SMIT RFP Questions and Answers Set 4 12212018.pdf

N00039‐18‐R‐0005 ‐ Service Management, Integration and Transport (SMIT) Question and Answer Set #4 ‐ 21 December 2018

Item No. Document Type/Title Page Number Line Number Section/Block

Number Issue/Comment/Question Government Response

7 References 58 14 4.4.8 In SEP Section 4.4.8, the NEN SETR Guidelines and Process Guide are mentioned. We are missing the NEN SETR Guidelines and Process Guide v1.0. Please provide the referenced document.

The Government will add the NEN SETR Handbook to the bidder's library as an artifact.

8 References 36 12 3.4.5.2 In SEP Section 3.4.5.2 the NGEN Life Cycle Sustainment Plan is referenced. We are missing the NGEN Life Cycle Sustainment Plan V2.0. Please provide the referenced document.

The NEN Life Cycle Sustainment Plan is not required for proposal submission;

this document will be provided post award.

74 SMIT RFP Section L 480 L‐4 Section L, Subfactor 1.1 specifies that the Offerors deliver proposal content addressing SEP Section 4.4.8 Technical Reviews, in the SEMP [L‐4(b)(1)(i)b]. Section 4.4.8 states that the NEN SETR Guidelines and Process Guide, v1.0 provides the SETR review entry and exit criteria. Would the Government please provide the offerors a copy of the NEN SETR Guidelines and Process Guide, v1.0?

The Government will add the NEN SETR Handbook to the bidder's library as an artifact.

113 SMIT RFP Section L 481 L‐4 PROPOSAL

CONTENT

The government priorities listed in i‐viii of (b)(2) a. do not match the items listed in 3.3.7.1.1.2 of the PWS (which is referenced in this section). Which of these is correct?

Section L of the RFP and the PWS were revised in Amendment 0006 to update subfactor 1.2 and Section 3.3.7.1.1.2.

227 USN CDRL 1 of 2 N/A A055 SMIT CDRL_Analysis of Alternatives (AoA)

Block 4, Paragraph 2, Item

Will the government implement the Federal Cloud Computing Strategy, "Cloud Smart", during Analysis of Alternatives?

11/17/2018: The Government will revise Attachment J‐1 in a future amendment to include the DoD Directive, Federal Cloud Computing Strategy, as a reference.

12/21/2018: Follow up response.

No change will be made to Attachment J‐1 or CRDL A055 to impliment additional cloud based requirements. The requirements within the PWS do not preclude offerors from proposing cloud based solutions as part of the Contractor's Network Transformation/Modernization Plan.

234 SMIT RFP Section L 476 L‐2.1.d This section specifies the file types for submission and includes the statement "and Microsoft Project in *.mppx files shall be used for all schedules." For schedules submitted as part of the proposal does the Government desire the *.mppx file to be submitted along with the schedule embedded in the *.docx file. For example, the NMCI transition plan will have a schedule as part of the 50 page (max) *.docx file submitted. Does the Customer also want that schedule submitted in a *.mppx file? If so, are there any page limitations on the *.mppx file?

Section L of the RFP was revised in Amendment 0006 to update Table L‐3.1 to include submissions of schedules for Volume 1 and Volume 4.

382 SMIT RFP Section L 483 L‐4(d)(iii) ‐ Volume 3: Past Performance Proposal

(Reference Q&A 2, Answer 370)

This is a follow‐on question to the response to Q&A 370. The requirement to submit 3‐5 past performance for each major subcontractor in addition to the prime causes a potential imbalance in the prospective bidders to demonstrate their past performance. Assuming one major subcontractor the effective space (page count) to address each past performance is reduced to 50%, two subcontractors reduces the effective space to 33%.

We do not believe it is the Governments intent to influence write‐ ups of the prime contractors past performance to be inequitable between bidders. Question: Would the Government consider allowing 30 pages for the prime and an additional 30 pages (or some other allocation) for each major subcontractor to ensure an equal evaluation between bidders?

RFP Section L‐4(d)(i) and L‐4(g)(2)(iii) were updated in Amendment 0006 to revise the definition of Major Subcontractor from $50 million to 10% or greater of the total contract value.

Additionally, the amendment revised page count requirements from 30 total pages to 5 pages per self assessment for both Prime and Major Subcontractor(s).

Item No. Document Type/Title Page Number Line Number Section/Block

Number Issue/Comment/Question Government Response

383 SMIT RFP Section L 19 of 20 L‐4(g)(2)(v) This is a follow‐on question to the response to Q&A 377. The Government states, “The offeror shall include evidence, such as letters of commitment, of the Offeror’s ability to meet the subcontracting goals.” Question: will the cover page of each subcontractor’s signed letter of commitment and/or teaming agreement be acceptable to satisfy the evidence requirements?

