M95494-18-R-0021_QA1.pdf

M95494-18-R-0021 Question and Answers

Q. What is the difference between this USMC Mission Assurance Program Solicitation and the Navy/USMC Mission Assurance Program Solicitation (N62470-17-R-4014) for which proposals were delivered on June 7, 2018?

A. The solicitation/contract in question is to support emergent assessment needs within the DoN. This requirement will provide Marine Corps MAA/CIP program support.

Q. Is there any database development or other tool development that is anticipated to fall within any task area of this RFP? If “yes,” please identify the scope of database and/or tool development required, as well as the specific task area in the RFP that includes such tasking.

A. No, there will be no database development or other tool development requirements on this contract.

Q. The top paragraph on page 38 states, “The analysis efforts range from focusing on a single asset to all infrastructure/networks and protection related areas to the installations/facilities listed under Section 5.0.” Since there are no “installations/facilities” identified anywhere in Section 5.0, is Section 5.0 text correct, or is the reference to section 5.0 correct?

A. The reference should have been 6.0. Please see Amendment 01.

Q. Section 2.4 tasks include the following: “Update MCCAMS documentation and diagrams annually, to include inventory data.” Does the updating “MCCAMS documentation” task include documenting technical database, application, and network access system data for compliance with all DoD, Navy, and Marine Corps Risk Management Framework, Information Assurance, other required benchmark requirements?

A. MC-CAMS Technical data is referenced to the Baseline Elements of Information for assets, assessments, capabilities and facilities. IT related Risk Management Framework (RMF) activities and data entries is not part of MC-CAMS data documentation requirements.

Q. Task 13 areas of performance have multiple references to executing tasks “via the MADL”, or utilizing “capabilities” within the MADL, which is owned and operated by a commercial firm. Is reference to the utilization of MADL a predetermination by the government that the winning bidder will need to enter into a partnership with this commercial firm?

A. The Mission Assurance Development Lab (MADL) is where all government development activities occur and are hosted during development and testing.

Task 13 describes the environment where system integration and development of GIS layers and data will be tested and developed. Access will be provided by the government during normal working hours to support task deliverables for task 13.

Q. Are there any program management staff, such as Program Manager and/or Project Manager that will be designated as Key Personnel?

A. No.

Q. At the bottom of page 52, there is a chart with a list of the installations/locations that tasks could be performed at – is this list of installations/locations complete and/or inclusive? If the answer is no, what other installations/locations may be required for travel to support task execution?

A. This is not an inclusive list. Other DoD locations that are associated with the Marine Corps’ missions may be required for travel.

Q. For the deliverable “MAA Reports (Draft and Final)”, is the term “MAA” meant to include the following assessment areas and reports identified in the

RFP:

a. Mission Assurance Assessments

b. Operational Utility Assessments

c. Energy Security Assessments

d. Mission Analysis assessments

A. Yes.

Q. Section 1.0, Scope, identifies 16 Task Support Areas, and correspondingly, 12 staff labor categories to support those task areas. What is the anticipated number of hours for each such task/staff position to be executed in the base year of the RFP? What was the total number of hours executed for each of the 12 Support Staff Positions in the last full year of execution?

A. The total overall estimated hours have been provided. Please see Amendment 01.

Q. Section 2.0, Tasks, requires support for the execution of “Mission Assurance Assessments” (MAAs). With respect to the base year of this RFP, what are the number and locations of each mission assurance assessment to be conducted in the base year?

A. Estimated number of MAA is eight (8) per year, but can vary based on the government’s requirements.

Q. With respect to the Mission Assurance Assessments anticipated to be conducted in the Base Year of this RFP, what is the length of each mission assurance assessment for each assessment site to be supported?

A. The length of the assessment will vary based on the location and government requirements.

Q. With respect to each Mission Assurance Assessment identified to be conducted in the Base Year, is there a separate mission analysis to be conducted at each Mission Assurance Assessment site prior to the conduct of Mission Assurance Assessments? If yes, what is the length of each anticipated Mission Analysis site visit?

A. The length of the mission analysis will vary based on the location and government requirements.

13 Q. What are the total number of hours anticipated to be required for the execution of Mission Analysis during the base year of the RFP? What are the total number of hours executed for Mission Analysis in the last full year of Mission Analysis execution for the USMC?

A. The total overall estimated hours have been provided. Please see Amendment 01.

Q. What is the composition of assessors, in terms of functional area expertise (e.g., AT, CIP, Physical Security, etc.) of the USMC Mission Assurance Assessment team?

A. The team composition will vary based on the location and the government’s requirements. The capabilities and technical approach must be outlined in Volume I.

Q. What are the total number of hours anticipated to be required for the execution of MAAs during the base year of the RFP? What are the total number of hours executed for MAAs in the last full year of MAA execution for the USMC?

A. The total overall estimated hours have been provided. Please see Amendment 01.

Q. What are the total number of hours anticipated to be required for each functional area assessment team member for the execution of MAAs during the base year of the RFP? What are the total number of hours executed, per assessor functional area SME, for MAAs executed in last full year of execution?

A. The total overall estimated hours have been provided. Please see Amendment 01.

Q. Section 2.0, Tasks, requires support for the execution of “Operational Utility Assessments” (OUTAs). With respect to the base year of this RFP, what are the number and locations of each OUTA to be conducted in the base year?

A. Estimated number of MAA is eight (8) per year, but can vary based on the government’s requirements.

Q. With respect to the OUTAs anticipated to be conducted in the Base Year of this RFP, what is the length of each OUTA for each assessment site to be supported?

A. Estimated number of MAA is eight (8) per year, but can vary based on the government’s requirements. The length of the assessment will vary based on the location and government requirements.

Q. What is the composition of assessors, in terms of functional area expertise (e.g., CIP, Physical Security, IT, Cyber Security, FRCS, etc.) of the USMC Operational Utility Assessment team?

A. The team composition will vary based on the location and the government’s requirements.

Q. What are the total number of hours anticipated to be required for the execution of OUTAs during the base year of the RFP? What are the total number of hours executed for OUTAs in the last full year of MAA execution for the USMC?

A. The total overall estimated hours have been provided. Please see Amendment 01.

Q. What are the total number of hours anticipated to be required for each OUTA functional area assessment team member for the execution of OUTAs during the base year of the RFP? What are the total number of hours executed, per OUTA assessor functional area SME, for OUTAs executed in last full year of execution?

A. The total overall estimated hours have been provided. Please see Amendment 01.

Q. Section 2.0 Tasks requires support for the execution of “Energy Security Assessments” (ESAs). With respect to the base year of this RFP, what are the number and locations of each Energy Security Assessment to be conducted in the base year?

A. The total overall estimated hours have been provided. Please see Amendment 01.

Q. With respect to the ESAs anticipated to be conducted in the Base Year of this RFP, what is the length of each ESA for each assessment site to be supported?

A. The length of the assessment will vary based on the assessment location.

Q. Are Energy Security Assessments to be conducted simultaneously with OUTAs, or are separate site visits required for Energy Security Assessments?

A. See Question 22 and review language in Section 2.0 of the PWS.

Q. What is the composition of assessors, in terms of functional area expertise (e.g., CIP, Physical Security, Civil Engineer, Electrical Engineer, FRCS, etc.)

of the USMC Energy Security Assessment team?

A. The total overall estimated hours have been provided. Please see Amendment 01.

Q. What are the total number of hours anticipated to be required for the execution of ESAs during the base year of the RFP? What are the total number of hours executed for ESAs in the last full year of MAA execution for the USMC?

A. The total overall estimated hours have been provided. Please see Amendment 01.

Q. What are the total number of hours anticipated to be required for each ESA functional area assessment team member for the execution of ESAs during the base year of the RFP? What are the total number of hours executed, per ESA assessor functional area SME, for ESAs executed in last full year of execution?

A. The total overall estimated hours have been provided. Please see Amendment 01.

Q. The top paragraph on page 40 states, “The analysis efforts range from focusing on a single asset to all infrastructure/networks and protection related areas to the installations/facilities listed under Section 5.0 and the functions that provide protection/security to the missions being supported.” There are installations identified in Section 6.0, not Section 5.0. Should Section 6.0 have been the reference?

A. Yes. Please see Amendment 01.

Q. The Physical Security tasks states, in part: “Provide recommendations and facilitate development of physical security law enforcement program”. Is there a “physical security law enforcement” program, or is the inclusion of “law enforcement” a typo?

A. Physical Security is a component of the law enforcement program within the Marine Corps.

Q. The Physical Security Task states, in part: “Provide technical writing and review of Mission Assurance/Critical Infrastructure Protection reports and information papers in a timely manner to support report publication timelines.” Are these deliverables placed under the Physical Security Task, or would they be performed under the “Critical Infrastructure Task” or the “Mission Assurance Support” Task, requiring mission assurance/critical infrastructure expertise?

A. This is a Task 2.2 requirement (Physical Security Program Support) as stated in the RFP.

Q. Section 2.4 tasks include the following: “Update MCCAMS documentation and diagrams annually, to include inventory data.” Does the updating “MCCAMS documentation” include documenting technical database, application, and network access system data?

A. MC-CAMS Technical data is referenced to the Baseline Elements of Information for assets, assessments, capabilities and facilities. IT related Risk Management Framework (RMF) activities and data entries are not part of MC-CAMS data documentation requirements.

Q. The first sentence in this section states “All information relating to pricing data shall be in Volume II.” We believe it should read Volume III, please confirm.

A. That is correct, please see Amendment 01.

Q. If the contractor determines more than 3 labor categories are required for any specific CLIN, can additional rows be added to the spreadsheet.

A. Yes, feel free to add rows as necessary. The spreadsheet was provided as a template and does not dictate the labor mix a vendor will use to fulfill the requirement.

Q. Unless a specific schedule of assessments is provided for all years, can it be assumed that the number of assessments and complexity will be the same for all option periods? If not, please provide a schedule of assessments for all years so the estimated hours can be determined.

A. Please see Amendment 01.

Q. To allow for the government to respond to the questions, and the contractors to adequately incorporate the clarifications in their response, will the government give a 2-week extension to the due date and time?

A. The due date and time have been extended. Please see Amendment 01.

Q. Please clarify the intent of the last bullet for the LE Key Personnel, which lists “Senior Law Enforcement/Security Specialist – Minimum five (5) years of experience in areas as described above”. Is this intended to replace the LE requirements for 15 years? If this is a second key personnel requirement, which of the areas listed above are intended to require the five (5) years of experience?

A. Overall, the requirement is 15 years of DoD experience in law enforcement and security operations. Please see Amendment 01.

37 Q. Can charts, figures, and tables included as an Appendix be presented in 10pt Font?

A. Yes, that is acceptable.

Q. Per the page limit listed for Volume I: Technical, is the total number of narrative pages allowed to be 30, and any charts, figures, and tables presented within an Appendix do not count against the 30-page limit?

A. Yes.

Q. Please clarify the page limitation for Volume II: Past Performance or the page limitation for each past performance narrative?

A. 10 page limit for Vol II. Please see Amendment 01.

Q. For clarification purposes, paragraph 1 of Factor 5 – Price states that “All information relating to pricing data shall be included in Volume II.” Should it read Volume III?

A. Yes, please see Amendment 01.

Q. In lieu of a required Bachelor’s Degree, can a key personnel’s 35+ years of direct and relevant experience, including 29 of those years supporting the USMC in the labor category required, which exceeds the minimum five (5) years, be approved as an acceptable replacement?

