PDSS_Question_Tracking_Matrix.pdf

Question

Number Document/Section Paragraph/Reference Question/Issue/Concern Government Answer Amendment #

Section C Paragraph ,

3.10.11 Key Position Table, Page 63

The Key Position Table states that PMP is a desired certification and that IAM Level II is a required certification for the Program Manager. IAM Level II, which requires a CISSP or similar certification is typically an IA Lead certification level and is overly restrictive for

Program Manager level personnel needing to lead a program such as PDSS. Requiring this certification can overly restrict suitable PM level candidates for this acquisition and therefore limit competition. It is requested that the government consider modifying the requirement such that PMP is required and IAM Level II either be changed to desired or the IA certification be lowered to something more appropriate for a PM such as IAT

Level II

IAM Level II for the PM is now "desired" instead of "Required" See changes Section C Paragraph 3.10.11

Table 5

Solicitation, Section L, Paragraph L-8.2 B B. Approved System Verification, page 164

While it is reasonable for the Government to request the most recent approval status of the identified systems, offerors do not control the audit timelines for these systems that are directed by the Government/cognizant audit agencies. The cognizant agency would not typically be willing to issue an updated letter/finding until an underlying audit is performed. This makes the requirement to obtain a letter from the cognizant agency, if the system approval was not received within two years of the solicitation release, extremely difficult to comply with. This requirement will have the effect of limiting quality competition from potential contractors who do have approved systems, from those who received those approvals more than two years ago. As such, will the Government remove the requirement to obtain a letter from the cognizant agency if the initial approval is not obtained within two years of the solicitation release?

See revised Section L-8.2 Paragraph B. 0002

3 Solicitation

L-8.6 Volume IV – Factor 4 – Past

Performance

A. Past Performance References

This section states “The proposal shall include information for references for up to three of the most relevant recently completed or currently active federal government contracts, for the prime Offeror.”

However, paragraph B. Customer Assessment/Past Performance Questionnaires, states

“Within the proposal include a list of the questionnaires sent out and the point of contact name and contact information for the prime offeror and any subcontractors. Up until two

(2) business days prior to submission proposal due date, prime Offerors and subcontractors are permitted to ask the contracting point of contact if past performance questionnaires have been received prior to the actual proposal due date.”

Further, RFP section M-8 Evaluation of Factor 4 – Past Performance, paragraph C.

Acceptability Rating, states “One acceptability assessment rating is assigned for each

Offeror after evaluating the prime Offeror’s and subcontractor’s recent past performance.”

The latter two references imply that subcontractor past performance references are allowed. Will the Government please confirm that both prime offeror and any subcontractor past performance references are allowed, as this will allow for representation of more relevant contracts and showcase the experience a subcontractor team member will bring to the PDSS GCSS-MC contract?

Subcontractor past performance information is not required for this RFP. References to "subcontractors" are removed from Sections L-8.6 Factor 4 and Section M-8 Evaluation of Factor 4.

4 Solicitation

L-8.6 Volume IV – Factor 4 – Past

Performance M-8 Evaluation of Factor 4 –

Past Performance

The RFP contains conflicting definitions of Relevant under Factor 4. Section L defines

Relevant narrowly as “experience in Sustaining Enterprise Business suite software and hardware systems within the Federal Government with an annual contract value of $10M or greater for at least two consecutive years.” Not Relevant is defined as any past performance not meeting this specific definition.

Section M, however, states that past performance will be evaluated to determine the

“probability of meeting the solicitation requirements based upon past performance of similar efforts.” (Page 173, emphasis added). Section M also includes a different definition of Relevant, defining relevant past performance as “effort involved similar scope to the requirement and meets or exceeds the stated magnitude in the relevancy definition.”

(Page 174, emphasis added).

Will the Government eliminate the conflicting definitions by deleting the definition of

Relevant in Section L in favor of the definition of Relevant in Section M?

See updated Sections L-8.6 and M-8 0002

5 Solicitation L-8.6 Volume IV – Factor 4 – Past

Performance

The definition of Relevant in Section L under Factor 4 is contrary to the FAR. Section L defines Relevant narrowly as “experience in Sustaining Enterprise Business suite software and hardware systems within the Federal Government with an annual contract value of

$10M or greater for at least two consecutive years.” Not Relevant is defined as any past performance not meeting this specific definition.

Past performance is intended only to be an “indicator of an offeror’s ability to perform the contract successfully.” FAR 15.305(a)(2)(i). To make this determination, the FAR mandates that solicitations “provide offerors an opportunity to identify past or current contracts (including Federal, State, and local government and private) for similar efforts to the Government requirement.” FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii) (emphasis added). Since the purpose of the past performance evaluation is not to evaluate technical capability or the qualifications of key personnel, the FAR specifically requires the Government to consider

“similar efforts” across Federal, State, local or private contracts when evaluating past performance.

Will the Government eliminate the narrow definition of Relevant in Section L and replace it with the definition of Relevant in Section M (i.e., “effort involved similar scope to the requirement”)?

See response to Question #4 0002

6 Solicitation L-8.6 Volume IV – Factor 4 – Past

Performance

The RFP’s definition of Relevant in Section L under Factor 4 is unnecessarily narrow and will unduly restrict competition if not revised. Section L requires offerors to submit past performance references showing two consecutive years of sustaining Oracle EBS systems with an annual contract value exceeding $10M. Many prospective offerors have considerable experience performing contracts similar to the scope of the PWS, but may not have the precise combination of sustaining Oracle’s EBS for two consecutive years during the past three years for the federal government. By defining Relevant so narrowly, the Government will not be able to evaluate how well prospective offerors performed substantially similar contracts since those contracts fall outside of Section L’s specific definition. Past performance is intended only to be an “indicator of an offeror’s ability to perform the contract successfully.” FAR 15.305(a)(2)(i). It should not be a means of effectively evaluating technical capabilities, technical approach or key personnel, with the effect of excluding highly qualified and experience contractors from competing.

