Amendment_1.pdf

HSCGG3‐18‐R‐PWX700

Amendment 001

Solicitation HSCGG3‐18‐R‐PWX700 Amendment 1 Issued 7/20/2017

This amendment provides questions received with the Government’s responses and makes the related revisions. A conformed copy of the solicitation is included. Each revised section is identified with “Amendment 1, Issued 7/20/2017”. Additional amendment(s) will provide other questions received and corresponding responses as time permits.

A. Questions with Government’s Responses

# Question / Comment Response

1. I am hoping to find out if there is an incumbent contractor currently performing these services or if this is a new requirement. If there is an incumbent, could you please provide the contract number?

The incumbent is Digital Management Incorporated, 6550 Rock Springs Drive, Floor 7, Bethesda, MD 20817. Task Order HSCGG3‐17‐F‐PWX001, contract GS00Q09BGD0061.

2. For clarification purposes, we would appreciate confirmation on required Key Personnel. Section C, Page 5, under 4.3.2 Key Personnel, states “The Contract Program Manager (CPM), Alternate Contract Program Manager (ACPM), Project Manager(s), and Financial Analyst labor categories shall be considered key personnel. However in Section I, Page 21, it states Key Personnel under this contract is the Program Manager, Alternate Program Manager, and Financial Analyst (excludes Project Managers). Further, in Section L.5.2 Personnel, it designates Labor Categories marked with (*) are Key Personnel, to which only the Program Manager and Financial Analyst are marked. We are operating under the assumption that Section I, Page 21, is correct. Any clarification you can provide will be appreciated.

The IDIQ Section C, Page 5 under Section 4.3.2 Key Personnel is the correct requirement. The other sections have been revised accordingly.

3. Is this contract requiring the prime be an 8a? Yes. Only a SBA certified 8(a) contractor is eligible to be the prime.

4. Is the contractor required to have a Capability Maturity Model Integrated [CMMI] clearance?

No

# Question / Comment Response

5. Joint Ventures are allowable on competitive 8(a) set‐asides; however, the joint venture agreement must be received by SBA prior to the proposal opening date to allow for processing and SBA approval before award of any resulting contract." Should "opening date" be changed to submission date?

‘Opening date’ has been changed to ‘proposal due date’.

6. Request a review, approval, and an amendment issued to the RFP for inclusion of the DHS Office of Small Business and Disadvantaged Business Utilization provision pertaining to 3052.219–72 Evaluation of Prime Contractor Participation in the DHS Mentor‐Protégé Program

(MPP).

HSAR clause 3052.219‐72 does not apply to this acquisition and will not be added to the solicitation. This acquisition is set aside for 8(a) small businesses therefore this clause does not apply.

7. Can you please clarify what it means to: “Cross teaming with other OSC contractors is not permitted”.

Cross teaming with OSC Contractors other than those supporting the OSC’s Information Assurance (IA) contract is permitted. The IDIQ Section C 4.3.6 has been revised to clarify the requirement.

8. Concerning the physical delivery package. The instructions (ITO) state:

The Offeror shall provide an original and four (4) hardcopies of its complete proposal, including technical (Volume 1) and price/cost (Volume 2) bound in separate binders of minimum size to contain the material.

This either means that there are 10 binders total ‐‐ being made up of 5 binders including the original and copies 1,2,3, and 4 of volume I and 5 binders of the original and copies 1,2,3, and 4 of volume II or it could be interpreted to mean 5 binders total including the original and copies 1,2,3, and 4 of volumes I and II in the same binder.

The physical delivery package shall include a total of 10 binders, 1 original and 4 copies of the technical submission (Volume 1), and 1 original and 4 copies of the price submission (Volume 2).

9. Regarding Section C, Sub Section 4.3.6 Subcontract Management, page 7 of RFP “Cross teaming with other OSC Contractors or team members is NOT permitted” – Can you clarify what is meant by this? The inference is that teaming with any OSC contractor or team member on any OSC contract is not permitted. Is the Coast Guard’s position that teaming with any OSC prime contractor or subcontractor on any work is not permitted?

See response to question #7.

10. Question regarding apparent inconsistency in the Government provided annual level of effort estimates founds in Task Order 1 – Appendix 1 System Descriptions versus Task Order 1 – Appendix 2 Government Estimated Level of Effort.

