment System (ACAS), McAfee Endpoint Security Suite (ENS), Tanium Platform.

Additionally, AFPIMS leverages COTS products for the following: Log

Collection/Alerting (Splunk), Static Code Analysis (Veracode), Web Vulnerability Analysis.

15 RFP 6.12 Task 12 (Page 42)

To provide 24/7 technical support for emergencies including a duty phone to ensure all hour’s access; do we need to have supported staff within Continental United States (CONUS) or they can be Outside Continental United States (OCONUS) as long as they meet the Government security protocols?

For the purpose of after-hours support, staff can be OCONUS.

16 RFP 6.14 Task 14 (Page 43)

Can the Government provide any guidance on the email encryption protocol that contractor shall follow to manage and support various activities listed in this section?

6.14 Task 14 refers to our email subscription

service. Email encryption is not a requirement for publicly releasable information. Granicus is only authorized to process IL-2 data on behalf of AFPIMS.

However, regarding email in general – Emails of a sensitive nature (CUI, Financial, Security, etc.) between the vendor and the government shall be encrypted.

17 RFP 8.1.2 Section B

Can the Government provide anticipated date of contract award? Expected date of award is first quarter

FY22.

18 RFP 13.4 The RFP on page 54 states that “the company must have a Secret Facility Clearance (FCL) from the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) Facility Clearance Branch (FCB) at time of award.” However, the primary place of performance is stated to be at Government’s facility at Fort George G. Meade, MD. Can the government remove the Secret FCL requirement from the RFP?

No, changes will be made related to the FCL

19 RFP 7.3.2 Estimating System: The RFP on Page 149 states to “indicate whether you have Government approval of your system and if so, provide evidence of such approval”. Is this a mandatory requirement or would compliance with estimating standards as deemed by a third-party suffice?

This paragraph is in reference to having an approved accounting system for cost reimbursable contracts.

Reference 252.242-7006 Accounting System Administration, that’s included in the solicitation.

20 RFP 7.3.3 Purchasing System: The RFP on Page 149 states to “indicate whether you have Government approval of your system and if so, provide evidence of such approval. Is this a mandatory requirement or would compliance with estimating standards as deemed by a third-party suffice?

Reference clause

252.244-7001 CONTRACTOR

PURCHASING SYSTEM

ADMINISTRATION, that’s included in the solicitation.

21 RFP 6.12 Task 12 What is the standard number of service calls received over a given day historically?

Approximately 50 calls per day

22 Attachment L-4 The contents of Attachment L-4 DD 254 are not getting displayed with a PDF reader. Could you kindly update the attachment so it can be opened?

Offerors may reach out to the individuals listed in paragraph 2.1.1 Point of Contact to have attachments sent directly via email.

23 RFP L-I 4.1 The instructions state “to be eligible for award, the offeror’s proposal shall sufficiently address all aspects of the PWS.”

However, Subfactor 1-3 are for tasks 6.7, 6.8, and 6.12 respectively.

Does the government expect a response for the other tasks in the

SOW?

Yes

24 RFP page 144 Due to a large number of questions, will the government kindly consider granting a one week extension to the proposal due date?

Yes, the deadline date will be extended.

25 Overall RFP Will the Government consider time and materials (T&M) CLINs for the commercial type services that are currently identified as Cost- Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF)? Use of CPFF for these commercial type services will add additional complexity, cost, and time, requiring significantly more industry and government resources in both source selection and execution.

We offer the following for consideration:

1. Cost/Price source selection evaluation for CPFF efforts entails a full cost realism evaluation of each proposal in addition to price reasonableness to determine the most probable cost the Government will actually pay based on each offeror’s unique proposed approach. This makes the source selection significantly more complex. This will require evaluation of the number and categories of hours, direct labor rates, escalation, and indirect burdens to calculate for each offeror the Government evaluated cost.

2. In addition, lacking standard GSA T&M schedule or DMA specific labor category definitions, industry is concerned that some offerors may choose to “buy in” with costs so low that it introduces both: performance risk that jeopardizes DMA’s ability to successfully execute this critical program; and future budget challenges as the Government is responsible for 100% of any cost overruns, regardless of what the contractor bid. Unless very specific labor category requirements supportive of the DMA mission are provided to bidders, significant schedule and cost risk are introduced into the program.