Will the Government eliminate the narrow definition of Relevant in Section L and replace it with the definition of Relevant in Section M (i.e., “effort involved similar scope to the requirement”)?

Broadening the scope will make the requirement less restrictive and allow more qualified contractors to bid on this opportunity.

See response to Question #4. 0002

7 Solicitation L-8.6 Volume IV – Factor 4 – Past

Performance

This section identifies Relevant work experience as “Work experience in sustaining

Enterprise Business Suite software and hardware systems within the Federal Government with an annual contract value of $10M or greater for at least two consecutive years.”

To the extent the Government will not change the definition of Relevant to “similar scope,” will the Government consider broadening the scope to include U.S. DoD logistics systems, in addition to Enterprise Business Suite software and hardware systems?

Broadening the scope in this manner will allow more qualified contractors to bid on this opportunity.

EBS software and hardware logistics systems are important because that is how GCSS-MC operates. There are several RICECPW modifications to the EBS system written specifically for GCSS-MC.

8 Solicitation L-8.6 Volume IV – Factor 4 – Past

Performance

This section identifies Relevant work experience as “Work experience in sustaining

Enterprise Business Suite software and hardware systems within the Federal Government with an annual contract value of $10M or greater for at least two consecutive years.”

Section L does not provide for any flexibility or gradations in terms of the size of similar contract efforts, effectively precluding offerors even if they have performed substantially similar contracts below $10M annually for two consecutive years.

Will the Government consider removing the annual contract value of $10M to “contracts of size of similar contract efforts”, since this requirement severely limits the number of highly capable contractors that would otherwise be qualified to bid on this opportunity?

Conversely, will the Government consider changing the definition of Relevant to “similar in size” rather than specify a minimum dollar threshold?

The definition will not be changed as requested. . 0002

9 Solicitation L-8.2 Volume I – Part 2 – Factor 5 –

Cost/Price Approved System Verification

To the extent the Government intends to require that offerors have an approved estimating system, property system, or purchasing system prior to contract award, DCMA will not approve or deem adequate such systems prior to contract award. Consequently, highly qualified and capable offerors that do not currently have approved systems will be ineligible to compete. Will the Government remove the requirement to have an approved estimating system, property system, or purchasing system prior to contract award, and consider making such systems a post-award requirement (e.g., three months after award).

See response to Question #2. 0002

Request for Proposal

(Base); L-8.6

VOLUME IV –

FACTOR 4 – PAST

PERFORMANCE (p.

168); M-8

EVALUATION OF

FACTOR 4 – PAST

PERFORMANCE; C.

ACCEPTABILITY

RATING (p. 174)

Section L; Paragraph A.

Section M; Paragraph C.

Section A. states “The proposal shall include information for references for up to three of the most relevant recently completed or currently active federal government contracts, for the prime Offeror.” However, paragraph B. Customer Assessment/Past Performance

Questionnaires, states “Within the proposal include a list of the questionnaires sent out and the point of contact name and contact information for the prime offeror and any subcontractors. Up until 2 business days prior to the submission proposal due date, prime

Offerors and subcontractors are permitted to ask the contracting point of contact if past performance questionnaires have been received prior to the actual proposal due date.”

Further, RFP section M-8 Evaluation of Factor 4 – Past Performance, paragraph C.

Acceptability Rating states, “One acceptability assessment rating is assigned for each

Offeror after evaluating the prime Offeror’s and subcontractor’s recent past performance.”

These two latter references imply that subcontractor past performance references are allowed.

Please confirm that both prime offeror and subcontractor past performance references are allowed, as this will allow for representation of more relevant contracts and showcase the experience a subcontractor team member will bring to the PDSS GCSS-MC program?

See response to Question #3. 0002

Request for Proposal

(Base); L-8.6

VOLUME IV –

FACTOR 4 – PAST

PERFORMANCE (p.

168); M-8

EVALUATION OF

FACTOR 4 – PAST

PERFORMANCE (p.

173-174)

Section L: Relevancy Paragraph

Section M; First Paragraph/B.

RELEVANCY RATING

The RFP contains conflicting definitions of Relevant under Section L, Factor 4 which defines Relevant narrowly as “experience in Sustaining Enterprise Business suite software and hardware systems within the Federal Government with an annual contract value of

$10M or greater for at least 2 consecutive years.” Not Relevant is defined as any past performance not meeting this specific definition. Section M, however, states that past performance will be evaluated to determine the “probability of meeting the solicitation requirements based upon past performance of similar efforts.” (p. 173, emphasis added).

Section M also includes a different definition of Relevant, defining relevant past performance as “effort involved similar scope to the requirement and meets or exceeds the stated magnitude in the relevancy definition.” (p. 174, emphasis added).

Will the Government eliminate the conflicting definitions by deleting the definition of

Relevant in Section L in favor of the definition of Relevant in Section M?

See response to Question #4. 0002

Request for Proposal

(Base); L-8.6

VOLUME IV –

FACTOR 4 – PAST

PERFORMANCE (p.

