Q A__3.pdf

QUESTIONS ANSWERS

Ref: Appendix D, Page 191 Workload data is provided for Task 3, Subtask 1, but there are issues with the Sub-Subtasks. Data is listed for Subtask 1.1 (BRM), but Subtask 1.1 should be IT Service Portfolio Management. Data is listed for Subtask 1.2 (Demand Management), but Subtask 1.2 is BRM. Either Subtasks are numbered incorrectly and Subtask 1.1 workload data is missing or the Subtasks are labeled incorrectly and then data is missing for Subtask 1.3 (Demand Management), which should also be optional. Can the Government provide clarification on the workload data for Task 3, Subtask 1 and Sub-Subtasks?

Appendix D is revised in the PWS; updated estimated hours in Task 3 Subtask 1.3. Section now reads:

Task 3 Subtask 1.1: Service Portfolio Management Estimated hours: 5,580 Estimated new/changed service reviews: 100 per year Task 3 Subtask 1.2: Business Relationship Management (BRM) Estimated hours: 1,860 Task 3 Subtask 1.3: Demand Management Estimated hours: 2,790

Ref: Appendix D, Page 189 Workload data is missing for Task 2, Subtask 4.6.3, End-User Device Service Design & Transition Support. Can the Government provide this work-load data?

Appendix D revised. Changed Task 2, Subtask 4.6.3 to "Virtual Desktop Infrastructure (VDI) Support." Added Task 2, Subtask

4.6.4 "Service Design and Transition Support". Provided workload estimates are included in the PWS and will be reflected via forthcoming amendment.

Ref: RFP, Section M-2.5, Page 104 Will relevancy ratings be cumulative and a total score assigned for all submitted past performance or averaged based on the number of past performances submitted?

Reference Section M-2.5.2. and M-2.5.3. of the RFP. There is no numerical score in evaluating and is not cumulative. The Performance Confidence Assessment rating is based upon all the information submitted or obtained and, determined relevant by the Government. Relevance is determined by each reference provided.

In the event no relevant past performance information is available, the Offeror will receive an overall Performance Confidence Assessment rating of "unknown Confidence", which will be considered neither favorably or unfavorably.

Ref: RFP, Section M2.3.1.1, Page 101 Will the Government please clarify whether they want a complete Transition Plan or a Transition Plan overview? If a complete Transition Plan is required, we request the page count be significantly increased to accommodate.

Transition Plan overview that captures the requirements identified in Section L-4., II-A.

Ref: Appendix F Would the Government please provide the number and types of websites supported and provide URLs for any public sites?

In reference to Task 6:

Webapps: 20+ ZONE 3 - One site: WW2 ZONE 2, Public DMZ - Two sites: WWW and MOVE http://www.transcom.mil http://www.move.mil ZONE 2, Restricted DMZ - Two sites: WW2 and JOSAC ZONE 1 - Two sites: BORIS and NATASHA (back-end administration)

Ref: Appendix F Would the Government please identify any content management systems software?

In reference to Task 6:

Content Mgmt tools used: Adobe Dreamweaver, WinSCP, Rsync Locally developed tools: Gatekeeper Request Process, Workflow

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICE MANAGEMENT (ITSM) ENTERPRISE SUPPORT

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS #3

SOLICITATION NO. HTC711-16-R-D001

Ref: RFP, Section L-4. Pages 94-95; Section M.2.5, Pages 104 – 106 Offerors may submit up to five contracts to be evaluated under the Past Performance factor. Please describe how the government will evaluate the Past Performance of Offerors who submit fewer than 5 recent/relevant contract references. Will an offeror who submits 5 recent/relevant contract references be evaluated more favorably than offerors who submit fewer than 5 references? Can an Offeror who submits less than 5 contracts achieve the highest available Relevancy and Confidence ratings?

Reference Section M-2.5.2. and M-2.5.3. of the RFP. An Offeror will not be penalized or evaluated unfavorably if provided fewer than 5 references. Yes, an Offeror could receive the highest relevance and Confidence ratings with fewer past performance references provided.

Ref: PWS § 1.3.1.7 and 1.3.1.8, Page 5 & Attachment 8 – Pricing Matrix The Subject Matter Expertise (SME) subtask of Task 1 is designated a FPIF type in the Pricing Matrix. Does the Government intend for Offerors to include only estimated hours for the identification and coordination support to obtain necessary SME at the Government’s request as a contract management/administration function, and not hours for actual SME support to be delivered? If Offerors are to estimate actual SME support to be delivered, will the Government provide additional information on the expected frequency, duration and types of skills needed? The PWS does not provide sufficient details and anticipated workload to appropriately price this activity as a fixed price type CLIN.

Provide estimated hours for the identification and coordination support to obtain necessary SME at the Government’s request as a contract management/administration function. Subject matter expertise will be required to address questions, taskers, across the entire contract. For example we would expect questions concerning MILSTAR, Web Development, or Incident Mgmt to be addressed by a SME responsible for that function and that support should be included as part of the associated task/subtask.

Ref: PWS, Page 38, Para 1.3.2.6.1.4; Appendix D, Page 190 & Attachment 8, Pricing Matrix Attachment 8 – Pricing Matrix includes Task 2 Subtask 6.1.4 as a FPIF type CLIN; however the PWS and Appendix D do not provide sufficient work load information to price this subtask as FPIF. Will the Government provide historical estimate hours in Appendix D for this subtask, or change the CLIN to a CPFF type?

Added workload estimates to Appendix D of the PWS.

Task 2 Subtask 6.1.4: Communications Security (COMSEC) Responsible Officer (CRO) Duties and Secure Voice Responsible Officer (SVRO) Estimated hours: 465

Attachment 1 - PWS 1.3.3.1 Task 3, Subtask 1, pg.42, Section On March 17, USTRANSCOM released a RFI on FBO for ITIL and ITSM consulting (solicitation number HTC711-16-ZD08). In the scope of the draft PWS provided with that RFI, it states that the contractor for that effort is “to assist TCJ6 leadership, the IT Service Management Office (ITSMO), and the IT Service Portfolio Manager in the journey of ITIL maturity advancement…” Additionally, it states, “…the contractor is to provide recommendations for investment opportunities in new and improved IT services and processes to continue our ITSM improvement journey.” These requirements are seemingly duplicative of the requirements identified in the ITSM Enterprise Support PWS (solicitation HTC711-16-R-D-001), specifically Task 3 Service Portfolio Management. Given that Task 3 of the ITSM Enterprise Support PWS is FPIF, the ITIL and ITSM RFI (as written today) creates risks for the ITSM contractor in the event that there are discrepancies between what the two contracts recommend.

Further, the RFI identifies the requirement for the ITIL and ITSM consultant to document the as-is and to-be IT Service Management processes (see RFI PWS 1.3.2). This is the same requirement stated in the ITSM PWS section 1.4 (Deliverables) for 1.3.2 (Service Operations Process documentation) and 1.3.1.1 (IT SPfM Process Documentation). Again, the requirements appear duplicative and create risks for the ITSM contractor in that Task 3 is FPIF.

Can the government please clarify the interactions between the two contracts?

Our understanding of the ITIL and ITSM RFI is that it is intended to provide the government with Advisory & Assistance Services related to the adoption of ITIL under the ITSM Enterprise Support contract. Given that understanding, and the potential that the ITIL/ITSM consulting contractor could make recommendations that are contrary to the approach proposed (and priced as FPIF) by your ITSM Enterprise Support contractor, we recommend revising Task 3 on the ITSM contract to be CPFF.

A: "The ITIL and ITSM consulting requirement (HTC711-16-ZD08) is to support the USTRANSCOM J6 Information Technology Service Management Office (ITSMO) with strategic direction across the J6 along with a resource to aid in ITIL processes development. This will be a consultant role and will provide capability to evaluate and audit processes for all ITIL processes in J6. The consultant will be a resource to all in J6 to include ITSM Enterprise Support Contractor. J6 has other contracts and functions that will need integration into ITIL processes, and the consultant will support those efforts. The ITSMO team will be responsible to take all recommendation and be the final approving authority for changes to strategic direction and deconflict any issues.

The ITSM Enterprise Support requirement (HTC711-16-R-D001) will provide services and manage ITIL processes throughout the management lifecycle. The contractor will be expected to work alongside the appointed ITIL Process Owner (government rep). On some processes, (i.e., Incident Mgmt, Request Fulfillment, Demand Management, Service Asset & Config Mgmt, Availability Mgmt, Capacity Mgmt, IT Service Continuity Mgmt, Release and Deployment Mgmt) the contract will be the process owner and interact with J6 ITSMO for direction. To help minimize risk of discrepancies, the Government will provide a venue (e.g. seat on J6 ITSMO) for the successful offeror to influence strategic direction and reduce chance for conflicting direction.