3. In execution, a CPFF contract merely requires best efforts by the contractor and shifts the full risk of both cost and schedule execution to the Government. CPFF requires much more Government oversight and reporting resources, increases complexity of review and approval of invoices based on actual costs incurred using provisional billing rates, forces the Government to find funds for additional costs if contractor salaries and indirect rates vary from what was proposed, and extends closeout of the contract for at least a year while final rates are determined. All of which increase the

The Government carefully considered this request and determined that CPFF is appropriate for the tasks identified for this contract type.

required effort by the Government directly to manage a CPFF contract, increase cost uncertainty and 100% of any additional costs incurred by the contractor are borne by the Government.

While we have many years of experience performing under CPFF type contracts they are more common where there are uncertainties in the technical requirements as detailed in the SOW. If the government is looking for additional visibility into program expenditures, the contract type does NOT have to be Cost Plus.

Rather, financial program reviews, monthly reports and other program deliverables can be included with a T&M and FFP structure.

Will the Government consider Time and Material (T&M) Labor CLINS to replace the CPFF CLINs coupled with financial program reviews and progress deliverables to balance the risk between the Government and the Contractor?

26 Pg. 43, Sec.6.15 The contractor shall provide a series of integrated services supporting public websites including custom development work, creative services, search engine optimization services, sentiment analysis services, news clip services, website customer satisfaction surveys, and other services as required.

The government only provides subtasks covering custom development work and creative services without providing “search engine optimization services, sentiment analysis services, news clip services, website customer satisfaction surveys, and other services.”

Does the government want a solution and pricing for all 9 services (integrated services supporting public websites including custom development work, creative services, search engine optimization services, sentiment analysis services, news clip services, website customer satisfaction surveys, and other services as required) listed in the RFP or only the three subtasks? If so, will the Government provide the specific scope of work?

Will the Government verify all subtasks are listed correctly?

Each of the services listed should be priced in accordance with the contractor’s proposed solution and a 2000-hour level of effort.

27 Pg. 147, Sec. L.6.0 Volume IV Factor 2 A subcontracting plan is required (FAR 52.219-9) for Other than U.S.

Small Businesses only (i.e., Large Businesses).

ONLY OTHER THAN

U.S. SMALL

BUSINESS OFFERORS

ARE REQUIRED TO

SUBMIT A

SUBCONTRACTING

PLAN. Offerors are required to submit either an individual subcontracting plan, an approved commercial plan, or a negotiated DoD Comprehensive Test Program subcontracting plan.

Pg. 148, Sec. L.7.1.3.3 All information relating to the proposed price, including all required supporting documentation must be included in the section of the proposal designated as the Cost/Price Volume. Under no circumstances shall this information and

Will the Government please advise if the FAR 52.219-9 compliant Small Business Subcontracting Plan, with dollars, should be included in Volume V – Part C Other Information Section?

In accordance with RFP, Section L, para 6.0 the subcontracting plan should be included in Volume IV, Small Business Participation Factor.

documentation be included elsewhere in the proposal.

28 Pg. 41, Sec. 6.12, para 4 Typical is-sues include, but are not limited to, new account setup, maintenance of existing accounts, password resets, updates or deletion of roles and permissions, troubleshooting misconfigured websites, modifying website content, identifying system faults, and escalating issues appropriately.

Will the Government please clarify if the Service Desk is required to modify/alter website content?

Our policy is that Service Desk does not touch content. Service Desk can provide information on how to manipulate their content but they won’t do it for you.

29 Pgs. 23-24, Sec. 6.2 Will the Government please clarify if the services identified are the only services that are required for this effort?

The current Akamai services employed in the efforts described in 6.2 include:

KSD+ION (Includes Edge Delivery, WAF, and SiteShield) - 760TB/month

Additional Security Configurations –

Additional SiteShield Maps – 2 Client Reputation – 525TB/month SIEM Integration Edge DNS – 20 Zones Image Manger – 1,000M hits/month NetStorage – 30TB

HTTPS Certificates with Domain Validation – 45

HTTPS Certificates with Organizational Validation – 9

HTTPS Certificates – Wildcard with Organizational Validation – 1

HTTPS Certificate – Extended Validation – 1

HTTPS Certificate – 3rd Party – 11 Premium Service and Support 3.0

Contractors are encouraged to propose what they determine is the optimal technical solution to accomplish task requirements.

30 RFP, PWS Item 6 Performance Requirements Pages 20- 21 & Attachment L-2 Pricing Spreadsheet

Discussion: The description of many of the Performance Requirements require the offeror to provide Cloud Software, infrastructure, licenses, subscriptions, etc. However, the Pricing Spreadsheet is only setup for proposing labor categories, hours, and rates.

