Exhibit_10__Industry_Questions_and_Answers_Amend_0001.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 41 KB Posted
- Attached to
- TFITS Consolidated Systems Integrator (TCSI)
- Solicitation number
- M67854-14-R-4802
- Issued by
-
United States Marine Corps
About this file
Exhibit 10_Industry Questions and Answers_Amend 0001
View the file
Other files
Show all 36
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
14-R-4802 QA's
| QUESTIONS & ANSWERS FOR SOLICITATION M67854-14-R-4802 | |||||
| SOLICITATION SECTION | DOCUMENT/PAGE/PARAGRAPH/LINE NUMBER | VENDOR QUESTION | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE | ||
| 1 | Is this a follow-on requirement? If so, could you please provide the incumbent contract number for this opportunity? If not, is this a new requirement? | This is a new effort that consolidates previously contracted systems. See the following list: | |||
| Contract Number | |||||
| M67854-10-F-4811(CGI Federal Inc.) | |||||
| M67854-10-F-4767(CGI Federal Inc.) | |||||
| M67854-13-F-4856 (CGI Federal Inc.) | |||||
| M67854-11-F-4930(CGI Federal Inc.) | |||||
| M67854-10-F-4801(InfoReliance Corp) | |||||
| M67854-12-F-4905(InfoReliance Corp) | |||||
| M67854-12-F-4906(InfoReliance Corp) | |||||
| M67854-11-F-4907(InfoReliance Corp) | |||||
| M67854-11-F-4906(InfoReliance Corp) | |||||
| W91QUZ-09-D-0003-MU60(Northrop Grumman) | |||||
| M67854-13-F-4802(SAIC) | |||||
| M67854-09-A-0502(TAIC) | |||||
| M67854-12-F-4911(SAIC) – TFSMS will become a candidate for consolidation following completion of Increment 2 Release 2. | |||||
| 2 | In reference to the subcontracting plan required of Large Business offerors IAW FAR Part 19, FAR 52.219-9, in consideration of Exhibit 1 of the RFP and in consideration of how subcontracting plans will be evaluated for compliance: can the Government provide clarification on whether offerors are required to reflect in subcontracting plans the dollar amounts shown at Exhibit 1, which dollar amounts are contrived by applying the Navy percentages by category/socio-economic status against the total contract value/ceiling, or, if IAW FAR 52.219-9 requirements the offerors subcontracting plan may express subcontracting goals as percentages/dollars contrived by applying the Navy percentages (as a minimum) by category/socio-economic status against offeror’s total planned subcontracting dollars? | Offerors are required to reflect in their subcontracting plans the dollar amounts shown at Exhibit 1, which are contrived by applying the Navy percentages by category/socio-economic status against the total contract value/ceiling. | |||
| 3 | For Software Development Plans and Post Deployment Software Support Plans these are customarily stand-alone documents each requiring their own title page/cover, table of contents, table of figures, list of acronyms/glossaries, etc. Will these items not count against the section page limitations for the sections wherein offeror provides these plans (Vol I, Section 1b and 1c)? | The Government will allow each section, should the Offeror want, to have a title page/cover, table of contents, table of figures, and list of figures. Please see the updated RFP. | X | ||
| 4 | A.9 Instructions for Preparation of Proposal Content | RFP page 49 | The RFP states that “The Government intends to utilize the proposed (from the TRAP TOs and the Post Award Orientation and Planning TO) fixed hourly burdened rates and individual labor categories for all other task orders awarded under the ID/IQ”. There are over a dozen systems contemplated under this consolidation that vary in size, complexity and underlying technology. Will the Government accept labor categories in Section 2 of the Price Volume not utilized in TRAP if we anticipate the need for them on future systems consolidated onto this contract? | No, the Government will not accept labor categories not utilized in TRAP. Any additional labor categories/rates will be added/ negotiated on an as needed basis and will be reviewed for reasonableness through price analysis at that time. | |
| 5 | A.9 Instructions for Preparation of Proposal Content | RFP page 44, Paragraph 3 | Where should SI’s provide a technical response to paragraph 2 of Attachment 4a? The instructions for Volume I, Section 3 only ask for the IMS, which is paragraph 4 in Attachment 4a. Should Volume I, Section 3 also include the SI’s response to the activities listed in Attachment 4a, paragraph 2? | There is no technical response required for Paragraph 2 of Attachment 4(a). The Government only requires an IMS and pricing response for the Post Award Orientation and Planning. | |
| 6 | SF 1449 continuation Item 0001 Transition | RFP/Page 3 | This refers to paragraphs 3.1-3.4 of the PWS. / Should this be paragraph 2.1-2.6 of the PWS (the section titled Transition)? | Yes, please see the updated RFP. | X |
| 7 | SF 1449 continuation Item 0002 Post Deployment Software Support | RFP/Page 3 | This refers to paragraphs 4.1-4.5 of the PWS. / Should this be paragraph 3.1-3.5 of the PWS (the section titled PDSS)? | Yes, please see the updated RFP. | X |
| 8 | A9.d.2) Customer Assessments | RFP/Page 27/para d.2) | The end of this section reads, “Should any of the efforts identified be registered in CPARS, the contractor may notify the Government and the Government will utilize the CPARS report in place of the Questionnaire.” / Does this mean the contractor will submit a copy of a CPAR in lieu of a past performance questionnaire; or alternatively provide the government with the information that a CPAR exists? | The Government's intent is that the contractor may submit a copy of the CPAR in lieu of a past performance questionnaire. | |
| 9 | Table 1 | Page 39 of 61, III Past Performance Proposal, Section 1 | Would the Gov’t consider a higher page count for the Past Performance Section? Suggest a page count that would allow for at least 3 pages per reference. | The Government will increase the page limitation, please see the updated RFP. | X |
| 10 | Table 1 | Page 39 of 61, III Past Performance Proposal, Section 1 | Considering the limited page count, will the Gov’t accept a different format for the Past Performance section, as long as the requested information is provided? | Offerors shall propose on the format provided. However, the Government has increased the page count. Please see the answer to #9. | |
| 11 | A9 | Page 51, Sect 2, Compensation Plan | For Teammate Compensation plans including salary, rates, fringe, etc., will the Government accept sealed data provided by partners for this requirement? | Yes. | |
| 12 | TRAP PDSS PWS Section 6 Applicable Documents and References | TRAP PDSS PWS Section 6 Applicable Documents and References, Page 23 | The TRAP risk register, ECP tracker database, and trouble ticket database are listed as requiring CAC access for TCSI personnel, but also noted as being notional. - Is there any expectation for these to exist and be turned over to the TCSI or are these deliverables? -How would databases be provided as a deliverable? -Or are these pre-existing CAC enabled applications that the TCSI will need to utilize? -Or are these just documents (spreadsheets) that are on a SharePoint site that you will need a CAC to access? -If the trouble ticket database does reflect an existing application that maintains the trouble tickets, will the TCSI be required to migrate to that system? | As TRAP is a FICTITIOUS system, the Government will not be providing these details, nor is the Contractor responsible for providing these details. The Offeror only needs to demonstrate ability to perform PDSS within the given parameters, and plan for the labor necessary taking into consideration they are pre-existing, Government owned and maintained, CAC enabled applications that the TCSI will need to utilize | |
| 13 | 5.1.1.2 Staffing | PWS/19/5.1.1.2/634-637 | The PWS identifies that “…the TCSI staff to be located within a reasonable commuting distance from MCB Quantico.” / Can it be assumed that any Task Order specific requirements for personnel to be located elsewhere (the MEFs, other locations) will supersede this requirement? | Yes. | |
| 14 | PDSS | Page 8, Paragraph 3.3.2, Line 203 | Will the Gov’t provide a tool for the management and tracking of Help Desk tickets or is that the responsibility of the TCSI? | Yes, the Government will provide a tool. | |
| 15 | Appendix C-2 | Exhibit_2c__TRAP_Software_Development_PWS_Final_.docx | Line 331 and 332 refer to "Figure 5" and "Figure 6" respectively, however these figures are not included. Did the Government intend to refer to "Figure 3" and "Figure 4" instead? If not, can the Government please provide "Figure 5" and "Figure 6"? | Yes, the Government intended to refer to "Figure 3" and "Figure 4" . Please see the updated Exhibit. | X |
| 16 | Appendix C-1 | Exhibit_2c__TRAP_Software_Development_PWS_Final_.docx | Table 9 indicates that the TRAP database after ECP001 is integrated will include 5 database tables. Figures 3 and 4 on the following pages do not appear to reflect this pre-ECP001 or post-ECP001 table count. Can the Government please clarify whether the number of tables listed in Table 9 is incorrect, and if so, can the Government correct it? If Figures 3 and 4 require clarification, can the Government please provide those updated figures? | Table 9 is explaining that there will be 5 tables created or changed to support the ECP. Figure 3 is the total configuration prior to performing the ECP. Figure 4 is the configuration of the database afterwards. Figure 4 displays 3 new database tables and 2 modified database tables, accounting for the 5 database tables referenced in Table 9. | |
| 17 | Overarching PWS Section 4.2 and SDP PWS for ECP0001 Section 2 | Attachment_1_SI_Consolidation_PWS_Final_.docx |
| Exhibit_2c__TRAP_Software_Development_PWS_Final_.docx | Is the TRAP SDP Annex supposed to be written against the structure outlined in the overarching PWS document (Section 4.2) or the SDP PWS for ECP0001 document (Section 2)? They differ slightly. | This difference was a result of a formatting issue. Please see the updated Attachment. | X | |||
| 18 | Transition | PWS/Page 7/Paragraph 2.5.5/Line number 179. | Is this intended to be 3 one-day working group sessions? | Yes, this is intended to be either 1, 3-day long, working group, or 3 one-day, non-consecutive, working groups. Please see the updated Attachment. | X | |
| 19 | Configuration Management | PWS/Page 10/Paragraph 3.3.5.1/Line 279 | Can the vendor assume that a baseline configuration audit has been performed against each application and that the CITDB reflects the current configuration of each application? | Yes. | ||
| 20 | Appendix B | Page B-1 | The application PR Builder is currently supported under the same contract as SPS, WAWF, EDA, and FPDS for problem management, change management and release management. Is the omission of PR Builder in the Program Support Requirements Summary intentional? | Yes. | ||
| 21 | Attachment 7 | Can the Government please provide the continuation sheets? | Yes, Please see the updated Attachment. | X | ||
| 22 | If the SI is responsible for the test/development environments, will the test data be provided by the Government and if so will it contain PII or other sensitive information? | The answer to this is system specific and the Government is well aware that PII CANNOT be in a test/development environment. | ||||
| 23 | RFP A.5 Instructions for Preparation of Offers | Table 1 (Proposal Page Limits and number of Copies), Page 39 | Guidance in Table 1 (Section IV, Price Proposal) includes Section 1a – 1c pricing information for transition, software support and development which coincides with the three sample TRAP task orders. However, CLINS 0001 (Transition), 0002 (PDSS) and 0003 (Software Enhancements) are not included in Table 1 – are we to price CLINS 0001-0003 or are you just looking for pricing derived from the sample TRAP TOs to be included in the Price Volume? | You will not price CLINs 0001-0003. The offeror shall submit pricing derived from the sample TRAP and Post Award Orientation and Planning TO's. However, the Government will update Section B of the RFP to include SLIN 0004AA to eliminate confusion on where to propose the Post award Orientation and Planning TO. | X | |
| 24 | RFP A.5. INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARATION OF OFFERS | Parag b. Proposal Format; subparagraph 2) e) Electronic Proposals, Page 41 | The RFP states “The CD-ROM must be formatted and readable on an NMCI Computer.” If the Offeror does not have access to an NMCI computer, what does the government recommend? | This sentence has been removed, please see the updated RFP. | X | |
| 25 | RFP A.9. INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARATION OF PROPOSAL CONTENT | Parag b. Volume I – Technical Approach Proposal; subparagraph 2) a) IMS, Page 44 | In both the TRAP STrP Exhibit (b) and (c) the IMS is listed in section 4. The solicitation then lists Key Milestones, a key item for the IMS, in section 5 and treats it as separate. The third Exhibit includes the item as part of the IMS. Which is correct and will the government update the solicitation such that all three match? | Point of clarification: The STrP TO PWS is Exhibit 2a. The PDSSP TO PWS is Exhibit 2b. The SSDP TO is Exhibit 2c. The offeror is correct in that Exhibits 2a and 2c should mirror 2b. Please see the updated Exhibits. | X | |
| 26 | RFP A.9. INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARATION OF PROPOSAL CONTENT | Parag b. Volume I – Technical Approach Proposal; subparagraph 2) b) Annexes, Page 44 | In this section, the government indicates “pay attention to the need for a technical refresh as well as meeting the performance metrics”, yet the government did not provide a CLIN for pricing a refresh. Will the government provide for a hardware CLIN? | No, the TRAP Production tech refresh hardware and software has notionally (TRAP is a FICTITIOUS system) been procured by the government. The TCSI labor to that should be priced out and included in the PDSS SLIN. | ||
| 27 | RFP A.9. INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARATION OF PROPOSAL CONTENT | Parag c. Volume II – Management Approach Proposal, Page 45 | The Government does not mention whether there are any Key Personnel positions on this contract. Please confirm there are no Key Personnel positions. | This is a commercial, performance based, contract. There are no key personnel. | ||
| 28 | RFP A.9. INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARATION OF PROPOSAL CONTENT | Parag c. Volume II – Management Approach Proposal, Page 45 | The Government does not indicate whether they wish to see resumes for any positions being filled on this contract. Please confirm whether resumes are required, where they should be included and whether they count toward page count. | This is a commercial, performance based, contract. There are no key personnel and resumes are not required. | ||
| 29 | RFP A.9. INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARATION OF PROPOSAL CONTENT | Parag c. Volume II – Management Approach Proposal; subparagraph 2) Section 2 – TRAP System TO TMPs, Page 45 | In this section the government requests TO TMPs which are already provided earlier. Is this a redundant requirement, and can one of them be dropped? | This is not a duplicative requirement. With each TO PWS, the offeror shall provide a Price, IMS, Annex, and TMP respective to the PWS (The one exception is the Post Award Orientation and Planning TO, where only the Price and IMS is required). The IMS and Annex are to be submitted in Volume I. The TMP is to be submitted with Volume II. | ||
| 30 | RFP A.9. INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARATION OF PROPOSAL CONTENT | Parag c. Volume II – Management Approach Proposal; subparagraph 3) Section 3 – Post Award Orientation and Planning TMP, Page 45 | In this section of the RFP the government references Attachment 4a but the only area referenced is section 3. Is it the governments’ intent to exclude the rest of the document? | The Government only requires an Offeror's proposed IMS and pricing for the Post Award Orientation and Planning. | ||
| 31 | RFP A.9. INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARATION OF PROPOSAL CONTENT | Parag c. Volume II – Management Approach Proposal; subparagraph 4) Section 4 – Corporate Experience, Page 45 | In this section the government requests Corporate Experience which is also requested in the Past Performances (Section A.9., Paragraph d.). Is this a redundant requirement and can one of them be dropped? | Please read carefully. Corporate Experience is not mentioned anywhere in Past Performance. The Government is treating these as separate. | ||
| 32 | RFP A.9. INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARATION OF PROPOSAL CONTENT | Parag. Volume IV – Price Proposal; subparagraph 1) b) ODCs, Page 48 | In the prior Q&As, the Government stated they would be responsible for the production boundary which then indicates the SI will be responsible for the development and test environments. Is this correct – will the SI provide the test/development environment? Are we required to price this even notionally for TRAP and add that as an ODC? If yes, should this cost be added into the overall cost for TRAP work orders or should it be broken out in CLIN 0005AA, AB, AC and rolled up to CLIN 0005. Bottom line – where are we to price a real test/development environment for TFITS? | Yes, the SI will provide the development and SI test hosting environment. No, this is not an ODC. The Government anticipates costs as overhead to be included in the proposed rates. | ||
| 33 | TSCI SI Consolidation PWS | Section 3 PDSS, Parag 3.3.1, Page 8 | Do the development and test hosting environments require 24 hour by 7 days a week access/support, or can something less (e.g., 12 hours a day Mon thru Fri) be offered? | The development and SI test hosting environment is the SI's responsibility. The Government will not need access to this environment. Therefore the Contractor is responsible for determining the support requirements. | ||
| 34 | TSCI SI Consolidation PWS | Section 3 PDSS, Parag 3.3.6 Change Management /Line 296, Page 10 | Please describe the Government’s ECP Tracker System – what are the system, software, and vendor. Is this system used for other uses such as requirement’s management, task management? | The current Government ECP Tracker System is a SharePoint list on the Government SharePoint site. No the ECP Tracker system does not track activities as requirement's management or task management. | ||
| 35 | TSCI SI Consolidation PWS | Section 4 Software Development, Parag 4.1.6, Page 16 | For consideration in preparing RFP responses, will the government make available to bidders the two guides/handbooks referenced in the paragraph (i.e., (1) the Supplement to Guidebook for Acquisition of Naval Software Intensive Systems: Software Criteria and Guidance for System Engineering Technical Reviews; and (2) the Marine Corps Systems Command Technical Review Handbook, v1.4 dated April 2009)? | The Government will include these two documents as exhibits. Please see the updated RFP. | X | |
| 36 | TFITS TRAP Software Development ECP0001 (Exhibit 2c TRAP Software Development PWS Final.docx) | Section 1 Introduction, Parag 1.2 Figure 1, Page 3 | Please describe the web service (push, pull, flat file, etc.) into TRAP (NIPR) in the diagram – is this a semi-annual update to TRAP sourced from TFSMS? | The web service is a Service Oriented Architecture Protocol (SOAP). It is a request response style. Yes, it is Semi-annual. | ||
| 37 | TFITS TRAP Software Development ECP0001 (Exhibit 2c TRAP Software Development PWS Final.docx) | Section 1 Introduction, Parag 1.2 Figure 1, Page 3 | Please describe the web service out of TRAP (SIPR) in the diagram designated as Enterprise Messaging – what is the output and type of service? | WS_NOTIFICATION and the style of web service is a brokered notification, also known as pub-sub. | ||
| 38 | TFITS TRAP Software Development ECP0001 (Exhibit 2c TRAP Software Development PWS Final.docx) | Section 1 Introduction, Parag 1.2 Figure 1, Page 3 | Is there significance to the ATO expiration date of 24 November 2014? | TRAP is a fictitious system. Please see Exhibit 2b, TRAP PDSS PWS section 2.1.8. Outside the TRAP system there is no significance behind the date of 24 November 2014 other than the need for any potential offeror to provide the knowledge and demonstrate ability to maintain the TRAP Authority To Operate (ATO) and provide any costs and labor associated with maintaining the ATO in the TRAP PDSS. Any mention of the ATO in the Exhibit 2c TRAP Software Development PWS is informational. | ||
| 39 | TFITS TRAP Software Development ECP0001 (Exhibit 2c TRAP Software Development PWS Final.docx) | Section 1 Introduction, Parag 1.3 Line 110-115, Page 4 | The TO states …new reports for both Basic and Super Users and is a third octet change with full technical review.” A “full technical review” does not seem to be required based on what is listed for a third octet change “Minor user enhancement” as described in the SEP on page 15, Table 4-1 (Octet Versioning System). Are we to tailor our review process and describe that tailoring in the SDP and follow it in response to the SDP TO? Or, for this response should we respond with a full review (Octet 1.X change) process? | This requirement has been updated to a second octet change. For proposal purposes, the IV&V requirement has been waived. See the updated Exhibit 2c. | X | |
| 40 | TFITS TRAP Software Development ECP0001 (Exhibit 2c TRAP Software Development PWS Final.docx) | Section 1 Introduction, Parag 1.3 Line 110, Page 4 | Since this TO will be FFP, will a detailed description of the new reports be provided? Specifically, what critical information needs to be included on the Unit Recall/Emergency Problem Report and Unit Recall/Emergency Report? Are there any differences between these reports for the Basic User and Super User? Do any of the existing reports need to be modified to include the new information that will be added for each person? | The reports requirements will not be provided by the Government. No, there are no differences between the reports for the Basic User and Super User. No existing reports will need modification. The Government will not be providing these details, nor is the Contractor responsible for providing these details. The Offeror only needs to demonstrate ability to use/maintain the reports within the given parameters, and plan for the labor necessary. | ||
| 41 | TFITS TRAP Software Development ECP0001 (Exhibit 2c TRAP Software Development PWS Final.docx) | Section 1 Introduction, Parag 1.3 Line 115, Page 4 | This change is classified as a third octet (minor enhancement). Is it acceptable to tailor the software enhancement documentation so that requirements, design, and architecture are consolidated into one document? Please be more specific to your reference to “tailoring” in the RFP. | Please see the Answer to #39. | ||
| 42 | TFITS TRAP Software Development ECP0001 (Exhibit 2c TRAP Software Development PWS Final.docx) | Section 2 Software Development, 7 Applicable Documents, Parag 2.1 and 2.2, Tables 4 and 5, Page 5, 10, 11 | Since this PWS describes an enhancement, the existing TRAP Technical Documentation is critical to gain an understanding of the architecture and is needed to describe and efficiently perform Requirements Analysis and System Design. According to the prior Q&As, Line 76, "The TRAP documentation will be available with RFP release." Specifically, where can the following documents be found: TRAP Requirements Traceability Matrix and complete TRAP Database Architecture (there are high-level/partial provided in Appendix C)? | TRAP Requirements Traceability Matrix will be provided. No further database architecture will be offered. Please see the updated RFP. | X | |
| 43 | TFITS TRAP Software Development ECP0001 (Exhibit 2c TRAP Software Development PWS Final.docx) | Section 2 Software Development, Parag 2.1.1, Line 123, Page 5 | Please define “derived requirements.” Is this anything in addition to “use cases, environments, and identifying system characteristics” mentioned above the citation in Line 121 or do you mean something else as well? | Please read the Requirements Management Plan, Paragraph 4.2, pg 15. | ||
| 44 | TFITS TRAP Software Development ECP0001 (Exhibit 2c TRAP Software Development PWS Final.docx) | Section 2 Software Development, Parag 2.4.3.5, Line 180, Page 6 | The citation calls for a warranty of three months. Does this warranty pertain to software enhancements (i.e. as described in the sample task) or to the vendor runtime environment. Normally a warranty entails response actions, possible penalties or remuneration. Please describe who this applies to and what the Government expects in a warranty? | The Government is aware that software "does not wear out", but it does get old and require fixes. The Offeror should have in their planning and budget to fix any bugs within software updates for up to three months after release. | ||
| 45 | TFITS TRAP Software Development ECP0001 (Exhibit 2c TRAP Software Development PWS Final.docx) | Section 2 Software Development, Parag 2.4.3.5, Line 180, Page 6 | Given the fact software does not wear out, what specific software related criteria is intended to "warranty the software for three months from any defects?" | Please see the Answer to #44 | ||
| 46 | TFITS TRAP Software Development ECP0001 (Exhibit 2c TRAP Software Development PWS Final.docx) | Section 3 Task Management, Parag 3.2.2.1 and 3.2.2.2, Pages 6-7 | The citation calls for “evidence of TS individual clearance for any system administrator…” and later “evidence of SECRET” clearance in Para 3.2.2.2 – for the purposes of the TRAP TO response, is this considered notional or do you actually want to see clearance information for on-bench, committed resources? | Yes, the offeror will need to demonstrate ability to meet security requirements. Please see DoD 8570.01 for all necessary cyber security certifications. | ||
| 47 | TFITS TRAP Software Development ECP0001 (Exhibit 2c TRAP Software Development PWS Final.docx) | Section 3 Task Management, Parag 3.2.2.3, Line 200, Page 7 | What type of evidence is required to show "necessary Cyber security certifications as appropriate"? | Please see the Answer to #46 | ||
| 48 | TFITS TRAP Software Development ECP0001 (Exhibit 2c TRAP Software Development PWS Final.docx) | Section 3 Task Management, Parag 3.2.2.3, Line 200, Page 7 | Given the TRAP "capabilities" of Personnel contact data what are the specific necessary certifications (any or all of: DoD 8570.01, DoDI 8510.01, DoDI 8500.2, and/or FISMA)? At what IA level do you foresee system administrators, software engineers, help desk, and program/project management personnel? | Please see the Answer to #47 | ||
| 49 | A.9 Instructions for Preparation of Proposal Content | RFP Page 43 | There appears to be no place to provide an Executive Summary. Would the Government consider allowing offerors to submit a three page Executive Summary as part of their response? | No. No Executive Summary is requested or permitted. | ||
| 50 | A.9 Instructions for Preparation of Proposal Content | RFP Pages 43-44, Parag b. 1) c) SDP | Would the Government consider excluding the copy of the CMMI ADS from the page count of the SDP? | Offeror may provide their Capability Maturity Model Integration Maturity Level III (DEV) Appraisal Disclosure Statement (ADS), or equivalent certification, as an appendix to the SDP that is not included in the specified page count. Please see the updated RFP. | X | |
| 51 | A.8 Submission of Proposal | RFP Page 41, Parag f) Attachments | Would the Government consider allowing embedded graphics files in either JPG or PNG format, as PNG files are typically slightly smaller and better minimize memory storage requirements for electronic files? | Yes, please see the updated RFP. | X | |
| 52 | RFP A.5.b.1 (Sect. 1b) | Can the government extend the page count on the Post Deployment Software Support Plan (PDSSP) to 35 pages? | Yes, please see the updated RFP. | X | ||
| 53 | RFP A.5.b.1 (Sect. 2b) | Can the government extend the page count on the TRAP SPDSS Annex to 25 pages? | Yes, please see the updated RFP. | X | ||
| 54 | PWS 2.4.3.4 | Exhibit 2c TRAP Software Development PWS Final | Line 178 – Did the Government mean to use the word “different” instead of “differences”? If the word “differences” was intended, can the Government clarify their expectation for “differences training materials”? | No, the Government meant to use the word differences. Differences training material is the delta between prior/post change and the training material needs to be updated to demonstrate the differences between the prior system and the changed system. | ||
| 55 | PWS 3.5 Software Development Task Closeout | Section 3.5 - Did the Government mean PDSS Task Closeout? | No, the Government meant Software Development Task Closeout. | |||
| 56 | PWS 3, Attachment 1 SI Consolidation PWS Final | Should the PDSS Plan focus on Class I ECPs, Class II ECPs, or both? | Both. | |||
| 57 | PWS 4a, Post Award Orientation and Planning PWS, | Page 2, Lines 77-78, Figure 2 Initial Transition Phasing | Comment: in Task Order Planning #2, the figure says that MDSS II will be awarded. This conflicts with other information in the graphic that says the Transition TO will be issued during the TO Planning #2 and negotiated during TO Planning #3. |
| Question: Can the Government confirm the TO solicitation timeline for the MDSS II transition? | The Government has updated Attachment 4(a) to correct the oversight. | X | ||
| 58 | DD254 | Page 1 | Would the Government consider issuing the DD254 at the Top Secret Level, since this contract will require the SI to perform IA work on the servers? See supporting references below: |
IAW with DOD 8570.01-M, Personnel working at IAT Level I Position require an SSBI investigation.
IAW with Defense Security Services: (http://www.dss.mil/psmo-i/indus_psmo-i_process_applicant.html)
| PSMO (Personnel Security Management Office)-does not accept Single Scope Background Investigations (SSBI) submitted as Secret clearance requirements for Automation Data Processing (ADP)/Information Technology (IT) positions. Requests for these types of needs in support of IT requirements must be submitted in accordance with procedures available from the Government Contracting Activity (GCA). | The Government attached the incorrect DD254. The DD254 has been updated to reflect Top Secret. Please see the updated Attachment. | |
| SECNAV M-5239.2, Para 3.5 |
3.5. SECURITY CLEARANCE REQUIREMENTS
Personnel requiring “privileged access” to ISs carry an IT and IT-related security designation for processing information within IT systems. All IA personnel are required to obtain U.S. Government security clearance/eligibility in accordance with reference (d). Reference (y) provides DON personnel security standards. System Administrators/Network Administrators for infrastructure devices, IDSs, routers normally will require a favorable NACI as well as the initiation of a Single Scope Background Investigation (SSBI). IA personnel requiring access to ISs processing classified information to fulfill their duties will possess the required favorable security investigation, security eligibility, formal access approval, and need to know.
Personnel, while holding a higher level clearance, will only be cleared commensurate with the level of information processed by the information system(s) for which they are responsible. See Chapter 3.13 for Foreign Nationals’ security requirements.
| 59 | RFP | f. Volume V – Contract Information, Page 50, Parag 2. | Under Volume V, section 1, the offeror is asked to complete pricing information in Section B. Section B includes 5 CLINs. Can the Government confirm that the only prices required are for TRAP TO and “Post Award Orientation and Planning Response” TO under Section B? | You will not price CLINs 0001-0003. The offeror shall submit pricing derived from the sample TRAP and Post Award Orientation and Planning TO's. Please see the Answer to #23. | X |
| 60 | RFP | e. Volume IV –Price Proposal, Page 48, Parag 5 | In the example of pricing information required, the table shows the details at the third level WBS; however, some of the task in the PWS will only go the second level. For example, 3.1 TRAP Transition Task Initiation does not break down the task to lower level. Can the Government confirm that providing pricing detail at the second level will satisfy the pricing detail requirement? | Per the RFP, "If no third indentation level exists, then the offeror shall break down to the second indentation level (e.g.3.3 or 4.2)" | |
| 61 | RFP | A.5 Instructions to Offerors, Pages 40-41 | Will the Government please confirm that a cover letter will not count against volume page limitations? | The Government is not requesting cover letters or executive summaries. Do not submit cover letters or executive summaries. | |
| 62 | Attachment 1 – SI Consolidation PWS | What is the expected Average Handle Time for contacts to the application help desk? | This metric is not in the TFITS Performance Management Plan and is not provided or required by the Government. | ||
| 63 | Attachment 1 – SI Consolidation PWS | What percentage of contacts offered have content classified at SECRET? | 2 contracts of 15 are SECRET which is approximately 13%. | ||
| 64 | Attachment 1 – SI Consolidation PWS | Who is responsible for monitoring and management services for the production systems that will remain in the USMC data centers? | The TCSI shall monitor and manage in cooperation with any services provided by the data center. All Production systems are in approved Government data centers. No system will be removed from an approved Government data center. The degree of monitoring and management services is task order specific. | ||
| 65 | Attachment 1 – SI Consolidation PWS | Section 7.2 states: For each Government-approved update to the System IMS, reportable events shall also be incorporated into the single SI Consolidated Contract IMS. At a minimum, each System IMS shall provide the Government information sufficient to demonstrate how the TCSI intends to manage the proposed effort including: |
7.2.6 Contractor Work Breakdown Structures (CWBSs) extended off the Government Work Breakdown Structure (GWBS) (if provided).
| For the Exhibit_2a__TRAP_Transition_PWS_Final_, Exhibit_2b__TRAP_PDSS_PWS_Final_, and the Exhibit_2c__TRAP_Software_Development_PWS_Final_, a Government Work Breakdown Structure (GWBS) was not provided. Will the Government be providing a GWBS for the sample Task Orders? | No. A GWBS will not be provided. | |||||
| 66 | Attachment 1 – SI Consolidation PWS | Section 5 Project Management, Page 22, 5.1.1 Line 634 | Can the Government please clarify the requirement for "TCSI staff to be located within a reasonable commuting distance from MCB Quantico?" Does this preclude reach back to non-local TCSI resources for Service Desk or Development expertise, for example? | The Government wants a local presence to reduce the need for travel cost. No, having a local presence does not preclude reach back resources. However, please note that pursuant to the RFP, reimbursed travel is expected to be extremely limited. | ||
| 67 | Updated Attachment 7 – DD 254 | Continuation Sheets, 1 & 3 of 4, p. 1, para 10e(2) & p. 3 Att A | Will the Government kindly confirm that SIPRNet access will only be at USG locations? | Yes, USG locations only. | ||
| 68 | Exhibit 2a – TRAP Transition PWS | On what platform is the Knowledge base intended to be hosted (e.g., Remedy, SharePoint, intranet, ticketing tool)? | TRAP is a fictitious system. These details are not important. The Knowledge based platform is GFE. The Offeror only needs to demonstrate ability to utilize the GFE and the associated labor. | |||
| 69 | Exhibit 2a – TRAP Transition PWS | Section 9, Page 12, Parag 1 | The TRAP Transition PWS states there is will be no Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) provided for the TRAP task order. Is this limited to development and test hardware, or does the Government expect the TCSI to cost the hardware for the production environment? | TRAP is a fictitious system. The Government does not expect costs for Production hardware environment. Please see the Answers to #26 and #32. | ||
| 70 | Exhibit 2b – TRAP PDSS PWS | PDSS Service Support, page 3, Parag 2.1.2.1.2 | The document states that the "TSCI shall use the existing government provided tool developed in .Net." This appears to be in conflict with Section 8 Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) and Information of the TFITS SI Consolidation Post Award Initiation PWS that states, "There is no GFE or GFI provided to the TCSI in performance of this contract." Could the Government please clarify? | TRAP is a fictitious system. However, in this scenario, the TCSI will be provided CAC access to the tool and not the tool itself. | ||
| 71 | Exhibit 2b – TRAP PDSS PWS | PDSS Service Support, page 3 & 6, Parag 2.1.2.1.2 and 2.1.4.1.1 | What are the capabilities of the .NET trouble ticket tool referenced in the TRAP PDSS PWS? | TRAP is a fictitious system. This information does not exist nor is it required for an offeror to submit a proposal. | ||
| 72 | Exhibit 2b – TRAP PDSS PWS | PDSS Service Support, page 8, Parag 2.1.5.1-2.1.5.4 | Is the Configuration Item Technical Data Base (CITDB) the same system that is referenced in the TFITS CMP in Section 3, Tools and Resources? | Yes. | ||
| 73 | Exhibit 2b – TRAP PDSS PWS | PDSS Service Support, page 14, Parag 2.2.2 | Are the TRAP RPO and RTO being met by enterprise applications that are in production today? | TRAP is a fictitious system. Yes. | ||
| 74 | Exhibit 2b – TRAP PDSS PWS | PDSS Service Support, page 16, Parag 2.2.4 | Is the TRAP Production NIPR and SIPR requirement for 98% Operational Availability (Ao) being met by enterprise applications that are in production today? Does this Ao include infrastructure non-availability that is managed by MCSC? | TRAP is a fictitious system. Ao is task order specific. Consideration of other Production systems Aos is not a factor for this RFP. For TRAP assume the system is owner managed and all network outages and planned down time will not count against Ao. | ||
| 75 | Exhibit 2b – TRAP PDSS PWS | Section 4.2, page 20, Table | The TRAP PDSS PWS states the current production equipment will be refreshed in September 2014. Who will be responsible for refreshing the production equipment? | Refer to the answers for #26 and #38. | ||
| 76 | Exhibit 2b – TRAP PDSS PWS | Section 7 Deliverables and Schedule, page 31, P014 Contract Work Breakdown Schedule | Is the Contract Work breakdown Schedule different from the Contract Work breakdown Structure? The format for the deliverable is Government provided format. Will the Government be providing a format to use for the sample Task Order? | The title of this deliverable has been updated to read Contractor Work Breakdown Structure. In addition, this deliverable was included in error, and has been removed. Please see the updated Exhibit. | X | |
| 77 | Exhibit 2c – TRAP Software Development PWS | Section 8 Deliverables and Schedule, E013 Contract Work Breakdown Schedule | The Deliverable E013 is not listed in the section but is listed in Appendix D of the Attachment_1_SI_Consolidation_PWS_Final_. Will the Format be the same as the Format for Deliverable P014 and if so, will the Government be providing a format to use for the example Task Order? | Please see the Answer to #76. | X | |
| 78 | Exhibit 3b – TFITS CMP | ECP Workflow Process, Page D-1 | The workflow does not appear to match the description for an ECP on pp D2 – 4. The logic from the ROM decision point seems to be reversed; ECPs that pass to Requirement's Elicitation do not appear to progress further. Could the Government please clarify? | The Government recognizes the error. There is an omitted feedback arrow. This is a minor error, and will be updated. The Chart is meant to supplement the description in D2-D4. And the Government will work to correct D-1 at a later date. | ||
| 79 | Exhibit 3c – TFITS Performance Measurement Plan | Service Operations Metrics, Section 2.3 | What ESM systems collect /report the Service Operations/System Performance metrics for TRAP? Is there a metrics baseline for enterprise applications that are in production today? | TRAP is a fictitious system. TRAP has not implemented an ESM. | ||
| 80 | Exhibit 4b – TRAP Contingency Plan | Section 4.3, Page 7, Parag 1 | Exhibit 4b states a suitable alternate TRAP site is co-located with the system integrator lab. Will the Government please clarify? Does USMC expect the TCSI to provide a DR COOP site for recovery of the Dev/Test systems? | The Government recognizes the error. This is a minor error. The USMC does not expect the TCSI to provide a DR COOP site for recovery of the Dev/Test systems. | ||
| 81 | TFITS-CC-Industry-Day-15-2013_v2.pdf | Page 35, Table | The TRAP Performance and Characteristics defined a storage volume requirement of 6TB. Will the Government please provide a breakout of SAN storage volumes required between the NIPR and SIPR Dev/Test environments? | This is impossible to answer because your SIPR and NIPR SAN would never be shared. Therefore, the Government will not provide a breakout. | ||
| 82 | TFITS-CC-Industry-Day-15-2013_v2.pdf | Page 35, Table | The TRAP Performance and Characteristics defined a storage volume requirement of 6TB. Assuming support for the production environments are in scope, please provide a breakout of SAN storage volumes required between the NIPR and SIPR Production environments that will reside in the USMC data center. | This contract IS for the support of production environments. The Government will not provide a breakout, but the Offeror should demonstrate how they plan to manage the SAN and the associated labor. | ||
| 83 | Evaluation Criteria- Section A.14e-Factor 5-Price | Will the Government please clarify the meaning of the last sentence of this section: “Proposals may be found acceptable should it be determined that out year pricing in Vol. IV, Section 2.” | This sentence has been removed. Please see the updated RFP. | X | ||
| 84 | TRAP Software Development ECP0001- PWS | Can the Government describe what technology was used to develop reporting capabilities used in disconnected operations? | TRAP is a fictitious system. There is no reporting capability in the disconnected environment. It only allows for reporting when they reconnect. | |||
| 85 | RFP | Table 1: Proposal Page Limits and Number of Copies | Due to the complexity of the information being addressed in the TRAP TOs and the limited page count of the annexes, is it compliant for the Offeror to refer back to the applicable sections in the corresponding overarching plans where no additional information is required to explain the task order process? If referencing back to the overarching plans is not acceptable, will the Government consider increasing each annex page count by an additional 7 pages? | An Offeror may refer back to applicable sections in the corresponding overarching plans where no additional information is required to explain the task order process if the Offeror believes that any reference is complete and the information referenced is sufficient to meet the requirements. However, in accordance with the RFP, "It is an Offeror's responsibility to submit a well-written proposal, with adequately detailed information which demonstrates its clear understanding of, and compliance with, the solicitation requirements. The Offeror is responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of the proposal." Should the reference be incorrect or the corresponding overarching plan be deficient, the offeror stands the risk of receiving two separate negative findings. | ||
| 86 | TFITS SI Consolidation Overarching PWS | Does the Government expect the Offeror to address each element of PWS section 4.2 in the overarching SDP, or should this information only be reflected in the TRAP SSDP Annex? | The Government expects the Offerors to address each element of the overarching PWS in the correct volume, as well as each element in the System Specific TO PWSs. Please see the Answer to #85. | |||
| 87 | RFP | Page 4 | Will the Government confirm that the Offeror should price the Post Award Orientation and Planning TO on CLIN0004? | Please see the Answer to #23. | X | |
| 88 | RFP | Table 1: Proposal Page Limits and Number of Copies | In order to provide a sufficient level of detail in the Program Management Plan which includes the RMP and QAPP, would the Government increase the page count to 30 pages? | Yes, please see the updated RFP. | X | |
| 89 | TFITS SI Consolidation Overarching PWS | section 5.1.6-Security | Can the Offeror provide evidence of an appropriate Facility Clearance as an appendix to the PMP that is not included in the specified page count? | No. Evidence of appropriate Facility Clearance needs to be included in the specified page count. However, the Government is increasing the page count allowed for PMP. Please see the Answer to #88. | X | |
| 90 | RFP | Exhibit 2b, TRAP PDSS PWS, page 18 | While the TRAP PDSS PWS makes clear in section 2.2.4.6.3 that the TCSI is responsible for supporting hardware and software added to the system by virtue of the refresh, it is not clear whether “the Government will require a technical refresh in September 2014” means that supporting or executing the refresh activity itself is part of the scope of the TRAP SPDSS task order. Will the Government clarify the TCSI’s required role in the September 2014 refresh activity? | Please see the Answers to #26 and #38. | ||
| 91 | RFP | Page 43, A.9.b.1.c | Can the Offeror provide its Capability Maturity Model Integration Maturity Level III (DEV) Appraisal Disclosure Statement (ADS) as an appendix to the SDP that is not included in the specified page count? | Please see the Answer to #50. | X | |
| 92 | RFP | Page 3 - Section B, CLIN 0001 | If pricing is to be submitted under CLIN 0001, please confirm that the Overarching PWS Objectives and paragraphs applicable to this CLIN are 2.1-2.5 and not 3.1-3.4 as stated in Section B. | Please see the Answer to #23. | ||
| 93 | RFP | Page 3 - Section B, CLIN 0002 | Please confirm whether Offerors are to submit pricing under CLIN 0002. | Please see the Answer to #23. | ||
| 94 | RFP | Page 3 - Section B, CLIN 0002 | If pricing is to be submitted under CLIN 0002, please confirm that the Overarching PWS Objectives and paragraphs applicable to this CLIN are 3.1-3.5 and not 4.1-4.5 as stated in Section B. | Please see the Answer to #23. | ||
| 95 | RFP | Page 4 - Section B, CLIN 0003 | Please confirm whether Offerors are to submit pricing under CLIN 0003. | Please see the Answer to #23. | ||
| 96 | RFP | Page 4 - Section B, CLIN 0003 | If pricing is to be submitted under CLIN 0003, please confirm that the Overarching PWS Objectives and paragraphs applicable to this CLIN are 4.1-4.2 and not 5.1-5.2 as stated in Section B. | Please see the Answer to #23. | ||
| 97 | RFP | Page 4 - Section B, CLIN 0003 | Please confirm that the title of this CLIN should be “Software Development” and not “System Enhancement” as stated in Section B. | Confirmed, please see the updated RFP. | X | |
| 98 | Attachment 4a- Post Award Orientation & Planning PWS | pages 7 & 8 | Will the Government clarify the difference between K002 Integrated Master Schedule Update and K009 IMS? | The Government requests an IMS with the proposal (K009). In addition, the Government wants to reserve the right to request updates to that IMS (K002). The date of first submission for K002 was incorrect. Please see the updated Attachment 4a. | X | |
| 99 | Attachment 4a- Post Award Orientation & Planning PWS | pages 7 & 8 | CDRLs K001-K006 all specify “Government format.” Since no Government format was provided, can the Offeror deliver the CDRLs in a Contractor format? | A) There are no CDRLS, only deliverables. | ||
| B) Yes, please see the updated Attachment 4(a). In addition, the Government has also updated the format for Exhibits 2a through 2c. | X | |||||
| 100 | Attachment 4a- Post Award Orientation & Planning PWS | figure 2 | Task Order Planning Meeting #2 Shows that the Government will issue a transition RFP for MDSS II and also award the Task Order for MDSS II. Task Order Planning #3 indicates that there will be a negotiation of the Proposal for MDSS II. At which planning meeting does the Government anticipate awarding the task order for MDSSII? | Please see the Answer to #57. | ||
| 101 | Attachment 4a- Post Award Orientation & Planning PWS | Section 2.4.1 | Can the Government confirm that the requirements of this section apply to both task order RFPs six and seven? | Confirmed. The PWS contained an error. Please see the updated Attachment 4(a). | X | |
| 102 | RFP | Page 40, A5.b.2.b | Can the Offeror use 8 point Arial Narrow for tables, figures and graphics? | No. | ||
| 103 | Exhibit 6- Past Performance Statement | May the Offeror re-format Part I of this Exhibit in order to maximize the space available in Part II? | That is acceptable, but the offeror is not allowed to increase the amount of pages. | |||
| 104 | RFP | 1. RFP, page 27 – FAR Clause 52.216-18, Ordering, para (a) | “(a) Any supplies and services to be furnished under this contract shall be ordered by issuance of delivery orders or task orders by the individuals or activities designated in the Schedule. Such orders may be issued from TBD through TBD.” | Ordering periods will be 12 months in length, for 3 years. However, an exact start date cannot be given at this time. However, the Government anticipates award in July, with the first Ordering period coinciding with the planned award. | ||
| RFP | 2. RFP, page 49 – para 2, Section 2 – Pricing Table | “Labor rates are fixed for all contract year periods, and are not subject to any escalation through the course of the ordering periods.” | ||||
| TFITS Consolidated Contract Industry Day Slide | 3. TFITS Consolidated Contract Industry Day Slide #11, Contract Strategy Overview | “Three Year Ordering Period” | ||||
| The RFP does not specify an Ordering Period or CLIN PoPs other than the PWS periods of performance. Please clarify the Ordering Period effective for Offerors’ proposed fixed hourly burdened labor rates. | ||||||
| What is the period of performance for this contract? | ||||||
| 105 | RFP | pgs. 3-4 – Section B, CLINs 0001-0005AC | CLIN pricing is “inclusive of any and all Travel and Other Direct Costs.” Will the Government be amenable to incorporating Cost-Reimbursable CLINs for Travel and Other Direct Costs? | No. This is a commercial contract, and as such, cost type CLINs are not allowable. | ||
| 106 | RFP Task Order PWS Exhibits 2a, 2b, 2c, 4a | Please confirm that for contract pricing purposes, travel under the Task Orders will be limited CONUS trips. OCONUS travel is not anticipated at this time, and therefore not requested to be priced. | That is incorrect. Per the locations of the TRAP system, some OCONUS travel, although not frequent, will be necessary. | |||
| 107 | Exhibit 2c - TRAP Software Development | Line 180, Parag 2.4.3.6 | States the TCSI will warrant software for 3 months. |
A) How is this warranty differentiated from normal incident management or problem reporting under post deployment software support?
B) Should this be addressed in the contractual obligations rather than the Software Development Plan? A) Please see the Answer to #44.
B) No, we want you to build in risk for latent defects.
| For development and test support will the government provide hardware, virtual environment configurations, database applications, middleware, operating system licenses, etc. as GFE or is the intent to procure it as an ODC, or will it be fully the responsibility of the TCSI? | Please see the Answer to #32. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .