Questions_and_Answers_06_JAN_2017.pdf

M67854-17-R-2602 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Comment Number

Solicitation Section

Document/ Page/Paragraph/

Line Number

Comment/Question Answers

1 RFP

General What is the difference between the following two opportunities listed on FedBizOps: M67854-

17-R-2602 – MC2SA

Software Maintenance Support and Software Technical and Development Support, and Notice of Intent to Sole Source Post Delivery Software Support for C2PC to Northrup Grumman, opportunity M67854- 12-C-2411?

The posting of M67854- 17-R-2602 is the C2PC/TSOA RFP Package.

The Notice of Intent to Sole Source to Northrup Grumman (M67854-12-C-2411) is for a six month extension to the current C2PC Contract.

This extension is necessary to allow for the full and open competition follow-on contract.

2 B Pages 3-68

Item No x006 in Year 1 through 5 orders TSOA Cyber Patches Every 30 Days. Item No x007 in Year 1 through 5 orders TSOA Cyber Patches Every 90 Days.

Question: Are these mutually exclusive, or will the Government potentially order both CLINs?

Yes, these are mutually exclusive.

The Government will order either the 30 day Cyber Patch CLIN or the 90 day CLIN.

3 B-1.1 Pg. 69, para B- 1.2

Paragraph references CLINs 0001 through 0013.

Comment: Section B above numbers CLINs using 1001 through 1013 method.

You have submitted questions in reference to the draft RFP.

Please see final version of RFP.

4 RFP, B-1.2

Last sentence in paragraph

The last sentence in Paragraph B-1.2 states “CLINs 1024

– 1029, 2021 – 2026 (to include remaining corresponding ordering per CLINs).” This sentence appears to be incomplete. Please

See revised RFP, Amendment 0002.

clarify.

5 B-2 Pg. 69, para B-2

“Task Order 0001 will order services associated with CLIN 0001 for the first ordering period of performance.”

Question: Does this include Section B line items 1001 through 1013, or, will Task Order 0001 include 1001 through 1029?

Task Order 0001 will only include CLIN 1001 Contract Core Support.

6 B-5 Pg. 69 “The resulting contract allows the Government to issue FFP and/or Cost- Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) Task Orders against CLINs 0014 through 0019 (to include the corresponding ordering period CLINs) at any point during the contract’s 5 year ordering period.”

Question: If the CLINs in Section B are broken into 5 Ordering Years, can they still be ordered at any point during the 5-year ordering period?

See Final RFP Release.

Paragraph B-5 was removed.

7 Section B of

RFP

What constitutes “Contract Core Support” exactly?

There isn’t enough information to properly scope of Level of Effort.

Contract Core Support is clearly identified in Appendix D, PWS

CLIN MATRIX.

8 Section B of

Does STR stand for Software Trouble Report? Is this requesting Level 1 trouble report resolution? Help Desk? There isn’t enough information to properly scope of Level of Effort.

Yes. All STR levels and scope are clearly identified in Appendix

D, PWS CLIN MATRIX.

9 RFP, B

Pages 6-8

For CLIN series x004, x005, x006, x007, can the Government provide the estimated number of IAVAs and STIGs to be addressed for pricing purposes?

The number of IAVA’s and STIGS are dependent on cyber vulnerabilities identified in a specific time period, and are unable to be identified prior to occurrence. For pricing purposes the Government expects the offeror to adhere to the function of an IDIQ contract and price both 30 day and 90 day Cyber Patch updates as one unit for both C2PC and one unit for TSOA.

10 RFP, B

Pages 6-8

For CLIN series x008, x009, x010, x011, can the Government provide the estimated number of STRs to be fixed for pricing purposes?

The Government is unable to estimate the number of STR’s that may occur during each contract year, but request pricing be established per the CLIN structure defined.

11 Section B of

For STR Level 3, need to know approximately how many lines of code needs to be maintained/supporte d for C2PC.

There is no way to determine the number of lines of code that will be part of a Level 3 STR as the effort will be defined by the actual STR resolution. Examples of Level 3 STRs are provided within the PWS language.

Additionally, Level 3 STRs are either FFP or CPFF and will be priced accordingly, based on the scope of work required, at the time the work is requested.

12 Section B of

For STR Level 3, need to know approximately how many lines of code needs to be maintained/supporte d for TSOA.

There is no way to determine the number of lines of code that will be part of a Level 3 STR as the effort will be defined by the actual STR resolution. Examples of Level 3 STRs are provided within the PWS language.

Additionally, Level 3 STRs are either FFP or CPFF and will be priced accordingly, based on the scope of work required, at the time the work is requested.

13 Section B of

“C2PC Development” exactly? There isn’t enough information to properly scope of Level of Effort or any specific requirements detailed in the

PWS.