Or, does the Government require want the complete document which could be greater than 20 pages?

Yes, letters of commitment, or teaming agreements, are sufficient to meet the requirement.

384 SMIT RFP Section C 270 0014 Print Services

This is a follow‐on question to the response to Q&A 319. Based on the previous answer Question 1: Will the Government please modify CDRL A001 to remove the requirement to replace existing Tier 1 and 2 printers in accordance with the response to Question 319? Question 2: Can the Navy please provide model, quantity, and location information for incumbent owned printers that must be replaced or reimbursement made to the incumbent during transition per CDRL A001?

A1: It is not a requirement for offerors to purchase existing Tier 1 and Tier 2 printers.

A2: Offerors should refer to Attachment J‐4 for details regarding location and quantities of Tier 1 and Tier 2 printers. The Government has no additional information regarding make and model of non‐GFE printers.

385 J‐1 PWS 12 29 3.1.8 This is a follow‐on question to the response to Q&A 26. The answer states "however, EVM/IPMRs are applicable to Incentive Fee CLINs (e.g. CLINs x030, x300, and x400)". CLIN x030 is in the RFP but x300 and x400 are not, and only CLIN x030 is noted to be FPIF. Question: Please clarify the reference to x300 and x400.

Please refer to Amendment 0004 for the definitions of CLINs x300 and x400.

386 J‐1 PWS 168 1,2 3.3.7.4.4 This is a follow‐on question to the response to Q&A 92. The URL in Q&A #92 for the ESLs does not work, it returns a "Page Not Found" message. Question: Can the Government please provide an updated valid ESL URL.

The URL was tested from both a Government and non‐Government device/network and the URL resolved to both requests.

387 J‐1 PWS 1 10 This is a follow‐on question to the response to Q&A 245. The anser to this question appears to contradict the answer to Q&A 182 regarding performance requirements for Australia. Question:

Please confirm if Australia is a potential performance location.

Both responses are correct. There are no ONE‐Net requirements within Australia, however the USMC does have operations in Australia. Attachment J‐ 13 was amended to include Australia.

388 SMIT RFP Section H FAR clause 52.222‐42

This is a follow‐on question to the response to Q&A 239. In the question it was asked how the Government intends to use 52.222‐ 42 in its price proposal realism evaluation. The answer did not address the question of how 52.222‐42 will be used in evaluating price realism. Question: Please confirm that 52.222‐42 is for informational purposes only and will not be used in the price evaluation.

The Government will perform the price/cost analysis in accordance with RFP Section M‐3(f)(iii). As stated in 52.222‐42 the rates provided by the Government are for information purposes only, however offerors shall review the applicable wage determinations in Attachment J‐11 for minimum rates.

389 J‐1 PWS Section I, Page

417. PWS 1.1,

Line 15. Section E, 52.246‐ 16.

PWS 3.3.7.4.1i, Page 154.

This is a follow‐on question to the response to Q&A 270. The Government's answer is understood. Question: Will 52.245‐2 be updated to reflect this Answer?

As a follow up to the Government's response to CRM Question #270. PWS Section 3.3.7.4.1.i is concerning the repair or replacement of GFP such as infrastructure hardware that is repaired/replaced in the normal operation of the network. For example, infrastructure hardware may be replaced via a NT/MP task order or Infrastructure Services Project task order. The procedures described at FAR Clause 52.245‐2 will be followed for any lost Government property or property which becomes no longer usable.

Item No. Document Type/Title Page Number Line Number Section/Block

Number Issue/Comment/Question Government Response

391 J‐1 PWS 142 21 Section 3.3.7.1.1.1.e Network

Transformation / Modernization

Process

This is a follow‐on question to the response to Q&A 261. It is understood the Level of Effort will be measured at the CLIN level.

Question: Will it measured at the CLIN level for each TO, or rolled up for all TOs (at the IDIQ level)?

It is unclear what the Offeror is requesting clarification in requards to Section 3.3.7.1.1.1.e Network Transformation / Modernization Process.

392 J‐1 PWS 100 Section 3.3.5.2 Data Center Services

This is a follow‐on question to the response to Q&A 231. We clearly understand the Government response. Question: Will the Government provide the Service Desks equipment Including ACD, phones, and workstations/laptops for all service desk personnel at all locations?

