SMIT RFP Questions and Answers Set 3 12032018.pdf

N00039‐18‐R‐0005 ‐ Service Management, Integration and Transport (SMIT) Question and Answer Set #3 ‐ 3 December 2018

Item No.

Document Type/Title

(Please use pull‐down menu) Page Number

Line Number (where applicable)

Section/Block Number Issue/Comment/Question Government Response

9 References 20 9 3.1 We are missing the NEN Risk Management Plan (RMP) V2.0 dated March 2018, which is mentioned in SEP Section 3.1. Please provide the referenced

The Risk Management Plan (RMP) is Appendix D of the Program Protection Plan (PPP) and is available in the bidder's library.

10 References 12 8 1.5.1 In Section 1.5.1, the SEP mentions the NEN Program Operations Guide V2.0.

We do not have this document. Please provide the referenced document.

The Government will add the NEN Program Operation Guide to the bidder's library as an artifact.

11 References 12 5 2.1 In Section 2.1, the SEP mentions the DON Architecture Development Guide (ADG) v2.0, 29 July 2011. We have the SPAWAR Architecture Data Guide (ADG). Does the SPAWAR document supersede the DON document? Please

The Government will add the NEN DON Architecture Development Guide (ADG) to the bidder's library as an artifact.

128 References 20 5 3.11 Section 3.11 of the RQMP indicates a LOE categorization for change, and that the SEP LoE process needs to be formalized into policy. The SEP indicates another type of categorization that doesn't match the RQMP. The SEP also is unclear in this area. Devise and publish a change categorization structure that can be used to determine the types of reviews that should be conducted.

The Level of Effort categorization in the RQMP provides a framework for classifying the projected complexity of a project.

The Class 1 vs 2 categorization in the SEP provides a framework for classifying the impact of a change. LOEs (project complexity) and Class 1 vs 2 (change impact) measure different values and do not conflict.

The Government will add a revised RQMP to the bidder's library.

132 References 71 6 SEP, 4.5.10 In Section 4.5.10, key objectives of TRP are listed. The first bullet in the list doesn't appear to be a complete sentence ‐ Please clarify if the requirement is meant to say Mitigation of system and component obsolescence during

The Government will revise the SEP and provide an update in the bidder's library.

189 SMIT RFP Section L 8 L‐4 PROPOSAL CONTENT L‐4(b)(2)(ii)b. requires that ONE‐Net convergence plans be included in the NT/M with completion within 24 months of contract award. PWS Sec 3.4.5.b.

says that Convergence will be ordered by region. Can the Government be more specific with regard to the sequence in which regions will be ordered and what timing will be within the 24 months from contract start?

RFP Section L‐4(b)(2)(ii) will be updated in a future amendment to remove references to ONE‐Net Convergence in Subfactor 1.2.

266 J‐1 PWS 165 3.3.7.4.8.k Question: Could the Government provide historical run time data for each of the referenced generators?

The Government does not collect this data, therefore the information is not available.

365 SMIT RFP Section L 476 L‐2.2 ‐ Delivery of Electronic Proposal

Instructions are to upload all required proposal documentation to NGEN‐R AcquServe Vendor Portal.

Question 1: Are there any size limitations either at the file level or total of all combined files?

Question 2: If the bidder is unable to upload a file due to system error/unavailability what process should be followed to notify the

No, there are no limitations on file size. If an Offeror experiences issues with uploading proposal files they should immediately contact the Noblis help desk in accordance with instructions in Attachment L‐5 and the information contained on the AcquServe Vendor Portal.

374 USN CDRL CDRL A001

NMCI Transition

Plan

NMCI Transition Plan components

Regarding the total list of devices available for buy‐back from the incumbent on NGEN contract N00039‐13‐D‐0013. Some Components of CDRL A001AC state the offeror can “make arrangements with Incumbent to obtain ownership; the Contractor can invoke NGEN contract (N00039‐13‐D‐0013) clause H‐14 EUHW Buy‐Back” but other components do not have this clause.

For example, component 12, VTC Services includes EUHW but component 13, VoIP/VoSIP does not include any buy back. Question:

Please provide the complete list of Hardware device types and quantities available for buy back.

CDRL A001 will be updated in a future Amendment to remove the language regarding buy back of VoIP hardware. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to determine whether or not to purchase, or replace, existing contractor owned equipment.

N00039‐18‐R‐0005 ‐ Service Management, Integration and Transport (SMIT) Question and Answer Set #3 ‐ 3 December 2018

Item No.

Document Type/Title

(Please use pull‐down menu) Page Number

Line Number (where applicable)

Section/Block Number Issue/Comment/Question Government Response

380 L‐4 L‐4(d)(iii) Reference Government response to question # 370 related to L‐4(d)(iii) ‐ Volume 3: Past Performance Proposal ‐ The Government response indicates that Offerors should provide at least three past performance citations for each Major Subcontractor. With a contract of this magnitude, it is likely a team would have between 10‐20 Major Subcontractors (defined as greater than $50M of total contract Value equating to $6M year) resulting in a Past Performance volume that had at least 30 and up to 60 Past Performance citations to meet the minimum requirement as stated in this response. To adequately describe the relevance (scope, magnitude and complexity) of each program against the solicitation requirements and also fully respond to the self‐assessment topics, each write‐up would require at least 3‐4 pages resulting in a volume that requires 100 pages and could easily reach a total of 200 pages. Respectfully request the government allow Offeror's to submit 3‐5 total citations across the team to include Major Subcontractors. This would allow the Government to adequately evaluate the relevancy (scope, magnitude, complexity) of each program against the NGEN solicitations requirements and evaluate performance through the detailed self‐ assessment required in Section L and M.

RFP Section L‐4(d)(i) and L‐4(g)(2)(iii) will be updated in a future amendment to revise the definition of Major Subcontractor from $50 million to 10% or greater of the total contract value.