Appendix 1 includes a Government total annual maintenance level of effort with each system description. Those estimates do not match the estimates provided in the table on page 241 of the PDF version of the RFQ. They are roughly twice the figures on page 241 which are also labeled “representative of a 12‐month period of performance”. Please clarify which total is correct. If the total in Appendix 1 is correct, please provide a breakdown of those numbers into the three component areas shown on page 241 (preventive, corrective and adaptive maintenance hours).

TO #1 Appendix 1 – System Descriptions has been revised to reconcile the Level of Effort estimates to those provided in TO #1 Appendix 2 – Government Estimated Level of Effort (LOE)

11. In Section I, Attachment 2, Section 4.1.2, Information Assurance Services, and in Section I, 3052.209‐72 Organizational Conflict of Interest, it states "The Contractor and any subcontractors supporting the C4IT Service Center’s IACM are not eligible for award of the APLES II IDIQ or eligible to participate as a subcontractor/teaming partner under any APLES II task orders as there is a potential for an organizational conflict of interest." In addition, in paragraph 4 of L.1 General Instructions to Offerors, it states again that “Contractor and any subcontractors supporting the C4IT Service Center’s IACM are not eligible for award of the APLES II IDIQ or eligible to participate as subcontractor / teaming partner under any APLES II task orders.” However, in Section C, 4.3.6 Subcontract Management, it states "Cross teaming with other OSC Contractors or team members is not permitted." Would the Government please confirm that Offerors are permitted to partner with current OSC Contractors so long as they are not a contractor or subcontractor on the Information Assurance Configuration Management (IACM) contract vehicle.

See response to question #7.

12. In Section L.3.3, the RFP references the Government Pricing Template

(Section J, Attachment 4) which is to be used to price the Task Orders.

For Task Order #1, the pricing template asked for us to price the level of effort broken down by Preventive, Corrective, and Adaptive work. In the PWS for Task Order #1(Section J, Attachment 1) on page 7 of the attachment (RFP page 161), it says the …Government estimated level of effort is contained within Appendix 1 – System Descriptions. In Appendix 1, each of the 41 supportable applications contains a subsection labeled Government Estimated Level of Effort and includes a numerical LOE. However, this number is not broken down by Preventive, Corrective, or Adaptive work. Between Appendix 1 and Appendix 3 are 2 pages that are not labeled but assumed to be Appendix 2 (found on RFP page 240 and 241). The Appendix 2 chart on RFP page 241 lists each of the 41 supportable applications and breaks down their LOE by Preventive, Corrective and Adaptive work. The issue is the LOE on the Appendix 2 chart and the LOE in Appendix 1 do not correlate at all. In fact, the LOE in the Appendix 2 chart is almost 120,000 hours less than the LOE in Appendix 1. Therefore, we have the following questions to ask the Government:

a. Are Offerors to use the RFP‐provided LOE hours in Appendix 1 to price Task Order 1? If so, which total number of hours is the correct reference point – the total included in Appendix 1, or the total shown in the chart in the assumed Appendix 2? If bidders are to use the sum of hours referenced in Appendix 1, what is the recommended split between the Preventive, Corrective, and Adaptive LOE? Are we to use the breakdown in Appendix 2 (RFP page

241) to determine the percentages for the Appendix 1 LOE hours or some other methodology?

b. Can the government explain why there is such a discrepancy between Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 data and explain how these numbers were derived so that we understand why there is such a difference?

TO #1 Appendix 1 – System Descriptions has been revised to reconcile the Level of Effort estimates to those provided in TO #1 Appendix 2 – Government Estimated Level of Effort (LOE). TO #1 Appendix 2 ‐ Government Estimated LOE is provided for informational purposes. It is not intended to be the sole basis for an Offeror’s price proposal. The Government’s expectation is that Offerors will determine their own independent price proposal based upon their evaluation of the stated requirements.

Page headers for TO #1 Appendix 2 and 3 have been updated.

13. On Page 8 (RFP page 255) of Task Order #2 (Section J, Attachment 2), the government refers to integration with the USCG Financial System for financial transactions. Is the financial application being referenced in the Task Order 2 Project 1 requirements the CAS SDA system and are we to make use of its secondary systems (CBS, PCA, MarkViewKofax, etc.,) to develop the TO2 Project 1 solution or are we to create a separate capability in the TO2 Project 1 solution to support financial Point of Sale transactions and update CAS SDA with that data?