All Government Furnished Property, Equipment, Software/Tools, and Facilities are listed in Attachements J‐5, J‐6, J‐28, and J‐29. All other materials to meet PWS requirements shall be contractor furnished.

393 References 31 30 SEP, 3.4.2 This is a follow‐on question to the response to Q&A 129. In the Q&A set 2 PDF file prepared by the Government, there appears to be content missing at the end of Answer 129. Question: Will the Government please provide the original answer to question 129?

The entry and exit criteria are the same regardless of level, it is the authority and scope that changes based on the level of SETR. Program SETRs occur when the NEN Program is progressing through the DoD Acquisition Lifecycle (Acquisition Milestones). Product Service Owner SETRs occur as part of projects during normal operations when the Program is post‐Milestone C.

At the PSO level, Technical Reviews include TR‐RQ, TR‐HD, TR‐DD and TR‐TR as depicted in the SEP at Figure 4‐7 Technical Reviews. The entrance criteria for these are Class I Request for Changes (RFC) that represent changes to the technical baseline. These changes are more frequent and represent the majority of changes that will occur throughout the contract that will be executed by the NGEN‐R Service Provider(s). Refer to the SEP Table 4‐7 Appendix C ‐ Engineering Stage Activities and Gate Reviews for additional details for each review stream. Refer to the NGEN Change Management Plan for details regarding the entrance and exit criteria for Class I Changes.

At the Program level, Technical Reviews include SRR, SFR, PDR, CDR, TRR as depicted in the SEP Figure 4‐7 Technical Reviews. The entrance criteria for these are major changes to the program that include new and/or major changes to Services as specified in the NGEN‐R Contract. These changes represent major changes to the program that require significant Government stakeholder reviews and Acquisition related deliverables generated by the Government (Program Office) that more than likely will not occur throughout the NGEN‐R contract.

The Government will add the NGEN Change Management Plan to the bidder's library.

Item No. Document Type/Title Page Number Line Number Section/Block

Number Issue/Comment/Question Government Response

394 SMIT RFP Section L 484 7 4.2 Requesting clarification of answer to question 23. Please confirm that the Government is not requiring a detailed POA&M and schedule at proposal submission, per CDRL A001 requirements, and requires only a high level schedule of tasks. Confirm detailed POA&M and schedule in compliance with CDRL A001 are due after contract award. Our experience in developing a detailed POA&M will exceed the allotted 50 page count.

"Develop detailed POA&M including the schedule of events associated with accomplishing each transition event. Include:

1. Milestones associated with each event, broken out by type of service being transitioned or by site where activities are being transitioned in accordance with the Navy Site Listing (Attachment J‐ 4), NMCI Sites (CONUS) tab

2. Specific Transition events and activities, descriptions and duration"

The Government amended the file submissions requirements for any subfactor which includes a schedule. Schedules will not count against existing page limits.

395 SMIT RFP Section B 282 CLIN 0015AA‐AZ Please confirm that for VTC services (CLINs 0015AA‐0015BF) the vendors must include in the proposed prices the cost of the printer, MFD, or plotter asset device(s) within the CLIN service price.

VTC Services do not include printers, MFDs, or plotter asset devices. However Offerors are required to provide the contractor furnished VTC and printer hardware where required as a service.

396 J‐1 PWS 29 3.1.8 The Government responses was; "The Government will amend Section I of the RFP and clarify where EVMS is required, specifically the following language will be added "In accordance with NMCARS 5234.2, Earned Value Management, DASN(AP) Class Deviation 15‐C‐913 dated October 7, 2015 EVM implementation on LOE CLINs is not required. In addition, EVM implementation also does not apply to FFP CLINs, however, EVM/IPMRs are applicable to Incentive Fee CLINs (e.g. CLINs x030, x300, and x400) which are equal to or above $20M." Please provide clarification to the reference of CLIN x300 and x400 as there is no CLIN 300, or CLIN 400 in the CLIN table. What do x300, and x400 represent?

Please refer to Amemdment 0004, dated 12/11/18, for CLINs x300 and x400.

397 J‐1 PWS 186 18 4.1 The Government response appears to be truncated and cannot be fully read. Please resend a revised question and answer set.

See response to CRM # 393.

398 References 23, 24 3.2.1 Please clarify the conflicting CWBS guidance between the CSDR (A009), CWBS (A018), MIL‐STD‐881 guidance, and the SEP SPARWAR PWBS (Section 3.2.1, Page 23 and 24). There are inconsistencies and gaps across the various program‐level structures. The SMIT SEP document has a PWBS structure; we understand this is the USG PWBS yet should any of these elements be included? Which of the SEP and CSDR structures should serve as the NGEN‐R PWBS baseline for reporting and planning purposes? The CSDR is also provided, which is different, but uses a similar modified version of MIL‐STD‐881’s Appendix B common framework. Which guidance is correct? Additional clarification by the Government is requested.