There are definite touch points and the consultant will be a resource to the J6/CIO to evaluate progress. The government will further review the ITIL and ITSM consulting PWS and update it to address the concerns of duplication and overlap.

Ref: RFP, Page 91 and Page 93, Section L-3.b and L-4.b If the Government does not wish to change font size requirements and line spacing requirements, we request that the Government increase the page limitation to 50 pages for Volume II – Technical Capability Proposal and 10 pages for Volume III

– Staffing Proposal. The increase in page limitation will enable the offeror to adequately address the comprehensive requirements in the RFP.

Page limitations are revised as such: Volume II - Technical Capability - 50 Pages Volume III - Staffing Proposal - 10 Pages (exclusive of staffing matrix (orange tabs) extracted from Attachment 8) Volume VI - Cost/Price Proposal - 2 Pages (for narrative or brief overview; page limitations exlusive of pricing matrix)

Ref: RFP, Page 39, Section B & PWS, Page 144 CLINs 5XXX have POP 10/1/2020 thru 9/30/2021 but the PWS says in 3.2 Period of Performance for the Fifth Option Period is 1 October 2020 through 31 August 2021. Please clarify the period of performance for the fifth option period.

CLINs 5XXX POP dates under Section B, is revised and will be reflected via forthcoming amendment.

Ref: PWS, Page 11, Para 1.3.2.1.1.1 The PWS states that “The Event Manager shall manage all Events throughout their lifecycle (detect, analyze, and control) as defined by the Event Management Process.” Will the Government provide additional detail about the USTC Event Management capabilities provided by the existing tools (e.g., SACOP, SolarWinds, What’s Up Gold)?

USTRANSCOM uses SACOP, TMART, SolarWinds to provide system monitoring. We are currently testing and brining online BMC ProactiveNet Performance Management (BPPM) and Tanium to add to our capability.

SACOP checks business systems by repeatedly logging into system and verifying responsiveness. It provides some warning, but not robust enough to alert on establish storage, CPU, memory thresholds to provide a more proactive and preemptive response to alerts. SACOP currently only monitor a subset of business system. SACOP is the custom developed web interface that takes Transaction Management Application Timer (TMART) data in a user dashboard. TMART is a synthetic monitor that logs into C2 business systems to check for availability or degradations.

BPPM is planned to replace SACOP, it uses patrol agents to collect information on systems when they hit a defined threshold (e.g., CPU utilization, storage capacity, etc.). BPPM will not replace TMART but will be installed to do the proactive monitoring of the infrastructure of each service.

SolarWinds provides our network monitoring and alerts on issues associated with routers, switches, primarily infrastructure issues.

Tanium we are standing up to provide asset discovery and real-time search capability.

Event Management process needs to work with System/Service owners to identify trigger points that we need to monitor.

Ref: PWS, Page 29, Para 1.3.2.4.6 The PWS states that “The contractor shall install, operate, and maintain end-user devices to include personal computers, monitors, virtualized clients, laptops, mobile devices, Portable Electronic Devices (PEDs) and peripherals…” Will the Government provide the estimate number of hours for Task 2 Subtask 4.6 activities in Appendix D?

Revised Appendix D in the PWS, with estimated hours along with workload estimates based on number of tickets and systems provisioned each month.

Ref: PWS, Page 144, Section 3.2 Period of Performance for the Base Period is 1 September 2016 through 30 September 2016.

Period of Performance for the First Option Period is 1 October 2016 through 30 September 2017. For proposes of clarifying delivery dates on a number of deliverables, is the Contract Start Date considered the start of the Transition Period (1 September 2016) or the date of the start of the First Option Period when the contractor assumes full contract performance responsibility (1 October 2016)?

Contract start date begins at transition period (1 September 2016).

Ref: RFP, Page 110, Para 1.3.5.2.5 Task 5 Subtask 2.5 Software Assurance, page 110 of the PWS The PWS states that the contractor shall develop and assist USTRANSCOM in implementing required processes, procedures, and capabilities to mitigate vulnerabilities and weaknesses within software developed for USTRANSCOM in accordance with applicable standards, directives, and best practices, to include the Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL), ISO/IEC/IEEE 1528,8 Systems and software engineering, System life cycle processes, NIST SP 800-160, Systems Security Engineering, An Integrated Approach to Building Trustworthy Resilient Systems, and DoD, USD (I), USTRANSCOM, and other applicable policy. What software development lifecycle does USTRANSCOM follow? How many programs are supported? Will the government describe the types of systems, software, and applications being evaluated?

What software development lifecycle does USTRANSCOM follow?

A: Agile + traditional/waterfall, spiral

How many programs are supported?

A: Mostly the larger C2 and business systems, but span of duties encompasses potentially all 68-77 programs (depends on who you talk to)

Will the government describe the types of systems, software, and applications being evaluated?

A: C2 and business systems supporting global deployment and distribution, examples below

• Events Logbook (ELB)

• Single Mobility System (SMS)

• Exercise Single Mobility System (ESMS)

• Joint Flow Analysis System for Transportation (JFAST)

• Transportation Visualization (TransViz)

• Automated Message Handling System (AMHS)

• TRANSCOM Regulating and Command & Control Evacuation System (TRAC2ES)

Ref: Attachment 8, Pricing Matrix Under Service Operations Subtask 4.6.3 is shown as End-User Device Service Design & Transition Spt, The PWS shows 4.6.3 as Virtual Desktop Infrastructure (VDI) Support Would the government provide a corrected Pricing Matrix?

Corrected Pricing Matrix. Additionally updated Appendix D, in PWS with workload data for Task 2 Subtask 4.6.3.

Ref: Attachment 8, Pricing Matrix Under Service Operations Subtask 4.6.4 Service Design and Transition Support seems to be missing from the pricing matrix Would the government provide a corrected Pricing Matrix?

Corrected Pricing Matrix. Additionally updated Appendix D, in PWS with workload data for Task 2 Subtask 4.6.4.

Ref: Attachment 8, Pricing Matrix Under Security Subtask 1.4.1 is shown as COMSEC Mgmt (Optional SCIF). The PWS shows that subtask as 1.4.5 Would the government provide a corrected Pricing Matrix?

Corrected Pricing Matrix. Additionally update Appendix D, in PWS with worload data for Task 5 Subtask 1.4.5.

Ref: Attachment 8, Pricing Matrix The PWS shows a Subtask 2.3.3 as Metrics and Process/Procedure Documentation but the Pricing Matrix does not reflect that as a priced element If the Government desires that element to be priced, would they provide a corrected Pricing Matrix?

Pricing for Task 5 Subtask 2.3.3. should be captured in 2.3.1 and

2.3.2. Task 5 Subtask 2.3.3 is in direct support of 2.3.1 and 2.3.2

Ref: RFP, Page 99, Section M-2.3.1 The section states that the Transition-In Approach will be evaluated as Acceptable or Unacceptable as described in Table 2.

Offerors must receive a rating of Acceptable in order to be considered for award. In order to level the field for receiving an Acceptable rating for Transition-In Approach, will the government provide a plug number for the Transition-In price?

The Government will not provide a plug number for the Transition- In approach.

Ref: RFP, Page 91, Section L-3.b States that the proposal shall be space-and-a-half, in 11 point Times New Roman, with 1-inch margins all around. However, Attachment 4, the Past Performance Information Sheet, is in single-spaced Garamond 11 and 12 with approximately ¾-inch margins. Should we use the Past Performance Information Sheet as provided, or reformat it to conform to the Section L-3.b requirements?

Past performance information (past performance areas) provided by the Offeror should conform to the font requirements in Section L- 3.b of the PWS - 11 point, Times New Roman. Also, PPI sheet has been modified and will be provided via forthcoming amendment.

Ref: RFP, Attachment 4, Past Performance Information Attachment 4, the Past Performance Information Sheet, requires the contract and/or task order number of the referenced project.

We believe a dedicated field identifying the common name of the contract and customer would be useful to the evaluator. Would USTRANSCOM consider adding a field for the common name of the contract and the customer?

PPI sheet is modified and will be provided via forthcoming amendment.

Ref: PWS, Pages 6 &119 Page 6 reads Contractor Manpower Reporting shall be reported no later than October 31 of each calendar year, “beginning with 2017”. Page 119 reads “beginning with 2018”. Please clarify if reporting should begin in 2017 or in 2018.

PWS revised, pg 119 to "beginning with 2017"

Ref: PWS, Page 144 & 152, Section 3.1 “The contractor shall perform services on-site at Scott AFB, IL, and off-site at the following: the contractor’s facility” and in PWS Section 3.6 “For those tasks to be performed off-site at the contractor’s facilities..” Upon review of the PWS requirements – no specific requirements is evident to provide a specific task at a contractor facility.