168)

Section L: Relevancy Paragraph

The definition of Relevant in Section L under Factor 4 is contrary to the FAR. Section L defines Relevant narrowly as “experience in Sustaining Enterprise Business suite software and hardware systems within the Federal Government with an annual contract value of

$10M or greater for at least 2 consecutive years.” Not Relevant is defined as any past performance not meeting this specific definition. Past performance is intended only to be an “indicator of an offeror’s ability to perform the contract successfully” [i.e., FAR

15.305(a)(2)(i)]. To make this determination, the FAR mandates that solicitations

“provide offerors an opportunity to identify past or current contracts (including Federal, State, and local Government and private) for similar efforts to the Government requirement” [i.e., FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii) (emphasis added)]. Since the purpose of the past performance evaluation is not to evaluate technical capability or the qualifications of key personnel, the FAR specifically requires the Government to consider “similar efforts” across Federal, State, local or private contracts when evaluating past performance.

Will the Government eliminate the narrow definition of Relevant in Section L and replace it with the definition of Relevant in Section M (i.e., “effort involved similar scope to the requirement”)?

See response to Question #4. 0002

Request for Proposal

(Base); L-8.6

VOLUME IV –

FACTOR 4 – PAST

PERFORMANCE (p.

168)

Section L: Relevancy Paragraph

The RFP’s definition of Relevant in Section L under Factor 4 is unnecessarily narrow and will unduly restrict competition if not revised. Section L requires offerors to submit past performance references showing 2 consecutive years of sustaining Oracle eBS systems with an annual contract value exceeding $10M. Many prospective offerors have considerable experience performing contracts similar to the scope of the PWS, but may not have the precise combination of sustaining Oracle’s eBS for 2 consecutive years during the past 3 years for the Federal Government. By defining Relevant narrowly, the

Government will not be able to evaluate how well prospective offerors performed substantially similar contracts since those contracts fall outside of Section L’s specific definition. Past performance is intended only to be an “indicator of an offeror’s ability to perform the contract successfully” as per FAR 15.305(a)(2)(i). It should not be a means of effectively evaluating technical capabilities, technical approach, or key personnel, with the effect of excluding highly qualified and experience contractors from competing.

Will the Government eliminate the narrow definition of Relevant in Section L and replace it with the definition of Relevant in Section M (i.e., “effort involved similar scope to the requirement”)? We contend that imposing the current past performance requirement does not ensure fair and reasonable competition by restricting effective competition to the largest systems integrators and precluding mid-tier systems integrators with equal or better capabilities from competing.

See response to Questions #4 and #7. 0002

Request for Proposal

(Base), L-8.6

VOLUME IV –

FACTOR 4 – PAST

PERFORMANCE (p.

168)

Section L: Relevancy Paragraph

This section identifies Relevant work experience as “Work experience in sustaining

Enterprise Business Suite software and hardware systems within the Federal Government with an annual contract value of $10M or greater for at least 2 consecutive years.”

To the extent the Government will not change the definition of Relevant to “similar scope,” will the Government consider broadening the scope to include U.S. DoD logistics systems, in addition to Enterprise Business Suite software and hardware systems?

Broadening the scope in this manner will allow more qualified contractors to bid on this opportunity.

See response to Question #7. 0002

Request for Proposal

(Base), L-8.6

VOLUME IV –

FACTOR 4 – PAST

PERFORMANCE (p.

168)

Section L: Relevancy Paragraph

This section identifies Relevant work experience as “Work experience in sustaining

Enterprise Business Suite software and hardware systems within the Federal Government with an annual contract value of $10M or greater for at least 2 consecutive years.”

Section L does not provide for any flexibility or gradations in terms of the size of similar contract efforts, effectively precluding offerors even if they have performed substantially similar contracts below $10M annually for 2 consecutive years.

Will the Government consider removing the annual contract value of $10M to “contracts of size of similar contract efforts,” since this requirement severely limits the number of highly capable contractors that would otherwise be qualified to bid on this opportunity?

Conversely, will the Government consider changing the definition of Relevant to “similar in size” rather than specify a minimum dollar threshold?

See response to Question #8. 0002

M67854-18-R-7600_-

_Request_for_Proposal L-1 & Sec L-7

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions.

However section L-7 describes a process of submitting revised proposals. Can this be clarified?

L-1 paragraph 3, in accordance with FAR 15.215-1(f)(4), states the Governments intention to award without discussions, however, also states that the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Section L-7 also states the section is used in evaluations "if discussions are held".

M67854-18-R-7600_-

_Request_for_Proposal L-8.2

CLIN 0005 reads: Future Initiatives, RICECPW Reduction, and Service Transition - FFP.

Is this CLIN FFP or FFP LOE?

See Section B Supplement paragraph B.1 for CLINS 0005/0006. 0002

M67854-18-R-7600_-

_Request_for_Proposal

L-8.4 I. Technical Approach to Service

Operations

The government states that the offeror's approach is to execute Service Operations from

PWS Paragraph 3.2. What about sections 3.2.1 - 3.2.2.3, should those sections be included in the technical approach as well?

Yes. Section 3.2 is the Major Section Paragraph number. 3.2.1-3.2.2.3 are all part of that Major Section 3.2. 0002

M67854-18-R-7600_-

_Request_for_Proposal L-8

If an offerer provides a disclosure statement with the proposal submission, does this satisfy the DCMA / DCAA system approval letter requirement?

See response to Question #2. 0002

M67854-18-R-7600_-

_Request_for_Proposal L-1 Introduction

The government cites the NAICS code as 541511, will the size standard be determined based on being under 500 employees, under $27.5 Mil or both?

Business size under this NAICS code is determined based on the current SBA size standard. 0002

M67854-18-R-7600_-

_Request_for_Proposal L-8.3 Go/No-go criteria / Attachment 6

The scenario provided represents a very limited potential example of GCSS-MC operations. Would the government consider adding complexity to this scenario so responses may be more relevant to actual GCSS operations?

No. The scenario will not be changed. 0002

M67854-18-R-7600_-

_Request_for_Proposal

Factor 3, Large Business Only, Subcontracting Plan Past Performance

If a business does not have a previous subcontracting plan to evaluate, how will this section be scored? Some businesses (Small) have not previously had this contractual requirement. This requirement may unduly restrict competition on this RFP.

This requirement only applies to Large businesses. In the event a Large Business does not have subcontracting plan past performance see updated Section L-8.5 and Section M-7.2 Factor 3 Evaluation Ratings

M67854-18-R-7600_-

_Request_for_Proposal

L-8.6 Volume IV - Past Performance

References

Some Contracting offices rely 100% on CPARS and PPIRS and will no longer provide

PPQs. Will the government consider PPIRS in lieu of PPQs?

No. The requirement for PPQs and submission of any recent and relevant PPIPRs reports are requirements of

Section L-8.6.

M67854-18-R-7600_-

_Request_for_Proposal L-8.6 Volume IV - Relevancy

Is the government seeking relevance at the Task Order or IDIQ level, or will a mixture of both be allowed to meet the 10 million dollar standard?

Relevant past performance under an IDIQ will be accepted at the Task/Delivery Order level only. See updated

Section L-8.6.

M67854-18-R-7600_-

_Request_for_Proposal L-6 Proposal Format

The government does not include a transition plan as a requirement for proposal submission, yet the government asks the contractor to price transition. How does the government plan to validate that an offerors cost is accurate without the submission of a transition plan or strategy?

Evaluation of the price will be done in accordance with Section M. 0002

M67854-18-R-7600_-

_Request_for_Proposal L-6 Proposal Format

The government does not include a transition plan as a requirement for proposal submission, yet the government asks the contractor to price transition. Is there continuous integration or other laboratory/production environments that need to be transitioned from the incumbent contractor?

Yes. 0002

M67854-18-R-7600_-

_Request_for_Proposal L-6 Proposal Format

The government does not include a transition plan as a requirement for proposal submission, yet the government asks the contractor to price transition. Will the government provide more details regarding transition so it can be accurately priced?

The transition is what the contractor needs to ramp support for everything required in the PWS. It shall be priced based off of what the contractor believes they need to execute PDSS.

M67854-18-R-7600_-

_Request_for_Proposal

1.3.1 / 3.12 RICEPW Reduction initiative

The government cites 250 RICE Objects in the current baseline and an increase to 277 with the future baseline. In section 3.12 the government cites 250 RICE objects for

Increment 1. This makes it seem as though RICE objects are increasing with increment 2 by 27 additional objects. When is increment 2 scheduled to be fielded?

The fielding of Increment 2 is not a requirement. 0002

M67854-18-R-7600_-

_Request_for_Proposal

1.3.1 / 3.12 RICEPW Reduction initiative

The government cites 250 RICE Objects in the current baseline and an increase to 277 with the future baseline. In section 3.12 the government cites 250 RICE objects for

Increment 1. This makes it seem as though RICE objects are increasing with increment 2 by 27 additional objects. Should the contractor be focusing on reducing the increment 2 objects, or the increment one objects which appear to already be fielded with a planned increase by 27 objects?

The fielding of Increment 2 is not a requirement. 0002

M67854-18-R-7600_-

_Request_for_Proposal

1.3.1 / 3.12 RICEPW Reduction initiative

The government cites 250 RICE Objects in the current baseline and an increase to 277 with the future baseline. In section 3.12 the government cites 250 RICE objects for

Increment 1. This makes it seem as though RICE objects are increasing with increment 2 by 27 additional objects. Can the government please identify all relevant RICE Objects to be reduced?

Yes. New GFI: "GCSS-MC_RICE List_20180712" is available by requesting it from the government points of contact.

M67854-18-R-7600_-

_Request_for_Proposal

1.3.1 / 3.12 RICEPW Reduction initiative

The government cites 250 RICE Objects in the current baseline and an increase to 277 with the future baseline. In section 3.12 the government cites 250 RICE objects for

Increment 1. This makes it seem as though RICE objects are increasing with increment 2 by 27 additional objects. If Increment 2 is already designed, would the RICE reduction take effect for Increment 3, or during an Increment 2 update?

See response to Question #28. 0002

M67854-18-R-7600_-

_Request_for_Proposal

1.3.1 / 3.12 RICEPW Reduction initiative

The government cites 250 RICE Objects in the current baseline and an increase to 277 with the future baseline. In section 3.12 the government cites 250 RICE objects for

Increment 1. This makes it seem as though RICE objects are increasing with increment 2 by 27 additional objects. How significant to system versioning are the rice objects?

Critical. Most if not all of the functionality that is required by the Marine Corps and not part of the base ERP software are encapsulated within RICE objects.

M67854-18-R-7600_-

_Request_for_Proposal

3.10.11 Key Positions

Key personnel requirements for the Program Manager include ITILv3 Foundations &

IAM Level II. Will the government please consider removal of these requirements or explain the rationale for these qualifications?

See response to Question #1. 0002

M67854-18-R-7600_-

_Request_for_Proposal

3.10.11 Key Positions

Key personnel requirements include educational requirements. Can years of experience be substituted for these degree requirements?

The specific requirements are contained within PWS Paragraph 3.10.11 Table 5. 0002

M67854-18-R-7600_-

_Request_for_Proposal L8.2 part B & M-9.D

We read the requirement only to mean that if an offeror already has approved business systems, the approval or confirmation evidence must be dated within the timelines established in Section L. In other words, we do not interpret this sentence to suggest that an offeror will be automatically disqualified from this procurement simply because its business systems are not pre-approved, as such an interpretation would unnecessarily exclude any offeror for whom this would be their first CAS-covered contract requiring the incorporation of the business systems DFARS clauses. Is this the Government’s interpretation as well?

See response to Question #2. 0002

M67854-18-R-7600_-

_Request_for_Proposal Section 1.3

Who is responsible for moving the current development content located at Carpathia and

El Segundo to the awarded contractor development site?

The Contractor is responsible for moving and/or standing up their own site. 0002

M67854-18-R-7600_-

_Request_for_Proposal Section 1.3

Who is responsible for decommissioning the current development environments at

Carpathia and El Segundo?

The decommissioning of the current SDE(s) is beyond the scope of this competition. 0002

M67854-18-R-7600_-

_Request_for_Proposal Section 1.3.1

RICE is industry standard nomenclature for sustainment operations. Why is RICECPW nomenclature used? (It is not an industry standard and only should be applied to upgrading software, not sustaining software)

The requirement calls for the contractor to adapt the Enterprise Business Suite to meet Marine Corps specific requirements.

M67854-18-R-7600_-

_Request_for_Proposal Section 3.2.1.1 What software package is used for the knowledge base? Remedy ITSM. See updated PWS Paragraph 3.2.1.1. 0002

M67854-18-R-7600_-

_Request_for_Proposal Section 3.2.2

The statement about Oracle supporting UPK through April 2019 is not accurate . Can you clarify?

The UPK software may not receive patches and/or updates after 2022. See updated PWS Paragraph 3.2.2. 0002

M67854-18-R-7600_-

_Request_for_Proposal Section 3.2.2 Version of Oracle cloud control referenced is incorrect. Can this be corrected?

There is no version of Oracle Cloud Control referenced in Section 3.2.2, See update to 13c in PWS Paragraph

3.3.2.

M67854-18-R-7600_-

_Request_for_Proposal Section 3.4.1

Will the development environments established by contractor host all GSCC-MC development operations such as WMS and Audit Compliance?

Yes. 0002

M67854-18-R-7600_-

_Request_for_Proposal Section 3.4.1 Can you clarify the statement on NetApps devices? NetApp SAN devices only exist in Carpathia within GCSS-MC. 0002

M67854-18-R-7600_-

_Request_for_Proposal Section 1.3

The RFP does not describe the architecture/hardware configuration of the mobile training devices. Can you clarify?

New piece of GFI: "GCSS-TA-155MTS2_v0.21" is available upon request from Government Contracting POCs. 0002

M67854-18-R-7600_-

_Request_for_Proposal Section 3.7.3.2 The RFP references Discoverer as a development tool. Can you clarify? The current EBS has not transitioned over to R12 from R11 and is therefore still using Discoverer. 0002

M67854-18-R-7600_-

_Request_for_Proposal Section 3.7.3.2 The RFP does not reference OBIEE. Can this be clarified?

Once R12 goes into the Production system, OBIEE will replace Discoverer. See amended PWS paragraph

3.7.3.2.

M67854-18-R-7600_-

_Request_for_Proposal Section 3.8.14

There is no mention of Oracle Enterprise Manager/Application Management pack as a

CM/RM tool. Can this be clarified?

Oracle Enterprise Manager/Application Management was added to section 3.8.1.4 OEM/ABM 13c. 0002

M67854-18-R-7600_-

_Request_for_Proposal Section 1.3

Does the awarded contractor assume that the hardware in the Carpathia development environments and the El Segundo environments are available for use?

Carpathia will be decommissioned by the time of contract award. El Segundo will be available during the transition in period and not available after that.

M67854-18-R-7600_-

_Request_for_Proposal Section 1.3

Will the software licenses used for development purposes be provided as GFE to the awarded contractor?

No. The acquisition of software licenses for the Government will be the responsibility of the Contractor. 0002

M67854-18-R-7600_-

_Request_for_Proposal Section 1.3 Will R12 be in production when this IDIQ is awarded?

The R12 go-live production date has not been determined at this time, but it should be completed before this

IDIQ is awarded.

M67854-18-R-7600_-

_Request_for_Proposal L-6 Proposal Format

The RFP and PWS lack specific details regarding what needs to be transitioned. Will the government consider requiring a transition plan with pass/fail criteria?

No. This will not be added as an evaluation criteria. 0002

M67854-18-R-7600_-

_Request_for_Proposal M67854-18-R-7600 Attachment 7 Does the government have a target for the cost incentive (profit) ?

The solicitation as posted on 12 June 2018 did not. There is a target profit for all offerors incorporated into the

RFP as of Amendment 0001. See changes in Sections B, L, and M. and Attachment 7.

M67854-18-R-7600_-

_Request_for_Proposal Section B - Supplies or Services and Prices

For CLINS 0001, 1001, 2001, 3001, & 4001, Does the government have a target profit goal and if so what is it?

See response to Question #52. 0002

RFP Section L-6.F -

Font pg 160 - Text used in charts, figures, and graphics shall also be no smaller than a 10-point font and be Times New Roman or

Arial Narrow. Graphics with text shall be no bigger than half a page

Please confirm that tables can use 10-pt font Times New Roman or Arial Narrow? 10 pt. Times New Roman or Arial Narrow font for use in tables is acceptable. 0002

RFP Section L-6.G -

Chart/Foldouts Pages pg 160 - When foldout pages are used they must not exceed 11 x 17 inches; each printed side will be counted as two (2) pages, and shall fold down to approximately 8.5 x 11-inch standard size.

This includes drawings such as illustrations, organizational charts, and process flow charts.

Please confirm that the drawings such as illustrations, organizational charts, and process flow charts which will include text are not considered graphics and will not be subject to the "no bigger than half a page" requirement for graphics.

See updated Section L-6(F). 0002

RFP Section L-6.G -

Chart/Foldouts Pages pg 160 - When foldout pages are used they must not exceed 11 x 17 inches; each printed side will be counted as two (2) pages, and shall fold down to approximately 8.5 x 11-inch standard size.

This includes drawings such as illustrations, organizational charts, and process flow charts.

Please confirm that if an 11x17 is used and the offeror prints on both the front and back side of the 11x17 it will equal a total of 4 pages.

As stated in L-6(G), each printed side of an 11"x17" sheet "will be counted as two (2) pages". . 0002

RFP Section

L.-8.4.i

Pg 165 – Paragraph i states that “The

Offeror shall document their approach and capabilities to execute Service Operations in PWS Paragraph 3.2 and their approach and capabilities to meet or exceed the performance metrics in PWS Paragraph

3.2.2.4.”

Please advise if the offeror is to reply to PWS Paragraphs 3.2 and 3.2.2.4 only or to PWS

Paragraph 3.2 including all of its sub-factors (e.g. 3.2 – 3.2.4).

There are no subfactors. See also the response to Question #18. 0002

58 RFP Section L-8.6.A pg 168 - The proposal shall include information for references for up to three of the most relevant recently completed or currently active federal government contracts, for the prime Offeror

Please confirm that subcontractor/teammate past performance can be included as one of the three references?

See response to Question #3. 0002

PWS 1.3 - System

Description, Mobile

Training Suites pg 23 – PWS Section 1.3 says “MTS cases consist of a server, storage array, 24 laptops, switches to connect the laptops to the server/array, and all ancillary equipment to have a complete computer-based classroom.”

How many MTS’s are there in total? Current quantity of MTS kits is 100. 0002

PWS 3.6.1.1 -

Reliability pg 41 - Para 2 states, "The availability parameters shall include both corrective and preventative maintenance requirements."

Would the Government consider excluding preventative maintenance activities that are driven by Government directives such as DoD IA requirements (e.g. IAVA, IAVB) from the Ao calculations?

No. CPD requirements include those activities in the Program's calculations. 0002

PWS 3.8.1.4 – Systems

Engineering Tool

Support pg 51 - Para 5 states, "The PMO uses BMC

ITSM for the Enterprise Service Desk".

Is the contractor being provided access to the same instance of BMC ITSM the PMO uses?

The PMO does not own the BMC ITSM that is currently used. The contractor is expected to supply the instance with the software they choose and provide the government user and reporting access.

62 PWS 3.8.5.5

pg 56 - Para 1 states, "Upon approval by the CAB and CCB, the Contactor shall identify, decommission, and revise configuration items in the Configuration

Management Database (CMDB)."

Is the Government furnishing an established CMDB toolset to the contractor? If so, what toolset is being provided?

Microfocus owned Solutions Business Manager (SBM), formerly known as Serena Business Manager is the tool utilized for CM provided as GFE. This tool is hosted at Naval systems Engineering Resource Center (NSERC), Dahlgren, VA. The offeror may recommend another tool of choice.

63 RFP; Section C Section 1.3 System Description (Page 22) Does the SDE established in El Segundo, CA belong to the Government?

The SDE at El Segundo is not owned by the Government.

64 RFP, Section C Section 3.4 Solution Development

Environment (Page 39)

Is GCSS-MC SDE able to be provisioned using external infrastructure (i.e., Amazon Web

Services, Azure)?

Yes, however the SDE is intended to be the offeror's closed development environment, without external connections. The Offerer would have to mitigate any external connections and show that the development environment they use is appropriately safeguarded to protect GCSS-MC code and DoD data.

65 RFP, Section C Section 3.4 Solution Development

Environment (Page 30)

Is the SDE in El Segundo, CA considered to be within the Government’s security boundary?

No. It is outside the boundary and the Contractor has the responsibility of meeting all of the security requirements detailed in the solicitation.

RFP, Section B CLIN

0004 and Section C

Section B CLIN 0004- Solution

Development Environment (SDE)

Government Site and 3.9.12 SDE (Page 4 and 60)

CLIN 0004 specifies a SDE may be established at a Government site, however section

3.9.12 indicates this SDE may be located in a third party contractor location. In order to facilitate an apples-to-apples evaluation, Offerors need to know which location

(Government site or contractor site) should be priced in the proposal. A third party contractor could have access restrictions in place or differing technical specifications that will impact the estimated level of effort required to support the SDE. For bidding purposes, can the Government identify the location (Government or third party)?

CLINs 0004, 1004, 2004, 3004, and 4004 have been removed from bidding in this solicitation and the requirement was moved into "future initiatives".

RFP, Section B CLIN

0004 and Section C

Section B CLIN 0004- Solution

Development Environment (SDE)

Government Site and 3.9.12 SDE (Page 4 and 60)

CLIN 0004 specifies a SDE may be established at a Government site, however section

3.9.12 indicates this SDE may be located in a third party contractor location. In order to facilitate an apples-to-apples evaluation, Offerors need to know which location

(Government site or contractor site) should be priced in the proposal. A third party contractor could have access restrictions in place or differing technical specifications that will impact the estimated level of effort required to support the SDE. Given the uncertainties associated with this CLIN, would the Government provide Offerors with a plug value for this CLIN at this time?

See response to Question #66. 0002

RFP, Section B CLIN

CLIN table and PWS 3.4 Solution

Development Environment (Page 39) Will the Government provide the Government site SDE at no cost to the Contractor? See response to Question #66. 0002

RFP, Section B CLIN

CLIN table and PWS 3.4 Solution

Development Environment (Page 39)

What is the service relationship between the Government-provided SDE (i.e., PaaS, IaaS, SaaS)?

See response to Question #66. 0002

RFP, Section B CLIN

CLIN table and PWS 3.4 Solution

Development Environment (Page 39) What is the intended security boundary for the Government-provided SDE? See response to Question #66. 0002

RFP, Section B CLIN

CLIN table and PWS 3.4 Solution

Development Environment (Page 39)

When is the latest date after contract award that the contractor-provided SDE must be operational and what SDE capability will the contractor use until that date?

The contractor becomes responsible for the SDE the first day after the transition period ends. 0002

72 RFP, Section C PWS 3.2.1 GCSS-MC Operations Center

(Page 27) and PWS 11.1.1 (Page 69)

Will the Government clarify what is meant by a "secure contractor facility" in view of the assertion in PWS Section 11.1.1 that this "effort does not warrant a DD Form 254."

The contractor facility must be secure enough for the Operations and Remote Administration of Unclassified DoD

Systems, transmission, processing, and storage of Controlled Unclassified "FOUO" Information.

RFP, Section I Contract

Clauses DFAR 252.204-7012 (Page 117 and 118)

This clause appears to address the requirements of cloud computing and the use of external cloud service providers. Will the Government confirm whether or not the GCSS-

MC SDE can be hosted by an external cloud provider (e.g., Amazon Web Services)?

See response to Question #64. 0002

74 RFP, Section L-6 Section L-6 Proposal Format- subsection I-

Page Limitation Exclusions (Page 161)

This section specifies the certificates for security personnel are excluded from page count, however, this certificate requirement is not described in Section L instructions. What type of security certificates are required?

The security Certificates are not required. See updated Section L-6(I). 0002

75 RFP, Section L-6 Section L-6 Proposal Format- subsection I-

Page Limitation Exclusions (Page 161)

This section specifies the certificates for security personnel are excluded from page count, however, this certificate requirement is not described in Section L instructions. Are security certificates required, and where in the proposal should they be placed?

See response to Question #66. 0002

RFP, Section B CLIN

0004 and Section C

Section B CLIN 0004- Solution

Development Environment (SDE)

Government Site and 3.9.12 SDE (Page 4 and 60)

In order for the Offeror to provide a FFP for CLIN 0004, we will need to know the cost to the Offeror for this directed third party. Will the Government provide the maximum cost of the "directed third party contractor site" referenced in PWS Section 3.9.12?

See response to Question #66. 0002

RFP, Section B CLIN

0004 and Section C

Section B CLIN 0004- Solution

Development Environment (SDE)

Government Site and 3.9.12 SDE (Page 4 and 60)

Is the Government referencing a "directed third-party contractor facility" where the

Government maintains a direct contractual relationship with the third-party and handles the associated costs directly?

See response to Question #66. 0002

78 RFP, L-8.5

L-8.5 Volume III- Factor 3- Small Business

Participation Strategy (Page 167)

Item #1 specifies that the Offeror shall provide name, address and DUNS (or CAGE) for all projected organizations for participation. Since the Offeror does not have any information on the “directed third party,” will the Government provide the information for the directed third party so we can properly include it in our small business plans?

See response to Question #66. 0002

79 RFP, Section C PWS 3.6 Product Lifecycle Support Will the Government provide the latest metrics for reliability, availability and maintainability for the existing system?

Yes. The "GCSS-MC Production Dashboard Report Apr 2018" is part of the GFI for proposal preparation available via e-mail if requested through Government Contracting POCs.

80 RFP, Section C PWS 3.6.1 Reliability, Availability, Maintainability

Will the Government clarify how the reliability, availability and maintainability of the host datacenter, enterprise-provided services, and network impact the calculations in PWS

3.6.1?

Any downtime (including planned outages) at the host data center, enterprise provided services or network will count against the RAM metrics.

81 RFP, Section C PWS 3.7.1 Change Requests Will the Government provide the number of less than 100 hour CRs have been performed each of the last three years?

Yes. This information is included in the GFI for proposal preparation available via e-mail if requested through

Government Contracting POCs.

82 RFP, Section C PWS 3.7.1 Change Requests Will the Government provide the number of less than 100 hour CRs that are currently backlogged?

This information is not available. 0002

RFP, Section L-8.2 and

M-9

Section L-8.2 Volume I- Part 2- Factor 5-

Cost/Price- C. Compensation for

Professional Employees and M-9 Factor 5-

Cost/Price- E. Professional Compensation

Plan (Page 164 and 176)

Instructions in Section L (page 164) specify the Professional Compensation Plan is required for the prime Offeror, however, the evaluation criteria (page 176) indicates that the Professional Compensation Plan(s) for the prime Offeror, and any subcontractors, will be evaluated…Will the Government confirm the Professional Compensation Plan is only required for the prime Offeror?