A. No.

Q. In lieu of a required Bachelor’s Degree, can a key personnel with an Associate’s Degree and 27+ years of direct and relevant experience, including 24 of those years supporting the USMC in the labor category required, which exceeds the minimum five (5) years, be approved as an acceptable replacement?

A. No.

Q. On the Section B CLIN Pricing for the Travel CLINs, there is a reference to Section 9 but it appears it should be Section 10. Please advise if an amendment will be issued to change the reference or are we to submit the CLIN pricing with the Section 9 reference?

A. Yes, please see Amendment 01.

Q. Will the Government extend the offer due date from 24 July 2018 to a date that is seven days after the Government’s published response to Offerors’ questions? This request is not asking to delay the provision of services, though we understand this request may cause a short delay on the Government’s award process.

A. The due date and time have been extended. Please see Amendment 01.

45 Q. Will the Government include an estimated level of effort per task in hours?

A. The total overall estimated hours have been provided. Please see Amendment 01.

Q. Section 8.1 of the PWS states that “The contractor is required to have a Top Secret (TS) Facility Clearance.” This should be at the time of performance start date. This would allow the offeror to have an Active Secret Facility Clearance Letter (FCL) upgraded administratively by DSS in IFSD to an Active TS FCL at the time of receipt of the Government’s TS DD254. Is this the case?

A. Please see Amendment 01.

Q. Given that the Key Personnel billet for AT Program Support in Section 4.1 of the PWS is titled as a Specialist versus a Manager, will the Government consider a management experience or Master’s Degree in a protection-related or national security-related field substitution in lieu of a MS in Management?

A. Yes. Please see Amendment 01.

Q. Sections 4.2, 4.6, 4.7, and 4.8 of the PWS give a Bachelor’s Degree requirement in a specific set of degree fields for the Key Personnel (KP) billets of Physical Security Specialist, Emergency Management Specialist, CBRNE Specialist, Senior Communications Specialist, and Journeyman Communications Specialist, respectively. Will the Government consider an experience substitution for personnel nominated for these KP billets with a Bachelor's Degree in a field other than one of those listed or for a KP nominated without a Bachelor's Degree?

A. No.

Q. Section 4.11 of the PWS states that the Key Personnel billet for Senior Technical Writer requires a Master’s Degree in Crime, Law, and Justice or a protection-related field. Will the government consider an experience substitution for personnel nominated for the Senior Technical Writer billet who do not possess a Master’s Degree or possess a Master’s Degree in a different field?

A. No.

Q. The 12 Key Personnel requirements listed in Section 4.0 of the PWS appear to have some overly specific qualifications that may exceed realistic Mission Assurance experience requirements and be possibly tailored to incumbent personnel which gives an unfair competitive advantage. MCO 3058.1 Marine Corps Mission Assurance signed 23 October 2014 established Marine Corps Mission Assurance policy. DOD Directive 3020.40 signed 29 November 2016 established DOD-wide Mission Assurance policy. Given the date of these orders establishing official USMC and DOD policy for Mission Assurance, shouldn’t specific Mission Assurance experience requirements for the 12 Key Personnel billets be limited to a minimum of five years of Mission Assurance experience versus the higher requirements currently listed that would pre-date established Mission Assurance policy?

A. Please see Amendment 01.

Q. Page 60 of the Request for Proposal (RFP) lists 126 applicable orders and directives from Presidential Directives down to the Military Handbook for Combination Locks. Also, the majority of the references are out of date, such as MARADMINS from 2000 and 2001 and the DOD Joint Mission Assurance Benchmarks. The DOD Directive 3020.40 and MCO 3058.1 are most relevant for Mission Assurance Policy and not listed. Will the Government reduce this list of orders and directives to those that are current and relevant to a technical approach?

A. MCO 3058.1 (23 October 2014) has been added as a reference. Please see Amendment 01.

Q. To level the competition, can the solicitation be open to experience in mission assurance with any DoD Service HQ mission assurance program support to include systems?

A. The PWS has been revised. Please see Amendment 01.