RFP Questions and Answers N0018922RR012_Cybersecurity.pdf

Solicitation N0018922RR012 Questions and Answers

1. In the FAR 52.212-1 Instructors to Offerors section, Factor IV Small Business Plan, the RFP states that “Offerors (large and small businesses) shall provide a Small Business Participation Plan.”

Will the government confirm that the term “offerors” refers only to prime offeror and that the prime’s subcontractors (large or small) are not required to submit a small business participation plan?

Answer: Confirmed

2. In Section SF 1449, the RFP contains only one CLIN for non-labor related expenses and it explicitly states the ODC CLIN is for travel only. This CLIN corresponds to a “plug” number in the pricing spreadsheet, which is also limited to travel, and as described in FAR 52.212-1 Instructors to Offerors, Phase III, Factor V: Price Proposal section of the RFP. Because the current CLIN structure is limited to travel ODC, it limits the Government’s flexibility for other ODCs (e.g., material, supply, or equipment ODCs), which will likely be needed to support the PWS requirements in the five-year period of performance. Will the Government amend the RFP to include a third CLIN for non-travel related ODCs and provide a “plug” value for such expenses?

In the event that such ODCs are required, the additional CLIN will prevent the need for a future modification to the contract.

Answer: CLIN added for ODCs and Pricing Spreadsheet amended to include ODC plug number.

3. On p. 65 of 93 of the RFP PDF Document, it states “Contractor and all Contractor personnel with access to or responsibility for XXXXXX of this contract shall comply with DoD Directive 8500.1E IA, DoDI 8510.01 Risk Management Framework (RMF) for DoD IT, DoD Directive 5400.11 DoD Privacy Program, DoD 5200.2-R Personnel Security Program and HSPD 12.” Will the Government define the “XXXXXX” to clarify the requirement?

Answer: Deleted

4. In the Instruction to Offerors, Volume I: Factor III – Past Performance, the solicitation provides a 12-page limit. Given the complexity and quantity of tasks outlined in Section 5 of the PWS will the Government increase the page limit allocation for Past Performance to 15 pages?

Answer: Yes

5. For Past Performance, the solicitation states “To evaluate past performance, the Government may also use existing data sources, including the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), the Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; communication with points of contact in the offeror’s customer’s organization, which could include private sector requirements and contracts personnel, Administrative Contracting Officers, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) personnel, Procuring Contracting Officers, Contracting Officer’s Representatives, and other Government activity requirements personnel.” Will the government permit offerors to submit unmodified, Government issued CPARs as an appendix to the Past Performance volume, not included in the page limitation?

Answer: No

6. The Government requires offerors to request their Government past performance reference complete the Past Performance Report Form. However, it is our experience, Government POCs are often disinclined to submit a Past Performance Report form and instead, refer the offeror to the CPARs. In other cases, the Government POC does not submit the Past Performance Report Form IAW the solicitation deadline. Will the Government confirm it will not penalize or downgrade the offeror’s proposal if a Government POC either declines to submit a form or does not submit the form IAW the Government’s timeline as this is outside the offeror’s control? Will the Government also confirm, in those instances, the Government will evaluate other available past performance data to perform the evaluation for the contract reference?

7. Attachment 3 of the solicitation is the Past Performance Report Form. Offerors are to request Government POCs for contract references complete the form to describe the quality of an offeror’s delivery. The questions in the form do not appear to reflect the type of services delivery described in Section 5 of this solicitation’s PWS, to include Question 1a and 2a, which may confuse Government POCs for contract references. Will the Government update the questions to reflect questions that are professional services as questions related to “volume of inventory” or the “adjustment of inventory requirements” are not applicable to most references.

Answer: The form has been replaced. Already submitted forms will be accepted.

