HQ0858-21-R-0015_TN_SecOps CI_DRFP Industry Comment Matrix_26Jul2021.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 34 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- HQ0858-21-R-0015
- Issued by
-
DOD Missile Defense Agency
About this file
This is a solicitation notice for the Technical, Engineering, Advisory and Management Support Next (TEAMS-Next) Security Operations and Counterintelligence services contract opportunity with the Missile Defense Agency. The services required include supporting the development, implementation, maintenance, and assessment of security, emergency management, and program protection for the integrated Missile Defense System. Counterintelligence support is also required to detect, identify, assess, exploit, penetrate, degrade, and counter or neutralize intelligence collection efforts and other activities directed against the agency. The cost-plus-fixed-fee level of effort contract has a base period of three years, one two-year option, and one six-month option. The North American Industry Classification System code is 541690 with a small business size standard of $16.5 million. Proposals are due no later than September 21, 2021. Questions about the solicitation are due by August 26, 2021.
View the file
Other files
Show all 41
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
SecOps&CI Technical, Engineering, Advisory and Management Support Next (TEAMS-Next) Security Operations and Counterintelligence Request for Proposal (RFP) HQ0147-21-R-0015 Missile Defense Agency (MDA) Government Comment Matrix Compilation
| # | Document | Page # | Paragraph /Figure | ||||
| Number | Comment/ Rationale | Proposed Resolution(s) | Government Response | ||||
| 1 | Draft Solicitation, Section L | 13 and 17 | Table L-1 and 5.7 | Writing a comprehensive "Mission Essential Services Plan" within the stated page limitations likely will require contractors to leave out many details, giving the Government an incomplete view or our approach. | Will the Government please increase the page count for Tab 7 of Volume I to 10 pages? | The page limit will remain at 4 pages for Tab 7: Mission Essential Services Plan. | |
| 2 | Draft Solicitation, Section L | 17 | 5.8 | The draft solicitation does not include the "required Non-Disclosure Agreement". | Will the Government provide a standard NDA, or are offerors to use their own? | Attachment J-06, NDA Individual Contractor, is available as a separate attachment to the Final RFP posting and was provided at pages 203 - 204 of the Draft RFP Combined pdf. | |
| 3 | Draft Solicitation, Section C, SOW | 16 | 3.1.2.c | The table in this section references "Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GM)" as an element of MDA. However, GM is not included in the pricing attachments or mentioned in Sections L or M. | Will the Government please clarify whether it intends to award positions to support this element of MDA? | Updated SOW Matrix Support table located in Section 3.1.2.c to remove GM matrixed support located in Ft. Greely, AK and Vandenberg Space Force Base, CA. Matrixed support for GM at Redstone Arsenal, AL remains in the table in case of emergent requirements during contract performance. |
| 4 | Draft Solicitation, Section C, SOW, and Attachment L 05 | 29 | 3.4.1 | Section 3.4.1 references support to DEI-X. In Attachment L 05 SecOps EPW, column G, the CLINs describe DEI. | Will the Government please clarify whether the FTEs supporting DEI are inclusive of the FTEs supporting DEI-X as described in the SOW? | The Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) for the CLIN Description Technical Intelligence (DEI) in the EPW is inclusive of the DEI-R (Program Protection), DEI-X (Counterintelligence), and DEI (Special Security Office) requirements detailed in the SOW. |
| 5 | Draft Solicitation, Section C, SOW | 34 | 3.4.2.d | Does the Government intend to allow contractors hours for TEMPEST training? | Yes. | |
| 6 | Draft Solicitation, Section L | 5 | 1.6 | The second full paragraph on page 5 of Section L states questions are due "7 days after receipt of the RFP . . ." | Will the Government please clarify this is 7 business days, not calendar days? | Seven (7) calendar days after receipt of the RFP. |
| 7 | Draft Solicitation, Section L | 15 | 4.16 | This section states "Each volume shall contain a file with the Table of Contents for that volume." | Will the Government please clarify whether the Table of Contents is to be part of the volume, submitted as a separate file, or both? | The Table of Contents should be submitted as both a separate file and included as part of the volume. |
| 8 | Draft Solicitation, Section C, SOW, and Attachment L 05 | 45 | 4.3 Analyst Table and L-05; Labor Category Row 10 | There are discrepancies for the Analyst IV labor education and security qualifications between the SOW’s 4.3 table and the Attachment L-05 Labor Category information. Specifically the SOW states Education: MA/MS degree relevant to the Security/CI fields; Clearance: Secret to TS with SCI eligibility. The spreadsheet states Education: BA/BS degree and Clearance: Secret to TS | Will the Government please clarify the degree and clearance requirements for this position? | The Excel Price Workbook (EPW) "Labor Category" Tab has been updated to mirror the qualifications listed in the Statement of Work. |
| 9 | Draft Solicitation, Section C, SOW, and Attachment L 05 | 45 | 4.3 Analyst Table and L-05; Labor Category Row 11 | There are discrepancies for the Analyst III labor experience and security qualifications between the SOW’s 4.3 table and the Attachment L-05 Labor Category information. Specifically the SOW states Experience: 8+ years and Clearance: Secret to TS with SCI eligibility. The spreadsheet states Experience: 8+ years and Clearance: Secret to TS | Will the Government please clarify the degree and clearance requirements for this position? | The Excel Price Workbook (EPW) "Labor Category" Tab has been updated to mirror the qualifications listed in the Statement of Work. |
| 10 | Draft Solicitation, Section C, SOW, and Attachment L 05 | 45 | 4.3 Analyst Table and L-05; Labor Category Row 12 | There are discrepancies for the Analyst II labor education and security qualifications between the SOW’s 4.3 table and the Attachment L-05 Labor Category information. Specifically the SOW states Education: Associate of Science or Associate of Arts degree and a (CDSE) SPeD certified for Security preferred; Clearance: Secret to TS with SCI eligibility. The spreadsheet states Education: BA/BS degree (no certification is identified) and Clearance: Secret to TS | Will the Government please clarify the degree and clearance requirements for this position and whether a SPeD certification is preferred (SPeD certification is not required for Analyst IV and III)? | The Excel Price Workbook (EPW) "Labor Category" Tab has been updated to mirror the qualifications listed in the Statement of Work. |
A CDSE Security Professional Education Development (SPeD) certification for Security is a preference but not a requirement for Analyst II.
11 Draft Solicitation, Section C, SOW, and Attachment L 05 45 4.3 Analyst Table and L-05; Labor Category Row 13 There are discrepancies for the Analyst I labor education and security qualifications between the SOW’s 4.3 table and the Attachment L-05 Labor Category information. Specifically the SOW states some college and a (CDSE) SPeD certified for Security preferred; Experience 1+ years; Clearance: Secret to TS with SCI eligibility. The spreadsheet states Education: Associates degree (no certification is identified)No experience required, but experience working on missile defense-related or other DoD program/project preferred and Clearance: Secret to TS Will the Government please clarify the degree and clearance requirements for this position and whether a SPeD certification is preferred? The Excel Price Workbook (EPW) "Labor Category" Tab has been updated to mirror the qualifications listed in the Statement of Work.
A CDSE Security Professional Education Development (SPeD) certification for Security is a preference but not a requirement for Analyst I.
12 Draft Solicitation, Section C, SOW, and Attachment L 05 46 4.3 Specialist Table and L-05; Labor Category Row 20 Specialist - IV SOW requires CI Cyber Forensics Lab: Must be certified Digital Forensic Examiner (DFE);Clearance: Secret to TS with SCI eligibility. L-05 spreadsheet is missing certification information and Clearance is Secret to TS Will the Government please clarify the certification and clearance requirement for this position? The Excel Price Workbook (EPW) "Labor Category" Tab has been updated to mirror the qualifications listed in the Statement of Work.
All Counterintelligence (DEI-X) personnel must be cleared at the Top Secret (TS)/Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) level and work in the TS/SCI Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF). Forensics Lab Examiners and data is within the SCIF.
| 13 | Draft Solicitation, Section C, SOW, and Attachment L 05 | 46 | 4.3 Specialist Table and L-05; Labor Category Row 21 | Specialist - III SOW requires CI Cyber Forensics Lab (Specialist Level III): Must be certified Information | |
| Assurance Technical (IAT) Level II or Level III Certification; Clearance: Secret to TS with SCI eligibility. L-05 spreadsheet is missing certification information and Clearance is Secret to TS | Will the Government please clarify the certification and clearance requirement for this position? | The Excel Price Workbook (EPW) "Labor Category" Tab has been updated to mirror the qualifications listed in the Statement of Work. |
All Counterintelligence (DEI-X) personnel must be cleared at the Top Secret (TS)/Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) level and work in the TS/SCI Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF). Forensics Lab Examiners and data is within the SCIF.
14 Draft Solicitation, Section C, SOW, and Attachment L 05 47 4.3 Specialist Table and L-05; Labor Category Row 22 Specialist - II SOW requires Clearance: Secret to TS with SCI eligibility. L-05 spreadsheet states Clearance is Secret to TS Will the Government please clarify the clearance requirement for this position? The Excel Price Workbook (EPW) "Labor Category" Tab has been updated to mirror the qualifications listed in the Statement of Work.
All Counterintelligence (DEI-X) personnel must be cleared at the Top Secret (TS)/Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) level and work in the TS/SCI Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF). Forensics Lab Examiners and data is within the SCIF.
15 Draft Solicitation, Section C, SOW, and Attachment L 05 47 4.3 Specialist Table and L-05; Labor Category Row 23 Specialist - I SOW requires Clearance: Secret to TS with SCI eligibility. L-05 spreadsheet states Clearance is Secret to TS Will the Government please clarify the clearance requirement for this position? The Excel Price Workbook (EPW) "Labor Category" Tab has been updated to mirror the qualifications listed in the Statement of Work.
All Counterintelligence (DEI-X) personnel must be cleared at the Top Secret (TS)/Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) level and work in the TS/SCI Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF). Forensics Lab Examiners and data is within the SCIF.
| 16 | Draft Solicitation, Section C, SOW, and Attachment L 05 | 47 | 4.3 Technician Table and L-05; Labor Category Row 25 | Technician – Level IV SOW requires Clearance: Secret to TS with SCI eligibility | |
| CI Officers: Must be formally trained and certified to USD/I approved standards pursuant to DoD Directive 5240.02 and Interagency Training Center (ITC) certified L-05 spreadsheet has no certification requirements and states Clearance is Secret to TS | Will the customer please clarify if the certification is required and what is the level of clearance required? | The Excel Price Workbook (EPW) "Labor Category" Tab has been updated to mirror the qualifications listed in the Statement of Work. |
The Technical Surveillance Countermeasures (TSCM) personnel will be certified formally trained to Undersecretary of Defense (Intelligence) (USD/I) approved standards. Meaning they were trained CI Agents at a DoD formal school to become Counterintelligence Agents during their military careers in accordance with the DoDD 5240.02. There are a few of the DoD CI Agents who were then sent to TSCM school and certified as TSCM personnel at the Interagency Training Center. These former agents, now known as Contractor Officers since they are no longer Military personnel or US Government Civilian must be certified and reflected on DD214. Their level of clearance must also be TS/SCI. All Counterintelligence personnel (CIV and CTR) must be TS/SCI since they work in the TS/SCI SCIF.
| 17 | Draft Solicitation, Section C, SOW, and Attachment L 05 | 47 | 4.3 Technician Table and L-05; Labor Category Row 26 | Technician – Level III SOW requires Clearance: Secret to TS with SCI eligibility | |
| CI Officers: Must be formally trained and certified to USD/I approved standards pursuant to DoD Directive 5240.02 and Interagency Training Center (ITC) certified L-05 spreadsheet has no certification requirements and states Clearance is Secret to TS | Will the customer please clarify if the certification is required and what is the level of clearance required? | The Excel Price Workbook (EPW) "Labor Category" Tab has been updated to mirror the qualifications listed in the Statement of Work. |
Counterintelligence (DEI-X) personnel must be cleared at the Top Secret (TS)/Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) level since work they within the TS/SCI Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF).
| 18 | Draft Solicitation, Section C, SOW, and Attachment L 05 | 47 | 4.3 Technician Table and L-05; Labor Category Row 27 | Technician – Level II: SOW states Applies skills to res TS with SCI eligibility TS/SCI L-05 states | |
| • Clearance: Secret to TS with SCI eligibility | Will the Government please confirm the SOW sentence and clarify the clearance level required for this position? | SOW Section 4.3 labor qualifications for Technician - Level II have been updated. The 3rd bullet now reads "Applies skills to resolve CI TSCM problems", a 4th bullet was added stating "Clearance: TS with SCI eligibility". |
The Excel Price Workbook (EPW) "Labor Category" Tab has been updated to mirror the qualifications listed in the Statement of Work.
| 19 | Attachment J of the SOW | 53 | DSS Table | The Analyst (Level IV) – DSS-1 is “dual-hatted – also serves as DSS CTL.” | Will the Government please confirm that this position is not the same position or have the same qualification requirements as the DE CTL KP mentioned in 10.1 Transition of the SOW? | Correct. Security and Emergency Management (DSS) identified an Analyst (Level IV) to serve as a DSS Contract Technical Lead for their office. This is someone the DSS stakeholder will go to for overarching DSS concerns/matters. It is not the overall Contract Technical Lead (CTL), listed as Key Personnel, who will watch over all technical aspects of the entire contract. |
| 20 | HQ0858-21-R-0015_Attachment+L-05+SecOps+Draft+EPW+5.26.21+r1 and Draft Solicitation, Section C, SOW | 56-58 | Firm Labor Requirements | In order to price accurately, clarification of the number of FTEs per each DEI-related skill set is required. | Will the Government please clarify which DEI positions are Counterintelligence agents, specialists, or personnel security personnel to allow for accurate pricing? | The EPW has been updated to include a Firm Requirements Mapping tab. This tab links the SOW Section 4.3 Labor Categories to the EPW. |
| 21 | HQ0858-21-R-0015_Draft+RFP+Combined_27+May+2021 | 179 | 5 | LCAT Currently Reads: “Center for Development of Security Excellence (CDSE) Security Professional Education Development (SPeD) certified for Security”; however, this position is within the Directorate of Counterintelligence. The need for professionalization is paramount but should be relevant. | We recommend changing this language to read : “Center for Development of Security Excellence (CDSE) Security Professional Education Development (SPeD) Certification in either a Security or Intelligence discipline.” | Security Professional Education Development (SPeD) is a Security requirement (DEI-R), not a Counterintelligence (DEI-X) requirement. |
SOW Section 4.3 the labor qualifications for DEI-X Analyst (Level II) Redstone Arsenal have been updated to remove requirement for CSDE SPeD certification for Security.
| 22 | HQ0858-21-R-0015_Draft+RFP+Combined_27+May+2021 | 138 | 3.1.2.d.4) | Currently Reads: “Implement and manage SPeD certification within the contractor workforce.” However, in the Fall of 2019, the DCSA announced a change to eligibility requirements for the Security Professional Education Development (SPeD) Certification Programs. Only military and civilian Defense Security Practitioners (DSPs) performing security functions for or on behalf of the Department of Defense (DoD) were to be able to participate until further notice. Additionally, non-defense federal employees and contractors who currently hold a SPeD certification are able to maintain their active SPeD certification(s) through acquiring approved professional development units (PDUs); however, SPeD Certification Program assessments were not to be retaken as part of their certification maintenance. Finally, non-defense federal employees and contractors who did not currently hold a SPeD certification would no longer be eligible to initiate certification activities in the SPeD Certification Program after September 30, 2019. | While there was a delay in implementing this directive, we recommend changing the wording to read: “Subject to availability of SPeD certification, implement and manage SPeD certification program within the contractor workforce”. | The Government does not concur with the proposed resolution. SOW Section 3.1.2.d.4 has been updated to remove the word "Implement" and state "Manage SPeD certification within the government and contractor workforce". | |
| 23 | HQ0858-21-R-0015_Draft+RFP+Combined_27+May+2021 | Understanding how MDA values the institutional knowledge afforded by retaining current contractor staff on transition from one contract to another, we recommend the Government give consideration to ‘grandfathering’ in-position personnel in the event of an LCAT qualification change. | The Government does not concur with the proposed resolution. | ||||
| 24 | HQ0858-21-R-0015_Draft+RFP+Combined_27+May+2021 | Many LCATs have changed to remove the education requirement while simultaneously increasing the years’ of experience; while there is an option for experience to be substituted in lieu of education, with Engineering Functional Manager and stakeholder approval. | Will the government consider a like option to substitute education in lieu of experience, with Engineering Functional Manager and stakeholder approval in those positions where education is NOT a requirement? | The Government does not concur with the proposed resolution. The Government's decision to lower education requirements was intentional as experience is valued over education for this requirement. Education shall not be substituted for experience. | |||
| 25 | HQ0858-21-R-0015_Draft+RFP+Combined_27+May+2021 | 164 | 4.3.a.1) | DRFP Currently Reads: ““Productive years” shall mean 52 weeks of work reduced by reasonable amounts of time for holidays, annual and sick leave.” This criterion will serve to significantly restrict the labor pool of available qualified candidates...specifically by disqualifying many, if not most of the Reserve and National Guard military. | We recommend the Government consider applying an “intensity factor multiplier” for calculated “years of experience” attained in which the experience is gained such as in combat. | The Government does not concur with the use of an "intensity factor multiplier". National Guard or Reserve Time are authorized forms of leave does not impact a productive year. | |
| 26 | HQ0858-21-R-0015_Draft+RFP+Combined_27+May+2021 | 166-180 | Section 4.3 | Throughout the LCAT section, particularly in the DEI-R and DEI-R (Matrixed) entries, the clearance requirement is often identified as, “Secret with Top Secret eligibility.” | Will the Government please clarify whether a qualified candidate must have a Top Secret Clearance investigation and determination but with access to Secret information or whether a qualified candidate must have a Secret clearance and meet the screening criteria for a Top Secret Clearance? | Candidates for these positions must have a Secret Clearance. The SOW has been updated to remove "with Top Secret eligibility" from the DEI-R and DEI-R (matrixed) positions. | |
| 27 | RFP/SOW | 134/13 | 3.1.2.b | INFOSEC Program …conducting training: No workload data provided | Will Government provide a projection of the number of training sessions expected yearly? Historically, how many and what size have been conducted on average annually? | The number of training sessions will include an average of 70 training sessions annually, (i.e., New Employee Orientation (NEO) briefings, Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) marking, quarterly Security Manager meetings, specialized security training briefings). Average class size is ~100 personnel, and includes question and answer sessions. | |
| 28 | RFP/SOW | 134/13 | 3.1.2.b | INFOSEC Program …conducting training: Training venue not defined. | What platforms will be used to deliver this training? Internal LMS? Internal Website? Classroom? Will travel be required to deliver in-person offsite training? | The training will be conducted in-person, via computer base training, on the internal Learning Management System (LMS), or virtually using online tools. Training ranges from one-on-one to ~100 personnel per class. No travel is projected for training. | |
| 29 | RFP/SOW | 134/13 | 3.1.2.b | INFOSEC Program …conducting training: Training material not defined. | Does current training curriculum and materials exist? Will contractor need to create or update training curriculum and materials? Is there a mix of old/existing with the anticipation of new curriculum and/or materials to be developed | Training curriculum and materials exist but are reviewed and updated on an annual basis. There is an expectation that new training will be developed to address new policy requirements or changes. | |
| 30 | RFP/SOW | 134/13 | 3.1.2.b | INFOSEC Program …conducting training: Training type not defined. | Is the training live (in-person or virtual)? Is the training to be accessible on-demand, self-paced training by attendees? | Information Security (INFOSEC) Training is provided in-person, via computer base training, on the internal Learning Management System (LMS), or virtually using online tools. | |
| 31 | RFP/SOW | 149/28 | 3.3.2.k | Provide daily maintenance and updates of International Security…portals...agency's internal websites: No definition of responsibility. | Will the positions supporting this effort be considered the Content Manager (CM) with the autonomy/authority to publish as they see fit? If not, who will serve as the Content Manager/QC for updates? | As required for case tracking, assigned Action Officers (AO) will provide updates to their assigned case in the MDA/DIS Task Data System by entering current status in the case file folder located on the MDA provided system. Each AO will have a government portfolio manager that is responsible for the overall management of the case and is responsible for the content of the records stored on the MDA share drive. | |
| 32 | RFP/SOW | 149/28 | 3.3.2.k | Provide daily maintenance and updates of International Security…portals...agency's internal websites: No specificity stated for websites. | What platform is the website built on? | The Government utilizes Microsoft SharePoint as their web-based collaborative platform and document management and storage system. | |
| 33 | RFP/SOW | 154/33 | 3.4.2.c | Provide support to CI Analysis and Production (A&P): No definition of responsibility. | Will the positions supporting this effort be considered the Content Manager (CM) with the autonomy/authority to publish as they see fit? If not, who will serve as the Content Manager/QC for updates? | No. The authority to publish will reside with the Assistant Director, Counterintelligence (CI) Analysis and Production. The Content Manager/Quality Control (QC) will be a designated Government Senior Intelligence Analyst. | |
| 34 | RFP/SOW | 154/33 | 3.4.2.c | Provide support to CI Analysis and Production (A&P): No specificity stated for websites. | What platform is the website built on? | Counterintelligence (DEI-X) maintains several websites on Non-Secure Internet Protocol Router Network (NIPRNet), Secure Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet) and Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System (JWICS). | |
| 35 | RFP/SOW | 155/34 | 3.4.2.d | Support TSCM and Telecommunication Electronics Materials Protected from Emanating Spurious Transmissions (TEMPEST): No workload data provided. | Is the contractor expected to have certified TSCM and TEMPEST personnel on the team full-time? Or, can we include them as needed for the surveys? | Counterintelligence (DEI-X) expects the contractor to have full-time certified Technical Surveillance Countermeasures (TSCM) practitioners on the team. Telecommunications Electronics Materials Protected from Emanating Spurious Transmissions (TEMPEST) requirement involves the ability to support TEMPEST reviews and testing. | |
| 36 | RFP/SOW | 155/34 | 3.4.2.d | Support TSCM and Telecommunication Electronics Materials Protected from Emanating Spurious Transmissions (TEMPEST): No workload data provided. | Is the contractor permitted to coordinate with other MDA elements to perform the TSCM and TEMPEST surveys, whereby the contractor would act as coordinator rather than contributors for these activities? | The Technical Surveillance Countermeasures (TSCM) Program Manager (PM) serves as the coordinator for all TSCM/Telecommunications Electronics Materials Protected from Emanating Spurious Transmissions (TEMPEST) activities within MDA. However, the contractor will be permitted to coordinate with Missile Defense Agency (MDA) elements in the performance of their official duties as directed and authorized by the TSCM PM. | |
| 37 | HQ0858-21-R-0015 | ||||||
| Attachment J-01 Security and CI SOW | 41 | 4.1.b | What positions have been approved for Regular/Situational and Unscheduled telework? | The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) is reviewing its policy in this area. | |||
| 38 | HQ0858-21-R-0015 | ||||||
| Attachment J-01 Security and CI SOW | 45 | 4.3.A.6 | General Qualifications for Analysts describes CI Officers education/training requirements. Why are the CI Officer qualifications listed in the Analyst? | In the Counterintelligence (CI) part of the requirement there are Analysts/Specialist/Technicians. There are actual analysts and specialists who do Cyber Lab support, and technicians who are listed for TSCM. There is not a separate scale for CI Officers (former Mil Agents) so the actual analysts who put the intelligence puzzle together and CI Officers are both listed as “Analysts”. The CI Officers must be certified credentialed Agents by a DoD school. The actual “Analysts” are not credentialed and do not need to be. While they do go to Ft. Huachuca (Army), or NMITC (Navy/USMC) in Virginia Beach for analyst school there is not a “credential” the analysts receive like the Counterintelligence Agents who are credentialed (Agent badge and credential). | |||
| 39 | HQ0858-21-R-0015 | ||||||
| Attachment J-01 Security and CI SOW | 45 | 4.3.A.6 | General Qualifications for Analyst Level I and II state CDSE/SPeD certifications security preferred? What specific security certifications are required for intelligence analysts. | The Security Professional Education Development (SPeD) certifications are for Security (DEI-R) support. There are no specific “security certifications” required for the Counterintelligence Analyst. | |||
| 40 | HQ0858-21-R-0015 | ||||||
| Attachment J-01 Security and CI SOW | 56 | 4.3.A.6 | CI Officer are placed under the Labor Category of Analyst. Is it expected that all Analysts are CI trained and certified to USD/I approved standards pursuant to DoD Directive 5240.02? | No, the actual “Analysts” are not expected to be Counterintelligence (CI) Agent trained like the CI Officers must be in accordance with the Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 5240.02 | |||
| 41 | Section L Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors May 24, 2021 | 20 | Section L / 7.5 Subfactor MCS4 Counterintelligence | MCS4 Element #2: Support to CI Research and Analysis and Production (A&P) - Explain the types of products developed and processes involved in conducting CI analysis and production by examining and evaluating all-source information of a critical weapons system. Products must enhance understanding of Foreign Intelligence Entity capabilities and intentions; highlighting the threat(s) to MDA; and identifying opportunities for current and future CI activities. (Question: CI does not assess weapon systems capabilities. CI analysis should explain the adversarial threat to collect against U.S./MDA elements. Do you want an explanation of how we would conduct analysis and production against foreign weapon systems OR analysis and production ISO counterintelligence? | Counterintelligence (DEI-X) requires an explanation on how the contractor would conduct analysis and production using all-source information to enhance the understanding of Foreign Intelligence Entity capabilities and intentions; highlighting the threat(s) to the Missile Defense Agency (MDA); and identifying opportunities for current and future Counterintelligence (CI) activities. | ||
| 42 | Section L Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors May 24, 2021 | 20 | Section L / 7.5 Subfactor MCS4 Counterintelligence | Counterintelligence modus operandi are normally classified. Can a classified supplement be submitted? | No, the Government will not accept classified supplements. | ||
| 43 | HQ0858-21-R-0015 Section M Evaluation Factors for Award | 8 | N/A | Under Section 4 the Government states "The Government will not roll up the Mission Capability Subfactor ratings into an overall factor adjectival/color rating." Please explain the process the Government will use to come to a single color rating ( e.g., Table M-3) without consolidating the evaluations. | Each Mission Capability Subfactor (MCS1, MCS2, MCS3, MCS4, MCS5) will have its own Combined Technical/Risk Rating (Color Rating). | ||
| 44 | Draft Solicitation - SOW | 45 | 4.3 | For the Contract Technical Lead (CTL) Key Position educational requirement, recommend allowing other acceptable MS/MA degrees (i.e. MBA) to qualify. Per the job description of the CTL on page 45, the government is requiring the CTL "support the CPM with managerial & business aspects of the SOW". | Recommend an MBA be acceptable for meeting the educational requirement of the Contract Technical Lead. | SOW Section 4.3 Contract Technical Lead labor qualifications have been updated to state "An MBA is an acceptable degree for this position". | |
| 45 | Draft Solicitation - SOW | 45 | 4.3 | Recommend adding preferred SPeD certifications to the qualification requirements of the Contract Technical Lead (CTL). Recommend requiring at least two of the following: Security Fundamentals Professional Certification (SFPC), Security Asset Protection Professional Certification (SAPPC), Security Program Integration Professional Certification (SPIPC), and USD(I)'s Intelligence Fundamentals Professional Certification (IFPC). These are recognized security/CI certifications which validate expert technical competency. The technical lead's experience in the security/CI field and tested knowledge by way of certifications is a key indicator of technical competency. The SPeD program is a key tenet of the SOW and SPeD certifications are "preferred" for many of the labor categories for this contract. | Recommend requiring the Contract Technical Lead possess at least two of the following SPeD/USD(I) certifications: Security Fundamentals Professional Certification (SFPC), Security Asset Protection Professional Certification (SAPPC), Security Program Integration Professional Certification (SPIPC), and USD(I)'s Intelligence Fundamentals Professional Certification (IFPC). | The Government does not accept the proposed resolution. The Security Professional Education Development (SPeD) certification is not required for the Contract Technical Lead (CTL) position. | |
| 46 | Attachment L-08 S and CI Offerors Library Index 11May21_Highlights | 5 | None of the DIS-International Security highlighted documents outlined in the offeror's library index are included in the offeror's library. | Recommend all highlighted offeror's library index documents are included in the offeror's library. | The Offeror's Library Table of Contents has been updated. | ||
| 47 | Draft RFP | 243 | Section L.5.1, Table L-1 | The instructions in Table L.1 for Volume I – Contract Documentation, Tab 3 calls for a “Solicitation Exceptions Matrix.” The instructions on page 246/298, L.5.3 describe how offerors must identify any exceptions to the solicitation, but no matrix is provided, nor is a matrix mentioned in that paragraph. | Would the Government please confirm that no “Solicitation Exceptions Matrix” has been provided in the RFP, and that offerors are to follow the instructions in paragraph L.5.3? | Offerors shall follow the instructions in Section L 5.3 to complete Tab 3: Solicitation Exceptions Matrix of Volume I – Contract Documentation. No matrix has been provided. | |
| 48 | Draft RFP | 248 | Section L.7.0 | Will the Government allow offerors to provide a 3-page introduction in the Mission Capability Volume, before Tab 1? | Since all evaluators may not see the Executive Summary, a Mission Capability Introduction would be beneficial to describe an offeror’s overall approach and understanding of the 5 Mission Capability subfactors. | Offerors shall comply with the page count requirements set forth in Section L, Table L-1, Proposal Organization and Content. | |
| 49 | Draft RFP | 243 | Section L.5.1, Table L-1 | In Table L-1, Volume V Factor 3 IMCP requires Tab 2: Appendix A. However, RFP Section L.9.0 does not provide any further instructions on what offerors must submit in Appendix A. | Would the Government please clarify what should comprise Appendix A in the IMCP Volume? | Section L, Table L-1, Proposal Organization and Content, updated to remove the reference to Appendix A in the Information Management Control Plan (IMCP) Volume. | |
| 50 | Draft RFP | 243 | Section L.5.1, Table L-1 | In Table L-1, Volume V Factor 3 IMCP requires Tab 2: Appendix A. | Would the Government clarify if Appendix A is an IMCP Supplier Compliance Supplement, referred to as Appendix B throughout Attachment J-17: IMCP Supplier Compliance Supplement? | Table L-1 has been updated to remove Appendix A as a requirement of the proposal. | |
| 51 | Exhibit A | 1 | CDRL A006 | Block 16 of the Information Management and Control Plan CDRL lists 6 elements that must be included in a contractor’s IMCP. These elements do not match the 7 items that RFP Section L.9.0 (Volume V) lists in the proposal instructions. | Would the Government please confirm that this discrepancy was intentional, and offerors should follow the RFP Section L.9.0 instructions to complete their proposals? | CDRL A006 has been updated to reflect the same information found in RFP Section L 9.0 IMCP (Volume V) Instructions. | |
| 52 | Attachment J-01 Security and CI SOW | 164 | Section 4.3 (Labor Qualifications) | Would the MDA CI Director consider moving the proposed CI Officer from Elmendorf, AK to the FBI office in Huntsville, AL? | Having the CI position in Huntsville would allow for direct oversight of the position by the CPM and Task Order Lead on a daily basis and provide access to the FBI National Defense Cyber Alliance (NDCA) office on Redstone Arsenal. | The Government does not accept the proposed resolution as there is a firm requirement to support the MDA CI Agent in Alaska. | |
| 53 | Attachment J-01 Security and CI SOW | 164 | Section 4.3 (Labor Qualifications) | The draft SOW does not include a requirement for a CI Officer to support the Aegis Ashore (AA) at NSF-Redzikowo, Poland. | Would the Government please verify that there is no requirement for a CI Officer to support the Aegis Ashore (AA) at NSF-Redzikowo, Poland? | There is no requirement to support NSF-Redzikowo. | |
| 54 | Attachment J-01 Security and CI SOW | 164 | Section 4.3 (Labor Qualifications) | The draft SOW does not include a requirement for a CI Officer to support the Aegis Ashore (AA) at NSF-Redzikowo, Poland. | Does the Government anticipate having any other AA support requirements at OCONUS locations? | There are currently no requirements for full-time on-site contractor support at OCONUS locations. | |
| 55 | Attachment J-01 Security and CI SOW | 155 | Paragraph 3.4.2 (c)1(e) | The draft SOW includes a requirement for "MDA site construction." | Would the Government please clarify what locations MDA is looking for regarding MDA site construction? | There are currently no requirements for full-time, on-site contractor support at MDA construction sites. | |
| 56 | Attachment J-01 Security and CI SOW | 156 | Paragraph 3.4.2 (d)(3) | The draft SOW includes a requirement for OCONUS Pre-construction TSCM/TEMPEST surveys. | Would the Government please clarify where the anticipated OCONUS sites are for Pre-construction TSCM/TEMPEST surveys? | Any future support to OCONUS locations not stated in the SOW will be handled by Temporary Duty (TDY). | |
| 57 | Draft RFP | 6, 17, 27 | Section B | For CLINs 018, 1018 and 7018 DEI Labor, contract type is listed as FFP, but the description says “Cost Plus Fixed Fee Level of Effort”. | Would the Government please confirm that the contract type should be listed as CPFF? | Contract type for CLINs 0018, 1018, and 7018 has been updated to reflect CPFF. |
| 58 | Draft RFP | 244 | L.4.6 | The RFP states: “…These displays shall be uncomplicated, legible and shall not exceed 11 x 17 inches in size…” | Would the Government please confirm that 11 x 17 foldout diagrams count as 1 page? | Section L 4.6 has been updated to include the following language: "Each printed side of a foldout will count as two pages." | |
| 59 | Draft RFP | 2 | List of Pre-Solicitation Documents | The list of pre-solicitation documents includes Attachments J-01 through J-21. But this list skips J-7, J-10, and J-20. Additionally, RFP Section J lists Attachments J- 7, J-10, and J-20 listed as “Reserved.” | Would the Government please confirm that the RFP package will NOT include Attachments J- 7, J-10, and J-20? | Attachments J-07, J-10, and J-20 are reserved by the Government and not currently part of this Request for Proposal (RFP). | |
| 60 | Draft RFP | 2 | List of Pre-Solicitation Documents | The list of pre-solicitation documents includes Attachments J-01 through J-21. But this list skips J-8, which RFP Section J lists as the DD254. | Would the Government please clarify if the DD254 will be provided with the final RFP? | Attachment J-08, DD-254, has been provided as part of the Final Request for Proposal (RFP). | |
| 61 | Draft RFP | 44-59 | SOW 4.3 a. 6. | Labor Category Functional Descriptions in the SOW do not match those in the EPW LCAT Tab as it relates to title and qualifications. The SOW identifies focused Analysts and Specialists which carry qualifications beyond those identified in the EPW. However, there is no delineation in the EPW benchmark direct rates to accommodate these specially qualified LCATs. | Would the Government please revise the EPW to allow for LCATs and related benchmark rates for all LCATs required in the SOW? | No. Benchmark rates are provided at the labor category level and not the position level described in the SOW. Please notify the PCO what you believe the benchmark rate should be. | |
| 62 | Draft RFP | 21 | Section L.7.6 | MCS5 Element #1 calls out labor competencies in SOW 4.3.1.6. However, there is no such section in the SOW. | It appears this reference should instead be to SOW 4.3.a.6. Would the Government please provide clarification? | Sections L 7.6 and M 4.5 have been updated to include the correct reference of "4.3". | |
| 63 | Draft RFP | - | - | Other than the sam.gov site, where does a vendor request to present their capabilities | |||
| to be considered for the TEAMS security operations? | Companies were provided an opportunity to request an 1-on-1 meeting with the Government as part of the Draft RFP posting via SAM.gov. There are no other opportunities for industry to meet with the Government for TEAMS-Next Security Operations and Counterintelligence. | ||||||
| 64 | Draft RFP | - | - | Will this effort be a Small Business Set-Aside? | This is a Full and Open competition as referenced in Section A and Section L 2.1 of the Solicitation. | ||
| 65 | Draft RFP | - | - | What is the anticipated FTE count? | Refer to the Firm Labor Requirements Tab of Attachment L-05, Excel Price Workbook (EPW), for the total Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) count. | ||
| 66 | Draft RFP | - | - | Is there an incumbent? | The incumbent for the Technical, Engineering, Advisory and Management Support (TEAMS) Security Programs Contract Number: HQ0147-16-C-0037 is Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc.. |
The incumbent for the TEAMS Counterintelligence Contract Number: HQ0147-16-C-0036 is ManTech Advanced Systems International.
67 HQ085821R0015 3 NA In Section 8.2 of the RFP, subsection (a) the RFP states that the method used to develop dollar and percentage goals for the small business participation plan includes the final anticipated dollar value of the total contract value including base and all options. Is CLIN 0001 included in the total contract value?
If CLIN 0001 is included in the contract value how does the Government intend to evaluate the Prime Contractor's awarded dollars to Small Businesses particularly since the actual mix of exercised CLIN 0001 scope may include LCATS that are supported by other than Small Business performers? Yes. Total contract value means the final anticipated dollar value. This value includes the base contract and dollar value of all options (i.e. CLIN 0001 Emergent Requirements, Travel/ODC CLINs)
CPAR assessment for small business utilization will be based on total contract funded value, progress made in meeting proposed small business goals, and progress in meeting the three small business objectives outlined in the Small Business CDRL. For example, if the contractor cannot meet small business goals in year 1 of the period of performance, they would need to demonstrate that they are on track to meet proposed goals by the end of the contract period of performance.
| 68 | HQ085821R0015 | 3 | NA | How many times under the current contract has the MDA exercised surge and what is the LOE/labor mix of the historical surge support? | The emergent requirements option in this effort was based on historical growth of previous contracts. | |
| 69 | HQ0858-21-R-0015 | |||||
| Attachment J-01 Security and CI SOW | 44 | 6 | In the SOW under section 4.3 labor qualifications the MDA notes: “Experience: > 20 years managing complex, large programs/projects commensurate with this TEAMS Next effort." | Will the Government confirm that the actual qualification is that the individual possess 20 years of management experience with at least one year of experience managing large and complex projects commensurate with the Teams Next Effort? If not one year, will the Government clarify the number of years managing large and complex programs the individual should possess in order to meet the qualifications of this position? | The Contract Program Manager should have 20 years or more experience managing complex, large programs/projects commensurate with the TEAMS-Next Security Operations and Counterintelligence Effort. | |
| 70 | HQ0858-21-R-0015 | |||||
| Attachment J-01 Security and CI SOW | 45 | NA | There is a requirement that an Analyst-Level III is “formally CI trained and certified to USD/I approved standards”. Typically, we have seen the ability to place a staff member on contract while they are achieving the formal training or certification for a period of time. At the NGA we were allowed 12 months to meet the requirements. Will the MDA provide a 12 month waiver whereby an employee may perform up to 12 months on contract prior to obtaining training in accordance with USD/I approved standards? | No. Contractors are required to be CI trained and certified to USD/I approved standards on day one. | ||
| 71 | Attachment J-18 | |||||
| Mission-Essential Contractor | MEF and Non-MEF During Agency-wide Telework Periods | Has the staff associated with these requirements as specified in the SOW been working remotely as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic? What challenges did MDA face as a result of this remote work arrangement or the pandemic? Does MDA anticipate the staff for this procurement to be required to perform on Government site? | Yes, staff supporting unclassified efforts have been teleworking as a result of the pandemic. There are no known challenges faced during this time. It is anticipated that a combination of Government site and telework will be performed in support of this requirement. The decision will be determined by mission needs. The MDA telework policy is currently being reviewed. | |||
| 72 | General | NA | NA | Will the Government confirm that the offeror possess their 8570 certification upon contract award or will the contractor be afforded a 90 or 120 day grace period to obtain the certification? | The 8570 Certification is required at start of the contract award. | |
| 73 | Draft RFP | - | - | Of the products and services described in the solicitation, are any considered more critical than the others? | Contract Data Requirements List (CDRLs) pertain more to contract management aspects – e.g., monthly travel and cost reports. Relative to products for stakeholders, what is important will depend on the day and what is required. For example, if the MDA leadership needs information to respond to Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (OUSD), or Congressional requests, that will likely be critical at that time. | |
| 74 | Draft RFP | - | - | What are the top priorities for each of the stakeholders under this contract? | Security and Emergency Management (DSS): Physical Security and Safety (e.g., in Poland and for Aegis Ashore) are important…certainly due to DoD mandates. And, Emergency Management functions are daily functions. |
Counterintelligence (DEI-X): Focused on CI activities regarding investigations and support to different two-letter offices. And, collection and analysis products with support from the Intelligence Community. The Government will provide guidance to the contractor, but the contractor should be knowledgeable.
Program Protection (DEI-R): Mainly compliance with 5200.44, DODM 5200.01, and Executive Order 13526
Special Security ((DEI SSO): Priorities are accuracy of submissions to investigative agencies. As there are ongoing changes in investigations, will rely on personnel and special security agents who are well-versed, but will need to be adaptive and agile.
| 75 | Draft RFP | - | - | Why are the qualifications for the CPM so stringent compared to other TEAMS Next solicitations? | The qualifications for CPM are in line with other TEAMS-Next Engineering solicitations. |
| 76 | Draft RFP | - | - | Is the 'CTL' and 'DSS CTL' referenced in the SOW the same position? If not, can you explain the difference? | Security and Emergency Management (DSS) identified an Analyst (Level IV) to serve as a DSS Contract Technical Lead (CTL) for their office. This is someone the DSS stakeholder will go to for overarching DSS concerns/matters. It is not the overall Contract Technical Lead (CTL), listed as Key Personnel, who will watch over all technical aspects of the entire contract. |
| 77 | Draft RFP | - | - | Can the Government provide information regarding when they expect the final RFP to be released? | The Government intends to post the Final RFP at the end of July. |
| 78 | Draft RFP | - | - | Does the Government intend to address the new Federal Holiday in the final solicitation? | SOW Section 4.2.b, Holidays, has been updated. |
| 79 | Draft RFP | - | - | What does the United States Government (USG) view as the greatest staffing risk for this task order? | The Government views the greatest staffing risk as filling vacancies and getting qualified applicants into the right billets. |
| 80 | Draft RFP | - | - | What does the United States Government (USG) view as the greatest programmatic risk for this task order? | The Government views the greatest programmatic risk as staffing, managing to fill the vacancies. Since this effort has firm requirements, the greatest programmatic will be management of personnel. |
| 81 | Draft RFP | - | - | What does the United States Government (USG) view as the greatest transition risk for this task order? | The Government views the greatest transition risk as having no lapse in mission support. Also, will need to ensure clearances/access transfer smoothly so employees can support the mission(s). |
| 82 | Draft RFP | - | - | What does the United States Government (USG) view as the greatest technical risk for this task order? | The Government views the greatest technical risk as adapting to the Department of Defense (DoD) policy changes and the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) 2.0 mission changes these past two (2) years. |
| 83 | Draft RFP | - | - | What does the United States Government (USG) view as the current (now) biggest risk for this task order? | Staffing positions with qualified personnel. |
| 84 | Draft RFP | - | - | How important is contractor innovation to the United States Government (USG) on this task order? | In terms of innovation, suggestions will be considered during contract execution, but would need to be reviewed by the Government for benefit/impacts. The Government is not looking for innovation in the proposal as this requirement is for staff augmentation. |
| 85 | Draft RFP | - | - | Would the United States Government (USG) add contractor innovation into the Final RFP as an evaluation criterion? | No. The solicitation is not performance based but is for staff augmentation. |
| 86 | Draft RFP | - | - | How favorable does the United States Government (USG) view a team that exceeds small business goals of this task order? | In accordance with Section M-5.0, the Small Business Participation Plan will be evaluated as "Acceptable" or "Unacceptable". The Government will not give any extra credit to Offerors that exceed the Small Business Participation goals. |
| 87 | Draft RFP | - | - | How favorable does the United States Government (USG) view a team whose Prime Contractor is geographically headquartered at the MDA Headquarters, Huntsville, Al? | Location of offerors' headquarters is not part of the evaluation factors, and therefore location is neither favorable or unfavorable. The Government expects the successful awardee to meet the requirements of this effort regardless of the location of their headquarters. |
| 88 | Regarding the Mission Capability factors – see they are equally ranked in the draft RFP. Will MDA change this in the final RFP? | All Mission Capability Subfactors are of equal relative importance. This is not likely to change between draft and final. | |||
| 89 | Section L | 14 | 4.11 | Section L.4.11, Page 14 of the DRFP states that: |
Each volume shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated without cross-referencing to other volumes of the proposal with the one exception being MCS5 Element #2, which requires review of the Cost Volume.
Q.1: Can Govt clarify that only MCS5 Element#2 can be cross-referenced in V.VIII, Cost and Price as the Govt expects that the offeror might have to reference?
| The only allowable cross-reference between proposal volumes is MCS5 Element #2, Retaining Qualified Personnel with the Total Compensation Plan portion of Cost and Price (Volume VIII). |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .