The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
M0026418R0006
SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE
SUMMARY OF CHANGES
SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET
SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM
The required response date/time has changed from 19-Mar-2018 02:00 PM to 02-Apr-2018 01:00 PM.
The following have been added by full text:
QUESTIONS/ANSWERS
| Document |
| Section |
| Page |
| Reference |
| Questions |
| Answers |
Past Performance
| Attachment 8 |
| NA |
| 1 |
| Teaming Partner Consent Letter |
| The instructions say to submit a consent letter for major subcontractors. Do the letters count as part of the 9 page limitation in the Past Performance Volume? |
| The consent letters do not count towards the 9 page limitation in the Past Performance volume. |
| Attachment 3 - Solicitation |
| 52.212-1 Addendum |
| 78 |
| Paragraph 2.6.1 |
| The soliciation requires that a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) be submitted for each paster performance reference submitted. Will the government accept CPARS evaluations in lieu of PPQs? |
| The Government will review CPARS/PPIRS in addition to the past performance questionaires. If a Past Performance Questionaire is unavailable, a CPARs can be included in Volume 4. The CPARs will not count towards the page limit. Past Performance Questionaires are excluded from the page limit. |
| Attachment 3 Solicitation |
| 2.6 |
| 78 |
| 2.6 Vol 4 Past Performance |
| Given the government allows for up to 6 past performances and the template is 2 pages in length before any data is loaded, can the government provide up to 13 pages in total for the past performance section? If not, there is no way for companies to display their full range of support and make this a competitive evaluation. It is in the best interest of the government to allow industry to describe their full range of support. |
| The past performance section is updated to allow up to 18 pages in total for this section. The consent letters as stated above do not count towards the page limitation. |
| RFP |
| 2.6.1 |
| Page 78 |
| Past Performance Instructions |
| In reference to RFP 2.6.1, of the 6 past performance citations requested, the govt request no more than 3 from significant subcontractors. Given our team’s experience, would the government consider modifying that to 4 from subcontractors? |
| The limit is set at 3 past performance citations. |
| RFP |
| 2.6.1 |
| Page 78 |
| Past Performance Instructions |
| The requirements for the Past Performance Volume listed in RFP 2.6.1 do not comply with the instructions required in Attachment 6, Past Performance Information, nor is there any reference to Attachment 6 in 2.6.1 on page 78. Is the government requirement that the Past Performance Volume contain 6 different versions of Attachment 6? |
| The government is requesting a past performance information sheet with each past performance reference. This does not count towards the page limit. |
| Attachment 6, Past Performance Information Form |
| Question H |
| RFP |
| Reference: Attachment 6, the Past Performance Information Form, question “H. For each of the applicable subfactors under the technical/management factor in Section M, illustrate how your experience on this program applies to that subfactor”. Would you please revise this question, as there is no Technical/Management Factor with subfactors in the RFP, nor is there an actual Section M noted in the RFP, although there is an evaluation section. There is only Factor 1 – Technical Capabilities and Factor 2 – Performance Execution and Management Approach. Request Clarification. |
| For each of the applicable subfactors under Factor 1 or Factor 2 illustrate how your experience on this program applies to the factor. |
| Attachment 6, Past Performance Information Form |
| Question I |
| RFP |
| Reference: Attachment 6, the Past Performance Information Form, question “I. Specify, by name, any key individuals who participated in this program and are proposed to support this procurement. Also, indicate their contractual roles for both procurements”. As this is an IDIQ, there may be many current personnel who will be proposed on Task Orders. Request Clarification. |
| List any key individuals that may be proposed on task orders as key personnel. |
| Attachment 6, Past Performance Information Form |
| Question J |
| RFP |
| Reference: Attachment 6, the Past Performance Information Form, question “J. Describe the nature or portion of the work on the proposed effort to be performed by the business entity being reported here. Also, estimate the percentage of the total proposed effort to be performed by this entity and whether this entity will be performing as the prime, subcontractor/teaming partner, or a corporate division related to the prime (define relationship)”. Is this question referring to the initial task order? Request Clarification. |
| See above. |
| Attachment 3 Solicitation |
| 1.3.1 |
| 81 |
| Past Performance Recency Assessment. The RFP states: Recent efforts are those which have been performed during any portion of the last three years from date of issuance of this RFP, including those efforts currently being performed. For those efforts currently being performed, the Offer must have been performing for at least six months from the date of issuance of this RFP to qualify as a recent effort. |
| If the recency assessment is a minimum of 6 months of performance, will the Government consider allowing a Contractor to have until the submission date of the proposal to garner the 6 months of performance? Will the Government consider changing the requirement to state: "For those efforts currently being performed, the Offer must have been performing for at least six months from the RFP proposal submission date to qualify as a recent effort."? |
| The Government agrees the Contractor can include current performance as follows: For those efforts currently being performed, the Offer must have been performing for at least six months from the RFP proposal submission date to qualify as a recent effort. |
| RFP |
| Section L |
| 78 |
| Page 78, Section L, Para 2.6.1 |
| In the Past Performance Section L instructions the Government is asking the Offeror to provide up to six past performance references and to complete Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) to be submitted to the Contracting Officer prior to the proposal deadline. Many Government agencies and contracting officers are refusing to respond with PPQs when current or final contract performance ratings are available and recorded in CPARS/PPIRS. Q Will the Government consider a clarifying revision indicating that PPQs are only required when a CPARS/PPIRS is not available for the Past Performance reference submitted? Please also confirm that Past Performance CPARs may be included as an Appendix to Volume 4 and will be excluded from page limit in lieu of a PPQ. Please also confirm that PPQs are excluded from page limit where CPARs are not available. |
| The Government will review CPARS/PPIRS in addition to the past performance questionaires. If a Past Performance Questionaire is unavailable, a CPARs can be included in Volume 4. The CPARs will not count towards the page limit. Past Performance Questionaires are excluded from the page limit. |