8. In the Past Performance instructions, the solicitation states, “For purposes of this solicitation, a contract is defined as a single contract or a single task order placed under an ID/IQ contract, a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA), or a Federal Supply Schedule. Offerors may submit a combination of no more than three (3) delivery orders (DOs), task orders (TOs), technical direction letters (TDLs), and/or technical area tasks (TATs) placed under an ID/IQ or BPA as one of the three past performance references.” As this is a single award IDIQ, will the Government confirm that single award IDIQ contracts fall under the definition of a single contract? Will the Government also confirm that the ability to combine 3 DOs, TOs, TDLs and TATs refers to multiple award contracts? The Government tends to issue many small task orders with abbreviated periods of performance under single award contracts and therefore, limiting single award IDIQ contracts to only 3 task orders will significantly constrain an offeror’s ability to reflect the magnitude and scope of the single award IDIQ contract. Conversely, submitting 3 DOs, TDLs or TATs as a single reference for MAC contracts appropriately limits offerors from using all the work performed under a massive contract (e.g., Seaport) as a single reference.

Answer: The Past Performance instructions have been amended. Offerors shall not submit an IDIQ contract, BPA, or FSS contract as a reference.

9. In reviewing the evaluation criteria outlined for Past Performance, the Government defines relevancy in the context of scope and magnitude. For magnitude, the Government states, “Magnitude: The measure of the similarity of the dollar value of actually performed work that exists between the PWS and the offeror's referenced contracts during the stated five-year period established by the solicitation.” Will the Government update Magnitude to read “The measure of the similarity of the dollar value of actually performed work or equivalent FTEs exists between the PWS and the offeror's referenced contracts during the stated five-year period established by the solicitation?” The inclusion of wording related to FTEs ensures that an offeror’s referenced contract is not comprised of extensive amounts of ODC vs labor costs.

10. For Past Performance, the solicitation requires offerors to complete a Past Performance Information Form attached to the solicitation as Attachment 2, for each reference submitted.

Will the Government allow offerors to use a font size of 10 point in completing their Past Performance factor?

Answer: No. Past Performance Information Forms and Past Performance Report Forms will not count against the 15 page limit for the Past Performance submission.

11. Section III. Proposal Content, Factor IV: Small Business Participation Plan states “Offerors (large and small businesses) SHALL provide a Small Business Participation Plan.” Will the Government please confirm that this requirement is applicable to prime bidders only?

12. For Section 7 Security Requirements (pg. 76 of the RFP PDF document), will the Government clarify Subsection 7.2 qualified personnel requirements across the task orders which states, “Individual task orders can include approximately 25 concurrent task orders covering all the CONUS and OCONUS locations listed, across all functional areas, requiring 75 personnel with SECRET clearances, 30 of which will require Privileged Assess or TS/SCI clearance.” To clarify the statement, will the Government revise the wording to state, “The ID/IQ contract can consist of approximately 25 concurrent task orders to include single individual (1) FTE task orders, covering all the CONUS and OCONUS locations listed, across all functional areas, requiring 75 personnel with SECRET clearances, 30 of which will require Privileged Assess or TS/SCI clearance"?

Answer: Subsection 7.2 of the PWS has been amended.

13. Within the instructions to offerors, the Government outlines the requirements for style and states, “The proposal shall contain all the pertinent information in sufficient detail in the one area of the proposal where it contributes most critically to the discussion of the same information. When necessary, offerors shall refer to the initial discussion and identify its location within the submitted proposal.” Offerors routinely forward and backward reference content contained in their response, as the area where the information contributes most critically may be in latter portions of the proposal. Will the Government remove the word “initial” to enable this so that it states, “The proposal shall contain all the pertinent information in sufficient detail in the one area of the proposal where it contributes most critically to the discussion of the same information. When necessary, offerors shall refer to the discussion and identify its location within the submitted proposal.”?

Answer: Change made.

14. Referencing Section II -Requirements for Proposal Content (p.15), will the government permit offerors to submit an accompanying PDF version of proposal MS Word documents? This will enable the Government to identify and verify any issues that may result from transmission or conversion of MS word documents that may occur when using different versions of MS word.

15. In Section II -Requirements for Proposal Content (p.15), the proposal instructions currently indicate that graphics (including tables) must use “an alternative Times New Roman font with 8-point size type or larger,” however it is unclear what is meant by an “alternative” Times New Roman font. Will the government confirm that the alternate font for graphics is “Times New Roman” at 8-point size font or greater?

Answer: “Alternative” deleted.

16. There are substantial number of acronyms for this type of work, which will exceed one page.

Will the Government permit up to 3 pages for acronyms?

17. Will the government please confirm the statement on page 18 of 93 in the RFP PDF Document, “Alternate proposals are not authorized”, supersedes the statement on pg. 11 para (e) of 93 in the RFP PDF Document “Offerors are encouraged to submit multiple offers presenting alternative terms and conditions, including alternative line items (provided that the alternative line items are consistent with FAR subpart 4.10), or alternative commercial products or commercial services for satisfying the requirements of this solicitation.” It appears these statements may conflict with one another and this clarification will ensure all offerors understand no alternate proposals can be submitted.

Answer: 52.212-1(e) has been deleted.

18. The solicitation’s proposal content instructions for Factor II, Sub-factor I – Performance Approach states, “The offeror shall provide a performance approach that will successfully accomplish the requirements of the solicitation, including PWS Section 5. The offeror shall demonstrate an understanding of and capability to meet all the requirements of PWS Section 5.” Will the government clarify the instruction such that the wording of the second statement is consistent with the first, so that it states “the offeror shall demonstrate an understanding of and capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation, including PWS Section 5?”

19. The language in QASP attachment, Section 5.0 states refers to the QASP Matrix as Attachment 1;

however, the QASP matrix is currently on page 80 of the RFP PDF document.

a) Will the government update Section 5 to reflect the correct location of the QASP Matrix?

b) Will the government adjust the page layout of the QASP matrix so that the entire table is visible to the reader?

20. In FAR 52.212-1 - Instructors to Offerors and FAR 52.212-2 - Evaluation of Factor IV: Small

Business Participation Plan, the RFP states the contracting officer will evaluate the plan in terms of “the extent of participation of small business concerns in terms of the value of the total acquisition”. Given that the term “value” is predominantly used to define a quantitative dollar amount and the solicitation clearly states on page 15 of 93 of the solicitation under Part III:

Proposal Content that the Volume I: Non-Price Proposal, “shall exclude any reference to the price aspects of the proposal”, will the Government change the evaluation of small business concerns in terms of “value” of the total acquisition to “percentage” of the total acquisition and clearly state that no dollar values are to be included in the Small Business Participation Plan?

Answer: Change made

21. In section L, the government states a 30-page limitation for the Technical Approach, which is inclusive of a Performance Approach that will successfully accomplish all requirements of the solicitation and demonstrate understanding of and capability of PWS 5.0, which encompasses 44 specific requirements. The page limitation is also inclusive of a Management Approach which encompasses the roles, responsibilities, authorities, and a brief synopsis of the professional qualification(s)/background(s)/experience(s) of those individuals to be dedicated to this contract and an approach to recruiting and retention of personnel. To ensure offerors can provide the pertinent information in sufficient detail to address all requirements, will the Government increase the page limitation of Volume I: Factor II - Technical Approach from 30 pages to 35 pages? Based on our experience, this small page limitation increase will better enable the submission of compliant and technically differentiating proposals.

22. Is there a current incumbent(s)?

Answer: Booz Allen Hamilton

23. Can you put the Prime down for past performance or do you need subcontractor past performance as well?

Answer: See the Past Performance instructions

24. Can you provide historical FTE allocation for the contract?

25. Will we need to have a SCIF at Stennis or just at the Prime’s office location?

Answer: A SCIF is not required at Stennis or the Prime’s office location. Classified work must be performed in government classified spaces.

26. Do remote personnel need clearances or just on-site personnel?

Answer: Both remote and onsite personnel need security clearances.

27. Can the Government clarify the inventory management requirement, or consider striking the inventory management question from the Past Performance form?

Answer: Past Performance Report Form has been replaced.

28. Will the Government consider allowing up to 5 past performance citations?

Answer: Yes, Past Performance instructions have been amended.

29. Will the Government consider deferring the proposal due date by two weeks to 3/9/2022?

Answer: Due date has been extended to February 25, 2022.

30. Can you provide details in regards to what supporting information the government is seeking with respect to pricing

31. Can the Government clarify if on-site FTE support is required in Bahrain and Spain, and if so, the required FTE at each location?

Answer: Bahrain and Spain are travel locations at this time.

32. Can the Government confirm the estimated RMF A&A packages per year?

Answer: Approximately 60 per year.

33. In the interest of competition, and allowing smaller business to compete, will the Contracting

Officer consider striking the magnitude criteria from the past performance evaluation?

Answer: The magnitude criterion will not be removed.

34. Will the Government please confirm that the Cover Page, Table of Contents, List of Figures/Tables, and Acronym List are not included in page count?

35. Does the Government’s email system have a size limit on email submissions? If necessary, please confirm the Government will accept multiple email submissions should Volumes I and II need to be submitted under separate releases.

36. Please confirm if the Government is expecting a Subcontracting Participation Plan (with no cost identified) for Volume I and a separate Subcontracting Plan (required from Large Prime Contractors only) with goals (dollars / percentages) identified for Volume II.

Answer: Confirmed, but volume numbers have been amended.

37. Will the Government please confirm that it is not wanting the professional qualification(s)/background(s)/experience(s) of corporate staff that will not be solely dedicated to the Program, but instead desiring the qualifications for the LCATs depicted in Attachment 1.

Answer: The offeror must decide what to include.

38. Please confirm the Government is desiring each Factor within the Volume I is to be its own stand-alone document (and not one combined document)

Answer: The instructions in the 52.212-1 Addendum have been amended.

39. Please confirm the Government is not expecting information from the Offerors (and any proposed Subcontractors) for Blocks 6 and 7 of the DD254 until award notification.

40. With regard to supercomputers in the environment, what operating system and version of the provisioning solution is in place? Are there modernization plans for these systems, if legacy solutions are in use?

Answer: Super computers are RHEL based and do have modernization plans.

41. What vendors or solutions are being utilized within the Cross Domain environment and what is the current status of Raise the Bar architecture implementation?

Answer: Forcepoint Cross Domain Solutions are being used and Raise the Bar implementation is ongoing.

42. The PWS states “Provide Infrastructure Architecture support for driving policy, integration and sustainment of IT, communications, and equipment.” By “support” is it the government’s intent for the industry partner to provide enterprise architecture services to include creating and updating DoDAF views?

Answer: Supporting the creation of and updating DoDAF views could be part of the tasking.

43. The Government states “Offerors are responsible for submitting sufficient information to enable the Government to fully evaluate their price proposal.” Will the Government please provide the specific information required in order to evaluate the offeror’s price proposal?

44. Within Attachment 1 – Pricing Spreadsheet, the Government has listed three positions to be located at FWCSD Yokosuka, Japan. For full-time OCONUS positions, Cost of Living Allowances and Living Quarters Allowances, which vary by person depending on the number of dependents, are typically reimbursed via an Other Direct Cost CLIN. The Solicitation did not instruct offerors how to price COLA and LQA. Please confirm if it is the Government’s intent for all offerors to include COLA and LQA into their fixed price hourly rate for those labor categories OR if the government will be providing a cost-reimbursable ODC CLIN for allowances?

Answer: A cost reimbursable ODC CLIN has been added.

45. The pricing spreadsheet contains multiple positions with an anticipated T5 level investigation that is mapped to a Secret level clearance. Please confirm that positions mapped to T5 should also be mapped to Top Secret level clearance.

Answer: Some positions that require a Secret clearance require a T5 level, and all positions that require a top secret clearance require a T5 level. This is specified in the Pricing Spreadsheet.

46. Can the Government please clarify as to what size of past performance examples will be considered relevant for this solicitation?

47. Can CPARS be submitted instead of past performance report form?