MIOES Full DRFP QnAs 1.30.2025.pdf

The answers provided in this document are for informational/planning purposes only and are subject to change based on the ongoing development of the MIOES Request For Proposal (RFP). The Final RFP will take precedence.

Reference Document/Page No./Paragraph/Line Reference Document Language Industry Question/Comment/Recommendation Government Response

Attachment J‐01 Basic PWS/Pg. 23 / Para. 10.1.7 and Attachment L‐06 Scenarios/Pg. 1/Para. Introduction/ Line 17‐18

Attach J‐01 Basic PWS: "The contractor shall develop and execute solutions that are sustainable within the MIOES contract, avoiding proprietary solutions to ensure continuity and data rights" Attach L‐06 Scenarios: "No proprietary approaches (including but not limited to:

software, tools, systems or solutions) shall be proposed"

Can the Government please clarify if this requirement is directed at offeror's company‐specific proprietary solutions and not referring to commercial proprietary software, hardware, or systems (i.e., COTS)?

The language has been updated within the PWS. Key thing to note is proprietary is defined as any material that does not rely on connections external to the MDA or anything the gov't cannot use beyond the contract PoP end date.

Attachment J‐01 Basic PWS/Pg.4/Para 3.1.1 Develop, upgrade, operate, and maintain an RDT&E/Enterprise worldwide IM/IT ecosystem that provides MDA with a secure development, test, digital engineering and modeling environment. This environment serves as the integration point which facilitates the rapid development and delivery of Missile Defense System capabilities and becomes the RDT&E resource for daily operations that includes data analytical decision making, test events and capability delivery to the Warfighter.

Does “data analytical decision making” include operational data analysis support, or is it limited to infrastructure support for such tasks?

No, in this case it's referring to IT service delivery and it's associated communication architectures vice "post mission" data analysis. It should be noted that network analysis is imperative to provide on time trusted data delivery back to the Data Centers or service delivery point(s) of the supported stakeholder.

Attachment L‐06 Scenarios /Pg. 6/Para. L.6 MDSEA (B.

Assumptions)/ Line 242‐243

"MDSEA shall have the capability to support management of space sensor data from minimum of two (2) endpoints on MDA Space Sensor networks"

Under assumptions, it states the capability to support management of space sensor data from (2) endpoints. Can you please confirm the definition of endpoints (satellites, ground stations)?

Endpoint would be from two Ground Entry Points (GEPs) that would be relaying satellite space sensor data from different satellites.

Attachment L‐06 Scenarios /Pg. 6/Para. L.6 MDSEA (B.

Assumptions)/ Line 252‐254

"Not all Space Sensor data needs to go to every functional stakeholder of a Space Sensor. Data Analysts are interested in the sensor images. Satellite Operators are interested in the space sensor Time, Telemetry, and Communication (TT&C) data."

When talking about data needs, are the functional stakeholders the performers or performers and separate entities?

The paragraph is referring to the different satellite data going to different communities of people. Image data going to Image Data Analysts and satellite TT&C going to satellite Operators. During R&D, the satellite Performers are interested in both image and TT&C data sets.

Attachment L‐06 Scenarios /Pg. 7/Para. L.6 MDSEA (C.

Scenario Objectives)/ Line 273‐276

"Additional Site Activation(s): Support the implementation of an additional site to support development, testing, and remote administration of the MDSEA RDT&E enclave which is supported with MDA Unclassified Local Area Network (ULAN) and Classified Local Area Network (CLAN) connections via existing long‐haul communications networks. "

Additional site activation(s) is not well defined.

Can you please describe if the intent is for a services DR/COOP site, a warm site similar to the CSSP function or a full‐up second operations floor.

The additional site activation requirements are not defined at this time. If additional MDSEA RDT&E enclave(s) were to become a requirement it could be for a services DR/COOP, a site similar to the CSSP function, or a full‐up second enclave. A lot depends on the continued success of the MDSEA functionality and the needs and priorities of the MDA Director.

Attachment L‐06 Scenarios/Pg. 11/Para. MDIOC Facility Ops/ Line. 422

"Would the prime contractor operate as a General Contractor?" Can you please elaborate on the requirement, “would the prime contractor operate as the General Contractor”?

Will the MIOES Prime contractor/Teaming partner act as the general contractor or will the Prime, subcontract the GC responsibilities to manage the subcontractors?

Attachment L‐06 Scenarios/Pg. 8/ Para. ERB / Line 294 Scenario 2: Engineering Review Board Could the Government clarify their desired level of integration that the contractor should ensure between the MDIOC Engineering Review Board and other boards (e.g., ERB, CCB) and the Enterprise Monitoring Component (GNOSC)?

The contractor should propose the level of integration required for mission success.

Attachment L‐12/Pg. 14/Para. 7.6.2/Lines 441 and Attachment L‐12/Pg. 15/Para.7.6.3/ Line 452

Provide services within the timeline requested by the requester. Are there Service Levels that dictate timelines as opposed to whatever the requester desires? The requester might propose timelines that are not realistic.

Currently, there are not predetermined service levels. It is expected that stakeholders will collaborate together to establish reasonable timelines and work with COTR if a reasonable timeline can't be established.

Attachment L‐12/Pg. 2/Para. 2.0/Line 52 2. Contract Deliverable Requirements List (CDRL) Are there any CDRLs associated with the requirements listed in 7.7 (MIOES Environmental Management) and 7.8 (MIOES Safety and Occupational Health)?

There are reporting requirements but there are no CDRL requirements.

Attachment L‐12/Pg. 7/Para. 7.2.5.2/Line 183 ...all MDIOC Facility requirements from inception to closeout What is meant by, "all MDIOC Facility requirements"? Is this in reference to performing facilities maintenance or tracking requirements to deliver CDRLs, etc.? We recommend changing to say, "All MDIOC Facilities Maintenance requirements...".