Attachment 9 - Past Performance Client Authorization Letter
| This letter appears to be required ONLY if a past performance example being submitted was performed for a commercial client, but we were unable to confirm this in the solicitation directions. Will the government please confirm that this letter is not required if all past performance examples were performed for government entities? |
| This form is not required if all past performance was performed for government entities. |
| RFP |
| Section L |
| 78 |
| Page 78, Section L, Para 2.6.1 |
| In the instructions for the PPQ, it indicates that for each Past Performance Reference identified, the Offeror shall “…identify personnel associated with the previous effort and explain their relationship to this proposed contract.” Q Will the Government clarify how this information will be evaluated by the Government? |
| The information will be used to assist in determining relevancy of the Past Performance Reference. See 52.212-2 Addendum to Evaluation, Section 1.3.2 Past Performance Relevancy Assessment page 82 of the solicitation. |
Security Requirements
| Attachment 3 - Solicitation |
| 52.212-1 Addendum |
| 76 |
| Paragraph 2.3.5 |
| The solicitation states that the "Offeror will be responsible for ensuring that its subcontractor(s) meet(s) security policies and regulations in accordance with the DD Form 254 and applicable security policies and regulations." If the prime contractor (Offeror) has a Top Secret facility clearance, is it acceptable to include subcontractors on the team at the IDIQ level who do not? Or does each member of the IDIQ team have to have a Top Secret facility clearance? |
| The prime can include subcontractors that do not possess a Top Secret Facility Clearance. |
| Instructions |
| In ref to RFP 2.3.5 request for DD254 completion, is the govt asking for the offeror to complete boxes 6a,b,c and 7a,b,c specifically? If so, does a separate DD254 need to be completed for the prime and all subs or will one copy of the DD254 suffice for all? |
| The requirement to submit a DD-254 has been removed. |
| Attachment 3 - Solicitation |
| 52.212-1 Addendum |
| 76 |
| Paragraph 2.3.5 |
| The solicitation states that "the Offeror shall provide a completed DD254, Contract Security Classification Specification (Attachment 2) filled out for both Prime Contractor and any proposed Subcontractors." Does the government require that each subcontractor submit a signed copy of the DD254 with the proposal? If not, will the government please clarify the requirement? |
| The requirement to submit a DD-254 has been removed. |
DD254
| Which fields need to be filled out and/or signed by the offeror to ensure proposal compliance? Currently, trying to replace the TBDs in some of the fields results in a redlined copy. |
| The requirement to submit a DD-254 has been removed. |
| RFP |
| PWS |
| 13, 14 and DD254 |
| 2.7 Security Requirements |
| The (initial statement in all caps) states: "The contractor is required to possess a TOP SECRET/SENSITIVE COMPARTMENTALIZED INFORMATION in order to perform certain task orders. The DD-254 provided requires a TOP SECRET facility and does not specify any "storage" requirement. At the top of page 14, it states that "...the Contractor shall utilize the Government Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF)..." Q Will the Government confirm or clarify by revision amendment for the ID/IQ contract that the offeror is required to have all personnel cleared up to the SECRET level, and have the ability to staff specified personnel at the TS/SCI level that will be specified in specific Task Orders at time of TO award? The contractor must also hold a TOP SECRET facility clearance, and that access to, processing of, and/or storage of classified information (iaw the DD254) shall be given to the contractor only at the government specified facility unless otherwise specified in the DD254 and/or by an awarded task order. |
| The offeror is required to have all personnel cleared up to the SECRET level, and have the ability to staff specified personnel at the TS/SCI level that will be specified in specific Task Orders at time of TO award. The contractor must hold a TOP Secret facility clearance. |
| RFP |
| DD-254 |
| 3 |
| DD-254 |
| The DD-254 (Item 13. Security Guidance - cont) |
Item 8: All classified work accomplished on this contract will be done so withn US Government - accredited SCI facilities. Only unclassified work will be performed at contractor facilities. These two statements are in conflict with what has been stated in the PWS paragraph 2.7 Security Requirements. Q Will the Government confirm the validity of the DD254; or if classified access, handling and storage is required at the contractor facility, will the government clarify and revise by amendment of the DD254 the highest level of classified access, handling and storage required at the contractor's facility?
The DD-254 is confirmed valid.
| PWS |
| 2.7 |
| 13 |
| Security Requirements |
| Second paragraph in this section states "The Contractor is required to have an active Top Secret Facility Clearance with access to Communications Security (COMSEC) and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) without any special limitations that restrict access to perform certain task orders." Please clarify what is meant by COMSEC and NATO. Are words missing from this sentence? The DD254 does not require COMSEC. |
| COMSEC access includes having access to encryption and decryption devices like the KG-175, etc. so it, and NATO access, should be included in the DD254 for the IDIQ. |
| PWS |
| 2.7 |
| 13 |
| Security Requirements |
| The second paragraph requires a Top Secret Facility Clearance. May a subcontractor / team member possess the Top Secret Facility Clearance or must the prime contractor have the Top Secret Facility Clearance? |
| The contractor must possesses a Top Secret Facility Clearance. |
| PWS |
| 2.7 |
| 13 |
| Security Requirements |
| Third paragraph in this section states "The Government will provide access to NATO and Secured Internet Protocol Router Network." Is this the same NATO requirement as the paragraph above? |
| Yes, the same requirement as above. |
| PWS |
| 2.7 |
| 13 |
| Security Requirements |
| Fourth paragraph in this section states "As required for TS/SCI work, the Contractor is responsible for ensuring all contract personnel possess an in-scope, favorable Single Scope Background Investigation (SSBI) adjudicated for SCI eligibility with no conditions, exceptions or waivers at the time of award and prior to performance under a task order." Does this refer to the time of contract award or at the time of task order award?" |
| Attachment 3 Solicitation |
| 2.3.5 |
| 76 |
| DD Form 254 |
| The solicitation states, "The Offeror shall provide a completed DD254, Contract Security Classification Specification (Attachment 2) filled out for both Prime Contractor and any proposed Subcontractors." |
The provided DD-254 seems to have all relevant sections already completed. Please specify if vendors should complete a blank DD-254 or which sections of Attachment 2 should be completed.
| SECURITY REQUIREMENTS states that the Contractor must be able to STORE Classified material at its facility. This appears to be a new requirement. We have a Top Secret Facilities Clearance, but no STORAGE capability, and this requirement would render us non-compliant as written. |
| May the Prime use the Classified Storage Capabilities of a Subcontractor to meet this requirement? |
| Storage is not required. |
| Does the Contractor require ability to STORE Classified materials at their facility? |
| Storage is not required. |
| Does the Contractor require an active SCIF in order to be eligible for award? |
| An active SCIF is not required. |
| If so, can the Contractor use the storage capabilities of a subcontractor to meet these requirements? |
| Storage is not required. |
| Is a SDVOSB require to have a TS/SCI to receive an IDIQ award or, once an IDIQ is award has been received, can the SDVOSB begin the process of obtaining a TS/SCI? |
| An SDVOSB can begin the process of obtaining a TS/SCI upon award of base IDIQ. The Prime contractor must have a TS/SCI to receive task orders that require a TS/SCI clearance. |
| Can an SDVOSB use a SUBCONTRACTOR TS/SCI until such time a TS/SCI has been granted to the SDVOSB? |
| No |
| Will the Government sponsor the IDIQ awardees |
| Yes |
| Attachment 3 Solicitation |
| PWS 2.7 |
| 13 |
| SECURITY REQUIREMENTS. The RFP states: ALTHOUGH THE MAJORITY OF THE WORK WILL REQUIRE ACCESS TO CLASSIFIED INFORMATION AT THE SECRET LEVEL, THE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO POSSESS A TOP SECRET/SENSITIVE COMPARTMENTALIZED INFORMATION (TS/SCI) IN ORDER TO PERFORM CERTAIN TASK ORDERS. ALL CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL REQUIRING ACCESS TO CLASSIFIED INFORMATION AND ASSIGNED TO THIS PROGRAM SHALL POSSESS A MINIMUM SECRET CLEARANCE. At the task order level, the Contractor may be required to possess a TOP SECRET/SENSITIVE COMPARTMENTALIZED INFORMATION (TS/SCI) clearance. |
| This paragraph seems to contain conflicting information. Are personnel required to possess a minimum clearance of Secret, or a minimum clearance of TS/SCI in support of this contract? |
| All task orders will require all personnel to possess a minimum clearance of Secret. All awardees are required to possess a TS/SCI in support of this contract. The Government will sponsor at the time of award if necessary. |
| Attachment 3 Solicitation |
| PWS 2.7 |
| 13 |
| SECURITY REQUIREMENTS. The RFP states: This contract shall include a DoD Contract Security Classification Specification (DD-254) as an attachment. The Contractor shall ensure they, and any subcontractors, have completed all DD-254 requirements prior to commencing any work under this task order. Specifically, the Contractor shall have completed the information in Block 6 (a/b/c) of the DD-254 form along with Block 13 (Facility Security Officer) contact and provide the form back to the Government for final approval. |
| For development of the DD-254s for the Prime and Subcontractor, it is understood that the information in block 6 (a/b/c) is specific to the prime contractor, so are we to also complete Block 7 Subcontractor (a/b/c) for all planned subcontractors? |
| The DD-254 is only required for the Prime and any planned subcontractors on the initial task order. |
| Attachment 3 Solicitation |
| PWS 2.7 |
| 13 |
| SECURITY REQUIREMENTS. The RFP states: This contract shall include a DoD Contract Security Classification Specification (DD-254) as an attachment. The Contractor shall ensure they, and any subcontractors, have completed all DD-254 requirements prior to commencing any work under this task order. Specifically, the Contractor shall have completed the information in Block 6 (a/b/c) of the DD-254 form along with Block 13 (Facility Security Officer) contact and provide the form back to the Government for final approval. |
| Are the DD-254s that the contractor is to generate and provide with the proposal for the Prime Contractor and all Subcontractors to contain the identical information in the RFP DD-254 document for Block 13 supplemental guidance? |
| Contractors are no longer required to submit a DD-254 with their proposal. |
| Attachment 3 Solicitation |
| PWS 2.7 |
| 13 |
| SECURITY REQUIREMENTS. The RFP states: This contract shall include a DoD Contract Security Classification Specification (DD-254) as an attachment. The Contractor shall ensure they, and any subcontractors, have completed all DD-254 requirements prior to commencing any work under this task order. Specifically, the Contractor shall have completed the information in Block 6 (a/b/c) of the DD-254 form along with Block 13 (Facility Security Officer) contact and provide the form back to the Government for final approval. |
| Are all the fields in the DD-254 for Block 8, 9, 10, 11 to also be completed using the information that is provided in the RFP DD-254 document? |
| Contractors are no longer required to submit a DD-254 with their proposal. |
| Attachment 3 Solicitation |
| PWS 2.7 |
| 13 |
| SECURITY REQUIREMENTS. The RFP states: Overarching security requirements and Contractor access to classified information shall be specified in the task order level DD-254 form. Additional Contractor badging requirements will be delineated on task order DD-254(s). |
| Will the Prime Contractor be receiving a single DD-254 at the IDIQ level and complete a DD-254 for issuance to each subcontractor at the IDIQ level? |
Will a separate DD-254 be generated for each Task Order, or just the main contract for the Prime and all subcontractors?
A DD-254 will be issued at both the base contract and task order level.
| Attachment 3 Solicitation |
| 2.3.5 |
| 76 |
| DD Form 254. The RFP states: The Offeror shall provide a completed DD254, Contract Security Classification Specification (Attachment 2) filled out for both Prime Contractor and any proposed Subcontractors. |
| Is the completed DD-254 to contain ALL fields completed using the information from the Draft DD254 document, or only the Block 6 (a/b/c) of the DD-254 form along with Block 13 (Facility Security Officer) contact as stated previously in Section 2.7 (Page 13)? |
| A completed DD-254 is not required. Please ensure the |
PWS Inquiries
| Attachment 5 |
| C-3.0 |
| 2 |
| Specific Requirements |
| Does the Government intend to specify minimum educational and experience requirements for any positions in the initial task order or future task orders? |
| The Government may specify minimum educational and/or experience requirements at the task order level if necessary. |
| Attachment 5 |
| C-3.2.2 |
| 3 |
| Tracking Capability |
| Will the incumbent's monitoring and tracking system be directed by the Government / provided for use by the new contractor? |
| No |
| Attachment 5 |
| C-3.6 |
| 3 |
| Deliverables |
| The due dates for deliverables indicate the year 2016. What are the correct dates for the deliverables? |
| A revised deliverable table is included in the updated PWS. |
| RFP |
| CDD email with Support Statement |
| 3 & 4 |
| C-3.6 Deliverables |
| The Initial Task Order Deliverables Table requires Data submission in 2016. Q Will the Government correct the Deliverable Due Date based on the anticipated Date of Award of the Initial Task Order? This is needed to provide the level of effort required to meet workflow requirements. |
| A revised deliverable table is included in the updated PWS. |
| Attachment 5 |
| C-3.6.2 |
| 4 |
| Monthly Progress Report |
| What are the instructions for preparing and submitting a WBS for the initial task order (WBSs are also referenced in the IDIQ PWS (3.1.3, 3.2.3, 3.3..3, 3.4.3, 3.5.3. 3.6.3, 3.7.3, 3.8.3, 3.9.3, 3.11. 3.13, and PRS)? |
| A WBS is not required with the initial task order. If a WBS is required it will be specified at the task order level. |
| Attachment 5 |
| C.3.9 |
| 4 |
| Enterprise-Wide Contractor Manpower Reporting Application (ECMRA) |
| We are unable to access the DONCMRA link provided: https://doncmra.nmci.navy.mil. Does the DONCMRA site require CAC credentials to access? Is it the same website as https://www.ecmra.mil? |
| The proper link is https://www.ecmra.mil/Default.aspx |
| Attachment 3 Solicitation |
| 3.1.1 |
| 14 |
| 3.0 Specific Requirement |
| 3.1.1 Task 1 (and all other Integration Division Task 1s) states "Establish and maintain a high-confidence data integrity model with exportable content and open-systems structure." |
Please clarify what this model is, and its purpose.
MCCBA support includes compiling and managing an Excel-based dataset resident on CBA SIPR SharePoint site. No model is required for this aspect of MCCBA.
| Attachment 3 Solicitation |
| 3.1.3 |
| 15 |
| 3.0 Specific Requirement |
| 3.1.3 Task 3 (and all other Integration Division Task 3s) states "development and maintenance of an environment (e.g., modeling & simulation) capable of supporting sustained analytical efforts using verified and validated architecture data." |
Please define what government’s expectations for this “environment” are, and its purpose.
Environment is more of a model or simulation tool.
| Attachment 3 Solicitation |
| 3.1.1 |
| 14 |
| 3.0 Specific Requirement |
| Introduction states "Note this effort does not include the development of Operational Architectures, which will be provided by the Operational Architecture Branch, Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF) Integration Division (MID)." |
3.1.1 Task 1 (and all other Integration Division Task 1's) indicate "Assessment of tools and methodologies that improve the DoD Architecture Framework (DoDAF) modeling process."
Please clarify if it’s the government’s intent that the contractor will evaluate the tools and methodologies by which DoDAF architectures are created.
This should be removed.
| PWS |
| 2.2.1 |
| 12 |
| Meeting Support |
| Do the four sub-bullets in 2.2.1 (teleconference, 100 seat capacity, multiple displays, breakout rooms) need to be provided in a single facility or may they be provided among all the teammates? |
| This will be specified at the task order level. These need to be available in a single facility for the initial task order. |
| PWS |
| 2.2.1 |
| 12 |
| Meeting Support |
| Do the four sub-bullets in 2.2.1 (teleconference, 100 seat capacity, multiple displays, breakout rooms) need to be provided in the Prime Contactor's facility? |
| No, it doesn't have to be the prime's facility. |
| RFP |
| PWS |
| Varied |
| 3.1.2, 3.2.2, 3.3.2, 3.4.2, 3.5.2, 3.6.2, 3.7.2, 3.8.2 and 3.9.2 |
3.1.3, 3.2.3, 3.3.3, 3.4.3, 3.5.3, 3.6.3, 3.7.3, 3.8.3 and 3.9.3 All of the sub-paragraphs under paragraphs 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, and 3.9 are the same. It appears that all of the Division requirements were summed together with no distinction of the different requirements unique to each division. Some examples, Para 3.1.2, 3.2.2, 3.3.2, 3.4.2, 3.5.2, 3.6.2, 3.7.2, 3.8.2 and 3.9.2 contains the following text:
...review documents and conduct research or communicate with external partners at the SCI-level across the spectrum of topics and functional areas of intelligence, cyberspace operations and MAGTF EW This may be appropriate under 3.1.2 but is not appropriate under the rest of the paragraphs.
…provide survivability engineering expertise to support Live Fire Integrated Product Team (IPT) and Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP) combat developer inputs as well as inputs to Live Fire scoring assessments.
This may be appropriate for 3.2 Fires and Maneuvers Integration (FMI) and 3.5 Logistics Integration (LI) but not the other Divisions covered under this PWS.
Para 3.1.3, 3.2.3, 3.3.3, 3.4.3, 3.5.3, 3.6.3, 3.7.3, 3.8.3 and 3.9.3 contains the following text:
…development and maintenance of an environment (e.g., modeling & simulation) capable of supporting sustained analytical efforts using verified and validated architecture data, and Para 3.1.1. 3.2.1, 3.3.1, 3.4.1, 3.5.1,3.6.1, 3.7.1, 3.8.1, 3.9.1 contains the following text:
...assessment of tools and methodologies that improve the DoD Architecture Framework (DoDAF) modeling process; establish and maintain data libraries, establish and maintain a high-confidence data integrity model with exportable content and open-systems structure; " How is the above requirement separate from what paragraph 1.0 INTRODUCTION states: Note this effort does not include the development of Operational Architectures, which will be provided by the Operational Architecture Branch, Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF) Integration Division (MID).? The task implies the contractor will be developing/modifying Operational Architectures which is under the DODAF process.
The PWS at the IDIQ level encompasses the broad services and tasks required for the IDIQ. Task orders will be issues at the division level. The detail, tasks, deliverables, and expertise required for each task order will be detailed at the task order level. Operational Architectures will be developed/modified outside this contract vehicle.
| Attachment 3 Solicitation |
| PWS 2.1 |
| 12 |
| WORK LOCATION. The RFP states: Principal performance will occur at Contractor spaces within the National Capital Region (NCR) and, more specifically, the MCB Quantico, VA. Some work will occur on-site at CDD, but not as a full-time place of performance. |
| Some of the work currently being performed requires personnel to be 100% onsite at the Government site based on the requirements of the specific Integration Division. To affect accurate pricing of each CLIN, will the Government provide a ratio of what percentage of the work (by CLIN) will be performed at the Contractor site and the percentage of the work being performed at the Government site? |
| The appropriate mix will be specified at the task order level. For the initial task order, with the recent shift to all classified products, in general 80% of work will now be performed onsite at the Government site. |
| Attachment 3 Solicitation |
| PWS 2.2 |
| 12 |
| TRAVEL REQUIREMENTS. The RFP states: Government directed CONUS or OCONUS travel may be required at the task order level. |
| What OCONUS sites must the contractor be prepared to travel to? |
| OCONUS travel will be specified at the task order level. |
| Attachment 3 Solicitation |
| PWS 2.2 |
| 12 |
| TRAVEL REQUIREMENTS. The RFP states: Local travel will not be reimbursed. |
| Will the Government provide a definition of what is considered local travel? |
| Local travel is considered within 50 miles of CDD (MCB Quantico, VA). |
| Attachment 3 Solicitation |
| PWS 2.2.1 |
| 12 |
| MEETING SUPPORT. The Contractor shall provide support for off-site meetings and working groups as necessary to facilitate task execution. Such support shall include the following and be made readily available given a 2-week advance notice by the Government with authorization from the CDD Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR): |
- Teleconference, Video Teleconference (VTC) and Secured-VTC capabilities
- Up to 100 seat capacity
- Multiple display projection capabilities
- Smaller break-out rooms with 10-30 seat capacity
| Given the Government's request for a Secured-VTC, which consulting firms can’t get access to without Government support. In order to provide a secure VTC, a contractor must have a classified SIRPNET connection. To have this capability, the contractor needs to be sponsored by their Government customer. Since, we can’t get sponsorship from CDD until after award, this requirement should be a post-award requirement. Will the Government please reword this requirement to state the contractor will provide a Secured-VTC capability post-award and upon Government sponsorship? |
| The SIPRNET requirement is upon award of the contractor. The Government will sponsor awardees at the time of contract award. |
| Attachment 3 Solicitation |
| 2.2.1 |
| 12 |
| 2.2.1 Meeting Support |
| Please define what "Secured-VTC" capabilites means. |
Will the government support sponsorship for SIPRNET capabilities, if that is the government's intent? If not, recommend removing this as a requirement for the contract, since contractors can't have SIPRNET without government sponsorship.
Secured VTC capabilities refers to Videe Teleconference via a secured connection. The SIPRNET requirement is upon award of the contractor. The Government will sponsor awardees at the time of contract award.
| Attachment 3 Solicitation |
| 2.2.1 |
| 12 |
| 2.2.1 Meeting Support |
| Suggest changing "up to 100 seat capacity" to "a minimum capacity of 100 seats", if the government intends to hold meetings for 100 people. |
| The government requires up to 100 seat capacity. |
| Attachment 3 Solicitation |
| 2.0 |
| 12 |
| 2.2 Travel Requirements |
| What OCONUS sites must the contractor be prepared to travel to? |
| OCONUS travel has not been identified yet. Any OCONUS travel will be specified at the task order level at the time of task order solicitation. |
| Attachment 3 Solicitation |
| PWS 2.2.1 |
| 12 |
| MEETING SUPPORT. The Contractor shall provide: |
- Teleconference, Video Teleconference (VTC) and Secured-VTC capabilities
| Will the Government support sponsorship for SIPRNET capabilities, in order to provide the Secured-VTC? If not, recommend removing this as a requirement for the contract, since contractors can't have SIPRNET with Government sponsorship. |
| The SIPRNET requirement is upon award of the contractor. The Government will sponsor awardees at the time of contract award. |
| Attachment 3 Solicitation |
| 3.1.1 |
| 14 |
| 3.0 Specific Requirement |
| 3.1.1 Task 1 (and all other Integration Division Task 1s) states "Establish and maintain a high-confidence data integrity model with exportable content and open-systems structure." |
Please clarify what this model is, and its purpose.
Should be removed.
| Attachment 3 Solicitation |
| PWS 3.1.1; 3.2.1; 3.3.1; 3.4.1; 3.5.1; 3.6.1; 3.7.1; 3.8.1; and 3.9.1 |
| 14/15/ 17/18/ 20/21/ 23/24/ & 25 |
| PWS 3.1.1 Task 1; PWS 3.2.1 Task 1; PWS 3.3.1 Task 1; PWS 3.4.1 Task 1; PWS 3.5.1 Task 1; PWS 3.6.1 Task 1; PWS 3.7.1 Task 1; PWS 3.8.1 Task 1; and PWS 3.9.1 Task 1. |
In each of these PWS Sections, the RFP states: "establish and maintain a high-confidence data integrity model with exportable content and open-systems structure."
| The RFP is unclear of what is defined as a "high-confidence data integrity model." Please clarify what this model is, and its purpose. |
| Should be removed. |
| RFP |
| PWS |
| 12 |
| 2.2.1 Meeting Support |
| This section states that the contractor shall provide support for off-site meeting and working groups. |
Q Will the Government confirm that they are not requiring that the Contractor facility meet the the PWS 2.2.1 requirements? Further, will the Government confirm that the requirement is for the Contractor to secure a facility vendor agreement(s) with a Conference Center that will commit the needed space within 2 weeks advance notice and can can meet the listed requirements of PWS 2.2.1, (specifically, teleconference, video teleconference (VTC) and secured-VTC capabilities, up to 100 seat capacity, multiple display projection capabilities, and convenient access to smaller break-out rooms with 10-30 seat capacity?
Q Will the Government confirm that it is their intent that the four successful MAC offerors each have the ability to provide this facility requirement. Are these facility requirements needed to support the unique requirements of CLIN 0007 Subtasks only, or are they also needed to support multiple and concurrent task orders that have similar Tele, VTC and Secured VTC capabilities and seat capacity requirments? Q Will the Government consider defering this requirement to the Task Order(s) that this type of facility arrangement is required? Q Will the Governmenidentify the current incumbent providing this off-site Conference faciity so these venue contract arrangements can continue.
The contractor's facility does not have to meet the rquirements of PWS section 2.2.1. The contractor can use a subcontractor's facility. Contractor facility requirements will be further specified at the task order level.
| RFP |
| Attach 5 Initial Task Order |
| Attch 5 page 2 |
| C.2.1 PLACE OF PERFORMANCE |
| The second paragraph of this section requires the contractor to provide facilities for meetings and Integrated Process Team (IPT) Meetings ranging in size from 10 to 50 personnel with laptops, cellular equpment/services and other items of convenience. Q Please confirm that this "Place of Performance" for the IPT Meetings, and "as well as a sutiable infrastructure to manage program requirements throughout performanc to support the scope of activities are the or clarify by amendment that these facilities represent the represent the ID/IQ MACc ontract level required contractor facilities as specified under PWS 2.1, and not the conference facilities specified under PWS section 2.2.1. If this is not the case please clarify by amendment. Q Please clarify by ammendment if the contractor is required to provide laptops and cell phones for the offerror's employee and subcontractor attenders or all attenders of meetings an IPT meetings (including government and external industry partners). |
| The contractor's facility does not have to meet the rquirements of PWS section 2.2.1. The contractor is not required to provide laptopos and cellphones for meeting attendants. |
| RFP |
| CDD email with Support Statement |
| 3 & 4 |
| C-3.6 Deliverables |
| The Initial Task Order Deliverables Table requires Data submission in 2016. Q Will the Government correct the Deliverable Due Date based on the anticipated Date of Award of the Initial Task Order? This is needed to provide the level of effort required to meet workflow requirements. |
| A revised deliverable table is included in the updated PWS. |
| Attachment 3 Solicitation |
| 3.1.1 |
| 14 |
| 3.0 Specific Requirement |
| Introduction states "Note this effort does not include the development of Operational Architectures, which will be provided by the Operational Architecture Branch, Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF) Integration Division (MID)." |
3.1.1 Task 1 (and all other Integration Division Task 1's) indicate "Assessment of tools and methodologies that improve the DoD Architecture Framework (DoDAF) modeling process."
Please clarify if it’s the government’s intent that the contractor will evaluate the tools and methodologies by which DoDAF architectures are created.
Assessment of tools and methodologies that improve the DoD Architecture Framework (DoDAF) modeling process; (Should be deleted)
| Attachment 3 Solicitation |
| 3.1.3 |
| 15 |
| 3.0 Specific Requirement |
| 3.1.3 Task 3 (and all other Integration Division Task 3s) states "development and maintenance of an environment (e.g., modeling & simulation) capable of supporting sustained analytical efforts using verified and validated architecture data." |
Please define what government’s expectations for this “environment” are, and its purpose.
Should be removed.
| Attachment 3 Solicitation |
| PWS 3.1.1; 3.2.1; 3.3.1; 3.4.1; 3.5.1; 3.6.1; 3.7.1; 3.8.1; and 3.9.1 |
| 14/15/ 17/18/ 20/21/ 23/24/ & 25 |
| PWS 3.1.1 Task 1; PWS 3.2.1 Task 1; PWS 3.3.1 Task 1; PWS 3.4.1 Task 1; PWS 3.5.1 Task 1; PWS 3.6.1 Task 1; PWS 3.7.1 Task 1; PWS 3.8.1 Task 1; and PWS 3.9.1 Task 1. |
In each of these PWS Sections, the RFP states technical support will include: "...assessment of tools and methodologies that improve the DoD Architecture Framework (DoDAF) modeling process;".
RFP Section 1.0, Introduction, states: "Note this effort does not include the development of Operational Architectures, which will be provided by the Operational Architecture Branch, Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF) Integration Division (MID).
All PWS Task 1 requirements indicate the contractor will perform assessment of tools and methodologies that improve the DoD Architecture Framework (DoDAF) modeling process. Please clarify if it’s the government’s intent that the contractor will evaluate the tools and methodologies by which DoDAF architectures are created (presumably the process used by the Operational Architecture Branch), but not develop the architectures.
Assessment of tools and methodologies that improve the DoD Architecture Framework (DoDAF) modeling process; (Should be deleted)
| Attachment 3 Solicitation |
| PWS 3.1.3; 3.2.3; 3.3.3; 3.4.3; 3.5.3; 3.6.3; 3.7.3; 3.8.3; and 3.9.3 |
| 15/16/ 18/19/ 21/22/ 23/25/ & 26 |
| PWS 3.1.3 Task 3; PWS 3.2.3 Task 3; PWS 3.3.3 Task 3; PWS 3.4.3 Task 3; PWS 3.5.3 Task 3; PWS 3.6.3 Task 3; PWS 3.7.3 Task 3; PWS 3.8.3 Task 3; and PWS 3.9.3 Task 3. |
In each of the PWS Task 3 Sections above, the RFP states the Program Operations, Management & External Communications defined as: "...;development and maintenance of an environment (e.g., modeling & simulation) capable of supporting sustained analytical efforts using verified and validated architecture data;..."
The RFP is unclear of what is defined as an "environment"; and what the expected 'physical/functional shape, form and capacity' of this environment is to be.
Please define what the government’s expectations for this “environment” are, and it’s purpose.
Environment is more of a model or simulation tool.
| Attachment 5 Initial Task Order CDD IDIQ |
| C-3.2.3 |
| 3 |
| The Initial Task Order PWS states: "MC CBA Support. The contractor shall provide research and analysis to draft input regarding Force Protection MC CBA analysis and institutionalization efforts codifying enduring requirements for inclusion in the Marine Corps Capabilities List (MCCL), Marine Corps Gap List (MCGL), and produce associated solutions to address those gaps |
| The task indicates performing Force Protection MC CBA analysis. Since this PWS is to support the MAGTF Integration Division, should the PWS task read '…regarding MAGTF MC CBA analysis…? |
| No, this section is identifying support to the MCCBA process BY the Force Protection Integration Division. Keeping these separate will ensure that offerors understand this describes related but concurrent and separate requirements. |
| Attachment 5 Initial Task Order CDD IDIQ |
| C-3.6 |
| 3 & 4 |
| C-3.6 DELIVERABLES. Deliverable Table. |
| The deliverable table shows due dates that are in the past (2016). Also, the months due for some of the deliverables seem to occur during the wrong time of the year based on normal sequencing of some of the events. Will the Government update the table to show current due dates? |
| A revised deliverable table is included in the updated PWS. |
General Solicitation Questions
| Will Contractors be allowed to add subcontractors after IDIQ award to strengthen team for specific Task Orders? |
| Yes, the contractor can add subcontractors after IDIQ award. |
| Attachment 3 Solicitation |
| SF 1449 Continuation Sheet |
| 3 |
| CLIN 0001 - Information Warfare Integration (IWI) FFP. States "Support Services IAW PWS Section 3.1. Overall effort anticipated during the life of this contract is approximately equivalent to 72 months of Support for the MID CBA Task order (Attachment #5) in RFP." |
| This CLIN is supposed to cover work for the Information Warfare Integration Division (PWS 3.1), but the CLIN states it is work for the MID CBA Task Order and that the Period of Performance is for 72 months. This is supposed to be a 5 year (60 month) contract. Also, the Level of Effort (LOE) and resource requirements for the IWID (PWS 3.1) are different than the LOE and resource requirements for the MID (PWS 3.6). Will the Government please correct the SF 1449 form or explain the Government's pricing strategy? |
| The pricing at the base level of the IDIQ is to provide a basis for the contract ceiling. The unit of measure for the IDIQ is months of support. Some of the divisions will have task orders running concurrently. |
| Attachment 3 Solicitation |
| SF 1449 Continuation Sheet |
| 4 |
| CLIN 0002 - Fires and Maneuvers Integration (FMI) FFP. States "Support Services IAW PWS Section 3.2. Overall effort anticipated during the life of this contract is approximately equivalent to 36 months of Support for the MID CBA Task order (Attachment #5) in RFP." |
| This CLIN is supposed to cover work for the Fires and Maneuvers Integration Division (PWS 3.2), but the CLIN states it is work for the MID CBA Task Order and that the Period of Performance is for 36 months. This is supposed to be a 5 year (60 month) contract. Also, the Level of Effort (LOE) and resource requirements for the FMID (PWS 3.2) are different than the LOE and resource requirements for the MID (PWS 3.6). Will the Government please correct the SF 1449 form or explain the Government's pricing strategy? |
| The work for the Fires and Maneuvers Division will be defined at the task order level. The pricing at the base level of the IDIQ is to provide a basis for the contract ceiling. The labor mix and resources can be further defined at the task order level. |
| Attachment 3 Solicitation |
| SF 1449 Continuation Sheet |
| 4 |
| CLIN 0003 - Force Protection Integration (FPI) FFP. States "Support Services IAW PWS Section 3.3. Overall effort anticipated during the life of this contract is approximately equivalent to 72 months of Support for the MID CBA Task order (Attachment #5) in RFP." |
| This CLIN is supposed to cover work for the Force Protection Integration Division (PWS 3.3), but the CLIN states it is work for the MID CBA Task Order and that the Period of Performance is for 72 months. This is supposed to be a 5 year (60 month) contract. Also, the Level of Effort (LOE) and resource requirements for the FPID (PWS 3.3) are different than the LOE and resource requirements for the MID (PWS 3.6). Will the Government please correct the SF 1449 form or explain the Government's pricing strategy? |
| The work for the Force Protection Integration Division will be defined at the task order level. The pricing at the base level of the IDIQ is to provide a basis for the contract ceiling. The labor mix and resources can be further defined at the task order level. |
| Attachment 3 Solicitation |
| SF 1449 Continuation Sheet |
| 5 |
| CLIN 0004 - Intelligence Integration (II) FFP. States "Support Services IAW PWS Section 3.4. Overall effort anticipated during the life of this contract is approximately equivalent to 72 months of Support for the MID CBA Task order (Attachment #5) in RFP." |
| This CLIN is supposed to cover work for the Intelligence Integration Division (PWS 3.4), but the CLIN states it is work for the MID CBA Task Order and that the Period of Performance is for 72 months. This is supposed to be a 5 year (60 month) contract. Also, the Level of Effort (LOE) and resource requirements for the IID (PWS 3.4) are different than the LOE and resource requirements for the MID (PWS 3.6). Will the Government please correct the SF 1449 form or explain the Government's pricing strategy? |
| The work for the Intelligence Integration Division will be defined at the task order level. The pricing at the base level of the IDIQ is to provide a basis for the contract ceiling. The labor mix and resources can be further defined at the task order level. |
| Attachment 3 Solicitation |
| SF 1449 Continuation Sheet |
| 5 |
| CLIN 0005 - Logistics Integration (LI) FFP. States "Support Services IAW PWS Section 3.5. Overall effort anticipated during the life of this contract is approximately equivalent to 72 months of Support for the MID CBA Task order (Attachment #5) in RFP." |
| This CLIN is supposed to cover work for the Logistics Integration Division (PWS 3.5), but the CLIN states it is work for the MID CBA Task Order and that the Period of Performance is for 72 months. This is supposed to be a 5 year (60 month) contract. Also, the Level of Effort (LOE) and resource requirements for the LID (PWS 3.5) are different than the LOE and resource requirements for the MID (PWS 3.6). Will the Government please correct the SF 1449 form or explain the Government's pricing strategy? |
| The work for the Logistics Integration Division will be defined at the task order level. The pricing at the base level of the IDIQ is to provide a basis for the contract ceiling. The labor mix and resources can be further defined at the task order level. |
| Attachment 3 Solicitation |
| SF 1449 Continuation Sheet |
| 6 |
| CLIN 0006 - MAGTF Integration (MI) FFP. States "Support Services IAW PWS Section 3.6. Overall effort anticipated during the life of this contract is approximately equivalent to 72 months of Support for the MID CBA Task order (Attachment #5) in RFP." |
| This CLIN states the work is for 72 months of support to the MID CBA Task Order. This is supposed to be a 5 year (60 month) contract. Will the Government please correct the SF 1449 form or explain the Government's pricing strategy? |
| The work for the MAGTF Integration Division will be defined at the task order level. The pricing at the base level of the IDIQ is to provide a basis for the contract ceiling. The labor mix and resources can be further defined at the task order level. |
| Attachment 3 Solicitation |
| SF 1449 Continuation Sheet |
| 6 |
| CLIN 0007 - ATF&P FFP. States "Support Services IAW PWS Section 3.7. Advocacy, Transition, Fiscal and Personnel/Operations (ATF&P). Overall effort anticipated during the life of this contract is approximately equivalent to 36 months of Support for the MID CBA Task order (Attachment #5) in RFP." |
| This CLIN is supposed to cover work for the ATF&P (PWS 3.7), but the CLIN states it is work for the MID CBA Task Order and that the Period of Performance is for 36 months. This is supposed to be a 5 year (60 month) contract. Also, the Level of Effort (LOE) and resource requirements for the ATF&P (PWS 3.7) are different than the LOE and resource requirements for the MID (PWS 3.6). Will the Government please correct the SF 1449 form or explain the Government's pricing strategy? |
| The work for the Advocacy, Transition, Fiscal and Personnel Operations Division will be defined at the task order level. The pricing at the base level of the IDIQ is to provide a basis for the contract ceiling. The labor mix and resources can be further defined at the task order level. |
| Attachment 3 Solicitation |
| SF 1449 Continuation Sheet |
| 7 |
| CLIN 0008 - Seabasing Integration FFP. States "Support Services IAW PWS Section 3.8. Overall effort anticipated during the life of this contract is approximately equivalent to 36 months of Support for the MID CBA Task order (Attachment #5) in RFP." |
| This CLIN is supposed to cover work for the Seabasing Integration Division (PWS 3.8), but the CLIN states it is work for the MID CBA Task Order and that the Period of Performance is for 36 months. This is supposed to be a 5 year (60 month) contract. Also, the Level of Effort (LOE) and resource requirements for the Seabasing Integration Division (MExWID) (PWS 3.8) are different than the LOE and resource requirements for the MID (PWS 3.6). Will the Government please correct the SF 1449 form or explain the Government's pricing strategy? |
| The work for the Seabasing Integration Division will be defined at the task order level. The pricing at the base level of the IDIQ is to provide a basis for the contract ceiling. The labor mix and resources can be further defined at the task order level. |
| Attachment 3 Solicitation |
| SF 1449 Continuation Sheet |
| 7 |
| CLIN 0009 - Expeditionary Energy (E2) FFP. States "Support Services IAW PWS Section 3.9. Overall effort anticipated during the life of this contract is approximately equivalent to 36 months of Support for the MID CBA Task order (Attachment #5) in RFP." |
| This CLIN is supposed to cover work for the Expeditionary Energy (E2) (PWS 3.9), but the CLIN states it is work for the MID CBA Task Order and that the Period of Performance is for 36 months. This is supposed to be a 5 year (60 month) contract. Also, the Level of Effort (LOE) and resource requirements for the E2 Office (PWS 3.9) are different than the LOE and resource requirements for the MID (PWS 3.6). Will the Government please correct the SF 1449 form or explain the Government's pricing strategy? |
| The work for the Expeditionary Energy (E2) Division will be defined at the task order level. The pricing at the base level of the IDIQ is to provide a basis for the contract ceiling. The labor mix and resources can be further defined at the task order level. |
| Attachment 3 Solicitation |
| SF 1449 Continuation Sheet |
| 8 |
| CLIN 0011 Travel Cost. |
| Based on the pre-filled value in the Attachment 7 - Total Proposed Price Tab, is the Offeror supposed to use the Government supplied value of $300,000 for the Travel CLIN? |
| This the travel ceiling for the IDIQ. The Government will allow contractors to propose travel at the task order level. |
| Attachment 3 Solicitation |
| SF 1449 Continuation Sheet |
| 8 |
| CLIN 0012 FAR 52.217-8 FFP. Option to Extend Services up to an Additional Six (6) Months |
| Based on the pre-filled value in the Attachment 7 - Total Proposed Price Tab, is the Offeror supposed to use the Government supplied value of $30,000 for the Option to Extend Services CLIN? |
| CLIN 0012 Option to Extend Services up to an additional Six (6) Months is equal to 6 months of ceiling in the last year of the IDIQ. The spreadsheet value will increase when amounts are entered for the CLINs 0001-0009. |
| Attachment 3 Solicitation |
| 2.7.1.1 |
| 79 |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.