Will the government please clarify requirements for a contractor facility?

The government doesn't expect any specific requirement to be performed at contractor facility. However, the Offeror may propose an approach where tasks or subtasks are performed at the Contractor's facility.

Ref: RFP, Page 93 The ITIL Maturity Model published by Axelos does not contain a 3.5 maturity level; however, within the Service Design volume there is a defined Process Maturity Framework (PMF; Appendix H) that contains five distinct areas of assessment per process:

vision & steering; process; people; technology; and culture.

Rating each of these categories could result in an average score of 3.5. Can the government confirm how they arrived at a desired 3.5 and if the PMF identified in the Service Design volume factored into that consideration?

If an assessment was to be made across all ITIL processes, some of the process areas may be at measured at level 4 while other as 3. The government is expecting different levels of maturity across the lifecycle, but what we would like to see is an average of 3.5 with processes between Defined and Managed. The government arrived at that desired 3.5 level based on a desire for service support acitivies to be proactive and preemptive where possible to meet business needs and expectations. Yes, the PMF identified in Service Desgin volume was factored into this consideration.

Ref: RFP, Page 94 The ITIL Maturity Model published by Axelos is somewhat generic; it allows organizations to define their requirements and then assess themselves against achievement of those requirements. Can the government specify what the qualitative and/or quantitative criteria are for determining achievement of a particular maturity level?

The Government has yet to define the exact and specific criteria for the assessment. The breadth of this entire contract spans many, many ITIL Process areas and in this response, we will not intend to outline the all-encompassing criteria for each maturity level.

However, to help explain our expectation, we can give a few examples to define our interpretation of the ITIL maturity model.

This information will be provided in the reading room.

Ref: PWS, Page 24, Para 1.3.2.4.1.1 The PWS states that “The contractor shall be responsible for the administration and operation of current and planned FAA data feed systems.” Please provide the schedule for the FAA Data Feed System Support Project, as well as the resources required.

Revised Task 2 Subtask 4.1.1 to accurately reflect this work. ETMS identified in PWS was replaced back in 2011. Updated to reflect current work.

FAA's Traffic Flow Management System (TFMS) is refreshed by FAA technicians, with support from contractor every 4-5 year. TFMS was recently refreshed in 2015.

Traffic Flow Management Data to Government (TFMDG) data stream may change XML format/standards every 2 year or so. Currently, FAA is changing data stream to System Wide Information Management (SWIM) which DISA GCCS program is working, planned to be complete in Apr 2016.

Resources Required: Day-to-day monitoring of the FAA TFMS workstations is typically minimal until something breaks as the FAA manages those workstations software-wise remotely. Local USTC J6 personnel server as the liaison between local Scott AFB customers and FAA TFMS Helpdesk and provide local "hands-on" with workstation issues for the FAA. Due to the nature of the local Scott AFB customers involved, dedicated, 24/7 support is normally required whenever a workstation has to be worked on or replaced, including working as the local go-between with OMJ (USTC Network support), the local customer, whether at USTRANSCOM, HQ AMC TACC, or Base Command Post. Hardware Refresh support typically requires two dedicated individuals for 1-2 weeks every 4 to 5 years. Support for the GCCS TFMDG data feed is a separate manning function that requires daily monitoring, on-call support, and 24/7 support for any outages or issues to include coordination with FAA TFMS helpdesk, DECC Columbus, DISA IA-32, USTC DDOC personnel and STRATCOM for any issues as Joint Staff and STRATCOM consider that a MAC-I data feed.

Ref: PWS, Page 31, Para 1.3.2.4.6.2.2 The PWS states that “The contractor shall set-up and breakdown hardware and software required to support USTRANSCOM locally hosted conferences (e.g. Time-Phased Force Deployment Data (TPFDD) Refinement conference), also monitor and provide IT support throughout duration of conferences.” We understand that there are 75 events estimated per year, what are the average manhours spent per event?

The 75 associated with Task 2 Subtask 4.6.2.2 refers to the Directorate FACCSM (other contractors, civlians, military) throughout the command the the Command FACCSM will be responsible to train and keep informed.

There are not 75 events each year. The 75 number in the workload table refers to the number of Directorate FACCSM (other contractors, military, civilians).

