The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
Document/Section
| Paragraph |
| Question/Issue/Concern |
| Answer |
| 1. |
| Addendum to FAR 52.212-1/ Page 47 |
| 4, Factor 3 |
| Question: Is a CPARS report already on file for a government reference an acceptable replacement for a Past Performance Questionnaire? |
| No. However, lack of past performance questionnaires is not disqualifying. |
| 2. |
| PWS/Page 1 |
| 2.3 |
| Noted in the table Years/Numbers of Systems Changed. There are duplicate years and different change values for years 2015 & 2016. |
| Year |
| Number of System Changes |
Question: Are these change values to be added together as a total? If not, which one is the correct number?
See solicitation amendment 0001 - PWS page 1, paragraph 2.3. The table in paragraph 2.3 has been updated to reflect the correct historical totals for years 2015 and 2016.
| 3. |
| Addendum to FAR 52.212-1/ Page 48 |
| 4, Factor 4 |
| The solicitation provides SF1449 which is to be completed by the Offeror. However, no other pricing worksheets are provided. |
Question: Is SF1449 the only required pricing worksheet that is to be submitted with the pricing volume?
Yes.
| 4. |
| PWS/Page 11 |
| 14.2 |
| Section 14.2 Staffing names “Senior Functional Analyst Leads” (plural) as key personnel. |
Question: How many key Senior Functional Analyst Leads are required?
The current solicitation has been revised such that the incumbent contractor's staffing is not the same as what is being procured. Offerors are required to develop their own solution based on the PWS.
| 5. |
| PWS/Page 11 |
| 14.2 |
| Question: How many Senior Functional Analyst Leads are on the current contract? |
The current solicitation has been revised such that the incumbent contractor's staffing is not the same as what is being procured. Offerors are required to develop their own solution based on the PWS.
| 6. |
| PWS/Page 11 |
| 14 |
| Question: How many FTEs are on the current contract? |
The current solicitation has been revised such that the incumbent contractor's staffing is not the same as what is being procured. Offerors are required to develop their own solution based on the PWS.
| 7. |
| PWS/Page 11 |
| 14 |
| Question: Will the Government provide the current contract’s level of effort by labor categories? |
The current solicitation has been revised such that the incumbent contractor's staffing is not the same as what is being procured. Offerors are required to develop their own solution based on the PWS.
| 8. |
| Addendum to FAR 52.212-1/ Page 48 |
| 4, Factor 4 |
| This section states that: "The Offeror shall submit a completed, signed original copy of the model contract with all appropriate “fill-ins” completed." |
Question: Can you please clarify, or elaborate on, what constitutes the model contract referenced here?
The model contract is the Standard Form (SF) 1449 and continuation sheets.
| 9. |
| Addendum to FAR 52.212-1/ Page 46 |
| 3 |
| Question: Please clarify if the "Page Limit" for "Factor 3 - Past Performance" is 3 pages (separate from the 20 pages for factors 1 & 2). |
| The page limit for Factor 3 – Past Performance is three pages and is not part of the page limit for factors 1 & 2. See Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 |
| 10. |
| PWS/Page 1 |
| 2.2 |
| This section mentions: "Processing retiree out of service debt obligations." This is the only PWS reference to anything related to retiree pay. |
Question: Will the government clarify if this is the only aspect of USMC retiree/annuitant pay included in the overall LOE, or are there others?
PWS Section 2.2 lists information technology (IT) and financial management skill sets and states that contractors historically had to have knowledge of these in order to successfully complete the listed tasks, but will not be required to perform the specific tasks.
| 11. |
| PWS/ Page 4 |
| 4.2.4 |
| Paragraph 4.2.4 states “Report the problem in accordance with the Software Maintenance Plan (CDRL B002).” The PWS does not include a requirement to develop and submit such a Plan. However, Exhibit B identifies information that “shall be included.” |
Question: Is there a Government Furnished Plan or Report, or is this a contactor responsibility?
The Contractor is responsible for writing the Software Maintenance Plan. The Contractor shall submit the Software Maintenance Plan in accordance with CDRL B002. CDRLs are required deliverables. The format shall be developed by the Offeror and will be reviewed by the COR.
| 12. |
| PWS/ Page 7 |
| 6.2 |
| Paragraph 6.2 states “The Contractor shall also submit copies of the certificates of completion to the COR in accordance with CDRL B004.” Exhibit D states “The Information Assurance (IA) Support Plan provides… and shall include the following…” The PWS does not include a requirement to develop and submit an IA Plan. |
Question: Is there a Plan?
See CDRL B004. The Information Assurance (IA) Support Plan shall be developed by the Contractor and submitted in accordance with the CDRL. CDRLs are required deliverables.
| 13. |
| Addendum to FAR 52.212-1/ Page 47 |
| N/A |
| Question: Will the Government allow the submission of key personnel and staff resumes beyond the 3 requested with the proposal and if so, will they be allowed outside the current page count? |
| The Government will not allow the submission of key personnel and staff resumes other than those required for the program manager, project manager and senior functional analyst-lead(s). The page counts are set forth in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Page 47. |
| 14. |
| General |
| N/A |
| Question: Will the Government provide time in the schedule for additional questions based on the answers to the first round? |
| Questions received after the date and time set forth in the solicitation are unlikely to be addressed. |
| 15. |
| PWS/ Page 14 |
| 18 |
| Question: Does the Government require a direct response to the Performance Requirements in the PWS? |
| The Government requires a direct response to the PWS paragraphs identified in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, paragraph 4. |
| 16. |
| PWS/ Page 7 |
| 6.2 |
| Section 6.2 refers to submitting completion certificates for Government Information Assurance training annually. |
Question: Is this training provided by the Government, and in what form (CBT, Classroom, Security+ style, etc.)?
The Information Assurance training is provided by the Government via online training.
| 17. |
| PWS/Page 7 |
| 6.3 |
| Section 6.3 refers to supporting the Risk Management Framework (RMF) and DIACAP processes, controls, and standards as part of the Cybersecurity program. |
Question: Is the Government still using DIACAP or has there been a migration to RMF? What percentage of the MCTFS FOS is following DIACAP and what percentage follows RMF?
RFF-KCI is still using DIACAP. 100% of the MCTFS FOS uses DIACAP.
| 18. |
| Attachment 3 - QASP |
| N/A |
| Question: Is a response with the proposal submission required for the QASP? |
| No, the provided QASP is a draft document for reference only. The successful Offeror will be required to submit a draft QASP for review and discussion at the post-award conference. See PWS paragraph 15. |
19.
CDRL B004
N/A
| Question: Is a response with the proposal submission required for the IA Support Plan? |
| No. Submission will be due in accordance with CDRL B004. |
| 20. |
| General |
| N/A |
| Question: Does the Government have any service-level based metrics that would drive the contractor’s labor estimate to realism? |
| See the table provided in PWS paragraph 2.3. |
| 21. |
| General |
| N/A |
| Question: To support a realistic fixed-price estimate, would the Government provide a measure of variation of prior “ordered quantities” to present expectations or estimates? |
| See answer to number 20. |
| 22. |
| Solicitation/Page 47-48 |
| 4, Factor 4 |
| Question: Does the Government anticipate on releasing an excel template spreadsheet for the pricing proposal? |
| No, prices shall be submitted with the CLINs. |
| 23. |
| Solicitation/Page 46 |
| 3 |
| Question: Would the Government consider increasing the page limitation for Factors 1 and 2 from 20 to 30? |
| See Solicitation Amendment 0001 - Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, paragraph 3. The page limit for Factors 1 and 2 is increased to 25 pages. |
United States Marine Corps