PMW205 is requesting the contractor to have accounting systems in place for both the CSDR plan WBS (which is tailored from MIL‐STD‐881D, Appendix J guidance and NGEN services) and the SEP SPAWAR PWBS. There will be a CSDR "post award conference" to finalize the cost accounting structure(s), taking contractor input into account, along with any feasible simplifications of effort.

CSDR flexfiles are intended to be used to allow more automated mapping of contractor cost systems.

Item No. Document Type/Title Page Number Line Number Section/Block

Number Issue/Comment/Question Government Response

399 SMIT RFP Section B SMIT RFP Section B and Attachment L‐3 and Q&A Response #302, CLINs 0001AA and 0001AE ‐ The Government has indicated that CLINs 0001AA and 0001AB are to be “Not Separately Priced (NSP).” For each of these CLINs, please indicate where the Government expects these costs to be included.

CLIN 0001AA has been changed from "NSP" to "Priced" in Amendment 0004.

The Government does not believe there is any cost associated with the development of CDRL B040, MCEN Transition Plan, therefore CLIN 0001AE will remain NSP.

400 SMIT RFP Section I 446 For the NATO SOFA countries – will the NATO SOFA clauses be flowed to the contractor, and if so do they ensure that contractor employees fall under the “civilian component" as defined by the NATO SOFA agreement of 1951 (or an alternate bilateral agreement as stated). If so, are all protections (immigration, host country labor law, and taxation) flowed down to contractor personnel? If not, can the Government provide specifics as to which clauses apply? This information is required to accurately price uplifts and provide timelines for ONE‐Net transition. Can the Government update the RFP accordingly to reflect the clauses that apply?

Yes, for NATO SOFA countries, the applicable Supplemental Agreement to the NATO SOFA will apply in the absence of a bilateral agreement between the United States Government and the host nation. Contractor employees will be granted SOFA status provided the applicable criteria is met under the particular SOFA (e.g. TESA Status (Technical Expert Status Accreditation) in Germany).

401 SMIT RFP Section C 267, 268 The CLIN descriptions for 0006 (and 0006AA and 0006AB) all reference PWS sections Law Enforcement (5.1) and Litigation Support Services (5.2) (with the exception of 5.2.f, 5.2.g). Should these be PWS sections 6.1 and 6.2 as opposed to 5.1 and 5.2?

CLIN descriptions were corrected in Amendment 0004 on 12/11/18.

402 SMIT RFP Section C 267, 268 The CLIN descriptions for 0006AA and 0006AB in the previous RFP version were the same except for classified versus unclassified.

Now, there are requirement differences between classified and unclassified 0006AA and 0006AB. Was this intentional and can you reaffirm that all of the correct PWS sections are now listed for both AA and AB?

The CLIN descriptions for 0006AA and 0006AB are correct.

403 SMIT RFP Section C 376 CLIN Structure Table

The CLIN descriptions for 0500AA‐0599ZZ Engineering Support Services (ESS) is for services “in accordance with PWS Section:

Systems Engineering (3.3.7.1.f‐g), Service Validation and Testing Services (3.3.7.1.3.1.b‐h)…”; however, PWS section 3.3.7.1.3.1 only has bullets from a‐e. Please clarify which requirements of

3.3.7.1.3 are to be included in CLIN x011, which in CLIN x5xx, and any additional CLINs.

CLIN descriptions were corrected in Amendment 0004 on 12/11/18.

404 SMIT RFP Section C 312, 313 The CLIN descriptions for 0017CK and CL do not seem to match the titles in regard to the number of dual wall plugs serviced. Is it correct that the descriptions should be swapped?

RFP Section C will be revised in a future amendment to correct the CLIN descriptions for 0017CK and 0017CL.

405 SMIT RFP Section L 482 L‐4(c)(2)(i)b PWS 3.3.5.1.3.g reference states contractors will "Provide security event data feeds to the CND databases that meet CSSP reporting requirements." Request the Government provide the CSSP reporting requirements.

CSSP reporting requirements are contained in CJCSM 6510.1B, available at http://www.jcs.mil/Library/CJCS‐Manuals/

407 SMIT RFP Section L 141 L‐4,(b), (1), (i) In response to questions, the Government clarified that the USMC is not to be priced as part of the Navy CLIN 0011. However, USMC references still exist in PWS 3.3.7.1. Request the Government either remove the USMC reference or provide updates that the USMC requirement is not to be part of the 1.1 Systems Engineering proposal submission.

