Exhibit_6_M67854-16-R-4806_RFCs_Government_Responses.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 26 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Defense Readiness Reporting System-Marine Corps
- Solicitation number
- M67854-16-R-4806
- Issued by
-
United States Marine Corps
About this file
M67854-16-R-4806 Exhibit 6
View the file
Other files
Show all 25
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
Sheet1
| QUESTIONS & ANSWERS FOR SOLICITATION M67854-16-R-4806 | ||||
| Quest. No. | DOCUMENT/PAGE/PARAGRAPH/LINE NUMBER | SOLICITATION SECTION | VENDOR QUESTION | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE |
| 1 | Is this a follow-on requirement? |
If so, please provide the incumbent contract number for this opportunity? Yes.
M67854-13-F-4900.
| 2 | Page 22, Line 371 | DRRS-MC ECP PWS (Att 3) | States "See attached graphic." Can the government provide a copy of the graphic being referenced? | See attachment 1 to Task Order 0002 ECP PWS. |
| 3 | Page 1, Lines 29-30 | DRRS-MC Overarching PWS (Att 1), DRRS-MC PDSS PWS (Att 2), and DRRS-MC ECP PWS (Att 3) | All three PWS documents refer to "authoritative databases." Can the government confirm this should instead be "authoritative data sources?" | PWS updated to read "authoritative sources." |
| 4 | Page 2, Lines 48-51 | DRRS-MC Overarching PWS (Att 1), DRRS-MC PDSS PWS (Att 2), and DRRS-MC ECP PWS (Att 3) | All three PWS documents state that the MCRAT application is within an EAR file within WebLogic, but later it states that MCRAT is a component of IBM Cognos. Which statement is correct? | We state that MCRAT is built using Cognos 10.2. We do not state that MCRAT is a component of IBM Cognos. |
| 5 | Page 20, Line 367 | DRRS-MC ECP PWS (Att 3) | In the DRRS-MC ECP PWS the statement reads "(is 4 hours the target)." Will the government confirm 4 hours is the maximum? | ECP No. CY16-XXX "DRRS-MC User Web Based Training (WBT) Updated to MarineNet Standards and Successfully Posted to MarineNET" is replaced with CY16-XXX "Readiness Policy Web Based Training (WBT)" Update. |
| 6 | Section 3.3.2.2 | DRRS-MC PDSS PWS (Att 2) | Section 3.3.2.2 states that only two WBTs are required to be updated and maintained (NETUSR-MC New User Training and Marine Corps Readiness Policy Training). Will the Government confirm that ECP No. CY16-XXX only applies to NETUSR-MC and Marine Corps Readiness Policy Training? | ECP No. CY16-XXX, in this case, only applies to the Marine Corps Readiness Policy Training WBT. |
| 7 | It is our understanding that DRRS-MC is comprised of more than 25 sub-applications. Will the Government confirm the PDSS scope covers maintenance to all of these sub-applications? | Will not confirm DRRS-MC is comprised of more than 25 sub-applications. | ||
| 8 | Section 3.3.3, Page 18, Lines 657 | DRRS-MC Overarching PWS (Att 1) | There is a reference to TCSI. Can the Government define TCSI? | Any reference to TCSI has been replaced with "Contractor." |
| 9 | Section 5.2.2.2.3, Page 24, Lines 893-895 | DRRS-MC Overarching PWS (Att 1) | These lines state that privileged users must have a Top Secret. However, the DD254 provided with the solicitation is only at the SECRET level. Can the Government confirm the clearance requirements for this section, and provide an updated DD254 as necessary?? | This refers to the requirement that privileged users or users with administrative access be cleared at a level higher than the application classification. |
| 10 | Section 5.2.2.2.3, Page 7, Lines 218-220 | DRRS-MC ECP PWS (Att 3) | These lines state that privileged users must have a Top Secret. However, the DD254 provided with the solicitation is only at the SECRET level. Can the Government confirm the clearance requirements for this section, and provide an updated DD254 as necessary? | This refers to the requirement that privileged users or users with administrative access be cleared at a level higher than the application classification. |
| 11 | Section 5.2.2.2.3, Page 23, Lines 821-823 | DRRS-MC PDSS PWS (Att 2) | These lines state that privileged users must have a Top Secret. However, the DD254 provided with the solicitation is only at the SECRET level. Can the Government confirm the clearance requirements for this section, and provide an updated DD254 as necessary? | This refers to the requirement that privileged users or users with administrative access be cleared at a level higher than the application classification. |