The Professional Compensation Plan is required for only the prime Offeror. See updated Section M-9(E). 0002

84 RFP, Section L-8.2

Section L-8.2 Volume I- Part 2- Factor 5-

Cost/Price- C. Compensation for

Professional Employees

This section directs the Offeror to provide salary and fringe benefit information for the five highest paid employees projected to perform under the contract. Specific salary and fringe benefit information would only be available for named personnel, and the

Government has only asked Offerors to identify specific people for the four Key Positions.

Does the Government intend for this information to be provided for the key personnel?

Section L-8.2 paragraph C states "individual name compensation disclosure is not required, and may be presented on a labor category/job category basis".

85 RFP, Section L-8.2

Section L-8.2 Volume I- Part 2- Factor 5-

Cost/Price- C. Compensation for

Professional Employees

This section directs the Offeror to provide salary and fringe benefit information for the five highest paid employees projected to perform under the contract. Specific salary and fringe benefit information would only be available for named personnel, and the

Government has only asked Offerors to identify specific people for the four Key Positions.

Given there are only four key personnel, in what other position is the Government expecting to see named personnel?

See response to Question #84. 0002

86 RFP, Section L-8.6

Section L-8.6 Volume IV-Factor 4- Past

Performance- B. Customer

Assessment/Past Performance

Questionnaires (Page 168)

Would the Government accept CPARs in lieu of completed past performance questionnaires?

No. See response to Question #23. 0002

87 RFP, Section L-8.2 Section L-8.2 Volume IV Factor 4 Past

Performance, Section B (Page 167)

This section specifies that “within the proposal include a list of the past Performance

Questionnaires sent out”. Will the Government confirm this list is outside of the Past

Performance volume page count?

This list is not excluded from the page count from the past performance factor. 0002

RFP, Section L-8.5 and

Section M-6.2

Section L-8.5 Volume III- Factor 2 and

Section M-6.2 Factor 2 (Page 165 and 172)

The section L instructions direct Offerors to include information about their proposed key personnel (e.g., education, years of experience, certifications), however section M does not specify how the Government will evaluate these key personnel qualifications. How will the Government evaluate Key Personnel?

See updated Section M-6.2. 0002

89 RFP, Section C Section 6 – Government Furnished

Equipment (Page 65)

The Government indicates only the “laptops to the contractor for performance in the Zone

D security environment.” will be provided as GFE. Please confirm the Government will also provide networking, software, software licensing, system interface accesses, VPN software, CAC cards/PIVs, etc. required to support Contractor personnel and contractor provided service locations (and connectively to the Government network) enabling the contract services.

The government will provision only laptops as GFE. 0002

90 RFP, Section C Section 6 – Government Furnished

Equipment (Page 65)

Will the Government provide all software and software licenses for the SDE (Government and Contractor provided) as GFE?

No. 0002

During execution of the work, will the Government provide access to the professional services portions of the warranty and support contracts provided by the enterprise software agreements?

No. 0002

92 RFP, Section C Section 3.8.1.4- Systems Engineering Tool

Support (Page 51)

What are the BMC ITSM modules and associated user licensing currently under

Government license, so the contractor can determine what software options are available to support contractor recommended improvements without an associated cost of additional licensing?

See response to Question #61. 0002

93 RFP, Section C Section 3.2.1.3- Database Administration

(page 30)

The RFP refers to Contractor DBA initiating recoveries and refreshes when required. Will the Government provide numbers and types of recoveries and refreshes required over the last year?

Representative data is not available. 0002

94 RFP, Section C

Section 3.2.1.6- Data Quality and 3.2.1.3-

Information Assurance/Cybersecurity (Page

32)

The RFP refers to a weekly O&S meeting. Will the Government provide the most recent slide deck from the O&S meeting?

Shell of slide deck "2017-10-25 OS Sync Meeting" will be provided if requested through Government Contracts

POC.

95 RFP, Section C Section 3.2.1.5- Interface Administration

(page 31)

The RFP refers to daily, weekly, and periodic Interface and External Tracking Reports with required interface metrics interface status during the past 24 hours, including interface status, downtime over the total records, total success, and success percentage.

Will the Government provide recent copies of these reports for each of the interface groupings listed in Table 3?

"Interfaces DailyReport_20180710" and "Interfaces WeekEnding_20180709" reports in their existing format will be provided if requested through the Government Contracts POC.

96 RFP, Section C Section 3.2.1.5- Interface Administration

(page 31)

The RFP refers to daily, weekly, and periodic Error Handling Framework (EHF) reports for RICECPW. Will the Government provide the most recent copies of these reports?

"EHF_for_07-11-2018_2" report in its existing format will be provided if requested through the Government

Contracts POC.

97 RFP, Section C Section 3.2.1.5- Interface Administration

(page 31)

The RFP refers to workflow errors. Will the Government provide information about the types of errors occurring and the volume/percentages of these errors?

This information is not available. 0002

98 RFP, Section C Section 3.2.1.6- Data Quality (Page 32)

The RFP refers to records that are stuck in process or need to be reprocessed.

Approximately how many of these types of records are generated on a daily/weekly/monthly/or annual basis?

This information is not available. 0002

99 RFP, Section C Section 3.2.1.6- Data Quality (Page 32)

The RFP refers to records that are stuck in process or need to be reprocessed.

Approximately how many and what percentage of these types of records are related to interfaces?

This information is not available. 0002

100 RFP, Section C Section 3.2.1.6- Data Quality (Page 32) The RFP refers to records that are stuck in process or need to be reprocessed. Will the

Government…