Section L‐4(b)(1)(i) was revised in Amendment 0006 to clarify that Subfactor 1.1 applies only to the NMCI and does not include USMC/MCEN.

Item No. Document Type/Title Page Number Line Number Section/Block

Number Issue/Comment/Question Government Response

408 L‐3 Cost Price Evaluation Template

Total Cost / Price E. Total Evaluated Cost / Price

E. Total Evaluated Cost / Price

Amendment 004 states: "Formula updated in Cell B43, Total Evaluated Price (CRM#219)."

Question: The formula does not appear to be updated as the formula for the Total Evaluated Price still totals A, B, C, D and F.

Attachment L‐3 was updated in Amendment 0006 to correct formulas on tab "Total Cost/Price".

409 L‐3 Cost Price Evaluation Template

Section B Summary CLIN 0073AE

& 0073AF

CLIN 0073AE &

0073AF

Amendment 004 states: "CLINs 0073AE and 0073AF unit of issue changed from “Monthly” to “Each” (CRM#249)."

Question: The Unit of Issue was updated correctly, however the formulas for these CLINs did not update accordingly. The formulas are still as though the Unit of Issue was “Monthly”.

Attachment L‐3 was updated in Amendment 0006 to correct these formulas.

410 L‐3 Cost Price Evaluation Template

Section B Summary CLIN 0028AA

& 0028AB

CLIN 0028AA &

0028AB

Amendment 004 stated: "CLIN 0028AA&BB – changed to “Priced via Rate Card”. (CRM #116)."

Question: These CLINs still have spaces for pricing to be inserted by the offeror. RFP Section B does reflect the change, however L‐3 does not.

Attachment L‐3 was updated in Amendment 0006 and CLINs 0028 were changed to "Priced via Rate Card".

411 L‐3 Cost Price Evaluation Template

Section B Summary CLIN 0062AV CLIN 0062AV Amendment 004 stated: "CLIN x062AV – corrected unit of issue from each to monthly. (CRM #379)" Question: In L‐3, this CLIN remains as "each" along with the corresponding "each" formula.

Attachment L‐3 was updated in Amendment 0006 to correct the unit of issue for

CLIN 0062AV.

412 L‐3 Cost Price Evaluation Template

Section B Summary CLIN 0001AA CLIN 0001AA Amendment 004 stated: "CLIN 0001AA price changed to "Not Separately Priced," as well as, "CLIN 0001AA – changed to reserved."

Question: Neither of these updates, NSP or Reserved, were made in L‐3 or Section B of the RFP, and the two references need to match.

CLIN 0001AA will be priced as "each" on both Section B of the RFP and L‐3, however, CLIN 0001AE remains "Not Separately Priced".

413 J‐24 USMC Operations Support Services

CLIN 0004AK CLIN 0004AK The formula in cell F21 is incorrect as it does not include cell F20. Attachment L‐3 was updated in Amendment 0006 to correct the formulas for

CLIN 0004AK.

414 L‐3 Cost Price Evaluation Template

Tab Section B Summary

CLINS 73AE

and 73AF

The Government answer to #249 states, “Attachment L‐3 will be revised in a future amendment to correct the unit of issue for CLINs x006, x007, x008, and x073 as applicable.”

The Initial L‐3 for 73AE and 73AF noted these CLINs as “Monthly” and the evaluated price was calculated as Monthly, but this did not align to the CLIN description. The Government Answer to #249 response said this would be corrected as applicable. Amendment 4 did change the unit of measure label for these 2 CLINs from “monthly” to “each”, but the “Total Amount per Year” formula was not adjusted accordingly.

Please either direct vendors to make this correction to 73AE and 73AF, or provide an updated L‐3 with the corrected “Total Amount per Year” formula for all years.

Attachment L‐3 was updated in Amendment 0006 to correct the formulas for CLINs 0073AE and AF.

415 L‐3 Cost Price Evaluation Template

Section B Summary

Amendment 0004 11 Dec 18: Item # 1 states CLIN 0001AA changed to Priced. Item #26 states CLIN 0001AA price changed to "Not Separately Priced" (CRM #302). Requesting the Government to clarify if it is "Priced" or "Not Separately Priced".

CLIN 0001AA will be priced as "each" on both Section B of the RFP and L‐3, however, CLIN 0001AE remains "Not Separately Priced".