Estimated conferences/events: 69 Conference / 36 Training events per year. Average of 30-40 manhours for each event (that includes account creations, workstation prep, dedicated desk side support and clean up). This information is provided in revised PWS and will be provided via forthcoming amendment.

Ref: PWS, Page 32, Para 1.3.2.4.6.2.5 The PWS states “The contractor shall provide PED/mobile device (e.g., tablet, iPhone, Blackberry) support to include issuing, configuration, testing, activation\deactivation of handheld devices, fundamental mobile device familiarization training provided on an individual basis, system sanitization and basic troubleshooting, logistical support, and corrective actions.”

Please provide the list of Mobile Device Management (MDM) tools that are in place for items that are not Blackberry.

DISA is our provider for the Mobile Device Management System.

DoD Mobility Unclassified Capability (DMUC) is the MDM solution that leverages the latest commercial technology from industry carriers like Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile that support operating systems from vendors such as Apple, Android, and Windows. Yes, it manages other diveces (e.g.,iPhones).

Contractor will interface with DISA to configure mobile devices.

Ref: Attachment 8, Pricing Matrix Is the target profit in the FPIF clin fixed at ten percent (10%) or can this amount be modified?

The FPIF target profit percentage amount is fixed.

Ref: RFP, General If bidders would like to include an Executive Summary in their submission package, can the government provide instructions for placement and page limit?

Executive Summary should be provided in Volume I, I-A.

Ref: RFP, Pages 94-95, Volume IV Can the government clarify what is required under the "IV-A:

Reference Data and Relevant Experience" heading? Does the government want an overall summary of the PPs presented, for example?

One page may be used to provide an introduction or brief overview of the past performance information provided. The remaining 25 pages are to be used to provide past performance information sheets, provided as Attachment 4.

Ref: RFP, Pages 94-95, Volume IV There is an additional requirement to provide Subcontractor Consent Letters. Where should these be placed in the Volume, and can the government confirm that they would not be counted against the 26 page limit for the Volume?

Subcontractor Consent Letters should be provided in Volume IV and does not count against the page limitations.

Ref: Attachment 6 Would the government allow this to be submitted in the "native format" versus having bidders reformat to meet general/overall proposal formatting guidelines?

Attachment 6 format should conform to the format requirements identified in Section L-3.b of the RFP.

Ref: PWS, Pages 147-152, Paragraph 3.5, Key Personnel The positions listed in Para 3.5 differ from the position titles in Atch 7 Labor Category Descriptions and Atch 8 Pricing Matrix.

Are the Key Personnel position titles in Para 3.5 in addition to the provided positions in Atch 7 and 8 or should these titles be mapped to Atch 7 and Atch 8 Labor Categories? We recommend the Government update the attachments as necessary to support consistency across bidder proposals.

Key personnel are identified by a functional title not a Labor Category title.

Ref: PWS, Page 144, Para 3.1 The PWS states, "The contractor shall perform services on-site at Scott AFB, IL, and off-site at the following: the contractor’s facility; DISA DECC, St Louis, MO, USTRANSCOM Office, Washington D.C.; JECC, Norfolk, VA; and the Pentagon".

Would the USG provide a cross-reference matrix of what services and level of effort will be required at each location?

This would help realistic cost/price proposals and consistency across bidder proposals for ease of evaluation.

Government does not require contractor staff to be stationed at all those sites. Government expect contractor to be stationed at Scott AFB, IL with trips as needed to those other locations. DECC, St Louis, MO is considered local. Remote support will be the primary means of support to JECC, Washington D.C., and Pentagon.

Ref: RFP, Section L-3

(1) The Offeror’s response to this solicitation shall include a proposal. The proposal (offer), shall consist of RFP sections A through K, including all documents and attachments that are incorporated herein and made a part of the contract.

Will the offeror be required to submit sections A-K of the RFP within the proposal response?

Section L-3a.(1) is revised to reflect, "The Offeror's proposal shall respond to all requirements of this solicitation clearly and completely.

Ref: PWS, Section 1.3.1.1 PWS Section 1.3.1.1 and Table 1 Deliverable Table both indicate that there is a Contract Management Plan due with Proposal Submission; Section L-4 Proposal Contents does not list a Contract Management Plan due with submission. Please clarify:

Is a contract Management Plan due with proposal submission, and if yes, where should this plan be included in the proposal?

A Contract Management Plan is NOT due at time of proposal submission. The PWS is revised as such and will be provided via forthcoming amendment:

PWS, Section 1.3.1.1 is updated to read, "The contractor shall submit the Contract Management Plan within fifteen (15) business days of contract award."

Table 1, 1.3.1.1 is updated to read, "Initial Submission: within 15 business days of contract award Final: 5 business days from receipt of the Govt’s comments Annual Update: within 15 business days of the option year being exercised

Ref: PWS, Page 7, Para 1.3.2 Task 2: Service Operations states "For each system or applicable area, the contractor shall perform the following: 17. Perform Capacity and Availability Management planning" however in Sections 1.3.3.5 and 1.3.3.6 these are indicated as "Option, Depending Funds availability/Technical Approach." Can the Government provide guidance on how this scope will be evaluated in order to accurately scope the effort?

The statement,.."depending Funds availability/Technical Approach", in paragraphs 1.3.3.5 and 1.3.3.6 will be removed and reflected. The Government will revise the RFP criteria to appropriately reflect compliance with the totality of the PWS.

Ref: PWS, Para 1.3.3 There are a number of sub-tasks that are now indicated as “Optional, Depending Funds availability/Technical Approach).”

Can the Government provide guidance on how these particular areas of scope will be evaluated, specifically what criteria will be used to determine compliance with the funds/technical requirements?

Task or subtasks that include, "...Depending Funds availability/Technical Approach)" will be removed from the PWS and the criteria in the RFP will be revised in the forthcoming amendment.

Ref: RFP, Section L Instructions state: “Provide an Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL) roadmap detailing maturity levels and timelines to achieve a desired 3.5 maturity level at USTRANSCOM, by the end of the contract lifecycle. (Based on the ITIL Maturity Model, published by Axelos)” Can the government please provide the most recent current state assessment data based on Axelos maturity model data including weighted calculation details for each ITIL process area so offerors can provide a roadmap to achieve a desired 3.5 maturity level at USTRANSCOM, by the end of the contract lifecycle?

The HP Assessment contains that information, in which it is the Government's intent to post in the reading room. HP's assessment was not solely based on Axelos Maturity Model. The Axelos maturity model was used as a reference to ensure submission are comparable. The HP assessment criteria was based upon HP’s extensive experience in the design and support of enterprise level business critical solutions, and embody industry and vendor best practice such as OGC IT Infrastructure Library (ITIL), ISO/IEC 20000, and HP’s Service Management Reference Model

Ref: Attachment 4, Past Performance Information Each performance area has a check area for performing as a prime or sub but since the top level reference is to the contract/task order level, is the government’s expectation that we would check the same for each performance area?

The Past Performance Information Sheet will be revised and included via forthcoming amemdment.

Ref: Attachment 4, Past Performance Information We understand the intent to define the approximate value of the cost relative to the performance area but it is not clear how this scores in the Evaluation Criteria for making a particular performance area relevant. Can the government clarify the intent and if there is a comparative value to the USTC ITSM performance areas that define relevancy ranges?

The Past Performance Information Sheet will be revised and included via forthcoming amemdment.

Ref: Appendix D, Task 2, Subtask 1.1 The government estimated hours for this subtask appear to be based on 2080 whereas the other estimates are based on 1860, please confirm the government’s manning basis expectation for this subtask.

Appendix D has been revised to reflect 9,300 hours and will be provided via forthcoming amendment.

Ref: Appendix D, Task 5, Subtask 2.3.1 This sub task has workload but no estimated hours; however the parent subtask 2.3 does. Is this offeror to presume hours are covered in 2.3 hours or is there no current historical information?

Revised Appendix D. Added hours to Task 5 Subtask 2.3.1, and updated hours for Subtask 2.3.2. Estimated hours listed was incorrect. Correct estimated hours are:

Task 5 Subtask 2.3.1: 3,720 Task 5 Subtask 2.3.2: 6,510 This change is reflected in the PWS via forthcoming amendment

Ref: Appendix D, Task 2, Subtask 6.2.3 This subtask defines JECC AC/VTC support, Is this work performed locally in Suffolk as part of the RX contract?

No. This work is the engineering dessign and Tier II/III work performed here at Scott AFB. When an AV/VTC upgrade at the JECC is needed this team will travel to Norfolk, VA (JECC) to peform work. The RX Contract in Norfolk, VA performs daily operations and tier I troubleshooting (setup of VTCs, etc...)

Ref: Appendix D, Task 2, Subtask 6.2.3 The estimated hours for the JECC VTC support are defined as 780 hours. Presuming the FTE hours for this position spread throughout the other subordinate tasks to Subtask 6 Visual Information Services, request the government provide the appropriate breakout for work that requires personnel to be at any other location besides Scott.

The 780 hours estimated hours for Task 2 Subtask 6.2.3 covers engineering, design and installation work in support of JECC's AV/VTC capabilties/rooms. Approximate number of hours required for personnel to be at JECC/Washington D.C. is around 240-400 hours. Depends on the technical refresh cycle of system at other location besides Scott. This will vary from year to year.

Ref: Past Performance Will the Government be willing to accept contractor proposal assessment reports (CPARS) for evaluation purposes in lieu of questionnaires where customer agency policy is not to respond to questionnaires?

As indicated in Section M-2.5.2, past performance information may be obtained through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System, where CPARS are extracted if available.

Ref: PWS, Page 10, Task Area 2, Subtask 1.3.2 There are no copies of two references, UTSCI 33-16 and AFM 33-153, included, and no reference describing duties of FACCSM; will the Government please provide references?

Reference to USTRANCOM Instruction 33-16 "Management of USTRANSCOM Computer Assets," dated Dec 2013, http://www.transcom.mil/cmd/fpindex.cfm is in Appendix B.

FACCSM is defined in paragraph 3.12 - 3.15.

AF Manual 33-153 is located at: http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/saf_cio_a6/publication/afman33- 153/afman33-153.pdf. Added reference to AFM 33-153 to Appendix B.

Ref: PWS, Page 18, Task Area 2, Para 1.3.2.2.2 Will the Government please specify how many US and non-US account holder’s credentials must be managed?

US Accounts: 2652 Non US Accounts (Foreign Nationals-Coalition Partners ): 7 Updated in Appendix D, of PWS and will be provided via forthcoming amendment.

Ref: Pricing The following subtasks with Estimated Hours are in “Appendix D – Estimated Workload” of Attachment 1 – PWS but not in [the OP1 Onsite Tasks-Labor Hours sheet of] Attachment 8 – Pricing Matrix:

Task 2, Subtask 4.4 Task 3, Subtask 2 Task 3, Subtask 3 Task 3, Subtask 9.1.3 Task 5, Subtask 2.3 Task 2, Subtask 6

Is this the Government's intention?

Appendix D of the PWS has been revised and will be provided via forthcoming amendment.

Ref: PWS, Page 9, Para 1.3.2 Please confirm which mission critical systems will be subject for COOP Planning.

A list of the 68 systems that has a "COOP" requirement will be provided in the reading room however, not all certainly at the same level.

Ref: PWS, Page 34, Para 1.3.2.5 Please clarify what product licenses the Government owns for SolarWinds.

Solar Winds NCM, NPM (unlimited), UDT (unlimited)

Ref: PWS, Page 34, Para 1.3.2.5 Does the Government own licenses for Cisco Prime Infrastructure?

No. Government own Cisco SmartNet support contract for mx of CISCO equipment. When USTRANSCOM went to SolarWinds as our management tool we stopped using Cisco mgmt tools

Ref: PWS, Page 20, Para 1.3.2.4 Please provide the number of Unix and Windows Servers.

Appendix D, of PWS in Tables 1 and 2 idenifes estimates of service supported on this contract. Esitmate break out between Unix and windows is about 35/65.

Unix/Linux: ~164 Windows: ~311

Ref: PWS, Page 20, Para 1.3.2.4 Please provide the number of Oracle, SQL Server, MySQL, and Sybase database servers.

Documented in Appendix D, of PWS under Task 2 Subtask 4.2.

Oracle Databases: 72 SQL Server Databases: 9 Sybase Database: 3

Ref: RFP, Page 187, Appendix D, Estimated Workload Task 2 Subtask 4.6 Please provide an estimated level of effort for this task.

Added to Appendix D of PWS.

Ref: RFP, Page 187, Appendix D, Estimated Workload Task 2 Subtask 4.4 Please provide an estimated level of effort for the OCS portion of this task.

Added to Appendix D of PWS.

Ref: PWS, Page 12, Para 1.3.2.1.2 Does the scope of work include maintaining a Remedy ITSM suite on the SIPRNet?

Yes it will.

Ref: PWS, Page 29, Para 1.3.2.4.6 Please clarify the number of users requiring VDI vs. thick terminals.

Added to Appendix D of PWS.

VDI: 2000 - 2250

Thick 450-700

ITSM Q&A#3