C2PC “development” efforts are either FFP or CPFF and will be priced accordingly, based on the scope of work required, at the time work is requested. The Sample Task Orders are provided as an example of the type of work effort that may be requested in accordance with the defined CLIN structure.

14 Section B of

“TSOA Development” exactly? There isn’t enough information to properly scope of Level of Effort or any specific requirements detailed in the

PWS.

TSOA “development” efforts are either FFP or CPFF and will be priced accordingly, based on the scope of work required, at the time work is requested. The Sample Task Orders are provided as an example of the type of work effort that may be requested in accordance with the defined CLIN structure.

15 RFP, B

Pages 13-15

Please confirm that CLINs 1024 – 1029 along with their corresponding ordering periods are to be separately priced?

Recommendation: The number of CLINs can be greatly reduced if documentation and delivery are not separately priced.

Yes. See revised RFP, 16 RFP, B Page 12 of 137

CLINS 1021, 1022,

and 1023 state “See PWS Appendix D CLIN Matrix of the solicitation for applicable Performance Work Statement sections.”, but the

These CLIN descriptions will be corrected via revised RFP, Amendment 0002.

CLIN 1021 pertains to Sample Task Order 1 and not Appendix D, which pertains to the IDIQ contract. CLIN matrix does not contain CLIN 1021.

Please clarify.

1022 pertains to Sample Task Order 2 and CLIN 1023 pertains to Sample Task Order 3.

17 RFP, B

CLIN 1025 implies Agendas and Minutes have a UNIT of Months. How does a unit of months apply to Agendas and Minutes?

See revised RFP, Amendment 0002. CLIN 1025 has been revised.

18 RFP, B

CLIN 1026 states the Software Development Plan has a UNIT of Lot.

What does unit of Lot mean in regards to a Software Development Plan?

See revised RFP, Amendment 0002. CLIN 1026 has been deleted.

CDRLs shall not be separately priced.

19 RFP, B

For CLIN 1028, how many Software Test Plans and Reports are to be priced?

See revised RFP, Amendment 0002. CLIN 1028, has been deleted. CDRLs shall not be separately priced.

20 RFP, B

For CLIN 1029, how many Tech Reports are to be priced?

See revised RFP, Amendment 0002. CLIN 1029, has been deleted. CDRLs shall not be separately priced.

21 RFP, D

After careful review of the subject RFP and with no small regard to the USG’s acquisition timeline; we feel compelled to request a 30-day extension to the due date, from 30 DEC 2016 to 30 JAN 2017.

See Amendment 0001 for new proposal due date.

22 RFP, Section E, Clause E-

Offeror interprets E-1(c) to indicate a 30-day period for USG acceptance of all deliverables, including services.

Does the USG agree?

If not, please clarify.

No. See revised RFP, 23 RFP, Section F, Delivery Information

Offeror assumes Section F, Delivery Information will be completed on a task order by task order basis. Does the USG agree? If not, please clarify.

Yes, the Delivery Information will be specified on a task order basis.

24 RFP, G-8.3 Page 80 of 137 Sentence 2 in paragraph

The paragraph header is for ordering procedures for CLINS 1014

THROUGH 1019.

However, the second sentences of paragraph G-8.3 states “The Contracting Officer will initiate the Task Order process for CLINs 1014 through 1020 by issuing a Task Order - Request For Proposal.” Do the ordering procedures apply to CLIN 1020? Please clarify.

Ordering procedures apply to CLIN 1020 and respective ordering period CLINs. See revised RFP, Amendment 0002.

25 Section I Page 91 The clause 52.232- 40 is listed twice.

Question: Is this a clerical error?

Yes. See revised RFP, Amendment 0002.

26 RFP, Section L, L-

2.C.1(f)

Software: Offeror assumes the information requested by this paragraph, if applicable, shall be provided within the data in Volume IX: Contract Information. Does the USG agree? If not, please clarify.

Yes.

27 Solicitation Section L-2

2.C(2) p 115, Table 2, Line 4 (Matrix)

Please confirm the PWS cross reference matrix should go into Volume III and is not its own Volume.

The PWS Cross Reference Matrix has been moved under Volume III. See revised RFP, Amendment 0002.

28 Solicitation

2.C(2) p 116, Table 2, Line 12

(Section 6.2 Past

Performance Questionnaire)

The table indicates a 5 page limit for each of the three questionnaires, but the questionnaire is 7 pages. Please advise?

The past performance questionnaire is actually 6 pages with the first page being the instructions. See revised RFP, Amendment 0002.

29 Solicitation Section L-2, 2.E

p. 118, Volume I. Executive

Summary, line 2

Financial statements are required to be submitted for all companies. If subcontractors would prefer to provide financial statements directly to the Government, how should that information be submitted?

See revised RFP, Amendment 0002 for changes to Section E.

30 RFP L-2.2.E

Vol III.3.c

Page 119/137

c. Section 3.3, Cyber Security

Approach:

“Table 2 Proposal Volumes” on Page 115/137 provides the following sections for Volume VIII: Section 3.3:

Cybersecurity Posture Are these two title descriptions considered the same?