We accept the recommendation and will make the revision.

Attachment L‐12/Pg. 8/Para. 7.2.5.2.3/ Lines 202‐204 Develop an automated WO capability to communicate MDIOC facility status and condition of all MDIOC facility systems and Peterson/Schriever Garrison Power Plant availability.

Since the base systems aren't maintained by the IRES contractor today, we recommend Government generalize this requirement by simply asking for an ‘automated capability’ vice ‘automated WO capability’.

This requirement specifically pertains to work orders that are required to maintain the MDIOC facility. This work is currently performed by IRES and will be expected to be performed within MIOES. It is not referring to any Peterson/Schriever Garrison systems. We are asking for an automated WO capability.

Attachment L‐12/Pg.18/Para. 7.7/Lines 552‐555 Procure and operate data centers and IT equipment in accordance with applicable Energy Star requirements and/or are registered in the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool, as described in MDA Instruction 8400.01‐INS, Sustainable Electronics Management Program.

Is the intent for the task order to procure and operate data centers or is the intent to procure IT equipment that meets applicable Energy Star requirements to be used within data centers. This appears to be a MIOES wide requirement. We recommend moving it to the Basic PWS.

This task describes the Environmental requirements across the entire MIOES contract so we want to keep this standard in this section. It has, however, been clarified to show how this task order as responsibility to ensure compliance across the contract. It should be noted that Energy‐Star requirements should be adhered to the maximum extent possible without jeopardizing mission critical capabilities. MDA 8400.01‐INS 3(c)(1)

Attachment L‐12/Pg.6/Para.7.2.1/ Line 120‐121 Provide recommended changes and upgrades to the system. Describe execution approach to developing and adopting automation and digital practices.

Could the Government clarify which system is being described in this sentence? Recommend rewording to "Facility systems" or "building monitoring system", etc.

PWS has been updated.

Attachment J‐01 Basic PWS/Pg.4/Para 3.1 3.1.4 Provide cybersecurity assurance by utilizing risk management framework (RMF) to establish and maintain security standards and guidance to promote the development of comprehensive and balanced information security programs

3.1.4 Utilize a cloud first strategy that enables cloud computing on‐demand access, via secure network connectivity, to deliver global IT services to the warfighter and general user base.

In the Basic PWS, the document lists two paragraph sections labeled as 3.1.4. The Basic PWS has been updated so there are not two paragraphs numbered 3.1.4

Draft Increment 2/Contract Data/MIOES OCI Guiding Principals

N/A The Government released a document titled “OCI Guiding Principles (Final),” provided in the Contract Data folder released with Increment 2 that “guiding principles shall apply to MIOES solicitation and contract.” We did not see this document referenced in the most recent draft solicitation. We recommend that Section L require compliance to the OCI Guiding Principles provided in the fully named, “Guiding Principles for Missile Defense Agency Integration and Operations Enterprise Solutions OCI” document (dated November 1, 2023) and also included in the Bidders Library to ensure that Offerors manage OCI in accordance with your intended requirements.

Removed IAW MDA/GCA recommendation.

MIOES Question Matrix ‐ Full DRFP

MIOES DRFP Solicitation SF33/ Pgs.2‐42 /Para. Section B "ITEM NO

SUPPLIES/SERVICES

QUANTITY

UNIT

UNIT PRICE

AMOUNT

Lot Services/Capabilities (CPAF‐Base)

CPAF

Efforts within the scope of the MIOES Performance Work Statement (Attachment J‐01) will be awarded under individual task orders. The contract‐level line item structure is created for internal Government administrative purposes only in order to facilitate issuance of task orders and data collection within the contracting writing system.

FOB: Destination

PSC CD: AC13"

In Section B of the DRFP are line items for CLINs XXX3, XXX5, and XXX7 for CPAF, FPAF, and FP‐EPA type work respectively. The Attachment L‐04 Notional Requirements EPW does not list these contract types in the calculations of profit/fee and total price. Are these three (3) contract types (CPAF, FPAF, and FP‐EPA) applicable to the MIOES work?

The CPAF should be the same as CPFF through the cost total (excluding fee) with award fee negotiated each TO

FP‐EPA should be same as FFP ‐ with clause for EPA added to FPAF should be same as FFP with award fee negotiated for the TO

MIOES DRFP Solicitation SF33/Pg. 65‐71/ Para. Section I N/A The Draft Inc2 Q&A pointed us to FAR 252.234‐7001, but we did not see FAR 252.234‐7001 in the DRFP release. We recommend putting FAR 252.234‐7001 clause and provide instructions where offerors to submit the FAR requirements. This will allow offerors to address how they will implement and manage EVMS for MIOES as part of the Management and Leadership Factor.

Added to SF‐33 after consulting EV team

MIOES DRFP Solicitation SF33/Pg. 69 of 80/ Para. Section I/252.204‐7021, Contractor Compliance with the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification Level Requirement

"252.204‐7021 Contractor Compliance with the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification Level Requirement JAN 2023"

Can the Government share the expected Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) compliance level that will be required for MIOES?

CMMC Level 2 will be required for MIOES.

MIOES Section L N/A There is no direct requirement stated in Section L for the "Volume Cover Pages". The requirement for a cover is stated in FAR 52.215 ‐1; however, there is no direct reference to such requirement for a cover in the RFP. You mention this FAR in accordance with the proposal due date and time but not in relation to the cover. We recommend updating Section L.2 (F.) to mention Volume Cover requirements as stated in

FAR 52.215‐1.

Volume Cover Pages do not count towards page count. This has been clarified in Section L.

MIOES Section L /Pg. 29/Para. L.12.G.5./Line 1076‐1078 "The Offeror will propose a fee rate for each contract type. CPFF will be the baseline fee proposed. There will no upward adjustment for T&M and Labor Hour. The subcontractor and prime fees will be adjusted up 0.5% for CPIF/FPIF, and 2.5% for FFP."

What will be the fee adjustment or guidance be for CPAF, FPAF, and FP‐EPA type CLINs (reference CLINs 0003, 0005, and 0007)?

CPAF will align with CPFF. FPAF and FP‐EPA will align with FFP. EPW has been adjusted.

MIOES Section L /Pg. 29/Para. L.12.G.6./Line 1081‐1083 "These rate build ups should be customized to reflect the contractor’s accounting system.

Direct and indirect rates are carried forward (linked) from the Rates worksheet."

Is the contractor allowed to add columns and adjust the layout of the FBLRs worksheet to accommodate their unique accounting structure? Specifically, can the contractor add to and adjust columns E through

CF?

Yes and yes.

MIOES Section L/Pg. 16/Para. L.8 A / Line 543 "All Offerors shall submit a Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) for evaluation."

For Volume 6, the Government mentions submitting a SBPCD. Does the government intend to provide a template for the SBPCD?

Yes, the SBPCD template will be provided.

MIOES Section L/Pg. 19/Para. L.12/ Line 697‐703 Note: Budget/Maximum Ceiling Values are provided below for the three task orders associated with Attachments L‐10, L‐11, and L‐12. A Budget/Maximum Ceiling Value is NOT provided for the Phase‐in task order (Attachment L‐09). If an Offeror’s proposal is above the Budget/Maximum Ceiling Value provided for any one of the task orders (Attachments L‐10, L‐11, and L‐12), their proposal will be considered as unaffordable, rendering it non‐compliant and ineligible for award. ***Budget values will be provided prior to final RFP release***

How will the budget/maximum ceiling values be defined (e.g., total, by FY, by CLIN)? Anticipate total by task order by FY. Plug numbers will be provided for all non‐labor cost elements within Final RFP. All provided numbers will count towards the max ceiling.

MIOES Section L/Pg. 20/ Para. L.12.A.3/Line 732 The period of performance of each of the other three task orders is February 9, 2027 L.12.A.3 (line 732) states, “The period of performance of each of the other three task orders is February 9, 2027.” Would the Government please clarify period of performance for the three task orders?

That sentence will be corrected to read, "The period of performance of each of the other three task orders will begin February 9, 2027."

MIOES Section L/Pg. 20‐36/Para. L.12/Line 688 N/A The Cost Narrative requirements includes a WBS. Will the WBS be provided, or is it the Government's expectation that offerors will submit a CWBS?

The offerors will submit a CWBS based on the requirements of the PWS(s) provided by the government.

MIOES Section L/Pg. 21/ Para L.12.B.2 /Line 750‐757 "Minor Subcontractors are not required to provide a Cost/Price Volume to the Government unless the combination of the Prime Offeror and Major Subcontractor EPWs fail to support 80% as proposed by the Offeror. If the 80% threshold is not met, then the Prime Offeror shall designate some number of the largest Minor Subcontractor(s) to submit a Cost/Price Volume to the Government until the 80% threshold is met. These designated Minor Subcontracts are considered Major Subcontracts for the purpose of this solicitation. The Government may request additional Minor Subcontractor cost data as required."

We do not often see this requirement for minor subs to provide a Cost/Price Volume. Usually, only major subs submit cost/price volumes. We recommend you simplify this by major and minor subcontractors by threshold.

The requirement for minor sub cost/price volume submission has been removed.

MIOES Section L/Pg. 29/Para L.12.G.5/Line 1076‐1078 The Offeror will propose a fee rate for each contract type. CPFF will be the baseline fee proposed. There will no upward adjustment for T&M and Labor Hour. The subcontractor and prime fees will be adjusted up 0.5% for CPIF/FPIF, and 2.5% for FFP.

Attachment L‐04 in the worksheet Rates is showing an upward adjustment for T&M of 0.5%. Can the Government clarify which is the correct guidance?

Adjusted the EPW to reflect Section L. No upward adjustment for T&M and Labor Hour.

MIOES Section L/Pg. 29/Para. L.12.G.7./Line 1085 "Composite Rates for Attachment L‐04 Worksheet" Is the expectation for this worksheet to "populate automatically" or is the offeror expected to input data and/or formulas?

The expectation is that the worksheet will populate automatically, however the offeror needs to confirm and/or correct if necessary.

MIOES Section L/Pg. 7/Para. L.2.C / Line 234‐235 "The Government requires proposal submissions be conducted via the PIEE Solicitation Module for unclassified proposals"

In Section L, the Government mandates that submissions be conducted via the PIEE Solicitation Module for both Prime and Subcontractors. Based on recent experiences, subcontractors have found the PIEE tool challenging to maintain and navigate. Considering these difficulties, would the Government be open to allowing subcontractors the option to submit via PIEE or DoD Safe?

PIEE is the only method. DoD SAFE recently determined to be prohibited for source selection use.

MIOES Section L/Pg.16/Para L.8.A.4.a/Line 561 The Government will evaluate the SBPCD to determine which offeror(s) proposed the best value in terms of meeting all the Small Business Participation goals (see Table below).

Section L.8.A.4.a (line 561) states, “The Government will evaluate the SBPCD to determine which offeror(s) proposed the best value in terms of meeting all the Small Business Participation goals (see Table below).” This appears to be introducing evaluation criteria in Section L that is not consistent with the evaluation set forth in Section M. Section M calls for SB participation to be rated as acceptable or unacceptable. We recommend this sentence be removed from Section L.

Language revised/removed within Final RFP

MIOES Section L/Pg.22 / L.12.B.3.h/Line 784‐785 Offerors and major subcontractors must provide copies of the Cost and Price volume in the quantities stated in EPW Attachment L‐04.