The USCG Financial System referred to in TO #2 Project 1 is CAS SDA.Offerors may consider all components of the CAS SDA system suite as part of their proposal to satisfy the requirements of TO #2 Project 1.

14. On Page 8 (RFP page 255) of Task Order #2 (Section J, Attachment 2), the government refers to the Coast Guard Automated Identification Technology (CGAIT) for barcoding. What is the technology that makes up this system? What backend architecture is it based on? What platform does it run on?

The CGAIT referred to utilizes Intermec Janus 2020 Barcode Terminal and Symbol PDT‐8100 Barcode Reader and Software. The backend architecture is proprietary. The architecture is Microsoft Windows based.

15. On Page 8 (RFP page 255) of Task Order #2 (Section J, Attachment 2), the government refers to integration with the Defense Logistics Agency for inventory control.

Are the Uniform Distribution Center and Coast Guard warehouses run and managed by the DLA? If not, in what way is the DLA involved in inventory control that we must interface with? If not, is the inventory control systems at the UDS and warehouses provided by DLA and if they are what software, database and platform are they running?

The Uniform Distribution Center and Coast Guard warehouses are not managed by DLA. DLA is an inventory control point that the UDC can requisition from when their inventory is depleted.

16. On Page 8 (RFP page 255) of Task Order #2 (Section J, Attachment 2), the government refers to integration with the Defense Logistics Agency for inventory control.

Online Point of Sale ecommerce solutions typical include their own inventory control capabilities to support the functions of the ecommerce solution. Is it acceptable to the government to make use of the inventory capabilities in the ecommerce solutions and provide updated synchronization data on transactions to the DLA? If so, does the DLA have an API for this transaction and if so, please provide all details on the interface.

Offerors are expected to propose the technical solution they determine best satisfies the requirement. DLA has services available to facilitate this type of interface.

17. On Page 8 (RFP page 255) of Task Order #2 (Section J, Attachment 2), the government refers to integration with the Coast Guard Exchange (CGEX) system. Looking at the CGEX, we notice that this is an ecommerce system with online catalog, point of sale and order fulfillment. Yet the requirements for TO2 Project 1 demonstrate that the contractor must build a similar capability. When integrating with CGEX:

a. Are we to build a solution that places the products managed by the

TO2 project 1 system onto the CGEX ecommerce system thereby allowing the CGEX to perform the ordering, billing and fulfilment?

b. Are we to provide CGEX with inventory data and accept transaction data to maintain inventory control on uniform products?

c. Are we to build a similar ecommerce solution that handles only the uniform aspects and interfaces with CGEX to redirect customers to our newly designed and built system?

d. Are we to interface with the user registration system within CGEX when allowing users access to the TO2 Project 1 solution?

e. If not of these, in what way are we expected to interface with CGEX and what information is expected to be interchanged?

Offerors are encouraged to propose technical solutions that both satisfies the requirement and reduces the USCG IT footprint.

18. On Page 8 (RFP page 255) of Task Order #2 (Section J, Attachment 2), the government refers to a ‘Customer Care’ capability. Is there an existing Customer Care facility, personnel and capability that exists today and are we to make use of those personnel to perform this requirement or, are we to include the estimated level of effort to lease facilities, rent space, provide telecommunication technology and staff personnel to respond to this customer care requirement?

The “Customer Care” referred to is a self service capability to be designed and built into the system.

19. Although it is not listed as a system in which we should interface and integrate as listed on Page 8 (RFP page 255) of TO2 (Section J, Attachment 2), on Page 7 (RFP page 254) of TO2 it states that all customers must be vetted and authorized by the Defense Manpower Data Center. Please provide the software, database and platform for this product and what APIs it has to support authentication integration.

Although not listed as a potential system interface, the DMDC is the data source by which a uniformed member’s identity is validated.