Should read “Cyber Security Approach.”

See revised RFP, Amendment 0002.

31 Solicitation

Pg. 119, Volume III: Technical Approach (Gate 2), , Paragraph

3, Line 8

Are bidders required to use the section numbering (i.e., 3.1, 3.2) as a template for the structuring of the proposal?

Yes.

32 RFP L-2.2.E

Vol V

SUBCONTRACT

& SMALL

BUSINESS

(SB)

PARTICIPATIO

N

Page 121/137

a. SB

Participation Plan

Objectives.

Title Line

It appears the referenced line should be “c.”

instead of “a.” as follows:

c. SB Participation Plan Objectives.

Clarifying this outline alpha/numeric designation is important to ensure the required Cross Reference Matrix is accurate.

Yes, this assumption is correct. See revised RFP,Amendment 0002.

33 RFP, L-Vol V-Sect 5.2

Sect 5.2 of Vol V of Section L states the Government’s subcontracting objectives for small business is 36.7%. However, on page 121, it states the Government’s subcontracting objectives for small business is 16%. Please clarify. The last

The Government’s subcontracting objectives for small business 36.7%. The Government’s participation objective for small business is 16%. The subcontracting and participation goals are two separate categories/objectives.

sentence in Paragraph B-1.2 states “CLINs 1024

– 1029, 2021 – 2026 (to include remaining corresponding ordering per CLINs).” This sentence appears to be incomplete.

Please clarify.

34 RFP L-2.2.E

Vol VI PAST

PERFORMANCE

Page 123/137 Section 6.2, Past Performance Questionnaire

(PPQ).

Was the referenced Section intended to be labeled as “b” since Section 6.1 is “a”?

Clarifying this outline alpha/numeric designation is important to ensure the required Cross Reference Matrix is accurate.

Yes, this assumption is correct. See revised RFP, Amendment 0002.

35 Solicitation

p. 123, Section

6.2 Past

Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), Line 7

The solicitation indicates questionnaires are due no later than the proposal due date; however, the questionnaire instructions (Exhibit E-1, page

1) indicate a due date of December 15, 2016 at 1 pm.

Please confirm the past performance questionnaires are due no later than the proposal due date.

The past performance questionnaires are due no later than the proposal due date.

See revised RFP, Amendment 0002.

36 RFP L-2.2.E

Vol VII.a

MANDATORY

REQUIREMENTS

–PASS/FAIL

CRITERIA

(GATE 1)

Page 123/137

a. As stated above, the

Government will evaluate proposals using an evaluation process that consists of two Gates, as described in Section M.

For consistency, should this section be labeled as follows:

1. As stated above, the Government will evaluate proposals using an evaluation process that consists of two Gates, as described in Section M.

Clarifying this outline alpha/numeric designation is

Corrected. See important to ensure the required Cross Reference Matrix is accurate.

37 Solicitation

p. 124, Volume VIII: Price Proposal, 2.b(1)

This section mentions Schedule B, but the Model Contract does not.

Which volume should Schedule B be provided in?

See revised RFP, Amendment 0002.

38 Solicitation Section L-2, 2.E

p. 124, Volume VIII: Price Proposal, 2.a(1)

This section states: "The Offeror shall submit pricing for every FFP CLIN with the exception of CLINs 1014 through 1020." Should we also exclude 2014- 2020, 3014-3020, 4014-4020, and 5014-5020 as well as any other COST/CPFF CLINs?

Yes, but CLIN 1012 has been added. See revised RFP, Amendment 0002.

39 RFP,

VIII.2.a(1)

Sentence 2

Model contract states that "The Offeror shall submit pricing for every FFP CLIN with the exception of CLINs 1014 through

1020." CLINS 1012

C2PC STR Level 3, 1013 TSOA STR Level 3, 1024, 1025, 1026, 1027, 1028, and 1029 and their corresponding ordering periods are all FFP.

Should CLINS 1012, 1013, 1024, 1025, 1026, 1027, 1028, and 1029 and their corresponding ordering periods be priced? Also note that the Attachment 5 Pricing Workbook only lists FFP CLINS 1001 through 1011 and the Appendix D: PWS CLIN Matrix shows 1012 and 1013 as not pre-priced.

Yes. See revised RFP and Attachment 5 Pricing Workbook in

40 RFP L-2.2.E

Vol VII.3.a

Page 124/137 Section 7.2, Accounting

System Certification:

It appears the referenced Section should be “b” instead of “blank” as follows:

b. Section 7.2, Accounting System Certification:

Clarifying this outline alpha/numeric designation is important to ensure the required Cross

Yes, this assumption is correct and will be corrected. See revised RFP, Amendment 0002.

41 RFP L-2.2.E

Vol VIII.2

PRICE

PROPOSAL

Page 124/137

a. Section 8.1, Ground Rules & Assumptions:

b. Section 8.2, Pricing Workbook:

Section 8.3 Sample Task Orders 1 through 3 Pricing:

The 3 sections are presented in the Volume VIII section of the RFP.

However, “Table 2 Proposal Volumes” on Page 115/137 provides the following sections for Volume VIII:

Section 8.1:

Pricing Workbook Section 8.2: Basis of Estimate (BOE) No Section 8.3 listed.

Which is correct?

Clarifying this outline alpha/numeric designation is important to ensure the required Cross

Sections have been re-numbered and 8.1 is for informational purposes. See revised RFP, Amendment 0002.

42 Solicitation

p. 124, Volume VII: Mandatory Requirements, 3.a

Page limits only allow three pages for the CMMI Appraisal Disclosure Statement (ADS).

Our full disclosure statement is more than three pages.

Is the requirement

The Government is not looking for a full ADS, but is looking for proof of certification either via a CMMI Level III certificate, an ADS summary page, or the Offeror’s CMMI Appraisal Mark image.

really to provide the Published Appraisal Results?

43 RFP L-2.2.E

Vol IX.1.a

(1) CONTRACT

INFORMATION

Page 126/137

(1) Each page of the Offeror’s proposal shall contain the following legend at the bottom: Source

Selection Information - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104.

Does this legend requirement refer to all pages for each volume or just to Volume IX since this is where it was called out in the RFP?

It applies to all pages in each volume.

44 RFP Section M.2.2

129-130 Can you provide a percentage breakdown of the various factors?

It talks to them being in descending order of importance, but no further detail is given.

No percentage breakdown is provided.

However, note that the amendment states (M.2.2) that non-cost factors, collectively, are of significantly greater importance than price.

45 Section M- 1.2

Page 135, Para

"In accordance with

FAR 52.215-1

(included by reference in this RFP), the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors" Section I includes Alt I of the referenced clause, which declares intent to conduct discussions and a down-select to a competitive range.

Section I and Section M are in disagreement.

Question:

Irrespective of reserving the right to conduct discussions, what is the intent during evaluation?

FAR 52.215-1 Alt I is a clerical error. See revised RFP, Amendment

46 RFP, M.2.2

Paragraph 2

Paragraph 2 states "The factors are listed below in descending order of importance:

Technical Approach Past Performance Management Approach Cost/Price However, Table 1:

Factors and Elements immediately below adds a "Factor 4:

Subcontracting & Small Business Participation" in between Management Approach and Cost/Price. Is Subcontracting & Small Business Participation an evaluation factor?

Yes, see revised RFP, 47 PWS

FFP CLINs without adequate scope description – FAR 16.202-2 identifies that, “A firm-fixed-price

The Government has described the scope of the work for the items that are solely FFP.

Work that is commensurate with the contract is suitable for acquiring commercial items (see Parts 2 and

12) or for acquiring other supplies or services on the basis of reasonably definite functional or detailed specifications (emphasis added) (see Part 11)…”.

The PWS provided for this solicitation represents tasking which is almost purely identifiable as “Level Of Effort”, the scope for which can neither be defined nor estimated based upon the RFP information available. This observation is strongly represented for Software Trouble Reports (STRs) at PWS ¶4.4.x, where levels of difficulty have been estimated broadly, but for which the total scope cannot be known at this time.

Still, a firm fixed price is expected.

So that all offerors may submit accurate and constrained pricing based upon similar interpretations of scope and so that all offerors may be evaluated on an even playing field;

it is strongly recommended that the USG reconsider the contract type for these “level of effort”-type CLINs, provide plug level of risk associated with the task have both FFP and CPFF CLINS, which will be agreed upon during the task order negotiations. The required services will be sufficiently detailed at the time of task order negotiation for the contractor to be able to propose, and both parties to negotiate, a FFP.

numbers based upon an independent government cost estimate (IGCE) or provide additional scope definition to mitigate the probability of an inconsistent or flawed evaluation.

48 PWS Section 3.1

PWS, p.3, Paragraph 2, Line 6, Section

What is the total number of applications/projec ts in the C2PC suite?

This information can now be obtained in the provided C2PC Software Version Description.

49 PWS Section

What is the approximate lines of code for each application/project

The C2PC consists of the C2PC Client, C2PC Web Services, C2PC Gateway, and the C2CE as defined in Section

3.1 of the PWS. All other application information is available via the C2PC

SVD.

50 PWS Section

What is the total number of C2PC dependent software?

Information is available via the available C2PC documentation, and specifically the C2PC

SVD.

51 PWS Section

Does the Government have rights to all C2PC dependent software?

The Government has Government Purpose Rights to C2PC source code.

52 PWS Section approximate lines of code for each C2PC dependent software?

Information is available via the available C2PC documentation, specifically the C2PC

SVD.