It appears this requirement is for the quantity of Cost and Price Volumes offerors and major subcontractor must submit with the proposal. Table L‐1 also addresses Volume quantities. After a review of EPW Attachment L‐04, we were unable to find the referenced data. Can the Government please clarify this requirement.

Removed reference and clarified within Final RFP

MIOES Section H, H‐38 Clause, Para. b. & c., Industry Day Fee Structure Slide

MDA Local Clause H‐38 'Fee/Profit Limitations' (revised October 2024) The DRFP has the May 2021 H‐38 clause. Will the Government be replacing the May 2021 clause with the October 2024 clause as stated in the Industry Day slides?

Updated H‐38 clause to reflect the most recent language from Oct 2024. Tailored specifically for MIOES requirements using industry feedback

Attachment J‐01 MIOES Basic PWS Final Draft RFP, Attachment 1 Task 10.1, pages 16‐29

N/A We recommend adding Section L requirements specifying where Offerors are to describe their Task 10.1 approach, resources, and price. Furthermore, we recommend adding/expanding Section M evaluation criteria to specifically address the evaluation of an offeror's Task 10.1 approach and resources.

Sections L and M will be updated to provide that clarification. Note:

Section 10.1 is now 8.1.

Attachment_L_05_MIOES_Task_Order_EPW Attachment_L_05_MIOES_Task_Order_EPW & MIOES_Section_L_DRFP__Final_DRFP_ Section L proposal instructions requests one EPW per task order. As it stands now, this would mean five

(5) workbooks for the prime offeror. Will the USG confirm major subcontractors are only required to submit the notional workbook that validates the subcontractor rates proposed?

Confirmed. Once the composite rates are established, we don't need any data from the subs.

MIOES_Section_L_DRFP__Final_DRFP_Page 19/Lines 674‐

The OCI plan shall have promulgation of enforcement mechanisms, procedures and training to all employees of the Prime contractor and subcontractors at all tiers, with emphasis on consequences for non‐compliance.

This language is written too broadly. Offerors should not be required to provide training to every employee and subcontractor employee as part of the MIOES OCI Management Plan. As a large business with thousands of employees, most of who will never support MIOES, we respectfully believe it is not necessary to provide each employee training specifically regarding the MIOES OCI management plan.

General corporate OCI training for all employees, to ensure they are sensitive to OCI risk, and specialized training on the MIOES OCI management plan for personnel who support MIOES should be adequate.

Therefore, we respectfully request the Government limit the application of the MIOES OCI management plan’s procedures, training, and enforcement to personnel who support the MIOES program.

The Government only wants to know that the Offerors train their employees that will support the MIOES contract on OCI in general, not specifically the MIOES OCI management plan. Will relook the language in the RFP.

MIOES_Section_L_DRFP__Final_DRFP_Page 7/Lines 256‐

Subcontractors are not required to submit a file for every mandatory tab listed in PIEE and will receive a system warning from PIEE stating "Your offer does not contain all mandatory files. Do you wish to continue?"

Will the Government please provide a list of the mandatory tabs that will be specified in PIEE?

Providing such a list will ensure the mandatory tabs in PIEE match the RFP prime offeror requirements, and thereby avoid prime offerors from incorrectly receiving the warning message, "Your offer does not contain all mandatory files. Do you wish to continue?".

Currently workaround is available as it still allows you to continue. So long as vendor/offeror adheres to RFP requirements, this should not be an issue.

MIOES_Section_L_DRFP__Final_DRFP_Page 15/Lines 534‐

b. Developing and implementing innovative processes and tools that will be used for integrating personnel, policies, and managerial procedures to allow the Offeror to function as a seamless single entity regarding how work is controlled, performed, reported, and reviewed.

Will the Government please confirm that the response is limited to the "work" that is within MIOES scope, and not integrating personnel, policies, managerial procedures for other adjacent contracts beyond MDA MIOES.

Yes

Attachment_L_06_MIOES_Evaluation_Scenarios__Final_ DRFP_Page 11/Lines 425 ‐ 427

MSS3 MDIOC Facility Operations.

d. What business unit would perform the purchase of large pieces of equipment such as an air handling unit or a breaker and what types of fees from each business unit would be added to the purchase cost of the equipment item?

Request the Government please clarify definition of Business Unit wrt MDA MIOES assuming that "business unit" is an MDA organizational construct.

What organization (prime, subcontractor, sub to subcontractor) would purchase the equipment? This clarification will be provided in the Final

RFP.

Attachment_L_12_MIOES_TO_PWS____MDIOC_Facility_ Operations_and_Sustainment__Final_Draft_RFP_.pdf/Pa ge 7/Lines 161‐163

The contractor shall perform configuration management activities IAW the MDIOC Configuration management Plan‐2022 in support of MDIOC facilities operations and maintenance responsibilities.

Recommend the Government revise this requirement to be IAW with the 2023 MDIOC Configuration Management Plan, as provided in the Bidder's Library.

The final RFP will reference the correct version.

Attachment_L_12_MIOES_TO_PWS____MDIOC_Facility_ Operations_and_Sustainment__Final_Draft_RFP_.pdf/Pa ge 9/Lines 227‐230

Request the Government provide the following referenced documents in the Bidder's Library:

•Environmental Protec on Agency (EPA) ID No.: CO6570090096, U.S. Air Force Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Schriever Air Force Base •Affirma ve Procurement Plan, Schriever AFB •AFI 90‐803, Environmental, Safety, and Occupa onal Health Compliance Assessment and Management Program (ESOHCAMP) •MDA 6055.02‐INS, Accident Inves ga ons and Repor ng

These items will be placed in the library.

MIOES_Section_L_DRFP__Final_DRFP_/Page 17/Lines 623‐626

A. The Offeror shall submit an Information Management and Control Plan (IMCP) (not a narrative describing what the IMCP will say) that clearly describes its policies and procedures for the dissemination and accountability of CUI, as outlined in the PWS.

Recommend the Government request for a Draft IMCP with proposal submission and a Final IMCP plan 10 days after contract award. This will ensure that the offeror get an opportunity to tailor the IMCP to MDA's environment upon award. A Final IMCP with proposal does favor the incumbent.

Agency direction mandates the submission of an IMCP with the proposal. The acquisition team feels there has been sufficient communication with industry along with the artifacts that will be released in the bider's library that will enable an offeror to prepare an "acceptable" IMCP.

MIOES_Section_L_DRFP__Final_DRFP_/Page 18/Lines 632‐633

IMCP.2. Verifies all NIST SP 800‐171 Rev.2 security requirements are implemented and are documented within the SSP.

Request the Government please clarify whether System Security Plan (SSP) is an existing Government document that the IMCP needs to align to or is the SSP to be written by the offeror and also to be submitted w/ Proposal as part of IMCP?

The SSP is templated within eMASS and must be completed at the initiation of each systems authorization. It is not required for submittal as part of the proposal.

MIOES_Section L Attachment L‐06, L.5 Volume 3 – Operations Support (Factor 1) Scenario 2: D. Operations Support Subfactor 2 (OSS2): Scenario 2 Cyberspace Operations/Page n/a/ Lines 192‐201

Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award, 2. Operations Support Subfactor 2 (OSS2): Scenario 2 Cyberspace Operations. /Page 8/Lines 242‐248

4. Identifying key components required to develop near‐time automated reporting to enable the Government to continuously view and track the lifecycle, availability, open work orders (tickets, projects, outages, billing) and risk posture of all IT assets. (Current Environment)

5. Ensuring security relevant changes are identified, documented and managed throughout the system’s lifecycle. (Enhancement)

6. Identifying methods to ensure Computer Network Defense (CND) services are aligned and changes are postured to maintain cyber resiliency throughout the life cycle IAW the Cybersecurity Service Provider (CSSP) ‐ Service‐level Agreement (SLA). (Enhancement)

d. Identifying key components required to develop near‐time automated reporting to enable the Government to continuously view and track the lifecycle, availability, open work orders (tickets, projects, outages, billing) and risk posture of all Identifying methods to ensure Computer Network Defense (CND) services are aligned and changes are postured to maintain cyber resiliency throughout the life cycle IAW the Cybersecurity Service Provider (CSSP) ‐ Service‐level Agreement (SLA). (Enhancement Environment)

The OSS2 Scenario 2 Cyberspace Operations requirements for items 4, 5, and 6, do not appear to track with evaluation criteria for Section M, letter d. Is it the Government's intention for the Section M criteria to follow the same order as the Scenario 2 requirements, and if so, will the Government please update the Section M criteria.

Fixed.

Attachment_L_04_MIOES_Notional_Requirements_EPW

MIOES_Section_L_DRFP__Final_DRFP_Page 29/Lines 1077‐1078

"Rates" tab

Section L.12.G.5: "The subcontractor and prime fees will be adjusted up 0.5% for CPIF/FPIF, and 2.5% for FFP."

The Government adjustment by contract type, +0.5% for CPIF/FPIF and +2.5% for FFP over the Offeror proposed baseline CPFF fee rate, does not adequately account for typical assessment of contract risk in accordance with Department of Defense (DD) Form 1547, “Record of Weighted Guidelines Application, Modified,” as recommended in Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 215.404‐70 which would assess CPIF/FPIF contract risk at +0.5% to +1% and FFP contract risk at +4% to +5% higher than CPFF contract risk. Would the Government allow each Offeror's to propose each contract type in accordance with their contract and performance risk assessment? If not, would the Government re‐ evaluate their contract risk assessment based on weighted guidelines?

The USG adjustment by contract type is based on DFARS normal values for the contract type with appropriate financing consideration ‐ see no need for adjustment from our original guidance

Attachment_L_04_MIOES_Notional_Requirements_EPW

Attachment_J_06_MIOES_LCAT_Descriptions

MIOES_Section_L_DRFP__Final_DRFP_page 24/lines 881‐

"Rates" tab

"Labor Descriptions" tab

"3. The Government developed these benchmarks based on actual rates and utilizing the Economic Research Institute salary and compensation tool for labor category descriptions and experience under these requirements."

The Notional Requirements workbook provides benchmark rates by LCAT and level (1‐4), the LCAT descriptions provide a comprehensive functional description for all levels but does not differentiate educational/experience per skill level. Understand the Government's desire for "the most qualified personnel" however understanding the basis of the benchmark rates it critical foundational understanding for Offerors to start their unique solution from. Will the Government provide the "representative" educational/experience levels used to derive the Benchmark rates?

The government will not provide the "representative" educational/experience levels used to derive the Benchmark rates. For the four awardable task orders, however, Section L will be modified to ask each offeror to justify the chosen LCAT in the Basis of Estimate.

MIOES_Section_L_DRFP__Final_DRFP_ Materials/ODC's/Travel Guidance Section L provides plug values for Travel/ODC/Materials. The EPWs request a detailed breakout of Materials/ODC's/Travel for the task orders. To maintain a level playing field for all offerors, will the USG provide plug values for each task order for evaluation purposes?

Yes

Attachment_L_05_MIOES_Task_Order_EPW & Attachment_L_04_MIOES_Notional_Requirements_EPW

Locations identified for place of performance The USG has provided RUS (Rest of United States) as a performance location. For evaluation purposes, will the USG identify a representative location for RUS so all offerors can ensure established rates are realistic for any potential location that may be exercised during contract performance?

No, RUS rate is the same regardless of location. Based on US average.

MIOES_Section_L_DRFP__Final_DRFP_Page 21/Lines 750‐

"Minor Subcontractors are not required to provide a Cost/Price Volume to the Government unless the combination of the Prime Offeror and Major Subcontractor EPWs fail to support 80% as proposed by the Offeror."

Does the 80% threshold apply to only the notional hours portion of the TEP, or the total TEP (task orders + notional hours)?

This requirement has been removed.

MIOES_Section_M_DRFP__Final_DRFP_Page 17‐18/Lines 623‐642

"Notional Requirements Probable Cost – TEP will include 20%..." and "Task Order Probable Cost – TEP will include 80% of the following"

It is unclear exactly how the TEP is calculated. Will the Government please include a TEP calculation tab within Attachment L_04 or Attachment L_05 so Offerors can calculate their proposed TEP?

TEP will equal 20% of the notional requirements and 100% of the four TOs. Offerors will be required to summarize this in the cost volume.

Adjusted Section M

Attachment_J_01_MIOES_Basic_PWS__Final_Draft_RFP_ Page 16/2nd paragraph

Attachment_L_04_MIOES_Notional_Requirements_EPW Attachment_L_05_MIOES_Task_Order_EPW

"Under the MIOES contract, there will not be a single task order for the MIOES Program Management and Program Integration task. Instead, the contractor shall create an “overhead/indirect” type account that collects these costs that can then be charged against each task order."

It is understood that the Government desires PMO and PI cost to be an allocation to all task orders.

Typically this is done as an adder to the proposed rates structure, either incorporated into the rate or as a percentage adder to the rate, so the cost is included in the rate card and applied in each task order proposal. It is unclear in both the Notional Hours workbook which establishes the contract rates and the Task Order workbook how PMO/PI cost is supposed to be applied and recovered. Please provide clarification.

The language will be amended to include the following statement:

"Describe and justify the labor hours and labor categories required to execute Task 8.1 activities and your approach to collecting costs and then how you will allocate those costs against each task order."

Attachment_J_01_MIOES_Basic_PWS__Final_Draft_RFP_ Page 16/2nd paragraph

Attachment_L_04_MIOES_Notional_Requirements_EPW

"Under the MIOES contract, there will not be a single task order for the MIOES Program Management and Program Integration task. Instead, the contractor shall create an “overhead/indirect” type account that collects these costs that can then be charged against each task order."

Please confirm the labor categories included in the notional hours are intended to be a direct charge to resultant task order and Offerors are allowed to propose the labor categories necessary to perform PMO and Program Integration scope.

We expect Program Management and Program Integration to be direct charge to the contract. These requirements would be managed at the contract level and costs will be allocated/charged proportionately against each Task Order. The LCATs provided should be sufficient to cover the labor required for this requirement.

Attachment_L_12_MIOES_TO_PWS____MDIOC_Facility_ Operations_and_Sustainment__Final_Draft_RFP_.pdf

Lines 368‐384 (FYDP Prioritization) Future Year Defense Plan (FYDP): The sustainment plan requires prioritization of items to align with the FYDP. Is guidance available on acceptable weighting methodologies?

The government and contractor will conduct meetings each year prior to FSSP CDRL submission to discuss and make decisions with respect to weighting/prioritization methodologies.

Attachment_L_12_MIOES_TO_PWS____MDIOC_Facility_ Operations_and_Sustainment__Final_Draft_RFP_.pdf

Multiple Sections, e.g., Line 265; Line 175 (Definitions) Definitions: Consider adding a glossary for terms like "critical systems," "technical baseline," and "CMMS" for consistency.

We will define terms as needed in the PWS. Critical systems and CMMS are defined in the PWS.

Attachment_L_12_MIOES_TO_PWS____MDIOC_Facility_ Operations_and_Sustainment__Final_Draft_RFP_.pdf

Lines 333‐334; Lines 504‐505 (Predictive Maintenance and Environmental Metrics) Recommend to define Success Metrics: Clarify how success in predictive maintenance and environmental management is measured (e.g., percentage reduction in incidents, energy savings).

The "success metrics" are the standards identified in the PWS.

MIOES_Section_M_DRFP__Final_DRFP_Page 17‐18/Lines 623‐642

"Notional Requirements Probable Cost – TEP will include 20%..." and "Task Order Probable Cost – TEP will include 80% of the following"

The Government has changed TEP approach from preliminary draft documents to include 4 Task Orders (including Phase‐In) at 80% of the TEP. This approach places disproportionate value on Phase‐In since the total of the proposed Task Order prices is weighted at 80%. Would the Government consider removing the Phase‐In TO price from the TEP for the following reasons:

1. Ensures Fair Competition: Including phase‐in costs in the TEP often creates an unfair advantage for the incumbent, who usually has little to no transition costs. Excluding phase‐in costs levels the playing field for all bidders.

2. Focuses on Long‐Term Value: Phase‐in costs are generally a one‐time expense. Including them in the TEP can disproportionately impact the evaluation, making long‐term cost savings or efficiencies offered by non‐incumbent bidders appear less competitive. Excluding these costs allows the Government to focus on the overall value and effectiveness of the proposed solutions.

3. Reduces Bidder Complexity: Phase‐In costs can vary widely depending on the contractor's capabilities and assumptions. This variability introduces uncertainty. By excluding these costs, the government simplifies bid preparation and ensures proposals are more comparable.

4. Aligns with Best Practices: Many agencies, when appropriate, exclude non‐recurring costs such as Phase‐In from price evaluations. This practice is aligned with a focus on achieving the best value and emphasizes evaluating recurring costs that have a sustained budget impact.

5. Encourages Competition: When Phase‐In costs are included, non‐incumbent contractors may feel discouraged from bidding if their proposals seem less competitive due to higher upfront costs. Removing these costs promotes a more competitive procurement process, potentially yielding better technical solutions and pricing.

6. Mitigates Risk of Overweighting Initial Costs : Overemphasis on Phase‐In costs might lead evaluators to undervalue proposals offering superior performance or innovative solutions but requiring higher initial investments. Excluding these costs ensures that the focus remains on long‐term performance and affordability.

While phase‐in costs are a legitimate expense, they are short‐term and should not overshadow the

The government has weighed all the factors and will include the Phase‐ In cost in the TEP.

Attachment_L_04_MIOES_Notional_Requirements_EPW Attachment_L_05_MIOES_Task_Order_EPW

MIOES_Question_Matrix_DRFP_Inc2_ANSWERED

"With respect to material, software, and ODC, fee will not be allowed on routine tech refresh hardware and software licenses. Fee on all other material, hardware, software, ODC will be allowed. The government expects to set a ceiling for this fee. "

The Government previously indicates that fee would be allowed on material, software, and ODC except for tech refresh hardware and software licenses. The Notional Requirements EPW does not have a place for Offerors to propose their fee structure for non‐labor cost. The Task Order EPW does apply fee to non‐ labor cost (excluding travel). Please confirm the Government does not intend on including fee on non‐ labor cost in the Notional Requirements EPW portion of the TEP

Fee will be included. EPW updated for material profit/fee. No fee on Travel.

Attachment_L_05_MIOES_Task_Order_EPW

Attachment_L_10_MIOES_TO_PWS____Enterprise_IT_an d_Event__Current_IRES_ Attachment_L_11_MIOES_TO_PWS____C2BMC__Curren t_IRES_ Attachment_L_12_MIOES_TO_PWS____MDIOC_Facility_ Operations_and_Sustainment__Final_Draft_RFP_

Attachment_L_05_MIOES_Task_Order_EPW The Task Order EWP work book is set up to price the contract full period of performance. Due to the long duration and evolution of the technical environment as efficiencies, improvements, or changes in standards are implemented over time, recommend the period of performance for the task order pricing not exceed 3 years. This will allow the Government to reset task order pricing periodically and implement the benefit of technical effiencies and improvements in the awarded price.

The task order EPW would align to the period of performance of the task order. Extra years are included in TO EPW to allow the excel file to be used throughout contract life.

MIOES_Section_L_DRFP__Final_DRFP_Page 10/Line 371 The Offeror shall provide a complete copy of this RFP... Will the Government please confirm that "a complete copy of this RFP" equates to the completed RFP sections (i.e., SF33, Section B, SF30(s), and clause fill‐ins. Please confirm the Government is not asking Offerors to return every page of the RFP as part of their proposal submittal.

Language revised to include "a complete copy of the model contract"

MIOES_Section_L_DRFP__Final_DRFP_/Page 13/Lines 467‐469

H. Proposal Cross Reference Matrix: The Offeror shall provide a matrix found in Attachment L‐02 to cross reference its proposal to, at a minimum, the PWS and/or Scenario, Section L (including attachment L‐06), and Section M.

Please confirm Cross Reference Matrix is supposed to cover only Volume 3 Operations Support, Volume 4 Mission Support and Volume 5 Management and Leadership

Confirmed. If this changes, an updated SAM.gov announcement will be made.

MIOES_Section_L_DRFP__Final_DRFP_/Page 13/Lines 469‐471 and Pages 19‐36/Lines 651‐1390

H. Proposal Cross Reference Matrix: The Offeror’s proposal paragraph number and format shall mirror Section L and Section M paragraph numbering to the maximum extent practicable.

L.12 VOLUME 10 – COST AND PRICE (Factor 8)

Can the Government please streamline paragraph numbering in Section L.12 to allow the Industry to mirror the response sections numbering to Section L

The gov't will examine and consider streamlining paragraph numbering as recommended.

MIOES Section L DRFP Final DRFP/Page 24/Line 873;

MIOES Question Matrix DRFP Inc2 ANSWERED/Line 202

FPRA substantiating documentation and Labor Category qualifications. The Draft RFP requires that FPRA categories must map to the RFP labor category requirements. However, the Draft RFP does not dictate education or years of experience, making this mapping challenging.

Offerors with an FPRA will have an unfair advantage by their ability to justify direct labor rates below the Government's benchmark without cost realism adjustments. FPRA Direct Labor is by definition generic and the Government's benchmark is specific to MIOES and based on actual rates.

We recommend the RFP remove the exception relating to use of FPRA Direct Labor, and make appropriate cost realism adjustments to all offerors regardless of their estimating methodology.

It is the responsibility of the Offeror to substantiate and demonstrate how the FPRA labor categories meet the requirements of the RFP LCAT description. The Gov't will verify the LCATs map accordingly.

Technology is new and innovation is key, so years of experience / education is not always a good indicator of expertise.

MIOES Section L DRFP Final DRFP/Page 20/Line 707 Total Evaluated Price calculations The Draft RFP defines the total evaluated price to be the combination of the price for notional annual hours and the discrete estimates for the four task orders. If the notional hours are representative of the entire effort to be performed, this is duplicative, and makes the price for the notional hours an unrealistic portion of the total evaluated price.

As the Government will be providing budget values for the Task Orders, we recommend the notional hours be reduced to correspond with the expected value of the Task Orders.

TEP will equal 20% of the notional requirements and 100% of the four TOs. Offerors will be required to summarize this in the cost volume.

MIOES Section L DRFP Final DRFP/Page 21/Line 750 Minor subcontractor pricing to reach 80% threshold The Draft RFP requirement to designate minor subcontractors to meet the 80% threshold will impact our ability to use small businesses. Many small businesses do not have the accounting systems required for receiving cost‐type subcontracts, and will not be able to provide a Cost/Price Volume in accordance with the RFP requirements. Many small businesses will be used on a T&M or Labor Hour basis to accommodate their lack of an approved accounting system.

With respect to the 80% threshold for using small businesses, will the small business minor subcontractors be allowed to submit a cost/price volume that is limited to proposed Direct Labor, Fully Burdened Labor Rates, and fee?

This requirement has been removed.

MIOES Section L DRFP Final DRFP/Page 29/Line 1076 Prime fee rate for CPFF Are offerors permitted to propose a CPFF fee percentage associated with experimental, developmental, or research work (i.e. >10%)?

Yes, up to 15% for IAW FAR15.404‐4(i)(A).

Attachment L 04 MIOES Notional Requirements EPW/"Indirect Rate Build‐up" Tab

Other Overhead/Indirect Please confirm that offerors may add rows on this sheet to align with their accounting practices and any Forward Pricing Rate Agreement or DCAA/DCMA provisional billing rate agreement.

Yes.

Attachment L 04 MIOES Notional Requirements EPW/ "Rates" Tab/Line 987

Subcontractor fee/profit Including subcontractor fee/profit in the Prime's EPW seems unnecessary. We recommend a prime's EPW should include only the major subcontractor price inclusive of subcontractor fee from the subcontractor's EPW.

EPW will continue to have this flexibility.

MIOES DRFP Solicitation SF33/Section G‐03.c(2)(a)/Page 51/ and Attachment L 09 MIOES TO PWS Phase In Final DRFP/Page 4/Section 2.0 Background

Phase in Task Order negotiation Draft RFP section G indicates Task Order negotiation could be a direct cost, and the Transition task order contains these requirements. The Transition PWS identifies 13 Task Orders to be proposed and negotiated during transition. We recommend section L include requirements for each offeror to disclose how task order negotiation costs are accounted for, and how it is reflected in their Transition Task Order pricing.

As stated, 13 task orders will be negotiated during the 6 month phase‐ in period. The BOE and cost proposal for the phase‐in task order shall include an offeror's estimated costs for these negotiations.

MIOES Section L DRFP Final DRFP/Volumes 3 and 4/Page 14/Lines 489 ‐ 506 and Attachment L 06 MIOES Evaluation Scenarios Final DRFP/Lines 192‐199 as compared to MIOES Section M DRFP Final DRFP/ Line

Disconnect between documents In Section L (Volumes 3 and 4) Scenario Attachment L‐06, there are 7 requirements for D. Operations Support Subfactor 2 (OSS2): Scenario 2 Cyberspace Operations (lines 192‐199): ... 4. Identifying key components required to develop near‐time automated reporting to enable the Government to continuously view and track the lifecycle, availability, open work orders (tickets, projects, outages, billing) and risk posture of all IT assets. (Current Environment); 5. Ensuring security relevant changes are identified, documented and managed throughout the system’s lifecycle. (Enhancement); 6. Identifying methods to ensure Computer Network Defense (CND) services are aligned and changes are postured to maintain cyber resiliency throughout the life cycle IAW the Cybersecurity Service Provider (CSSP) ‐ Service‐ level Agreement (SLA). (Enhancement); There appears to be an error in the Section M evaluation criteria that omits the end of requirement 4 and requirement 5 (line 244): "...open work orders (tickets, projects, outages, billing) and risk posture of all Identifying methods to ensure Computer Network Defense (CND) services are aligned and changes are postured to maintain cyber resiliency throughout the life cycle IAW the...."

The disconnect has been corrected.

MIOES Section L DRFP Final DRFP/L.12, B, 2 Minor Subcontractors/Page 21/Lines 750‐757

Minor Subcontractors are not required to provide a Cost/Price Volume unless the combination of Prime and Major Subcontractor EPWs fail to support 80% as proposed by the Offeror. If the 80% threshold is not met, then the Prime Offeror shall designate some number of the largest Minor Subcontractor(s) to submit a Cost/Price Value to the Government until the 80% threshold is met. These designated Minor Subcontractors are considered Major Subcontractors for the purpose of this solicitation. The Government may request additional Minor Subcontractor cost data as required.

Are all minor subcontractors that may be "graduated" to meet the 80% threshold requirement within L.12 Vol10 ‐ Cost and price (Factor 8), B. Cost and Price Compliance Requirements #2, required to submit their own TCP?

This requirement has been removed.

MIOES Section L DRFP Final DRFP/L.12, B, 2/Page 21/Lines 750‐755

Minor Subcontractors are not required to provide a Cost/Price Volume to the Government unless the combination of the Prime Offeror and Major Subcontractor EPWs fail to support 80% as proposed by the Offeror. If the 80% threshold is not met, then the Prime Offeror shall designate some number of the largest Minor Subcontractor(s) to submit a Cost/Price Volume to the Government until the 80% threshold is met.

Please confirm that 80% represents hours proposed. This requirement has been removed.

MIOES Section L DRFP Final DRFP/L.12, B, 3, h/Page 22/Line 784 ‐‐ EPW

Offerors and major subcontractors must provide copies of the Cost and Price volume in the quantities stated in EPW Attachment L‐04.

Attachment L‐04 does not provide instructions regarding required copies. Should offerors provide copies of the EPW as displayed in Table L‐1?

Table indicates Volume 10 requires 1 EA for all Tabs within, which includes the EPWs.

MIOES Section L DRFP Final DRFP/L.12, B, 4, a/Page 23/Line 835 ‐‐ Travel

Travel: $1.5M annually estimated cost ceiling, inclusive of burdens. Fee will NOT be allowed on Travel. However, indirect rates will be applied in accordance with the Offeror’s accounting practices

Please confirm that the provided Travel estimate is inclusive of offerors indirect rates. Yes, the provided Travel estimate is inclusive of offerors indirect rates.

MIOES Section L DRFP Final DRFP/L.12, B, 4, a/Page 23/Line 839 ‐‐ Material

Materials/ODCs: $7.5M annually estimated cost ceiling, inclusive of burdens.