| 12 | Table 5 System Documentation, Line 881 | DRRS-MC PDSS PWS (Att 2) | In Table 5-System Documentation block for DRRS-MC Administration references paragraph number 3.3.3, but this paragraph of the PWS is notated as "reserved." Can the Government provide the correct paragraph reference in the PWS? | Paragraph number 3.3.3 is now unreserved. The correct paragraph number is 3.3.2.3. |
| 13 | Table 5 System Documentation, Line 881 | DRRS-MC PDSS PWS (Att 2) | In Table 5-System Documentation block for System Maintenance and Administration Manual references paragraph number 3.3.3.7, but this PWS paragraph does not exist. Can the Government provide the correct paragraph reference in the PWS? | Paragraph number 3.3.3.7 is now 3.3.2.3. |
| 14 | Table 5 System Documentation, Line 881 | DRRS-MC PDSS PWS (Att 2) | Table 5-System Documentation (line 881) block for Database Architecture references paragraph number 3.3.2, but this paragraph in the PWS is for Web Based Training. Can the Government provide the correct paragraph reference in the PWS? | Changed "Database Architecture" to "System Production Architecture," paragraph number Figure 2. Figure 2 depicts the physical representation of the production system. |
| 15 | Table 3 Performance Standards (top of page 27) | DRRS-MC PDSS PWS (Att 2) | Table 3- Performance Standards (top of page 27) this row of the table “Users are aware of system…” references paragraph number 3.3.3, but this paragraph of the PWS is notated as “reserved.” Can the Government provide the correct paragraph reference in the PWS? | Unreserved paragraph 3.3.3. The correct paragraph reference is 3.3.2. |
| 16 | Paragraph 2.3 (Page 6) | DRRS-MC Overarching PWS (Att 1) | Paragraph 2.3 (Page 6) describes transition-out requirements; however, in the DRRS-MC PDSS PWS (Attachment 2) there is no mention of transition-out requirements. Can the Government confirm the Offeror should address transition-out support in their PDSS PWS approach? | Transition-out tasks are not required for the initial-PDSS task order. |
| 17 | Page 40 | Solicitation Page 40 Volume II Management Approach | Will the Government confirm that the Offeror shall provide a detailed and thorough management approach in accordance with the DRRS-MC Overarching PWS (Attachment 1), subparagraph 5? | Yes. The Government has updated this section accordingly. |
| 18 | Page 37 | Solicitation Volume II-Section 2-Small Business Participation Plan | Page 37 states “Price information of any kind shall ONLY be included in the Price Proposal,” (Volume IV), however, to be compliant with FAR 52.219-9, the Offeror’s Individual Subcontracting Plan required in Volume II-Section 2 will contain pricing information (total contract value, and subcontracted values). Will the Government clarify whether the Individual Subcontracting Plan should be provided as part of Volume II-Section 2 or included in Volume IV? | The Individual Subcontracting Plan should be provided as part of Volume II-Section 2 but without the total contracted value and the subcontracted values. Include the percentages but not the pricing information in Volume II-Section 2. |
| 19 | Page 41 | Solicitation | The Government states “The offeror shall include proposed travel costs in support of this migration in their response to the IDIQ PWS.” Given that the Offeror is not being asked to propose a price for the IDIQ PWS, where should these costs be proposed in the pricing workbook? | Please see the revised Model Contract (Volume IV, Section 3) Description of Instructions to Offerors. |
| 20 | Section B Tables | Solicitation Section B Tables | Will the Government specify whether the Offeror should price CLINs 0003 and 0004 in the Pricing Workbook (Attachment 5)? | The Offeror is not responsible for pricing CLINs 0003 and 0004 in the Pricing Workbook. The revised Model Contract (Volume IV, Section 3) Description of Instructions to Offerors has a place to price CLIN 0003 for ODC's specifically in association with CLIN 0001. |