Question: Would the Government confirm that the offeror should only be proposing labor and that all non-labor, such as Cloud Software would fall under the ODC/Materials CLIN X004?

If not, would the government provide a revised pricing spreadsheet to include line items for all non-labor requirements?

Cloud software, infrastructure, licenses, subscriptions, etc. Should be included in the ODC/Materials costs on CLIN X004.

31 PWS 6.1; Solicitation

Question: Please provide a description and architecture diagram of the existing on premises and cloud environments. An architecture diagram is not available for public release.

32 PWS 6.1 Task 1, page 21 Discussion: Additional information is needed to clarify the statement, “.rent infrastructure such as servers and drives are maintained physically at Contractor data centers, but accessed by Government administrators.”

Question: Is the Contractor expected to host any government data in their own datacenters? If yes, what is the impact level of the data that will be stored?

The contractor is not expected to host data in their own (corporate) data center, but ensure a data center approved to process government information at the appropriate classification level. For example, Azure FEDRAMP moderate (IL2) is procured in support of contract deliverables.

33 PWS 6.1; Solicitation

Question: Please identify the current cloud provider and hosting scenario (i.e., hosted within the incumbent’s cloud instances, hosted within a FEDRAMP environment, hosted within a GovCloud or similar environment).

The system is currently housed in a DoD data center. The system is currently being rearchitected for the Azure Commercial Cloud (FEDRAMP Authorized).

34 PWS 6.1; Solicitation

Question: If the current systems exist within a FEDRAMP environment, what is the impact level(s)?

Current system resides in a DOD Data Center. The current impact level is IL2.

35 PWS 6.2; Solicitation

Question: Please confirm management of existing Akamai resources are intended to be transitioned to the awardee upon completion of phase in.

Yes, management of Akamai services and labor will be transferred to the awardee.

36 PWS 6.5; Solicitation

Question: Please confirm management of existing LMS resources are intended to be transitioned to the awardee upon completion of phase in.

LMS resources are intended to be transitioned to the awardee upon completion of phase in.

37 PWS 6.5; Solicitation

Question: Please confirm management of existing Slack resources are intended to be transitioned to awardee upon completion of phase in.

Management of Slack resources is shared between Government and contractor staff.

38 PWS 6.5; Solicitation

Question: Please confirm management of existing CMS resources are intended to be transitioned to awardee upon completion of phase in.

Yes, all services listed in the RFP will be transferred, including development, operations, and configuration of the CMS.

39 PWS 6.8 Task 8, page 35 Discussion: Additional information is needed to clarify the statement “All software development will be tracked using DMA- Web.mil’s project management and collaboration software (currently Atlassian Jira, Confluence, and Service Desk software).”

Question: Is the awardee responsible for the renewal and license of the Atlassian software? Are other acceptable solutions acceptable?

Atlassian is managed separately by another group in DMA. DMA will not entertain another project and issue tracking technology.

40 PWS 6.9.2 Subtask Security 2, page 38

Discussion: Additional information is needed to clarify the statement “In accordance with industry best practices, appropriate laws and regulations, provide code scanning to ensure best in class security.”

Question: What is the current software/hardware in use for code scanning?

The exact solution is not being released, but the current solution is a cloud based static code analysis solution.

41 PWS 6.15: Optional task, page 43, 44, & 45

Discussion: These additional optional services each are “priced based on an hourly labor cost. This will not be included in the base cost of this contract, but will be calculated into the ceiling based on 2,000 hours of service.”

Is the 2000 hours on a per year basis per service, or are they total for the entirety of the contract?

The addition services are priced based on 2,000 hours per year.

42 PWS 13.4 Facility Security Clearance, page

Discussion: PWS mentions “No classified work will be performed at the contractor’s facility and contractor will have no safeguarding requirements”. Then goes on to say “the company must have a Secret Facility Clearance (FCL) from the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) Facility Clearance Branch (FCB) at time of award.”

Yes, a Facility clearance refers to the business entity, not a facility. There is a requirement for certain cybersecurity staff to attain and maintain a secret clearance and hence the requirement for the vendor to have a Secret facility clearance.

Question: Is there a requirement for the awardee to have a Secret Facility Clearance at the contractor’s facility?

43 PWS 15.1 Work Space Requirements, page 59

Discussion: The workspace requirements do not mention of need for a cleared facility. This seems to contradict Section 13.4, which states “the company must have a Secret Facility Clearance (FCL) from the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) Facility Clearance Branch (FCB) at time of award.”

Question: Please clarify the requirement.

A Secret Facility Clearance refers to the business entity, not a place of work.

Since the highest level of information that a contractor will access on this contract is Secret, the vendor must have a Secret FCL.

44 PWS 13.2.3 Contract Position Sensitivity levels

Question: Will the government clarify which positions require a Secret Clearance and which positions require Public Trust?

Any position requiring access to SECRET information will require SECRET clearance.

These are primarily a small contingent of cybersecurity and operations staff.

45 RFP, Section 2.2, Table 1 – Proposal Organization, Discussion: Volume III 5.0 Past Performance in the fourth column (page limit) states: “3 Pages Per Reference and a maximum of 3 references. Page count does not include Past Performance Questionnaires.”

Question: Would the Government please clarify whether Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) are required.

In accordance with RFP, Section L Paragraph 5.0 Each offeror shall submit a past performance volume with its proposal, containing past performance information in accordance with the format contained in Attachment L-1, Past Performance Information. Past performance is not an evaluation factor, but shall be used in determining contractor responsibility in accordance with FAR 9.104.

46 RFP, Section L, 2.2 Table 1 – Proposal Organization and Section L, 4.1 General and M1.1.3

Discussion: Table 1, states Vol II-Part A is to address PWS Task 7;

Part B is to address PWS Task 8 and Part C is to address Task 12.

L.4.1 and M1.1.3 state that “the offeror’s proposal shall sufficiently address all aspects of the PWS.”

In accordance with RFP, Section L para 4.1, To be eligible for award, the offeror’s proposal shall sufficiently address all aspects of the PWS. However, the Government did not identify which

Question: Please confirm that offerors do not need to address PWS Tasks 1-6, 9-11 or 13-15 in Volume II. If all tasks must be addressed, please explain where and to what extent the non-evaluated tasks should be addressed?

volume to provide this information. As a result, RFP, Section L, para 2.2, Table 1 Proposal Organization is updated to include Vol II-Part D to address all aspects of the PWS.

447 Section 15.3 Key Personnel (Name and Position), page 60

And

Section L, 2.2.1 Page Limitations

Discussion: Section L lists no requirements for Key Personnel resumes.

Per L.2.2.1 “Cover pages, tables of contents, glossaries, tabs, generic resumes (if provided), executive summaries, and organizational and consultant conflicts of interest mitigation plans.”

Question: Please confirm that key personnel names and resumes are not required as part of the offeror’s proposal. If resumes are required, would the government both confirm that these pages do not count against the total page count and specify where to include the resumes in the proposal?

The performance work statement para 15.3, provides a chart for the identification of key personnel. Key personnel resumes are not required;

however if they are submitted, the resumes will not be included as part of the page counts as indicated in RFP, Section L, para 2.2.1.

Also reference RFP, Section L, para

8.2.4 Phase In Plan. It states, Offerors

shall submit a Phase-in Plan describing its approach in:

- assuming full responsibility for all areas of operation;

- onboarding key personnel/key positions;

- and achieving 100 percent of total staffing no later than 30 days after the start of the Period of Performance.

The Phase-In Plan will be evaluated as acceptable or unacceptable.

If provided, resumes may be included in Vol V-Part E, Phase-In Plan.

48 RFP, Section L, 2.2.2 Page Size and Format, Question: To submit via email successfully, is there a maximum file size (e.g., 20 MB)? If there is a size limit, how would the Government prefer we identify the contents of attachments in multiple messages and attachments?

The RFP does not provide a maximum file limit. Proposals may be submitted in multiple messages, if needed.

49 RFP, Section L, 2.2.2 –

2.2.2.1 Page Size and

Format, page 142

Question: Please confirm that the 1.5 blank line spacing between paragraphs only applies to body text and not tables/bullets, etc.?

Yes, confirming.

50 RFP, Section L, 2.2.2.1 page Size and Format

Question: Please confirm that an 11 x 17 table, chart, graph, or figure display counts as one page.

Yes, confirming

51 RFP, Section L, 5.0 Volume III – Past Performance, page

Discussion: The RFP states that each offeror shall submit a past performance volume with its proposal, containing past performance information in accordance with the format contained in Attachment L-1, Past Performance Information.

Question: Since the template provided for Past Performance is in PDF format, can the Past Performance response utilize a format (i.e., a table) as long as all the required information shown in the PDF template is included?

Yes, this is acceptable

52 RFP, Section L, 6.0 Volume IV – Small Business Participation Factor 2, page 145-148

Discussion: The RFP states that the small business participation minimum objective is 20% of the total acquisition value.

Question: Would the Government please consider changing this requirement to 20% of the total labor value or 20% of the total

This question will be addressed in an upcoming amendment.

labor subcontracted value – given the large ODC/Material plug value of $29,745,360?

53 RFP, Section L, 7.0 Volume V – Cost/Price Factor 3

Discussion: The RFP states that “The pricing proposal should include separate line items by CLIN for the additional six-month period IAW FAR 52.217-8.” In addition, the RFP also states that “The cost proposal should include a separate line item for the additional 6-month period IAW FAR 52.217-8.”

Question: Would the Government revise the Attachment L-2 Pricing Spreadsheet to add an additional tab to reflect the additional 6-month optional period and add a separate line item to the Summary tab for the 6-month optional period?

Pricing for the additional six months is identified on the right side within the Option Year 4 tab. It is also identified/calculated within the CLIN summary tab.

54 RFP, Section L, 7.2 Volume Organization, Part B – Microsoft Excel Spreadsheets RFP, Section L, 7.3 Part A – Introduction,

7.3.5 Explanation of

Estimating Methods Used

Question: Would the Government please confirm that the estimating methodology belongs in the narrative (7.3.5) and not in the excel spreadsheet (7.2)

(See questions 26 and 27 for more detail)

Yes, confirming.

55 RFP, Section L, 7.2 Volume Organization, Part B – Microsoft Excel Spreadsheets

Discussion: The RFP states “Cost or pricing information and supporting data, to include estimating methodology.”

Question: Would the Government provide more clarity or detail on what is required in the spreadsheet other than the data specifically called for in the provided spreadsheet (PWS Task, Proposed Labor Category, Location, Proposed Hours, Proposed Labor Rate, and Amount)?

Offerors are welcomed to add additional tabs to the pricing template if needed.

Supporting data and other Information such as Basis of Estimate; Defense Contract Audit Agency audit info, etc., should be included in Vol V, Part C as stated in the RFP.

Question: Would the government provide more clarity on what is required to be provided in this spreadsheet versus what is required to be provided in the narrative section (RFP, Section L,

7.3 Part A – Introduction, 7.3.5 Explanation of Estimating

Methods Used)?

56 RFP, Section L, 7.3 Part A – Introduction,

7.3.5 Explanation of

Estimating Methods Used

Discussion: The RFP states “Explain the methodology used to estimate each cost element. As a minimum, provide the following information for each cost element (i.e., breakdown for hours by labor category, breakout of labor rates to include base rate, overhead rates, etc).”

Question: Would the Government provide more clarity or detail on what is required in this narrative section versus what is required to be provided in the pricing spreadsheet in Section 7.2?

See question 55’s response

57 RFP, Section L, 8.1.2 Section B

Discussion: The RFP states that Section B values will be filled in by the Government at contract award.

Question: Would the Government confirm that the offeror does not need to provide a completed Section B as part of their offer?

Correct, this information is included at contract award.

58 General From: RFI HQ0516FY210006 Public Digital Services, Amendment 3:

Elements required for enhancement:

1. comprehensive digital assets management system

2. a robust document repository

3. a tag management system

4. artificial intelligence functions for search

The solicitation is for Web Enterprise Business Services and is separate from the Public Digital Engagement.

The solicitation is a follow-on requirement for the current Public Web Services contract.

In the current RFP there is no mention of a (3) tag management system or (4) artificial intelligence functions for search

Questions:

1. Are those no longer requirements?

2. Are they subsumed under SEO?

3. Is the gov't still looking for those capabilities?

Would it be viewed as beneficial by the government if a solution included a (3) tag management system and (4) artificial intelligence functions for search

59 6.15 Task 15 The contractor shall provide a series of integrated services supporting public websites...sentiment analysis services…

Questions:

Is sentiment analysis considered an SEO activity, part of a tag management system or something else entirely?

Sentiment analysis deals with how consumers are responding to information and is a separate but related activity to SEO and tag management.

60 General Could you confirm our understanding that DMA is still planning to release a procurement for Public Digital Engagement at some point in the future? We saw the Web Enterprise Business Services RFP release, which we are taking to be the “keep the lights on” approach you referenced in an email earlier this spring. Is this the right interpretation:

that the Web Enterprise Business Services RFP is a separate procurement from the Public Digital Engagement scope that we focused on during Industry Day?

The solicitation is for Web Enterprise Business Services and is separate from the Public Digital Engagement.

The solicitation is a follow-on requirement for the current Public Web Services contract.