CAC2S_RFP_QAs_Round_2_FBO_FINAL.pdf

Document/Section Paragraph/Ref Question/Issue/Concern Gov't Response

33 Technical Data Package A0500 Bonding Process, EA934 EPOXY, SHELLBACK listed as A0282 instead of A0426. Is the part referenced correct?

Drawing A0500 applies to the (V)3 variant only. Also, Bonding Epoxy listed under A0006 should be A0426.

The Attachment 2 - TDP will be updated and provided at contract award.

34 Technical Data Package A0500/A0000 A0447 is included in the V1/V2 but not in V3. Is the input cable not necessary for the

V3?

No; This input cable is not required for the (V)3.

35 Technical Data Package A0500

V3 is using the old 2U Server brackets (A0063, A0068) instead of the 1U server brackets of the V1/V2 (A0509, A0510). Also missing new shelf (A0511), and has obsolete bracket (A0166). Will the Government be updating to reflect the current parts?

Yes; Drawing A0500 will be updated to the correct configuration, which should include the 1U Server

Brackets (A0509, A0510), new shelf (A0511), and removal of A0166. The Attachment 2-TDP will be updated and provided at contract award.

36 Technical Data Package A0500

V3 is using the old Switch brackets (A0074, A0075, A0076) instead of the new brackets (A0514, A0515). Will the Government be updating to reflect the current parts?

Yes; Drawing A0500 will be updated to remove A0279 and update the configuration to include Switch

Brackets (A0514 and A0515). A0074, A0075, and

A0076 are obsolete as noted in the TDP attachment.

The Attachment 2-TDP will be updated and provided at contract award.

37 Technical Data Package A0500 V3 still contains obsolete part A0279. Should this part be removed?

Drawing A0500 will be updated to remove reference to drawing A0279.

38 Technical Data Package A0500 A0461 lists two A0318, while V1/V2 show only one A0318 under A0461. Please clarify.

There should only be one A0318 listed under A0461.

Drawing A0500 will be updated to the correct configuration. The Attachment 2-TDP will be updated and provided at contract award.

39 Technical Data Package A0500 A0107 lists two A0258, while V1/V2 show only one A0258 under A0107. Please clarify.

There should only be one A0258 listed under A0107.

Drawing A0500 will be updated to the correct configuration. The Attachment 2-TDP will be updated and provided at contract award.

40 Technical Data Package A0500 A0516 is missing from the A0217 Transit case assembly, while it exists there on

V1/V2. Please clarify.

Drawing A0500 will be updated to the correct configuration to include Air Filter A0516 under the

A0217 Transit Case Assembly. The Attachment 2-

TDP will be updated and provided at contract award.

CAC2S RFP M67854-16-R-0217 Request for Clarifications Responses Round 2

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release. Distribution is unlimited.

41 Solicitation Document / Section L, M L2.2 Volume V, Factor 4, M-

3.2.4 Factor 4

Per Section L, page 130, the offeror is required to describe the processes used to satisfy the requirements of the CSDR reporting levied on the contractor. Per Section

M, page 141, several different management plans are requested. Outside of those management plans, proposed compliance with CSDR requirements is listed as an evaluation factor (Factor 4). Please clarify whether the proposed compliance with

CSDR requirements should be a separate deliverable CSDR Plan or if the changes proposed by the offeror to the Government provided CSDR to be addressed within the proposal response for Factor 4.

See response to Q#31.

No; Offerors do not need to submit a CSDR plan as another attachment; however, offerors are required to describe the processes used to satisfy the requirements of the CSDR reporting IAW Section L-

2.2 (f) and demonstrate compliance to CSDR requirements IAW Section M 3.2.4. See DFARS

252.234-7003.

42 Solicitation Document / CDRLs B007, B009, B010, B011

Please confirm that submissions of CDRLs B007, B009, B010, and B011 will require

Government approval, or remove the requirement for approval prior to submission to the Defense Cost and Resource Center (DCARC) Central Repository.

No; Government approval is not required prior to submission. CDRLs requirements will be updated to remove the requirement for approval by Program

Office prior to submission to SARC. CDRLs B006, B007, B008, B009, B010, B011, B012 have been updated and are incorporated in RFP Amendment

00001.

43 Solicitation Document / CDRLs B011

CDRL B011 references DI-FNCL-81565C, however this document pertains to the

CSDR. Should it instead reference DI-MGMT-82035, Software Resources Data

Reporting: Development and Maintenance Reports and Data Dictionary?

Yes; CDRL B011 should reference DI-MGMT-82035 instead of DI-FNCL-81565C. CDRL B011 has been updated and is incorporated in RFP Amendment

0001.

44 Technical Data Package A0429 Is the MS-VIS-C++ listed the C++ redistributable? Yes.

45 Technical Data Package A0429

"SEE CAC2S WHATSUP GOLD PROCUREMENT GUIDELINE, 99-0014766 FOR

PURCHASING/LICENSING INSTRUCTIONS WHEN ORDERING IPSWITCH

PRODUCTS." Where is this referenced guideline?

License agreements guidelines are documented in the

License Book, which is part of the provided SVD.

46 Technical Data Package A0429

SMARTDEPLOY-ENT doesn't indicate what tier of service (Basic, Essential, Premium) and number of machines needed to be included per license. Can the Government provide this information?

SMARTDEPLOY-ENT utilizes Essential tier. The number of licenses required in TAOC/DASC is (38).

The Number of licenses required in TACC is (313).

Solicitation Document / Cost Format

Workbook Attachment L-1

There is no annual division present in the existing Cost Format, is the name Yearly

Summary not representative of what you are looking for or should we modify the template to be segregated by year?

The "Yearly Summary" tab will be changed to reflect

"Total Cost/Price by CLIN". L-1 Cost Template will be updated and included in a future RFP Amendment.

48 GFE Listing Attachment 1

Are the classified GFE items provided for use in the SIL such as the HP Z800 and

SDP-S workstation accredited? When will the accreditation documentation be provided to the contractor?

Yes; HPZ800 and SDP-S Workstation are accredited.

Accredited documentation will be provided when the

SIL is provided to the contractor after contract award.

50 SCG Attachment 13

Based on CAC2S SCG paragraphs 06.A.(1)(b), 06.A.(1)(c)2, 06.C.(3)(f), and 09.A.(3), a completed RMF package may be either Confidential or Secret. Will the Government provide non-CAC2S GFE computer(s) suitable for classified processing?

No; The contractor is responsible for providing non-

GFE computer suitable for classified processing in support of RMF activities. National Industrial Security

Program Operating Manual (NISPOM) addresses contractor's responsibilities for handling of classified data and computing resources.

54 Technical Data Package Is the Dell-E653 and Dell-M6800 meant to be on the spares list or should they be the

M7510 and M7710 which are called out in the TDP?

The correct items are the M7510 and M7710. The spares list has been updated to reflect design and is incorporated in RFP Amendment 0001 .

56 Government Risk Management Plan Attachment 6 Page 14 is missing from the Government Risk Management Plan. Can this page be made available to the offerors?

Yes; An updated Risk Management Plan including page 14 will be provided to offerors via AMRDEC Safe and is incorporated in RFP Amendment 0001.

57 Solicitation Document / CDRLs A014

According to CDRL A014, "The Contractor shall submit the Data Accession List reports when requested by the Government". For planning purposes, what is the frequency that should be assumed for this CDRL submission?

Data Ascension List is CDRL Item B014. For the purpose of bidding the requirement, expect the CDRL to be requested (2) times per base and each option year. CDLR B014 has been updated and is included in RFP Amendment 0001.

58 Solicitation Document / Section L page 125 of 148, para d.

Can the government please confirm that Client Authorization Letters are only required from those subcontractors for which the Prime Contractor is submitting a past performance reference from the subcontractor's commercial customer.

Yes; Client Authorization Letters are only required from those subcontractors for which the Prime contractor is submitting a past performance reference from the subcontractor's commercial customer.

59 Solicitation, Section M 3.2.4 (pg. 141)

Clarify the reference to the IMP in the evaluation criteria for Factor 4 – Program

Management and Processes. Is this in error? The IMP requirement in Section L has been deleted. Recommend to remove from Section M.

See response to Q#5

Yes; Section M has been updated to remove IMP reference in Section M-3.2.4 and is included in RFP

Amendment 0001.

60 Solicitation, Section G 9 (pg. 68)

There are a lot of scenarios possible with the Quantity Variance clause in Section G.9 some of which could affect an increase in cost of FDU''s, please clarify the intent of the quantity variance. Is it to move FDUs from out years earlier in the schedule and maintain the 46 units overall?

Yes; The intent of the quantity variance is to allow flexibility to the Government to move FDUs earlier from the out years. Table G.9 specifies options for which the quantity ordered is subject to change within the stated parameters. The Government anticipates it will procure (41) FDUs.

61 CDRL A001, Box 4 SEMP

The DD1423 for this CDRL item A001 lists DI-SESS-81785 in box 4, Authority. For the

SEMP CDRL should offerors use DI-SESS-81785 or the latest version DI-SESS-

81785A?

Use the latest DID: DI-SESS-81785A for CDRL A001.

CDRL A001 has been updated to reflect this change and is incorporated in RFP Amendment 0001.

62 Section F Delivery Dates (pg. 58) The delivery sequence in Section F includes 41 vehicles. Will the Government update the delivery sequence table in section F to include all 46 vehicles?

The Government anticipates it will procure (41) FDUs.

Options are available to be exercised in each option year of the contract.

64 Attachment 1 FEI Tab The GFI Listing only lists 41 sets of equipment, not 46. Recommend the government update the GFE list to 46.

The Government anticipates it will procure (41) FDUs.

Attachment 1 does not require the recommended update.

66 Section F Delivery Dates (pg. 58)

Delivery sequence number 13 indicates that the option unit increase comes from CLIN

0302. This seems to be in error as this CLIN is for CAC2S Data, not a FDU. Please correct CLIN reference.

See response to Q#22.

The CLIN 0302 reference error has been corrected to reflect CLIN 0306 and is incorporated in RFP

Amendment 0001.

67 Section C 3.4.4.4 (pg. 44)

The SOW states "The Contractor shall acquire and manage the software licenses, including yearly support/maintenance agreements for software delivered under this

CLIN. As FDUs are delivered and accepted by the Government, the Contractor shall support the transfer of the software licenses, acquired under this CLIN to a

Government designated entity in accordance with CDRL A019. The Government will manage the software licenses for each of the delivered FDUs."

How many years of software license support is required at the time of transfer to the government?

(1) year of software license support is required at the time of transfer to the Government.

68 Attachment L-1 CLIN Tabs

There appears to be missing formulas on these tabs. For example, rows 5 and 8 identifies labor Category I and III respectively, they do not have formulas, Row 10 for indirect labor does not have a formula. Should the Offeror correct the formulas or will the Government provide a revised L1?

The Government purposely did not include formulas for every cell to allow offerors flexibility in the development of costs. The Government will remove formulas for the detailed cost tabs in L-1 Cost

Template. This change will be incorporated in a future

RFP Amendment.

69 Attachment L-1 Tab Unit Cost Calculation

For base year (lot 1) the quantities do not appear correct, CLINs 0001, 0002, 0003, 0004, 0010 & 0011 have a total of 13 units, however the unit cost calculation tables ( col's. C thru I) has a total of 12 units. Please clarify the correct quantities for unit cost calculation.

Correct quantities for unit cost will be updated in L-1

Cost Template and included in a future RFP

Amendment.

70 Attachment L-1 Tab Unit Cost Calculation

Currently the data input areas appear to be in the rows where the element is in

"italics". There are sub-elements below some of these elements. For example, Manufacturing has sub elements of Variable labor and Fixed labor, which does NOT sum to the Manufacturing row. If data is entered into the sub elements, there are no formulas that will sum these costs to the Manufacturing row (row 7). Should the

Offeror modify the formulas so sub elements roll up to the appropriate summary level?

No, the offeror should not modify the formulas. The

Government will update L-1 Cost Template to incorporate necessary changes to formulas. The L-1

Cost Template update will be included in a future RFP

Amendment.

71 Attachment L-1 tab CLIN Yearly Summary

There are no formulas in this table. The columns identified in this tab are: Total

Estimated Cost, Fixed Fee and Total Price. Additionally the "Fixed Fee" column is color coded, which is color coded the same as "NSP" data CLINs, which implies that data (fee) should not be indicated. Please clarify the data that is requested to be entered into this tab.

Greyed cells indicate they should not be populated.

Clarifying language will be added to L-1 Cost

Template and incorporated in a future RFP

Amendment.

72 Attachment L-1 Tab Unit Cost Calculation Row 1 appears to not correctly identify the lot numbers for lots 3 & 4, please correct.

The L-1 Cost Template will be updated to correct lot numbers and will be included in a future RFP

Amendment.

73 Attachment L-1 CLIN Tabs

Please clarify the difference between "direct labor" and "indirect labor". Is it correct to assume that Direct labor is the labor directly related to activities associated with assembly and test, etc. types of activities, where indirect labor would be related to such activities as production control, mission assurance, PMO, etc.?

Direct Labor: Labor specifically identified with a particular final cost objective. Manufacturing direct labor includes fabrication, assembly, inspection, and test for constructing the end product. Engineering direct labor consists of engineering labors such as reliability, Quality Assurance (QA), test, design, etc., that are readily identified with the end product.

Indirect Labor: Indirect labor is the cost of any labor that supports the production process, but which is not directly involved with the end product.

74 Vol III Cost Price Attachment L1

The Cost volume outline identified in Section L does not Identify where in Vol. III the government would like Attachment L1 to appear?

1) Should Attachment L-1 be an Attachment to Volume III or incorporated into the

Volume?

2) For hardcopy's of Volume III, is a hardcopy required or is an electronic version only acceptable?

It is suggested that L1 be submitted electronically only as hardcopies will be complex for the evaluator to read due to the detailed requirements specified for each CLIN tab.

Each Clin summary can easily be five or more 11 x 17 pages in length due to the following RFP requirements:

1: Detailed cost element breakdown, time phased by quarter by GFY

2: Tasks performed

3: Methods of Cost Estimating

4: Labor Functions

5:Description of each labor category

6: Cross - checks used to verify reasonableness

1. Yes; L-1 Cost Template should be provided as an

Attachment to Volume III, and shall be provided electronically IAW Section L-2.1.

2. Volume III shall be provided both electronically and hard copy IAW L-2.1.

75 Vol III, Sect. L, Pg. 124 Cost Price Volume Layout, Item 8 Subcontractors

Offeror assumes the instructions (a-d) provided in this section, are applicable ONLY to subcontractors identified as a major subcontractor. Is this correct?

Yes; Instructions (a-d) provided in Section L are applicable only to subcontractors identified as major subcontractors.

76 Sections B, F, and G Ordering

Clause G-9: Quantity Variance Instructions notwithstanding, Offeror assumes that

USG will award all base-year CLINs at Contract Award, CLINs 0010 and 0011 inclusive. Otherwise stated, when the Government places the order for the Base contract (Lot 1, i.e. CLINS 0001, 0002, 0003 & 0004), optional quantities identified in

CLIN 0010 and 0011 will also be ordered. Can the USG confirm the correctness of that assumption?

No; CLINs 0010 and 0011 are option CLINs, not base-year CLINs. The Government reserves the right to not execute CLINs 0010 and 0011 IAW DFARS 252.217-

7 and DFARS 252.217-9.

77 Section F Ordering

Does the Government reserve the right to place multiple quantity orders during any ordering period? For example, for Lot 1, the Government could order CLINS 0001, 0002, 0003 & 0004. Then as a separate order placed at a different time during the

POP, issue an order for CLINs 0010 and/or 0011. If all quantities are not ordered at one time, there is a potential significant cost impact.

Yes; The Government reserves the right to place multiple quantity orders during any ordering period.

There is the potential the Government would award option CLINs separately from the base CLINs for each lot. Please refer to G.9 Quantity Variance

Instructions.

80 Vol I Go/No Go L1 attachment

For compliance to the RFP instructions regarding the information provided in Volume 1

- Go/No Go, does the Government want the L1 tab identified as "Unit Cost Calculation" extracted/copied from Volume III Attachment L1 and inserted into Volume 1? This tab provides, the information requested in Section L for Volume 1 - Go/No Go.

Yes; Tables may be copied from Volume III, L-1 Cost

Template and inserted into Volume I.

81 Section M M.2 Go/No Go Criteria

Regarding "affordability"

It appears the Government is requesting the pricing in different Government FY years for V2 verses V1 and V3 as shown below:

• Affordability—Not to Exceed – Defined by Not to Exceed Unit Cost <=$3.9M (FY17$) for the AN/TSQ-297(V)2 variant and <=$2.6M (FY16$) for the AN/TSQ-297(V)1/(V)3 variants. Conversely, if the resulting Not to Exceed Unit Cost is greater than the stated values above for ANY OR ALL variants, then the offeror’s proposal will receive a “NO

GO” and will not be evaluated by the Government. Amounts will not be rounded up or down. Not to Exceed Unit Cost is defined in Section L.

Is it correct to assume the Government desires the pricing to be in Government FY17 dollars (i.e. October 2016 through September 2017)? Please Clarify.

Yes; The unit costs should be provided in

Government FY17$. Section M.2 has been updated and is incorporated in Amendment 0001.

82 Section B, & G.9 Total quantities that may be ordered

Based on our review of the quantities identified in the Section B and Section G.9

Quantity Variance Instructions, the actual quantities that may be ordered by the

Government may range from 37 to a maximum of 59. Is this correct?

No; The Government anticipates it will procure (41)

FDUs. Please reference table G.9 which specifies options for which the quantity ordered is subject to change within the stated parameters. The intent of the quantity variance is to allow flexibility to the

Government to move FDUs earlier from the out years.

SVD, installation instructions

99-

0013934_K_CAC2S_Installation_Pro cedures

Appendix H, pg. 352 Are FDUs required to be delivered with actual site-specific domain names and IP address schemes or with the default settings used in the installation media?

FDUs are required to be delivered with default settings per the installation media.

84 Section F Pg. 63

Section F incorporates FAR 52.247-55: F.O.B. Point for Delivery of Government-

Furnished Property. Will the USG please confirm the GFP receipt address should be included as part of the response to Section L-2.2, Volume V, Factor I, 6 (p. 127)?

Yes; The contractor shall specify the GFP receipt address for GFP requested beyond that accounted for in Attachment 1 as part of the Volume V response.

85 Section F Pgs. 60-64

RFP Section F, p. 60 - 64, currently show “N/A” in the quantity column. Will the USG please confirm that Section F quantities by CLIN should reflect the same quantities listed by CLIN in Section B?

The delivery quantities in Section F match the CLINs in Section B for those CLINs that are exercised and awarded.

86 Section L Pg. 120

It is requested that the USG please clarify the relationship, if any, between the “Not to

Exceed” cost data requested for Volume I – Go/No-Go and the Firm Fixed Price CLIN pricing for Contract Section B?

The Not to Exceed Unit Cost should inform the cost build up for FFP CLINs in Section B. Additionally, the

Volume I - Go/No-Go criteria is the highest unit cost the Government will consider for each variant. The unit prices in Section B are cost per variant as proposed by the contractor.

Attachment 7: Cost and Software

Data Reporting (CSDR) Plan -

Notional

N/A

USG provided “Attachment 7: Cost and Software Data Reporting (CSDR) Plan -

Notional” as part of the RFP data bidders library. However, Attachments 7A (RDT&E), 7B (PMC), and 7C (OMMC) have not been provided. Offeror requests that these additional documents are provided to offerors.

References to Attachments 7A, 7B, and 7C are incorrect. Section J and Section C-2.1 have been updated to reflect the accurate list of attachments and are included in RFP Amendment 0001.

89 Section L Pg. 121

So that offerors may execute Proprietary Data Protection Agreements directly with the

Contractors proposed to support the USG (as defined in Section L2.2, Volume II, (j):

Use of Contractor Support); would the USG please provide POC information for CACI and GID Solutions, LLC? Offeror recognizes that these entities will execute NDAs with the USG, but we would like to execute our own documentation as well.

This information will be provided upon receipt of written request to the Contracting Officer.

90 Section M N/A

In the Draft RFP, Section M.4, (p. 115 of 118), the USG included as part of its evaluation data a table that ranked offeror proposals with a combination of proposal adjectival rating AND risk assessment rating. That table is absent in the Final RFP

Section M.4. Is this an intentional omission?

Yes; The Government elected to remove this ranking table in the final RFP.

Attachment 25 Baseline CAC2S SIL

Tools and Simulators N/A

Attachment lists only software and simulators for the SIL. Does the government intend to deliver additional production representative hardware for the SIL, beyond those items listed on the Production House tab of Attachment ( 1) Government Furnished

Property (GFP) List?

No; The Government does not intend to deliver additional production representative hardware for the

SIL beyond those items listed on the Production

House tab of Attachment 1 - GFP List.

92 Attachment L-1 CLIN Tabs

Reference Col. A of all CLIN tabs.

Is it correct to assume the cost elements identified in Column A are provided as representative cost elements and that the Offeror can provide a cost element breakdown by CLIN in accordance with the Offerors approved estimating, accounting system and CAS 401?

Cost elements identified in Column A are provided as representative cost elements, but can be tailored as necessary at the sub-element level. Offeror's may provide a cost element breakdown by CLIN in accordance with the offerors approved estimating, accounting system and CAS 401.

93 Section L Pgs. 119, 121

Table L-2.1 indicates the Executive Summary is part of Volume I, however Section L-

2.2 CONTENT OF THE PROPOSAL (p119) and L-2.2.Vol II – Model Contract.c

EXCEPTIONS suggest that it is part of the Transmittal Letter, which is defined as part of Volume II in Table L-2.1. Can the Government clarify where the Executive Summary should appear in the proposal and what elements of the proposal should appear in the

Transmittal Letter and the Executive Summary?

The Executive Summary is to be included in Volume I and the Letter of Transmittal is to be included in

Volume II, in accordance with Table L-2.1. Clarifying language in Section L-2.2 has been added and is included in RFP Amendment 0001.

94 Section L L-2.2 (pgs 120-121)

In the Q&A for the DRAFT RFP; the USG clarified that Model Contract Sections A and

K were not intended to be duplicated in the Business Volume – Part I response. Can the USG please confirm that the Model Contract presentation includes

1. Transmittal and SF33 (Section A);

2. Contract Sections B-J; and

3. Section K: Representations and Certifications, with no intention to duplicate

Section A and Section K within the proposal submittal?

Please refer to L-2.2 Volume II with regard to Model

Contract information.

95 Section L Pg 120

With the final RFP, the USG has realigned the requirement for the Small Business

Individual Subcontracting Plan, and the Subcontractor Management Plan to Volume V -

Technical Volume. However, the Section L instructions for Volume II – Model Contract still includes direction to include “Subcontracting Plan” in this volume. Can the USG please clarify the requirement for plan submittal and the section of the proposal in which they should be included?

The Subcontractor Plans shall be provided in both

Volume II and Volume V.

96 General Will the USG provide the detailed work instructions as GFE for the assembly of sub and final assembly items in the TDP?

Detailed Work Instructions are not available. Offerors should develop manufacturing processes/work cards based on their internal build processes and describe as required in their proposal.

Are the Plans going to be made available to the evaluators of Tech Volume V so that they can be referenced?

The plans shall be included in Volume V per instructions in Section L-2.2.

99 Which Volumes are the Plans (Contract attachments 42-50 ) to be submitted ? Section L- 2.2 identifies Volume II and Volume V.

Attachment 24, Software

Development Strategy, section 4.0, “Definition of Common Software

Baseline” states: … will continue the current software process until the

CSB is available and validated as complete and ready for fielding.

Section 4.0 What does the government mean by “validated as complete and ready for fielding”?

Does this imply that there may be a series of DT/OT evolutions?

The Government will develop and test the CSB via established processes and procedures currently used by CAC2S. No DT/OT evolutions are planned.

CAC2S INSTALLATION SOURCE

SOFTWARE

One of the items listed in the Shellback Software List (DWG # 13007A0429 – B) and

OPFAC Software Lists (DWG # 13007A0430 – B and 13007A0431 – C) is CAC2S

INSTALLATION SOURCE SOFTWARE (Cage Code: 1VPW8, Part/Identifying

Number: 98-0013720407L). What is this referring to? It is listed separate from the software CSCIs.

The referenced part number 98-0013720407L refers to the SVD for VVRP. The GFP list has been updated and is included in RFP Amendment 0001.

STARTUP SHUTDOWN TOOL

V1.1.0

One of the items listed in the OPFAC Software Lists (DWG # 13007A0430 – B and

13007A0431 – C) is STARTUP SHUTDOWN TOOL V1.1.0 (Cage Code: 1VPW8, Part/Identifying Number: 98-0014448103L). Is this software item GFE? There are also references to the Startup Shutdown Tool (SST) CSCI in the RFP (Sections

3.4.4.3, 3.4.4.21, 3.4.4.22). Can we get a description of this CSCI?

The Startup Shutdown Tool Computer Software

Configuration Item (CSCI) provides the capability of easy operator startup and shut down of the CAC2S virtual machine infrastructure.

Source code will be provided by the Government upon receipt of written request to the Contracting

Officer. The GFP list has been updated and is included in RFP Amendment 0001.

106 Workstation Imaging Tool

One of the CSCIs listed in the RFP (Sections 3.4.4.3, 3.4.4.21, 3.4.4.22) is the

Workstation Imaging Tool. Is this software item GFE? It is used in the “Software

Installation Procedures for use with Common Aviation Command and Control System

(CAC2S)” (DWG #99-0013934). Can we get a description of this CSCI?

The Imaging Tool Computer Software Configuration

(CSC) provides the capability of easy operator imaging the computer laptops of the CAC2S infrastructure. The utility allows the CAC2S administrator to image the CAC2S computer laptops using a graphical user interface panel. This panel allows the administrator to have all imaging process options in the same panel, and graphical feedback without having to restart the imaging process.

Source code will be provided by the Government upon receipt of written request to the Contracting

Officer. The GFP list has been updated and is included in RFP Amendment 0001.

107 VVRP

The VVRP source code does not appear to be in the TDP. Is the Government going to provide the VVRP source code?

Yes; The Government will provide the VVRP Source code upon receipt of written request to the Contracting

Officer. VVRP is identified in the TDP as CAC2S

INSTALLATION SOURCE SOFTWARE. The GFP list has been updated and is included in RFP Amendment

0001.

108 VVRP

Additionally, could the Government provide the VVRP Software Administration and

Maintenance Manual” (DWG # 99-0014160) as referenced in the software installation procedures?

Yes; The Government will provide the VVRP Software

Administration and Maintenance Manual to offerors upon receipt of written request to the Contracting

Officer.

109 TDP

Is PN: PS1000-004 , POWER SUPPLY, KIV-7M, made by RAYTHEON going to be

GFE?

No; This component is to be procured by the contractor.

111 Section M.3.2.4

Page 141 of RFP - Bullet 9:

The offeror's detailed Contract

Integrated Master Schedule

(IMS)…

This paragraph refers to an IMP, but the IMP was removed from the SOW and bid requirements. Recommend the customer remove the IMP reference from Section M.

See response to Q#5.

Section M has been updated to remove IMP reference and is included in RFP Amendment 0001.

112 Attachment L-1 Cost Template General Can the Offeror add additional tabs to the Government Cost Attachment?

Yes; Offerors may add additional tabs to the L-1 Cost

Template.

113 Attachment L-1 Cost Template Rates Tab Will the Government change the rates tab to reflect quarterly rates vs. yearly rates?

Yes; The rates tab will be changed to reflect quarterly rates vs. yearly rates in L-1 Cost Template. This change will be reflected in a future RFP Amendment.

114 Solicitation Document Section B/Section G.9 In Section B, CLIN 110 refers to Section G.9, yet Section G.9 does not show CLIN

110. CLIN 110 should be added to Section G.9 to show Min qty 1 and Max qty 2

No; Paragraph G.9 does not apply to CLIN 0110 and is not referenced in Section B, CLIN 0110.

115 Attachment 3 Allotment of Funds Table Can the Government provide Attachment 3 - Allotment of Funds Table?

Attachment 3 - Allotment of Funds table will be incorporated upon contract award. It is not necessary for bidding purposes.

117 Section L-2.2

Volume II- Model Contract, Volume III- Cost/Price

Proposal, page 118

On page 118, Section L-2.0, f. states, "No pricing information shall be included in any volume except, Volume I and Volume III". Does this direction mean the Section B and

Performance Based Payment schedule should not be included in the Model Contract, Volume II?

See response to Q#3.

Cost or pricing data may be included in Volume II -

Model Contract. Change has been made and is included in RFP Amendment 0001.

118 Section C Subsection 3.2.2 It appears CLIN 0110 is missing from the description

See response to Q#16.

Yes; Changes to SOW Sections to include missing

CLIN references have been made and are included in

RFP Amendment 0001.

119 Section F Delivery Information

The period of performance for CLINs 0104, 0105 and 0203 (Spares) on page 61 of the

RFP is inconsistent with the delivery dates identified on page 59. Recommend the end dates be changed on page 61 to reflect a 15 month PoP consistent with the delivery dates on page 59.

See response to Q#15.

The dates under the Delivery Information on page 61 are correct, and the Pop for CLINs 0104 and 0105 ends 03/31/2018. The PoP for CLIN 0203 ends

04/30/2019. Section F Delivery Dates table have been revised to correct the dates for CLINS 0104, 0105, and 0203 and are included in RFP Amendment 0001.

120 Section G Subsection G. 9

The minimum order quantity for CLINs 0301 and 0306 are identified as one (1) each, yet Section B identifies a required quantity of nine (9) and two (2) respectively. For

CLINs 0301 and 0306 should the Contractor bid the quantity identified in Section B or the minimum quantity identified in G.9?

See response to Q#28.

For CLINs that have a quantity variance, offerors shall propose to the minimum quantity in the Section F table on page 58. The table will be updated prior to option exercise post award to reflect the actual quantity ordered by the Government.

123 SOW SOW 3.4.4.21

SOW 3.4.4.21 paragraph 2 states: "The Contractor shall conduct quarterly source code reviews, utilizing government provided code review tool, for all applications developed for the MCEN to include modified COTS software, GOTS when submitted with USMC custom additions, or any custom software operated on behalf of the USMC

The GFE/GFP list, Attachment-1, does not include a recognizable "code review tool" as specified will be provided in SOW 3.4.4.21. Please update the GFE list to include the code review tool (qty 4 is required, 1 per CSCI developer).

The Code Review Tool used by the Government is

HP Fortify. The GFP List has been updated to reflect this tool and is included in RFP Amendment 0001.

124 Section L Factor 2

Factor 2 states "...The offeror shall provide a Software Sustainment Plan (SSP) describing software sustainment approach for maintaining the CAC2S software and migration from Department of Defense Information Assurance Certification and

Accreditation Process (DIACAP) to Risk Management Framework (RMF)."

Will the Government levy additional IA Controls with a conversion RMF, and if so, please provide.

Please review USMC RMF Process Guide. Note:

Additional controls may be added based on Cybersafe

Grade as determined by government. Cybersafe

Grade determination expected to be completed 3rd

QTR FY17. PMO does not have confirmed Cybersafe implementation date.

125 Section L Factor 2

Factor 2 states "...The offeror shall provide a Software Sustainment Plan (SSP) describing software sustainment approach for maintaining the CAC2S software and migration from Department of Defense Information Assurance Certification and

Accreditation Process (DIACAP) to Risk Management Framework (RMF)."

Execution of the RMF for DoD requires actions on the part of many organizations within Customer, Maintainer, and Offeror. For the Software Sustainment effort, what is the offeror's role in the Information System Continuous Monitoring (ISCM) Strategy as part of RMF?

The PM develops the initial ISCM strategy. Offeror shall assist PM and ISSM in Step 2.3 of UMSC RMF

Guide using NIST 800-137. USMC RMF Process

Guide will be provided to offerors via AMRDEC Safe.

The GFP list has been updated and is incorporated in

RFP Amendment 0001.

126 SOW SOW 3.4.4.3

SOW 3.4.4.3 page 43, bullet 5, states "The Government will integrate the existing discrete CAC2S Phase 1 and Phase 2 software baselines into an Increment I

Common Software Baseline. ….. The Contractor shall transition software sustainment to the Increment I Common Software Baseline beginning with Software Maintenance

Release 3.0R8."

Will the Common Software Baseline be IA compliant per SOW 3.4.4.20 when delivered upon contract award?

The Common Software Baseline will be compliant to the advertised compliance date of the release. The contractor is responsible for updating and maintaining the software and IA after delivery, as specified in the

SOW paragraphs 3.4.4.18 through 3.4.4.21.

130 SOW SOW 3.2.X

If an Offeror proposed using an alternative part with a different part number than specified in the TDP would it be considered a failure to comply with the RFP requirements, or are alternate parts allowed in some circumstances? If so, which ones?

Proposals using a part number other than that specified in the TDP would be considered failure to comply with RFP requirements in accordance with

Section L-1.4. Offeror is to bid to the TDP in accordance with RFP requirements.

132 SOW SOW 3.4.4.20 and 3.4.4.21

SOW sections 3.4.4.20 and 3.4.4.21 use the term "remediate".

However, does the Government intend to use the terms "shall not contain unmitigated" or "and mitigate all findings" instead? The standard cyber-security definition for

“remediate” means to directly correct the issue, while the typical cyber security standard is to mitigate all finding -- which could be through direct correction

(remediation), or they can be eliminated as a vulnerability through other means (e.g., other security mechanisms).

Terminology used in SOW Sections 3.4.4.20 and

3.4.4.21 is correct. The Government requirement is to remediate.

134 SOW SOW 3.4.4.24 Regarding SOW 3.4.4.24, how many VCSS updates are estimated per year? VCSS updates are estimated to be provided quarterly.

135 SOW SOW 3.4.4.24

Regarding SOW 3.4.4.24, are VCSS updates limited to incremental updates of the current voice software, or could they include switching to different products for integration into the system?

VCSS updates will be to the existing product.

137 SOW SOW 3.4.4.20 and 3.4.4.21

SOW 3.4.4.20 states, "The Contractor's delivered software solution shall not contain unremediated vulnerabilities, with the exception fixes that break system functionality or

Zero-day findings."

No statement is included on whether the cyber posture requirements is in conjunction to an IA currency date, or the date of release. Please clarify.

SOW Section 3.4.4.20 has been revised to specify the

Contractor's delivered software solution shall be based on Government issued IA currency date and shall not contain unremediated vulnerabilities, with the exception fixes that break system functionality or Zero-day findings and is included in RFP Amendment 0001.

138 Attachment #24 Paragraph 5.1

Attachment 24 states, "Some design changes with respect to the network infrastructure and secondary CSCIs is expected."

Will these CSCI changes result in additional software license or maintenances costs required per SOW 3.4.4.4?

The Government is unaware of any additional software license requirements that would be needed for the anticipated network infrastructure and secondary CSCIs changes.

141 SOW 3.4.4.20

SOW states "The Contractor's delivered software solution shall not contain un-remediated vulnerabilities, with the exception fixes that break system functionality… ".

Are offeror's required to implement quarterly updates to Java, .NET, openSSL, openSSH, RedHat, etc. including for modified COTS products such as PDSS? If not, with what frequency?

Yes; Offeror are required to implement updates with each release IAW SOW Section 3.4.4.20.

142 Attachment #24 Figure 1 Recommend Figure 1 in Attachment 24 be changed to reflect the first SW delivery due

28 Oct 2017, consistent with SOW 3.4.4.3.

Attachment 24, CAC2S Software Development

Strategy and the associated figure is provided for reference to understand the CAC2S software strategy. SOW paragraph 3.4.4.3, for delivery of the first SW release six (6) months after contract award applies. The timeline in Attachment 24 is for planning purposes and will be baselined upon contract award.

143 SOW SOW 3.4.4.5

SOW 3.4.4.5 states the Windows 10 migration must occur and be released prior to

2QFY2019. The SOW paragraph is only identified as CLIN 0108 (the second software maintenance year). Per the CLIN start dates in Section B, this would require all the

Windows 10 migration to be completed within the first three months of CLIN 0108 and included in the first (IA-only) software release.

Can Windows 10 effort also occur on CLIN 0009 to assist in this transition?

Yes; Windows 10 migration effort may start in CLIN

0009 to meet the SOW requirement to deliver the

Windows 10 migration prior to 2QFY19. The RFP will be updated to add CLIN 0009 to SOW Section 3.4.4.5.

144 Section F

CLIN 0206 CLIN 0305

durations

These two CLINs overlap in performance by 4 months. We believe these CLIN PoP should be sequential. Please change.

Yes; These CLINs should be sequential. CLIN 0305

PoP is 01 AUG 2020 - 30 SEP 2021. This has been updated in Section F and is incorporated in RFP

Amendment 0001.

145 SOW

3.4.3.3.1 First Article Testing

(FAT)

Relating to the First Article Test (FAT) requirements – Does the program office anticipate operational type testing (Mission threads, etc.) during the FAT or just a more detailed MAT?

No; Operational testing is not required. The FAT is a more detailed MAT. See Attachment 10 for guidance.

146 SOW

3.4.3.3.2 Manufacturing

Acceptance Testing

The MAT requires “that the data paths are available and the system functions as required”. Does the program office have any more detail other than Attachment 10 that will assist us to more accurately bid the hours/resources to complete the test activity?

No; Attachment 10 and the Attachment 2: TDP provide the data paths and system functions for

CAC2S.

148 Attachments TDP Will the program office provide a copy of the ECP 17-01 (obsolescence update) so that we can ensure all the respective drawing changes are captured?

The results of ECP 17-01 were incorporated into the latest Attachment 2-TDP.

157 Section M Page 141; para 2; 8th bullet

Section M - Evaluation Criteria states "• The offeror’s detailed Contract Integrated

Master Schedule (IMS), Contract Integrated Master Plan (IMP), and Contract Work

Breakdown Structure (WBS), and..."

IMP requirement was removed from SOW 3.3.1.9 and Section L.

Recommendation: Suggest Government remove mention and evaluation of IMP from

Section M Evaluation Criteria.

See response to Q#5.

Yes; Section M has been updated to remove IMP reference in Section M-3.2.4 and is included in RFP

Amendment 0001.