20. Section M details the specific 5 items we need to address for each TO. In addition, Section L and M both say:

a. Offeror’s technical proposal volume shall consist of the Offeror’s approach for satisfying the technical requirements of the Task Order #1 and Sample Task Order #2

b. The Offeror shall address the planned technical approach of the Team in sufficient detail to explain how their proposed technical approach will best meet or exceed the Government’s requirements outlined in the IDIQ Performance Work Statement (PWS) and for the specific tasks identified in the PWSs for Task Order #1 and Sample Task Order #2

If we address the M requirements, we won’t have the necessary page count to cover the TO1 and TO2 Technical Approach and IDIQ PWS requirements. TO2 has two parts and each of those alone could consume the current 15‐page limit. If the expectation is that Offerors respond to both the Section M delineated requirements and the PWS/TO requirements then we recommend increasing the page limit to 15 pages for each the IDIQ PWS, the TO#1 PWS, and TO#2 PWS, for a total of 45 pages for the Technical Volume.

The Government’s expectation is that Offerors shall address this requirement in their proposed technical approach with respect to managing the various phases of systems engineering lifecycle as demonstrated in the context of each of the task orders (e.g. O&M and development). The page count will not be revised.

21. What is the number of task orders issued to‐date on the current APLES IDIQ? What are the current end dates of the existing task orders? What is the anticipated schedule for TO proposal responses (i.e., will all current APLES TOs be released immediately for bid upon award of APLES II, or will there be a phased response period to task order proposal requests over the Transition?)

APLES work is currently provided by a single task order, HSCGG3‐17‐F‐PWX001, contract GS00Q09BGD0061. The current end date of the existing task order (if all options are exercised) is December 31, 2017.

The Government intends to award TO #1 at the time of IDIQ award.

22. Section J Attachment 4, TO #1: Do the LOE estimates referenced for each application in Task Order #1 include an allocation of the PMO or just an estimate of the technical staff hours to support that application?

If the LOE estimates provided do not already include the PMO allocation, would the Government permit Offerors to add a fourth set of columns to show the proposed pricing for the PMO separately from the three Maintenance‐related areas?

To clarify, there is no intent for the APLES II contractor to provide labor support for the OSC PMO. For the purposes of Task Order #1, Offerors should propose both the technical and management support needed to meet the task order requirements.

23. Section J Attachment 4, ‐ Would the Government allow Offerors to separate the content layout of the into tabs for each contract period for the Rates, TO #1, and TO #2?

No. Offerors should complete the Government Price template as instructed.

24. PWS Appendix 1, 1. Knowledge and Skills Overview: Can Offerors substitute additional minimum years of experience for education (for example, a Bachelor’s + 8 year of minimum experience in lieu of a Master’s degree + 6 years of minimum experience)? This question is particularly relevant to labor categories that are less technically skilled, such as the Administrative Specialist, where resources are less likely to need an advanced degree to successfully perform the position functions.

No

25. Section L.3.4 Inclusions of Additional/Alternative Tools (Section L, Page

8) states that “Any proposed tool must meet all applicable requirements (including DISA, DHS, USCG requirements/standards) for installation and use on the USCG network”. Would the Government please provide a list of approved and/or recommended COTS eCommerce tools and which are a part of the approved TRM?

The attached DHS Technical Reference Model (TRM) illustrates the technologies currently approved for use within the USCG domain.

TRM Component Baseline Product Repo

26. Section L.5.1 Price Proposal Requirements and Instructions, Completion of Price Template Worksheet (TO # 2), (Section L, Page 12) requires that Offerors provide a “comprehensive explanation of all the assumptions and constraints, if any, used in developing the price for the five‐year period of performance” for TO #2. The possible number of assumptions that can be made against the PWS requirements related to Project #1 of TO #2 are so broad and numerous, that Offerors can develop multiple technically competent solutions that would be widely different in functionality and price, thereby making it difficult to judge which assumption is a reasonable approach in the technical architecture ‐ which impacts price ‐ and therefore makes judging price reasonableness in a fair manner difficult.

Additionally, Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award, Factor 6: Price (Section M, Page 4) states that “Price significance will increase as technical, management and past performance evaluations approach equivalence, possibly promoting price to become a determinative factor.”

Section M, Factor 6: Price (Section M, Page 3) states “The Government will consider the total price for TO#1 and Sample TO#2 across all performance periods in accordance with the identified instructions. The Offeror’s price proposal for TO#1 and Sample TO#2 will be evaluated for reasonableness”. Would the Government please confirm that “consideration” involves a comparison of prices among competitors? If so, will both TO #s 1 and 2 be compared and equally weighted, or will one TO be more heavily weighted than the other in the comparison? If the above does not accurately describe the comparison evaluation methodology, what key elements of pricing will be “considered” (beyond reasonableness, accuracy, and completeness)?

In accordance with Section M, “price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques”.

The price evaluation of TO #1 and Sample TO #2 are of equal weight.

27. Section L.5.7 Subcontractors (Section L, Page 16) states that subcontractors are required to submit a complete price proposal in the same format as the Offeror’s price proposal for TO #2, and are also subject to the price volume submission requirements in Section L.5.1, which addresses TO #1 as well. Because the resulting APLES II task orders will be FFP and T&M, the Offeror recommends that if the Offeror’s proposed subcontractor cost rates fit within the Offeror’s proposed fully burdened Prime rates, that this requirement for a separate subcontractor price proposal be removed from the submission requirements, because all IDIQ and task order pricing will be based solely on the Prime Contractor’s fully burdened rates.

Section L.5.7 was revised to remove the requirement for subcontractor price proposals.

28. Section L.3.1, Volume 2 – Price Proposal (Section L, Page 7): Would the Government increase the page count of the “Information to support the proposed price proposal” from 5 pages (excluding the Annual Financial Report) to at least 25 pages? This additional page count is necessary to respond in a compliant manner with the other required documentation for this Volume, which includes a Cover Page, a Commitment Letter from each subcontractor, support for an Adequate Accounting System (including auditor’s report), Financial Capacity support, and the description of the assumptions and constraints for the proposed technical solution for Project #1 of TO #2.

The page limit for Volume 2‐Price Proposal has been increased to 18 pages.

29. Section L.5.1 Price Proposal Requirements and Instructions, Completion of Price Template Worksheet (TO # 2), (Section L, Page 12), states that “Offerors shall submit labor categories and associated direct rates, level of effort, and direct and indirect rates for both itself and its sub‐ contractors as stipulated in the Government’s Price Template. The Offeror must provide the basis for the proposed indirect costs, including cost breakdowns, and the basis for evaluating the reasonableness of the proposed rates. Where a rate agreement exists, a copy must be provided.” The Offeror would like to confirm that because Section L.3.3 states that the resulting task order will be T&M type, that only fully burdened T&M rates are required in pricing TO #2 labor, and that the breakout of direct and indirect rates is not required. The worksheet structure for TO #2 currently only allows the fully burdened rates from the “Rates” tab to populate against the proposed hours.

Section L.5.1 has been revised to remove the requirements for direct labor rates and indirect rates.

30. Section L.5.7 Subcontractors (Section L, Page 16) states that subcontractors are required to submit a complete price proposal in the same format as the Offeror’s price proposal for TO #2, and are also subject to the price volume submission requirements in Section L.5.1, which addresses TO #1 as well. Because the resulting APLES II task orders will be FFP and T&M, the Offeror recommends that if the Offeror’s proposed subcontractor cost rates fit within the Offeror’s proposed fully burdened Prime rates, that this requirement for a separate subcontractor price proposal be removed from the submission requirements, because all IDIQ and task order pricing will be based solely on the Prime Contractor’s fully burdened rates.

See response to question #27.

31. What are the tools used for audit log review monitoring and tracking the health of the applications/systems? This does not appear to be listed in the RFP.

McAfee SIEM is utilized for audit log review and nimsoft is utilized for system event monitoring.

32. The paragraph numbers in Section G skips G.9. Please confirm this is merely a paragraph number that was skipped.

Section G numbering has been revised.

33. The requirement for SF1034 and SF1035, Public Voucher, does not seem applicable for invoicing FFP or T&M types of task orders. Should the requirement for SF1034 and SF1035 be removed from the RFP?

The requirement for SF1034 is valid. The SF1034 is standard USCG instructions that include instructions for all contract types.

34. Reference G.7(b), Contractor Invoice. Does the term "contractor invoice" mean an invoice in a format similar to the "APLES II Sample Invoice" Excel file provided in the RFP.

Yes

35. The tab named TO‐2 Backup Data shows a detailed cost breakdown by cost element, which is suitable for a cost‐reimbursable task. Can bidders assume this type of cost element detail is not applicable to FFP tasks?

The Sample Invoice includes examples of invoices, reports, and backup data that the Government expects as a monthly deliverable for FFP and T&M task orders as applicable.

36. As prescribed in (HSAR) 48 CFR 3019.708–70(c), we respectfully request that the government incorporate the following provision: EVALUATION

OF PRIME CONTRACTOR PARTICIPATION IN THE DHS MENTOR‐PROTEGE

PROGRAM (JUN 2006)

This solicitation contains a source selection factor or sub factor regarding participation in the DHS Mentor‐Protégé Program. In order to receive credit under the source selection factor or sub factor, the offeror shall provide a signed letter of mentor‐protégé agreement approval from the DHS Office of Small Business and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) before initial evaluation of proposals. The contracting officer may, in his or her discretion, give credit for approvals that occur after initial evaluation of proposals, but before final evaluation.

See response to question #6.

37. C.4.3.2 states the Key Personnel include the 1) Contract Program Manager (CPM); 2) Alternate Contract Program Manager (ACPM); 3) Project Manager(s); and 4) Financial Analyst.

L.5.2 indicates only the Contract Program Manager and Financial Analyst are considered Key Personnel.

Please clarify the categories of key personnel that are required by the Solicitation.

See response to question #2.

38. Section L.3.1, Volume 2 – Price Proposal (Section L, Page 7): Would the

Government increase the page count of the “Information to support the proposed price proposal” from 5 pages (excluding the Annual Financial Report) to 18 pages? This additional page count is necessary to respond in a compliant manner with the other required documentation for this Volume, which includes a Cover Page, a Commitment Letter from each subcontractor, support for an Adequate Accounting System (including auditor’s report), Financial Capacity support, and the description of the assumptions and constraints for the proposed technical solution for Project #1 of TO #2.

See response to question #28.

39. There are significant discrepancies in the Government’s Estimated Level of Effort (LOE) for Task Order #1. The hours presented for each of the systems in Appendix 1 – System Descriptions are significantly different than the hours presented in Appendix 2 – – APLES II Historical Maintenance Ratios, even for the very same systems (see attached comparison table). Please state which set of data offerors should use for a basis of estimate.

See response to question #10

40. What is the purpose of Appendix 2 – APLES II Historical Maintenance Ratios? It would appear that the table presented was shared simply to provide insight into the historical ratios between the three types of maintenance.

That is, the system level aggregate and summary hours (225,166 / year) do NOT reflect the government’s complete estimate for the Level of Effort for this new, current contract and should not be used as a basis of estimate into the total estimate level of effort, other than providing insight into the ratio of work between maintenance types. Please confirm.

See response to question #12.

41. Will the government provide a current list or count and breakdown of severity by system of all currently open POA&Ms?

The Government will not provide the requested information as the count and composition of POA&Ms fluctuates too frequently to be useful.

42. Could you please confirm the address for the site visit, the RFP only states Annex 1 Building of the OSC.

Annex 1 is located at 408 Coast Guard Drive, Kearneysville, WV 25430

43. Reference: Section B, Page 1, B.2 states: The place of performance will be specified at the task order level, but primarily include the USCG, C4IT Service Center and its detachments. Question: Can the Government provide a list of all of the detachment site locations?

The current primary OSC detachment site locations are:

1) C4ITSC HQ—Washington DC

2) OSC—Kearneysville, WV

3) FINCEN—Chesapeake, WV

4) PPC—Topeka, KS

As Service Center Transformation and IT consolidation efforts continue, additional detachments may be located at the following sites:

1) TISCOM—Alexandria, VA

2) C3CEN—Portsmouth, VA

44. Reference: Section L, Page 2, L.1.4 Vendor Site Visit states: Vendors must submit their full legal names and company affiliation of all persons wishing to attend the site visit to the Contract Specialist via e‐mail Brenda.E.Oberholzer@uscg.mil with a cc email to the Contracting Officer Kathy.P.Klein@uscg.mil no later than Monday, 20 July 2017, 3:00 PM EDT. Question: July 20th is a Thursday. Can the Government confirm when site visit attendee names are due to the Contract Specialist and Contracting Officer?

Section L has been revised. Site Visit attendees are due Thursday, July 20, 2017.

45. Reference: Section L, Page 3, L.1.5 Vendor Questions/Clarifications states: All vendor questions pursuant to this solicitation must be received by the Contract Specialist, Brenda Oberholzer, with a copy to the Contracting Officer, Kathy Klein no later than Wednesday, 3 August 2017 at 3:00 PM EDT. Question: August 3rd is a Thursday. Can the Government confirm when vendor questions are due to the Contract Specialist and Contracting Officer?

Section L has been revised. Vendor questions are due Thursday, August 3, 2017.

46. Reference: Section L, Page 4, L.2.2 Proposal Delivery states: Offerors shall submit hardcopy proposals in two (2) volumes (Technical) and (Price/Cost) no later than Monday, 17 August, 2017 at 3:00 PM EDT.

Question: August 17th is a Thursday. Can the Government confirm that hardcopy proposals are due to the Government by Thursday, August 17th?

Section L has been revised. Proposals are due Thursday, August 17, 2017.

47. Reference: Section L, Page 7, L.3.1 Standard Form of Contract and

Proposal. Question: According to the table in L.3.1, the Completed Copy of Representations and Certifications at FAR 52.212‐3 (Nov 2014) (Section K of Solicitation) are to be included in Volume 1 – Technical Proposal. However, the same table also states that “completed clauses” are to be included in Volume 2 – Price Proposal. Can the Government clarify where to include the filled in clauses of Section K?

One copy of Section K, Representations and Certifications is required per proposal. Section L.3.1 and L.4 have been revised to require the Completed Representations and Certifications and completed clauses in Volume 2.

48. Reference: Section L, Page 7, L.3.1 Standard Form of Contract and Proposal. Question: According to the table in L.3.1, “completed clauses” are to be included in Volume 2 – Price Proposal. Can the Government confirm that the only clauses to be completed by Offerors are within SECTION I: CONTRACT CLAUSES and SECTION K: REPRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS AND OTHER STATEMENTS OF OFFERORS?

The clauses requiring completion are in Sections I and K.

49. Reference: Section I, Page 21, 3052.215.70 Key Personnel or Facilities (Dec 2003). Question: Does the Government require Offerors to complete the “3052.215.70 Key Personnel or Facilities (Dec 2003)” clause with the names of our proposed Key Personnel (Program Manager, Alternate Program Manager, and Financial Analyst) at the time of proposal submission?

Yes

50. Reference: Section L, Page 8, L.3.4 Inclusion of Additional/Alternative Tools. Question: If Offerors are including additional/alternative tools, where should we include that information in the proposal? Will the required explanation of additional/alternative tools be counted toward any of the proposal’s page limits?

Offerors should include their proposal for additional/alternative tools as part of their technical proposal. The required explanation of additional/alternative tools will be counted toward the technical proposal page count.

51. Reference: Section L, 9, L.4 Technical Proposal Requirements and Instructions states: Sections III, IV, V, and VI of the Offeror’s technical proposal volume shall consist of the Offeror’s approach for satisfying the technical requirements of the Task Order #1 and Sample Task Order #2.

Questions: Section VI is the Completed Copy of Representations and Certifications at FAR 52.212‐3 (Nov 2014) (Section K of Solicitation). Can the Government confirm there is only one Section K within in the solicitation? Does filling out the one Section K satisfy the technical requirements for both Task Order #1 and Sample Task Order #2?

See response to question #47.

52. Reference: Section L, Page 10, L.4 Technical Proposal Requirements and

Instructions, Past Performance Questionnaires states: The Questionnaires and the copy of the references shall be mailed directly to the Contracting Officer after completion by the past performance reference. However, SECTION J, ATTACHMENT 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE states that “Upon completion of this form, please submit it as an e‐mailed attachment to Kathy.P.Klein@uscg.mil.”

Questions: Can the Government clarify if the past performance questionnaires are to be mailed or emailed prior to the solicitation closing date? Can the Government confirm if Offerors are to submit past performance questionnaires to Kathy P. Klein, as stated in Attachment 3, or to Brenda Oberholzer, as stated in the RFP’s Section L?

Section L and Attachment 3‐Past Performance Questionnaire have been revised to require completed questionnaires be submitted to the Contract Specialist, Brenda Oberholzer via email at Brenda.E.Oberholzer@uscg.mil.

53. Reference: SECTION J, ATTACHMENT 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE states: Please make the subject line of the e‐mail read “HSCGG3‐17‐R‐PWX700 – Past Performance Questionnaire – Insert Evaluated Company’s Name.”Question: The RFP number in the e‐mail subject line does not match this solicitation number. Will the Government confirm that the subject line should read HSCGG3‐18‐R‐

PWX700?

The RFP number cited within the Past Performance Questionnaire has been corrected to HSCGG3‐18‐R‐

PWX700.

54. Reference: Section L, Page 13, L.5.2 Personnel lists the Program Manager and the Financial Analyst as Key Personnel. Section C, Page 5,

4.3.2 Key Personnel lists the Contract Program Manager (CPM), Alternate Contract Program Manager (ACPM), Project Manager(s), and Financial Analyst as Key Personnel. Question: Can the Government confirm that Offerors are to submit Key Personnel resumes for only the Program Manager and Financial Analyst identified in Section L.5.2?

See response to question #2.

55. Reference: Section L, Page 15, L.5.7 Subcontractors. Question: Are the commitment letters from each subcontractor to be included within Volume 2 – Price Proposal? If so, do the subcontractor commitment letters count towards the page limitations?

Yes commitment letters from each subcontractor should be included within Volume 2‐Price Proposal. The subcontractor commitment letters count towards the page limitations. See response to question #31.

56. Reference: Section L, Page 16, L.5.8 Proposer’s Annual Financial Report states: A copy of the organization's most recent annual report must be submitted as part of the business proposal. Question: Can the Government confirm that the Annual Financial Report should be included in Volume 2 – Price Proposal?

The Offeror’s Annual Financial report should be included in Volume 2‐ Price Proposal.

B. Revisions

1. Section C

i. C.4.3.6 revised to replace “Cross teaming with other OSC Contractors or team members is not permitted” with “Cross teaming with OSC Contractors other than those supporting the OSC’s Information Assurance (IA) contract is permitted.”

2. Section G

i. Revised subsection numbering.

3. Section I

i. Revised HSAR 3052.215.70 Key Personnel or Facilities to include a place to list Project Manager(s) and any additionally proposed key personnel to align with Section C 4.3.2.

4. Section J

i. Revised Attachment 1 – TO#1 PWS

1. Appendix 1 – System Descriptions revised LOE to match Appendix 2.

2. Appendix 2 – Government Estimated Level of Effort revised to include header.

3. Appendix 3 – 2018 Adaptive OEM Maintenance Projects revised to include header.

ii. Revised Attachment 3 – Past Performance Questionnaire to correct RFP number and change submission from Kathy Klein to Brenda Oberholzer.

iii. Added Attachment 5 –Government Estimated LOE in excel format.

5. Section L

i. L.1. General Instruction to Offerors was revised from “Joint Ventures are allowable on competitive 8(a) set‐asides;

however, the joint venture agreement must be received by SBA prior to the proposal opening date to allow for processing and SBA approval before award of any resulting contract” to “Joint Ventures are allowable on competitive 8(a) set‐ asides; however, the joint venture agreement must be received by SBA prior to the proposal due date to allow for processing and SBA approval before award of any resulting contract”.

ii. L.1.4. Vendor Site Visit was revised to clarify registration deadline is Thursday, 20 July, 2017, 3:00 PM EDT.

iii. L.1.5 Vendor Questions/Clarifications was revised to clarify deadline is Thursday, 3 August, 2017 at 3:00 PM

EDT.

iv. L.2.2 Proposal Delivery was revised to clarify the due date is Thursday, 17 August, 2017 at 3:00 PM EDT.

v. L.3.1 Standard Format of Contract and Proposal was revised to move completed Representations and

Certifications from Volume 1 to Volume 2. Number of pages for Volume 2 was increased from 5 to 18.

vi. L.4. Technical Proposal Requirements and Instructions was revised to remove reference to Section VI (Reps and Certs).

vii. L.5.1 Price Proposal Requirements and Instructions has been revised to remove the requirement for indirect rates and subcontractor proposals.

viii. L.5.2 Personnel was revised to include an asterisk next to Project Manager and Alternate Program Manager denoting that these positions are Key Personnel.

ix. L.5.7 Subcontractors has been revised to remove the requirement for a subcontract proposal.

x. L.5.8 Proposer’s Annual Financial Report has been revised to reflect its inclusion in Volume 2‐ Price proposal.