53 PWS Section

Line 6, Section 3.1

Are the GCCS Version 6.0 64-bit ICSF SDKs fully complete and ready for integration?

The Government assumes the question is referring to the 64- BIT Sample Task, vice the PWS section sited.

The ICSF SDK’s are ready for integration.

54 PWS Section

Does backwards compatibility mean that the new application should run in the current environment as well as future 64-bit environments?

The Government assumes the question is referring to the 64- BIT Sample Task, vice the PWS section sited.

Yes, it does mean that the application should run in both environments.

55 PWS Section

Is there other third-party software that is not compatible with 64-bit operating systems?

The Government assumes the question is referring to the 64- BIT Sample Task, vice the PWS section sited.

The response is dependent on the Offeror’s approach and whether a 3rd party solution chosen would be compatible.

56 PWS Section

If so, are those applications being updated or do alternate applications need to be identified?

The Government assumes the question is referring to the 64- BIT Sample Task, vice the PWS section sited.

The response is dependent on the Offeror’s approach and whether alternate applications will be part of the Offerors proposed solution.

57 PWS, 3.2.1

A. Can a list/description of current TSOA Open Software Source products be provided?

A. Information is provided within the available TSOA SVD.

58 B. Will all of the existing connectors, infrastructure services, Agile light weight applications, and other TSOA applications fall within the scope of the contract? If so, what is the entirety of this list?

B. All will fall within the scope of this contract, with the exception of current Agile Lightweight Applications and C2SE- SAE. Information is provided within the

TSOA SVD.

59 PWS, 3.2.2

Can a current TSOA Infrastructure services be provided?

Information is provided within the available TSOA SVD.

60 PWS, 3.2.2.1

all TSOA connectors be provided?

Information is provided within the

61 PWS, 3.2.2.2

current TSOA Agile light-weight applications be provided?

Information is provided within the

62 PWS -

Section 3.2.2 expected percentage breakdown for contractor support between SOI GEN I and SOI GEN II?

Will both baselines be worked simultaneously, or is there an effort being made to actively move to

GEN II?

There will not be simultaneous work efforts required for SOI GEN I and GEN II.

There is an effort to transition to SOI GEN II as a replacement to

SOI GEN I.

63 PWS -

Section 3.2.4

Page 5 Will there be MCSRC support required for this effort?

And if so, to what level is it expected?

No, MCSRC support will be required under this contract.

64 Attachment_1

_PWS

Page 10, Para 4.2.2

“This support is required during software development efforts, as well as during post-delivery support to the operating forces. This support is estimated at a not to exceed 4800 hours during a particular yearly task period” Question: Should each Sample Task Order include this 4800 hours, in addition to the labor estimated to produce a technical solution?

No. The Sample Task Orders should not include the 4800 hours defined. This rate was provided to address the specific CLINS associated with specific work efforts.

The Sample Task Orders should include only those labor estimates to complete the technical solution.

65 Attachment_1

_PWS

Page 10, Para 4.2.2

“This support is required during software development efforts, as well as during post-delivery support to the operating forces. This support is estimated at a not to exceed 4800 hours during a particular yearly task period.”

Attachment_7_Estima te_Workforce calls for 1.0 FTE on CLIN 1002 and 1.0 FTE on

Attachment 7 of the RFP is merely a Government Rough Estimate. Offerors shall propose based on their judgment.

CLIN 1003 (granted, these are estimates only). The PWS, Paragraph 4.2.2, still calls for a NTE of 4800 hours.

Per the Appendix_D_PWS_CLIN

_MATRIX_FINAL, PWS

Paragraph 4.2.2 only applies to CLIN x002 and x003 for 5 years. It therefore applies 2400 hours NTE to each CLIN. Using 2,087 per annum as a divisor (OPM.gov), or Contractor value of 2,080, the FTE NTE is ~1.15.

Question: Should offerors propose

1.0 FTE for these

CLINs, or 2,400 hours, since these are being evaluated on a FFP basis?

66 PWS, 4.2.2

Fourth sentence of 4.2.2

PWS states "This support is estimated not to exceed 4800 hours during a particular yearly task period." Is the USG stating the contractor should bid a plug amount of 4800 hours in CLINs 1002 and 1003?

No, the Government is not requesting offerors utilize the 4800 hours as a pricing tool. The PWS states you should not exceed 4800 hours.

The Offeror is expected to determine the level of effort they feel is necessary to provide Subject Matter Expertise for 2 programs for a given year.

67 PWS Section 4.1.16

PWS, p.10, Paragraph 5, Line 16, Section 4.1.16

What level of security is required for development of MC2SA applications?

The security level for these systems is considered Unclassified. When actual, live data is pulled in to the system, the security level is raised based on the information captured. Most work on the maintenance portion of this contract will be Unclassified.

However, a secret facility is required for action with Cyber Security updates, and to enable classified discussions.

68 PWS, 4.2.7

A. PWS states “The contractor shall conduct Technical Studies and deliver Technical Reports when directed by the Government.”

As this is a FFP task, can the USG quantify what “as directed” means?

A. The Government has typically required less than 10 technical reports per year.

69 B. Monthly deliveries with a full or tailored TDP is extremely excessive. Would the USG consider every 90 days for cyber patches and every 180 days for STR Fixes?

B. The tailored TDP was designed to accommodate all release schedules.

The TDP is required with every release whether the 30 or 90 day release is requested. However, if the release does NOT impact the document (e.g. no change to code), then the Offeror shall inform the Government, and not re-deliver the identical document.

70 PWS, 4.3.1

Sentence 1 of

4.3.1

PWS states cybersecurity software updates will be released every 30 or 90 days as tasked by the Government. Given this task is FFP, please remove ambiguity from this requirement. In addition, How is the third 30 day release any different than the 90 day release?

Recommendation:

Consider making Cybersecurity Compliance CPFF instead of FFP since the scope is not constrained.

Also, consider going to 90 day releases to allow time for testing prior to delivery

The PWS states that the Cyber Security updates will be either 30 or 90 day periods.

At no time will the Government order CLINs 1004, 1005, 1006 or 1007 at the same time.

In addition, before ordering any of those specific CLINs the Government will take into account the scope and required testing before selecting and ordering the appropriate CLIN.

and minimize the constant delivery of software updates and documentation.

The USG will not have enough time to conduct V&V on all these deliveries.

71 PWS, 4.3.1

First sentence of 4.3.1

If we are delivering C2PC/TSOA cyber patches every 30 days, what is the difference between a 30 day patch and a 90 day patch?

See Question #70

72 PWS, 4.3.1

of 4.3.1

The first sentence says, "The contractor shall perform Cybersecurity updates and deliver software updates every 30 or 90 days, as tasked by the Government."

Can the USG quantify what "as tasked by the Government" means?

For each performance period, the Government anticipates ordering either Cybersecurity updates either on the 30 day or 90 day basis. The Government, along with thecontractor, via the IPT process will determine whether an urgent cyber patch is necessary, via a separate task order, or whether the vulnerability can be combined with other efforts as part of the 30 or 90 day release patch of cyber updates. “As tasked by the Government” means the Government will make that determination. The Offeror is not expected to develop or release any software updates without direction from the Government.

73 PWS, 4.3.2

Bullet 5 of

4.3.2

PWS states "the perform Cybersecurity tasks and Software Assurance in accordance with the latest releases or revisions of the following policies:

• MCSC SIAT Risk Management Framework (RMF) Process Guide, The Offeror is not required to manage the RMF effort as this is primarily the Government’s responsibility. The Government is responsible for determining and assigning all controls. The Offeror is required to adhere to the policies identified during any dated 25 May 2016" What is the scope of RMF as is applies to C2PC and TSOA updates? Is the Offeror responsible for determining and assigning all NIST 800-53 controls to C2PC and all larger systems in which is fielded, such as COC and JTCW.

developmental activities, and may be required to support the Government in identifying necessary controls requiring action, but will not manage the RMF.

Additionally, the Offeror is not responsible for other systems outside of C2PC and TSOA.

74 PWS Section 4.2

What support (if any) will Government labs provide this effort?

The Government labs will not be providing direct support to this work effort. However, as part of the IPT structure and teaming relationships, the Government labs may be directed by the PMO to provide information or assist as necessary.

75 PWS, 4.3.6

Sentence 2 of

4.3.6

What is the list of 3rd party applications that need to be modified? Will the USG provide the source code, build environments and build instructions for these applications?

Recommendation:

Consider making Cybersecurity Compliance CPFF instead of FFP since the scope is not constrained.

3rd party applications are identified within the TSOA and C2PC SVD.

The Government will NOT be providing source code for 3rd party applications that are considered Commercial-Off-The- Shelf (COTS) software.

Other 3rd party applications are part of the system source code already, which has been made available to the Offeror.

The decision is to maintain the FFP as the scope is constrained by updates being at either the 30 or 90 day timeframe.

76 PWS, 4.4

Can the Government clarify the delivery schedule for STR fixes?

Recommendation: 2 STR fix deliveries per year.

The delivery schedule for STR’s will be based on the urgency and impact. The Government is unable to anticipate how many STR’s may occur within a scheduled timeframe.

77 PWS Section 4.4

Can you provide the current technical stack (software name and version numbers) that the TSOA and JTCW baselines are built on? Understanding all of the technologies used in the baseline will allow us to better staff our teams.

This information can now be obtained in the provided TSOA SVD and the C2PC SVD.

The request for JTCW baselined information is not relevant to this work effort and will not be provided.

78 Attachment_1

Page 13, Para 6.1

“To effectively carry out the requirements of this contract, particularly for support efforts with C2PC, the contractor shall be required to establish partnering agreements through Associate Contracting Agreements (ACAs) or Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs) (as appropriate) with other Contractors and Government agencies…” Question: Are all Agreements required prior to contract award?

No. Partnering agreements can be executed after contract award.

79 PWS Section

PWS, p.13, Paragraph 1, Line 3, Section

Does the Government have the source code for all third party applications?

No, for both TSOA and C2PC, the 3rd party applications are all Commercial Off-The- Shelf (COTS).

Therefore, the Government does not own the source code.

80 PWS -

Section 4.4

Can you provide a monthly breakdown of the number of Level I and Level II STRs logged against the respective baselines for the

The Government does not have that historical data to provide. The intent is to cost one Fixed Price STR based on the definitions provided in the PWS for each past 12 months? Level.

81 PWS, 6.2.2

of 6.2.2

The PWS states "The have Secret Internet Protocol Router Network

(SIPRNET)

capability." Is the USG requesting the cost of maintaining SIPR connectivity be included in our price?

This is a cost of performing the contract and should be included in overhead.

82 PWS -

Section 7.2

If the contractor will host the development and testing environments, what is the projected travel for? Is this for end user engagement?

Requirements analysis?

Stakeholder briefs?

Ultimately, I'm trying to better understand what role(s) will be required to travel (PMs vs. Developers

vs. both?)

Projected travel is for Requirements analysis, stakeholder briefs, and integration support efforts with the SPAWAR, Charleston.

Possible travel would also be to support testing efforts of JTCW to monitor the C2PC software.

Participation in these meetings/trips requires technical expertise on the software. Program management events will be held at the Contractor facility.

83 Attachment_1 _PWS and

Attachment_2

_QASP

Performance Requirements Summary Table

CDRL A002. Initial delivery required 30 DACA, and monthly thereafter per Attachment_1.

CDRL A002 is measured in the QASP and timeliness standard requires delivery before the 10th of each month.

Question: If the contract is awarded on the 11th day or later, will the first Monthly Status Report be penalized for late delivery?

No, the first Monthly Status Report would be waived should the contract be awarded in the middle of the month. First Monthly Status Report would be required within 10 days of the second month of the contract.

84 Attachment_1

_PWS

Section M-

1.2

Page 8, Para 4.1.14.5

Page 135, Para

“Minutes: The contractor shall deliver to the Government minutes and action items

The PWS has been revised to reflect 10 working days. See generated from meeting and conference activities.

Minutes shall be provided within 5 days of meeting completion.” This requirement disagrees with Appendix A, which calls for CDRL A004 at 10 work days after event.

Question: How should offerors propose to this CDRL requirement, where one sentence says 5 days and the other says 10?

85 Exhibit E-5

CDRLS

All CDRLs

The block 5 of all CDRL is calling out the wrong PWS paragraph(s).

Please clarify.

Block 5 on all the CDRL forms (DD1423) will be corrected. See revised RFP, Amendment 0002.

86 Exhibit E-5

CDRLS

TITLE:

CONTRACT

PERFORMANCE

REPORT (CPR)

13/69

USE/

RELATIONSHIP

This document states: “This report consists of five formats containing data for measuring contractors' cost and schedule performance on Department of Defense (DoD) acquisition contracts.”

Following this statement, 3 of the 5 formats presented are crossed out.

Will the Government replace these 3 formats to stay at a total of five, or is the correct number of total formats reduced to 2?

The Data Item Description (DI-MGMT- 80368A) contains standard contractual language. The Government has redacted (via cross out) all language that does not apply to this particular CDRL. The Government has left 2 formats which apply to this contract and will not be adding additional format requirements.

87 Exhibit E-5

CDRLS

TITLE:

SOFTWARE

TEST PLAN

(STP)

Page 56/69

REQUIREMENTS:

3. Software test environment

The paragraphs in this section are labelled:

3.x (Name of test site(s)).

3.x.l Software items.

3.x.2 Hardware and firmware items.

Etc.

The Data Item Descriptions provided to support each CDRL are standard/signed templates. The alpha/numeric numbering sequence in this section should state 3.1, 3.1.1, etc.

Were these paragraphs intended to be labelled as shown or as follows:

3.1 (Name of test site(s)).

3.1. l Software items.

3.1.2 Hardware and

firmware items.

Etc.

Clarifying this outline alpha/numeric designation is important to ensure the required Cross Reference Matrix is accurate.

88 Exhibit E-5

CDRLS

TITLE:

SOFTWARE

TEST PLAN

(STP)

Page 61/69

REQUIREMENTS:

7. Notes.

Was this section intended to be labeled as 6 as the numbering sequences indicates?

The Data Item Descriptions provided to support each CDLR are standard/signed templates. The numbering of Notes is an error and should say #6.

89 Exhibit E 2

- C2PC

Order

Typically, how quickly would this sample task order be expected to be completed?

Identifying when this work needs to be accomplished will help us scope the effort from a resource perspective.

The task order period of performance will be based on the negotiated timeline proposed by the Offeror.

90 Exhibit E 4

- TSOA

Order

Typically, how quickly would this sample task order be expected to be completed?

Identifying when this work needs to be accomplished will help us scope the effort from a resource perspective.

The task order period of performance will be based on the negotiated timeline proposed by the Offeror.

91 Attachment_1

_PWS

Appendix A-1, CDRL A011 and A010 have been padded with extra zeros, appearing as “A0011” and “A0010”.

Comment:

Inconsistent with CDRL numbering

See revised RFP, Amendment 0002 for correction.

schema.

92 PWS,

Appendix A-2

Why is delivery of the FDD and SUM required with every TSOA IA and TSOA STR fix delivery?

These documents are unlikely to change with an IA or STR patch.

If there are no changes to the documents, then there is no requirement to deliver a what would be a duplicate copy.

The Offeror shall state when no changes occur and not re-deliver a duplicate document.

93 PWS,

Appendix A-3

Appendix A-3: C2PC Programmer’s Guide and References lists all of the

C2PC API/SDK

documents. The PWS states that TSOA has an API/SDK. Is there a list of the current documentation (similar to Appendix A-3) for

TSOA?

No, the TDP lists what is necessary for TSOA.

94 Attachment_1

Appendix C, “The list provides reference material that is available via any standard web browser and that may be used to aide in the development of the Contractor’s proposal.”

Comment: Not true.

Several of these specifications contain restrictive distribution statements and are not publicly available. After viewing the ASSIST database hosted by dla.mil on 17 Nov 2016, the standard for USMTF2004 is still locked with a statement that it is not approved for public release, “but is marked with a Distribution Statement which limits distribution to individuals with

All reference material identified in Appendix C, page 1 have been verified as available via http://everyspec.com.

Additional sites researched include:

https://acc.dau.mil/Co mmunityBrowser http://dtic.cjcs _directives These sites were reached using Google.

http://everyspec.com/ https://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser https://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser the proper credentials” http://quicksearch.

dla.mil/qsDocDetail s.aspx?ident_number =214270

95 Solicitation Appendix D

PWS CLIN Matrix

CLINS 1021-1026,

2021-2026, 3021- 3026, 4021-4026, 5021-5026 do not appear to be referenced on the CLIN Matrix.

Should they be?

No, Appendix D is only for the base ID/IQ

CLINS.

96 Attachment_4

_DD254

Block 13

The DD254 document references a Security Classification Guide for NOTM Inc 1.

Question: Since the Attachment_4_DD254, Block 13, stipulates that “The Security Classification Guide utilized for this effort is: SCG

ID#06-079,

Networking on the Move Increment 1

(NOTM INC 1), 19

Mar 13”, but the PWS makes no mention of NOTM, should the offeror’s assume current and future NOTM Increments are included in the scope of this $93 million ceiling value ID/IQ contract, or will the DD254 be revised?

NOTM is one of the systems that currently or will utilize the C2PC software (via JTCW) and the TSOA software. The NOTM Security Classification Guide (SCG) was identified because NOTM is the only system utilizing these C2 systems that is currently required to have a SCG.

Offerors should not assume current and future increments are part of this contract action. Tasks relative to this contract may only include specific software requested by NOTM, but current and future NOTM increments are NOT included in this work effort.

97 Attachment 5 Pricing Workbook

Solicitation Section L-2, 2.E

Attachment 5 Pricing Workbook

Solicitation Section L-2, 2.E

The Fully Burdened Labor Rate column appears to only account for the direct hourly rate and fringe. Is it the Government's intent that G&A and overhead not be included? If so, how should that be accounted for?

The Fully Burdened Labor Rate Columns (H through L) shall be the total labor rate billed under the contract. Columns F and G were broken out because FAR 52.222-46 requires fringe to be evaluated. Column F shall include all costs except fringe.

http://quicksearch.dla.mil/qsDocDetails.aspx?ident_number=214270 http://quicksearch.dla.mil/qsDocDetails.aspx?ident_number=214270 http://quicksearch.dla.mil/qsDocDetails.aspx?ident_number=214270 http://quicksearch.dla.mil/qsDocDetails.aspx?ident_number=214270

98 Solicitation Attachment 7

FTE (Full Time Equivalent)

Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM)

Estimate – Workforce

Does Attachment 7 represent the Government’s total estimate for CLINs 1001-5001, 1002- 5002, and 1003- 5003?

Yes, this is the total estimate.

99 Solicitation Attachment 7

FTE (Full Time Equivalent)

Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM)

Estimate – Workforce

Are Proposers required to use the provided ROM as the basis of estimate for CLINs 1001- 5001, 1002-5002, and 1003-5003?

No, the ROM is for informational purposes only.