| 21 | Page 34 | Solicitation | The Government states: “Attachment 5: Pricing Workbook (Only the Labor Categories worksheet will be incorporated into the contract award. The price build-up information on each of the Task Order worksheets will be removed prior to incorporation.)” Will the Government confirm that TO 0001- PDSS and/or TO 0002- ECPs will be awarded by the Government after award of the IDIQ? If so, will the Government be awarding these task(s) based upon the CLIN price proposed by the Offeror in accordance with this solicitation? | Yes. The Government intends to award both Task Order 0001 and Task Order 0002 in conjunction with the ID/IQ D type award. The award of these task orders will use the pricing as proposed by the successful offeror. |
| 22 | Page 40 | Solicitation | The Government states: “The offeror shall submit up to three recent and relevant summaries of past performance similar in size, scope, and complexity to this requirement, using the format in Exhibit A” There was no Exhibit A provided in the solicitation documents, will the Government confirm we should use Exhibit 1? | Yes. The reference has been changed to say "Exhibit 1." |
| 23 | Attachment 5-Pricing Workbook | Solicitation | The font in this attachment is Calibri, but the RFP indicates font requirements of Times New Roman or Arial Narrow. Since the file is protected and the font cannot be changed, will the Government confirm that Attachment 5 is exempt from this font requirement? | The Pricing Workbook may be submitted as provided by the Government. |
| 24 | For pricing purposes, will the Government provide an anticipated contract award date? | The anticipated contract award date is 27 August 2016. | ||
| 25 | In order to provide realistic task order pricing, will the Government provide a notional period of performance for TOs 0001 and 0002? | Please see the updated Model Contract (Volume IV, Section 3) Description of Instructions to Offerors. The Government Task Order 0001 PDSS PoP is estimated at 7 months. Task Order 0002 contract proposal should include a plan for the development and release of ECPs, not to exceed 12 months. | ||
| 26 | Attachment 5-Pricing Workbook | Will the Government confirm transition costs should be added to the pricing workbook (Attachment 5) as a separate tab? | No, the transaction costs should be incorporated into the pricing for Task Order 0001. Pricing for the transition out will be negotiated in a separate task order prior to expiration of the ordering period. | |
| 27 | Attachment 5-Pricing Workbook | In order to provide a comprehensive list of labor categories and rates, the Offeror may need to add lines to the pricing workbook (Attachment 5). Will the Government provide an unprotected version of the pricing workbook (Attachment 5)? | No. A revised pricing workbook is provided which has increased the number of lines from 50 to 100. Please see the updated Attachment 5 Pricing Workbook. | |
| 28 | DRRS-MC ECP PWS (Att 3) | ECP PWS (Attachment 3); CY16-XXX; pages 19/20- Currently only the DRRS-MC WBT Policy training WBT is posted on MarineNET. Is it the government’s intent to move all remaining DRRS-MC Training WBTs to MarineNET as part of the ECP CY16-XXX? | The long term goal is to have all WBT on MarineNet. | |
| 29 | Section 3 Compensation Plan | Solicitation | The information necessary to fully comply with the requirements contained in FAR 52.222-46 EVALUATION OF COMPENSATION FOR PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES will require a submission of more than 10 pages. Please increase the page limitation of Volume IV Compensation Plan to 30 pages. | The Government has increased the page limitation for this section to 15 pages. |
| 30 | Section 3 | DRRS-MC Overarching PWS (Att 1), DRRS-MC PDSS PWS (Att 2) | In both the Overarching and the PDSS PWS, Section 3 states: “The Contractor shall provide a PDSS Support Schedule that shows the anticipated activities the Contractor plans to perform in executing PDSS.” Does the Offeror need to submit a PDSS Support Schedule as part of its proposal submission? If yes, where should this be located in the Volume? | Yes. It should be located in Volume I, Section 2, Part 2. |
| 31 | Page 38 | Solicitation | The Sections listed in Table 1 for Volume IV do not match what is listed for Volume IV content on pages 41 and 42. Please clarify or update Table 1 to match the sections outlined on pages 41-42. | The solicitation has been updated to reflect these changes. |
| 32 | DRRS-MC Overarching PWS (Att 1), DRRS-MC PDSS PWS (Att 2), and DRRS-MC ECP PWS (Att 3) | A list of CDRLs is provided in each PWS, however the tables do not specify the date of first submission and dates of subsequent submission. Can the Government provide this information so the Offeror can price these CDRLs appropriately into their proposal? | The listed deliverables are largely due in connection with events and not date driven. There are deliverables that are tied to the start or end of the period of performance. For the purposes of pricing, use the answers to questions 24 and 25. | |
| 33 | Section 1-Part 1, Page 37 | Solicitation | The information necessary to provide a detailed plan that describes the processes and procedures contained in the DRRS-MC PDSS PWS (Attachment 2) will require a submission of more than 15 pages. Please increase the page limitation of this plan to 20 pages. | The Government has increased the page limitation of this plan to 20 pages. Please see the updated solicitation. |
| 34 | Page 33 | DRRS-MC Overarching PWS (Att 1) | Will the Government explain the difference between Deliverable 006 (Software Test Plan) and 008 (System/Software Test Plan with Test Scripts)? | Deliverable 006 (software Test Plan) has been deleted. Deliverable 008 (now 0007) refers to testing of individual releases. |
| 35 | Will the Government be providing DD1423s to describe the Deliverables? | No. | ||
| 36 | Section 1, Page 37 | Solicitation | The information necessary to provide a detailed plan that describes the processes and procedures contained in the DRRS-MC Overarching PWS (Attachment 1) will require a submission of more than 30 pages. Please increase the page limitation of this document to 40 pages. | Page limit will remain at 30 pages. |
| 37 | Page 34, Del Number 0026 | IDIQ PWS | What is the difference between DO 0026 and DO 001? Both are deliverables listed as "PDSS Plan'. | DO 0026 was a duplicate and has been deleted. DO 0026 is now "SDP and updates." |
| 38 | Section 5, 3)a) Page line and numbering | Solicitation | The requirement states "All lines of text shall be consecutively numbered within the Volumes". Does this require the response to have a numbered reference along the left margin of the page? | |
| Yes | ||||
| 39 | Pages 39-40, Section 5.b.2 | Vol I: Technical Approach, Section 1, Part 3 Draft Project Management Plan and Vol II: Management Approach, Section 1, Management Approach | On pg. 39, the solicitation requires that "the offeror shall ensure not to address the same tasks in multiple sections of this volume using the same language." However, there appears to be little distinction b/w the requirements for the Draft PMP in Vol 1, Section 1, Part 3 and the Management Approach in Vol II, Section 1. The aspects of managing the specific TO requirements (PDSS and ECP) are clear, but the differentiation of requirements between these two management sections is confusing. Can the government please clarify the specific and differentiating requirements offerors are intended to address between these two elements? | Please see the answer to question 40. |
| 40 | Page 4 of PWS ECP and Page 19 of PWS IDIQ | PWS IDIQ | Government PWS language in these sections are nearly identical down to the level 4 subparagraph level in both documents. The government's language does not differentiate between these requirements in any substantive way and yet offerors are required to generate different technical responses to nearly the exact same government requirements in two parts or sections of the same technical response volume? Offerors are specifically enjoined from repeating language used in one section; On pg. 39, the solicitation requires that "the offeror shall ensure not to address the same tasks in multiple sections of this volume using the same language." Will the government consider reframing the requirements to allow internal references within the same volume to prevent undue and unnecessary redundancy? | The Government's intent with regard to this language is to minimize the potential for duplicative writing and subsequent evaluation in the interest of expediency both for offeror preparation of submissions and the Government's source selection. To that end, the over-arching/IDIQ technical approach should comprehensively address the total effort as described by the overarching/IDIQ PWS. Individual responses to the task order PWS requirements shall only provide any amplifying or supplementing information that is in addition to the baseline ID/IQ approach. For example, the over-arching response may address help desk support from a process-oriented perspective, while the task order response might specifically address hours of operation, staffing approach, etc. The Government has updated the PWS' in response to this question. Therefore, the Government will not remove or alter the language as stated in the solicitation. |
| 41 | Page 24 of PWS IDIQ, Page 7 of PWS ECP, and Page 23 of PWS PDSS | PWS IDIQ | Government PWS language in these sections are nearly identical other than inserting "ECP" as a descriptor in the PWS_ECP file. The government's language does not differentiate between these requirements in any substantive way and yet offerors are required to generate different technical responses to nearly the exact same government requirements in two parts or sections of the same technical response volume? Offerors are specifically enjoined from repeating language used in one section; On pg. 39, the solicitation requires that "the offeror shall ensure not to address the same tasks in multiple sections of this volume using the same language." Will the government consider reframing the requirements to prevent undue and unnecessary redundancy? | Please see the answer to question 40. |
| 42 | Page 4, Section 2-Transition for both documents specifically 2.1 and 2.2 | DRRS-MC Overarching PWS (Att 1), DRRS-MC PDSS PWS (Att 2) | Government PWS language in these sections are nearly identical other than inserting "26 Aug 2016" in the opening paragraph and adding several level 5 subtasks in 2.1.1 in the PWS_PDSS file. The government's language does not differentiate between these requirements in any substantive way and yet offerors are required to generate different technical responses to nearly the exact same government requirements in two parts or sections of the same technical response volume? Offerors are specifically enjoined from repeating language used in one section; On pg. 39, the solicitation requires that "the offeror shall ensure not to address the same tasks in multiple sections of this volume using the same language." Will the government consider reframing the requirements to allow cross-referencing in the same volume to prevent undue and unnecessary redundancy? | Please see the answer to question 40. |
| 43 | Pages 8-15 of Att 1, pages 6-15 of Att 2, specifically Section 3.1 | DRRS-MC Overarching PWS (Att 1), DRRS-MC PDSS PWS (Att 2) | Government PWS language in these sections are nearly identical other than the PWS_PDSS file having additional level 5 subtasks in (Service Level Management) 3.2.1.5, 3.2.1.6, (Continuity Management) 3.2.2.3 (which is same as 3.2.2.2 in PWS_IDIQ, except for the added level 5 tasks), 3.2.2.4 (which is same as 3.2.2.3 in PWS_IDIQ, except for the added level 5 tasks), 3.2.2.5 (which is same as 3.2.2.4 in PWS_IDIQ, except for the added level 5 tasks), (Capacity Management) 3.2.3.1, 3.2.3.2, 3.2.3.4, 3.2.3.5, 3.2.3.6, and (Availability Management) 3.2.4.4, 3.2.4.5 and 3.2.4.7. [with the exception that the PWS_IDIQ document includes 3.2.1.11 (which appears to be a statement about the DRRS-MC hosting facility vice a requirement)]. Besides the level 5 additions, additional sections have been added to the PWS_PDSS that differ from the PWS_IDIQ, namely, 3.2.15 and 3.2.1.6; 3.2.2.2 was added to PWS_PDSS, which shifted subsequent level 4 tasks (as noted above), and "96%" was added to 3.2.4.2. Except as noted, the government's language does not differentiate between these requirements in any substantive way and yet offerors are required to generate different technical responses to nearly the exact same government requirements in two parts or sections of the same technical response volume? Offerors are specifically enjoined from repeating language used in one section; On pg. 39, the solicitation requires that "the offeror shall ensure not to address the same tasks in multiple sections of this volume using the same language." Will the government consider reframing the requirements to allow cross-referencing within the same volume to prevent undue and unnecessary redundancy? | Please see the answer to question 40. |
| 44 | Page 15-18 of PWS IDIQ and 15-19 of PWS PDSS, Section 3.2 PDSS Service Delivery for both documents | PWS IDIQ | Government PWS language in these sections are nearly identical other than the PWS_PDSS file having additional level 5 subtasks in (Service Level Management) 3.2.1.5, 3.2.1.6, (Continuity Management) 3.2.2.3 (which is same as 3.2.2.2 in PWS_IDIQ, except for the added level 5 tasks), 3.2.2.4 (which is same as 3.2.2.3 in PWS_IDIQ, except for the added level 5 tasks), 3.2.2.5 (which is same as 3.2.2.4 in PWS_IDIQ, except for the added level 5 tasks), (Capacity Management) 3.2.3.1, 3.2.3.2, 3.2.3.4, 3.2.3.5, 3.2.3.6, and (Availability Management) 3.2.4.4, 3.2.4.5 and 3.2.4.7. [with the exception that the PWS_IDIQ document includes 3.2.1.11 (which appears to be a statement about the DRRS-MC hosting facility vice a requirement)]. Besides the level 5 additions, additional sections have been added to the PWS_PDSS that differ from the PWS_IDIQ, namely, 3.2.15 and 3.2.1.6; 3.2.2.2 was added to PWS_PDSS, which shifted subsequent level 4 tasks (as noted above), and "96%" was added to 3.2.4.2. Except as noted, the government's language does not differentiate between these requirements in any substantive way and yet offerors are required to generate different technical responses to nearly the exact same government requirements in two parts or sections of the same technical response volume? Offerors are specifically enjoined from repeating language used in one section; On pg. 39, the solicitation requires that "the offeror shall ensure not to address the same tasks in multiple sections of this volume using the same language." Will the government consider reframing the requirements to allow cross-referencing within the same volume to prevent undue and unnecessary redundancy? | The Government's intent with regard to this language is to minimize the potential for duplicative writing and subsequent evaluation in the interest of expediency both for offeror preparation of submissions and the Government's source selection. To that end, the over-arching/IDIQ technical approach should comprehensively address the total effort as described by the overarching/IDIQ PWS. Individual responses to the task order PWS requirements shall only provide any amplifying or supplementing information that is in addition to the baseline ID/IQ approach. For example, the over-arching response may address help desk support from a process-oriented perspective, while the task order response might specifically address hours of operation, staffing approach, etc. The Government, therefore, will not remove or alter the language as stated in the solicitation. Paragraph 3.2.4.11 has been deleted. |
| 45 | Page 39, Section 5.b.2 | Solicitation | On pg. 39, the solicitation requires that: "The offeror shall provide a detailed approach to how they will accomplish all of the tasks outlined in the full ID/IQ PWS. Note that the offeror shall ensure not to address the same tasks in multiple sections of this volume using the same language (i.e. the offeror shall propose an approach to PDSS in this section, but when addressing PDSS in Task Order 1, shall ensure that the language is not simply copied and pasted from the ID/IQ Approach)." Can the government please clarify the ambiguous standard to enable both offerors and evaluators to discriminate b/w the broadly scoped "...using the same language..." and the more specific example of "...not simply copied and pasted...". Or can the government consider removing the unnecessary redundancy, at least within the same Volume by allowing offerors to reference relevant sections/parts within a given Volume rather than finding creative ways to say the same thing to address essentially the same requirements? | Please see the answer to question 40. |
| 46 | Page 22 of PWS IDIQ and Page 20 of PDSS PDSS, Section 5.1 Project Management | PWS IDIQ | Government PWS language in these sections are nearly identical except additional level 4 subtasks in 5.1.3 (Reporting and Monitoring) of PWS_PDSS. The government's language does not differentiate between these requirements in any substantive way and yet offerors are required to generate different technical responses to nearly the exact same government requirements in two parts or sections of the same technical response volume? Offerors are specifically enjoined from repeating language used in one section; On pg. 39, the solicitation requires that "the offeror shall ensure not to address the same tasks in multiple sections of this volume using the same language." Will the government consider reframing the requirements to allow cross-referencing in the same volume to prevent undue and unnecessary redundancy? | Please see the answer to question 40. |
| 47 | TO 1 PWS Section 3.1.8.1 Page 13 | TO 1 | In conjunction with maintaining the DRRS-MC ATO, will migration of the production and pre-production environments to an Enterprise Computing Center occur within contract scope? (i.e. will contractor support migration from BCSR to a DECC). | This work is not included in these two task orders. |
| 48 | TO 1 PWS Section 3.3.2.2 Page 20 | TO 1 | Are there any specific tools for generating training materials and in particular the web based training modules and if so, will they be government furnished? | There are no specific tools for generating training materials. |
| 49 | TO 1 PWS Section 3.1.8.1 Page 13 | TO 1 | When will the current ATO expire? | See the answer to question #67. |
| 50 | Where is the CITDB system located, who controls access to this system and does it cover all CIs or just technical CIs? | The CITDB is a SharePoint based tool hosted by MCEITS and controlled by PdM TFITS. It contains all CIs. Access will be provide to the successful offeror. | ||
| 51 | Section 5.2.2.2 | Do we have to provide a by role, by name list of security clearances for all proposed staff positions or just those who will require access to the DRRS-MC enclaves within the SIPR boundary? | This is not required for the offerors response to the RFP. | |
| 52 | Where can offerors access the TFITS Management Plans identified within Section 9.0? | Please see the additional Exhibits as referenced in the updated solicitation Amendment 0001. | ||
| 53 | What are the Priority 1 Performance Metrics from the TFITS Management Plan? | Refer to the TFITS Performance Measurement Plan. | ||
| 54 | The Pricing Workbook does not provide a formula to complete a cost build up to reach a Year 1 Fully Burdened Rate, or provide an escalation formula. Is it up to the contractor to create applicable formulas for rates? | The Government is looking for fully burdened rates in columns K-N of the IDIQ Labor Categories worksheet in the Pricing Workbook. How the fully burdened rate is calculated is up to the offeror. | ||
| 55 | There is not a tab for the IDIQ Pricing. Should we add a tab to provide pricing at the IDIQ level? | No. Bottom line pricing at the CLIN level shall be provided via the amended Model Contract (see the response to question 25 above). | ||
| 56 | Can the Gov please provide the level PWS Sections (1-5) required to be separately priced for Task Order 1,2 and the IDIQ? | Pricing shall be provided at the 3rd level of indentation with respect to the PWS tasks. | ||
| 57 | Can the Gov please provide current labor categories, location and hours of the current incumbent staff for DRRS-MC? The PWS was very vague and we feel this gives the incumbent an unfair advantage. | No. | ||
| 58 | Are any categories, considered “Key”? If so, which ones? | The Government has not identified any positions as key. | ||
| 59 | Considering the breadth of this RFP, would you please consider extending the RFP submittal date a minimum of 15 days? | No. | ||
| 60 | What is the Period of Performance for each CLIN? Is the Pricing Work Book to include all years for each Task, if so how many? | Refer to question 25. | ||
| 61 | RFP | Will the Government provide the Periods of Performance for task order pricing? | Refer to question 25. | |
| 62 | Page 32-33 | RFP/ 2) Minimum Contract Order | Will the Government specify what TO it intends to award as Task Order 1? | The Government intends to award the Post Deployment Software Support requirement as Task Order 0001. |
| 63 | Page 40 | RFP/Volume III: Past Performance | Will the government consider a past performance to be “Relevant” if the scope and complexity is similar, but the annual run rate is less than $1M? | The Government will consider a combination of scope, complexity, and value of the effort when making a relevancy assessment. |
| 64 | Page 3, 24 | Attachment 1 - Overarching PWS, 1.4 Task Order (TO), 5.2 Task Management | Does the Government require a TMP and IMS in response to this proposal? | The Government does not require offerors to provide a TMP or IMS in response to this solicitation. However, the TMP and IMS may be deliverables on any awarded task order. |
| 65 | Page 8 | Attachment 1 - Overarching PWS, 3.0 PDSS | The Government states the contractor shall provide a PDSS Support Schedule that shows anticipated activities the Contractor plans to perform in executing PDSS. Does the Government have a desired format for this support schedule such as an IMS, and is this to be provided as part of our proposal response? | The Government does not have a desired format. |
| 66 | Page 8 | Attachment 1 - Overarching PWS, 3.1.1.2 PDSS | The Government states that GAT will be held on a replica of the pre-production system hosted on the classified MITSC network. Will the Government clarify which environments currently exist in the MITSC network and which environment will be used for GAT? | To be answered in Amendment 0002. |
| 67 | Page 13 | Attachment 1 – Overarching PWS/3.1.8 Cybersecurity Management | Will the Government provide current system ATO status? When does it expire? | The ATO is current until 8/12/2016. |
| 68 | Page 17 | Attachment 1 - Overarching PWS, 3.2.4.8 | Regarding the ECPs that will be incorporated into the PDSS TO, what is the expected LOE for ECP IIs per PDSS TO? | This depends on the ease or complexity of the ECP. |
| 69 | Page 18 | Attachment 1 - Overarching PWS, 3.3.1 Sustainment Logistics | Will the Gov’t provide a list of current DRRS-MC assets that will require tracking in the IUID Plan? | The following is a list of the current DRRS-MC assets tracked in the IUID Plan: two NCS NEXSERV SRV-54P4 (4 x 146GB); four IBM BladeCenter HS23 (2x1.2 TB); KVM (N/A); MD32001 (30 TB); and PowerVault NX3600 (N/A) |
| 70 | Page 18 | Attachment 1 - Overarching PWS, 3.3.3 Sustainment Training | Will the Gov’t specify the LOE anticipated for Instructor Led training and webinars under this contract? | Instructor led training and webinars is not required on Task Order 0001. |
| 71 | Page 20 | Attachment 1 - Overarching PWS, 4.1 SDP | Section 4.1 states that the SDP will be updated with each upgrade, and 4.2 requires an annex to the SDP for each software development TO. Are these the same requirement? | The SDP shall be maintained current at all times. Updates are required whenever a material change to the development process is needed. System updates and upgrades are performed in connection with a task order. At the start of each task order, the Contractor shall address any resulting process changes in an SDP Annex. In the event there are no material changes to the SDP required in connection with a particular task order, the Contractor shall explicitly state this in their task order response. |
| 72 | Page 25 | Attachment 1 - Overarching PWS, 5.2.3.4 | Will the Government clarify the requirement in regards to this task item? | 5.2.3.4 is changed to reserved in the task order PWSs. No change is made to the overarching IDIQ PWS. Therefore, there are no tasks to price for this paragraph. |
| 73 | Page 15 | PDSS PWS, 3.2.1.5 Service Level Management | Will the Government provide additional details on the ADS referenced in 3.2.1.5 (what system, technology, etc.)? | This has been changed to "…authoritative data sources…" |
| 74 | Page 34 | PDSS PWS/14 Place of Performance | The PWS states: “[two positions to be staffed in the Functional Advocate’s location within the Pentagon.]” Will the government describe which labor categories or functional roles will be at the Pentagon? | The two functional roles are database and system administrator. |
| 75 | Page 34 | PDSS PWS/Table 10: Proposed Other Direct Costs | Can the Government provide existing status of ODC’s in Table 10? Will the vendor be required to price these ODC’s as part of CLIN 0003? | The ODCs will be handled on a cost reimbursable basis. The Offeror is not required to price the ODCs. Please see the updated PWS. |
| 76 | Page 22 | ECP PWS/ ECP No.: CY-16-XXX (Unit Dashboard) | Under Description, it states “Requirement: (See Attached graphic)” Will the government provide this graphic to better understand the requirement? | See attachment 1 to the Task Order 0002 ECP PWS. |
Sheet2
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .