Solicitation_N32205-18-R-1002_ITESS_Questions-Answers.pdf

MILITARY SEALIFT COMMAND

N32205-18-R-1002

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS (Questions 1 – 74)

The following are answers to questions received from potential offerors. The answers provide clarification only and DO NOT constitute an amendment to the solicitation.

Question 1

Section 13 provides Estimate Level of Effort. We have a few questions regarding this section:

a. Is the project estimate expected to be per year, or over the life of the contract?

b. Are the project estimates inclusive of In Service Engineering Activities (ISEA, as described in Task Area 4).

- If not, please provide an estimate of those activities.

- If so, please provide the approximate split between Task 3 System Engineering projects and the Task 4 ISEA projects (i.e., 65% SE, 35% ISEA).

c. Regarding Task Area 8 IA Support: How many packages are expected to be submitted for ATO and Continuous Monitoring Strategy plan (is it a one to one correlation with the LOE Project Level estimate)?

d. We see that the government has attempted to define the scope of work for this contract;

however, ranges and percentages will not provide a one-to-one cost comparison for the government to evaluate an FFP contract, which could result in a contractor under estimating the work and pricing required to support this contract. We would recommend that the government provide a definitive number of projects for the contractors to use as their basis for developing the resources and cost to support this contract. Also, please define what high, medium, and low complexity means in the scope of a project.

Answer:

a. The project estimate is expected to maintain the expected levels of project support through the duration of the contract.

b. Yes, the project estimates include the ISEA activities. The current percentage split between ISEA and other project work is: 70% SE, 30% ISEA, but can vary +/- 5%

c. Yes, every LOE project will require an ATO package update depending on the scope.

ISEA Projects will normally result in a Use Case 3 change to the ATO package.

d. Due to scope issues the contract type was changed to a single award ID/IQ to allow better defined scope at the task order level. Base Year projects will consist of 5 Large Projects, 11 Medium Projects, and 19 Small Projects. For the follow-on Option Years, projects will be in the range of 3-5 Large Projects, 8-10 Medium Projects, and 8-10 Small Projects.

Complexity it is not a direct correlation ratio (Large = Complex), but in general the percentage of high, medium, and low complexity is 43% High, 43% Medium, 14% and

Low. High complexity includes a system redesign or full technology refresh, extensive

LRIP phase and coordination with Afloat Ops, and the Business Applications groups, approximate 12 Month ATO timeline, and TRANSALT likelihood high. Medium complexity includes multiple technology upgrades and integration of new technology, short LRIP phase, Use Case 3 RMF ATO package, moderate coordination with Afloat

Ops, and minimal impact to system configuration & TRANSALT. Low complexity includes known technology, technology HW/SW upgrade, minor or no LRIP required, Use Case 3 RMF ATO package, minor coordination with Afloat Ops, and no significant impact to system configuration & TRANSALT.

Question 2

Regarding page count allowance for Volume II:

a. Volume II Technical has a page limit of 60 pages for the 8 Task areas. The last RFP had a page limit of 60 pages for 6 Task areas. Would the government consider increasing the page count to 80 pages to properly respond to the each task area?

b. The page count for Tab 1 and 2 are equal 30 and 30 pages, would the government consider allowing the contractors to determine the distribution of page count per each Tab?

a. The Government is requesting 8 Task Areas within the 60 page limit for Technical

Volume 2. This page limit also includes the offeror’s response to the two (2) subfactors listed in the Evaluation Factors portion of the Solicitation.

b. The page limit for Technical shall not exceed 60 pages in total. The page limit table has been updated accordingly.

Question 3

The deliverable table in section 4.1.12: Contract Management Deliverables references

CDRL A107: Monthly Status Reports. This CDRL is not referenced anywhere else in the

4.1 Task Area 1, and was not provided in the batch of CDRL Attachments. We assume that this may be either replaced by CDRL A104 (CMR) or it may be in addition to the requirements of Section 4.1.3 Contract Management Reviews. Can the government please deconflict this?

CDRL A107 was intended to be part of this Solicitation and will be uploaded as part of

Amendment 4 along with the answers to these questions.

Question 4

Section 5.0 Place of Performance states ”tasks will be performed primarily at the

Contractor site and on site at Naval Station Norfolk. The Contractor shall participate in meetings at Naval Station Norfolk; therefore, travel to and from the Contractor site will be required on an as needed basis.” However, section 15 states “All or a portion of the effort under this Contract will be performed on a Government installation.” How many seats will be provided at the Government site?

The Government provides seven (7) cubicles. Five (5) of which are temporary based. Two (2) are permanent as lab support. Additional space for up to three (3) additional workstations in the lab are also based on an as needed basis and required lab availability.

Question 5

Section 4.1.7 Quality Assurance requires “The Contractor shall have at contract award, and shall maintain, an existing quality management system per the International

Organization of Standards ISO 9001:2000 or above.” Per ISO, only standards 9001:2008 and 9001:2015 are still valid (9001:2000 expired in the early 2010’s). 9001:2008 will expire in September 2018. Will the government please consider changing this requirement to the

ISO 9001:2015 as this will be the only standard valid during the life of the execution of this contract. Reference:

https://www.iso.org/files/live/sites/isoorg/files/archive/pdf/en/iso_9001_-

_moving_from_2008_to_2015.pdf

Yes, the Government will accept the latest version also.

Question 6

Please indicate where submitters should attach their current valid ISO 9001 certificate? Is it acceptable to provide this in Volume I: Cover Letter?

Yes, the Government will accept the ISO 9001 certificate within the bidder’s Volume 1 submission.

Question 7

The requirements for Section 12.2 Contract Manager indicate the educational requirements for this position are an M.S. Degree from an institution accredited by an organization recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA required). Would the government also consider adding “or equivalent work experience in direct support of DoD system engineering including IT systems project management” to the educational requirements for this position?

https://www.iso.org/files/live/sites/isoorg/files/archive/pdf/en/iso_9001_-_moving_from_2008_to_2015.pdf https://www.iso.org/files/live/sites/isoorg/files/archive/pdf/en/iso_9001_-_moving_from_2008_to_2015.pdf

Yes, this is acceptable provided sufficient evidence of equivalent work experience in direct support of Department of Defense (DoD) system engineering including IT systems project management is provided within the submitted proposal. Section 12.2 of the PWS has been updated accordingly.

Question 8

Section 12.1 states: “The Contractor shall identify key personnel in the technical proposal.

Key personnel substitutions will be in accordance with the key personnel clause. Key personnel billet titles are provided below with descriptions for specific skill sets needed to fulfill the requirements associated for each key personnel billet. The Government is requiring resumes for key personnel up to one double sided page per resume. Resumes are required at the time of proposal submission to the Government within Volume 1 Technical.

The resumes will not count toward the sixty (60) page limit for Volume 1.” In the Proposal

Content (Page 30) Tab 2, C, section states: “c. List of all key personnel names in accordance with Section 12 of the PWS in Volume I, General.” Can the government please clarify:

a. Where do they want key resumes to be provided (Volume I or II)

b. Does the government also want a list of key billet staff names in Volume I as well, if resumes will be provided in Volume II?

The Government no longer will require offerors to submit resumes as per revisions to the

Solicitation under the current Amendment. Section 12.1 has been updated accordingly. Any Key

Billet Staff names should be provided as a list within Volume 2.

Question 9

Section 3.1.2.3 states. “SMIS Unclassified Mini (SMIS-UNCLASS-Mini), Attachment J-

0013, Standalone workgroup with reach back to the Afloat Network Operations Center

(ANOC).” Attachment J-0013 was not provided. Can the government please provide this attachment, or remove the reference to it.

The Government is providing Attachment J-0013 as an attachment to the following Amendment

4.

Question 10

Section 4.1 Task Area 1 – Contract Management states: “The Contractor shall provide a draft Contract Management Plan (CMP) in accordance with CDRL A103” CDRL A103 states “The Project Management Plan shall address...”. CDRL A103 refers to the document as a PMP vice a CMP. The assumption is that these are interchangeable terms throughout the PWS and solicitation, and there is no need for two documents, just the one.

Can MSC confirm this assumption?

This assumption is incorrect. The Contract Management Plan (CMP) is noted as CDRL A103.

The PMP as the “Project Management Plan” is not part of the core PWS deliverables and will be addressed individually by resultant task orders to the contract.

Question 11

Section 4.1.6 Information Assurance states: “The Contractor shall comply with the DoD

Information Assurance Workforce Improvement Program (DoD 8570.01-M Attachment J-

005).” A few questions

a. The provided document in attachment J-005 is not current, the latest version of this document can be found at http://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodm/857001m.pdf, it is dated 12/19/2005, and includes updates to Change 4 incorporated on 11/10/2015. Will

MSC enforce the usage of the version in J-005 or the newer version available?

b. DoD 8570.01-M has been reissued as DoDD 8140.01 (change 1 July 31, 2017) http://www.esd.whs.mil/portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodd/814001_2015_dodd.p df

Will MSC utilize 8140.01 and 8570? NOTE: utilization of 8140.01 will change Key

Billet requirements, as it removes the IAT/IAM requirements designation. Many organizations are still using change 4 of 8570 for this reason.

a. Yes, the Government emphasizes compliance with the latest Department of Defense

(DoD)/Department of the Navy (DoN) instructions and directives.

b. No, MSC is not working under DoDD 8140.01. All persons fulfilling Key Billets must be in compliance with the 8570 IAT/IAM levels.

Question 12

Section 4.1.8 Configuration Management states: “The Contractor shall provide a

Configuration Management Plan documenting all CM areas included in the above section

(4.1.8) of this PWS and shall do so in accordance with CDRL A110.” A few questions:

a. CDRL A110 states: “The contractor shall provide a Configuration Management Plan

(CMP) documenting all CM areas included in section 5.1.8 of the ITESS Performance

Work Statement.” The CDRL appears to have referenced paragraph 5.1.8 instead of

4.1.8. Can the government clarify that they meant 4.1.8?

b. CDRL A110 also states: “The CMP shall contain actual cost, cost variance, and estimated cost at completion metrics for all program activities.” The CDRL is calling for financial data to be the content of this report, however the PWS has this being used as a means of tracking progress, as well as CM activities for deliverables and products, there is no mention of financial data required for this CM report. Will MSC provide a suitable CDRL for use in governing the requirement of the CMP being tasked in this section?

a. Yes, the Government intended to list paragraph 4.1.8 within CDRL A110. The following

Amendment (#4) to the Solicitation will provide a revised CDRL A110 attachment appropriately.

b. The Contract Management Plan and the Configuration Management Plan were crossed. A

CDRL for the Configuration Management Plan will be included.

Question 13

Section 4.1.10 Staffing states: “in accordance with the MSC Service Delivery Overarching

Framework (Attachment J-006).” Attachment J-006 seems to be a draft that was to be delivered formally to N63 after 2016. Can MSC provide the final version of this governance document?

No, currently there is not a final version. The overall governance document is still in draft and being worked. For purposes of this solicitation, the draft document will be considered authoritative guidance.

Question 14

Section 12.5 Information Systems Security Engineer (ISSE) states: “Experience with

Defense Information Assurance Certification and Accreditation Process.” Since RMF is the required A&A standard, will MSC please amend to “Experience with DIACAP and/or

RMF process.”

The Government is currently progressing out of DIACAP to RMF. Understanding both processes would be beneficial. Experience with both DIACAP and RMF are required.

Question 15

Section 4.1.10 Staffing references “Enterprise Project Management Handbook v 1.0 from

2011 (Attachment J-007).” Is this the most current version of this reference doc? If not can MSC please provide the updated handbook?

The Enterprise Project Management Handbook version 1.0 is the current approved version for this requirement.

Question 16

Will the Government provide labor category descriptions for Non-Key personnel such that offerors are able to properly staff and price the requested personnel?

The following Amendment (#4) to the Solicitation includes the appropriate labor category descriptions for non-key personnel.

Question 17

Section 4.5 MSC C4S Engineering Lab (MCEL) Support Services calls for overall management and maintenance of the MCEL to support testing and integration activities for IT that is and will be deployed to the MSC Fleet. However, there is no mention in

Section 12 of a billet to address the requirement for day-to-day administration (account maintenance, configuration management, IA patching and scanning, etc.) of the test systems, themselves. As the MCEL manager’s role is oversight and scheduling as well as reporting and interface with MCEL stakeholders, there is a need for a discrete functional role for the Systems Administrator in this lab that is not called out in the solicitation. Is this an oversight and will MSC provide a revised RFP with this category included in both

Section 12 and the associated LOE estimate table?

Systems Administration is not a daily full time role intended to be aligned to a single employee;

it is, along with the other responsibilities of the MCEL support staff, an overall support function only applicable to the systems located in the MCEL.

Question 18

Section 4.8 Information Assurance requires adherence to standards as well as best practices for the development of IT. This assumes a need for a number of Information

Assurance engineering and administration activities throughout any development or integration effort. However, there are no IA practitioners included in Section 12 or the associated LOE table. At a minimum, the PWS execution requires a Certification and

Accreditation/RMF practitioner/facilitator since this activity is ongoing for systems deployed to the fleet and requires significant workload to develop for new systems engineered. Is this an oversight and will MSC provide a revised RFP with this category included in both Section 12 and the associated LOE estimate table?

Planning, managing, coordinating and executing IA activities are the principle responsibility of the Information Systems Security Engineer (ISSE).

Question 19

In Section D.4.a (Page 32 of 55; Volume IV-Price) the Government references “…a summary tab…”, however no such tab exists in the latest pricing spreadsheet. Would the

Government like us to add a Summary tab, or will a revised template be issued?

Answer:

The Government has added the summary tab as stated in the Solicitation and the revised

Attachment has been added as part of this Amendment (#4).

Question 20

In Section D.4.b,c (Page 32 of 55; Volume IV-Price) the Government references cells highlighted in Yellow and Green, however there are no highlighted cells in the current pricing spreadsheet. Would the Government like us to add this highlighting, or will a revised template be issued?

The Government has added the highlighted areas in Attachment 4 as stated in the Solicitation and the revised Attachment has been added as part of this Amendment (#4).

Question 21

In Section D.4.b (Page 32 of 55, Volume IV-Price) the Government references CLIN X001 and X002 tables in the spreadsheet however there are no CLINs listed. Where would the

Government like us to add these CLINs?

The CLIN numbers have been added to Attachment 4 accordingly and a revised Price Proposal

Spreadsheet has been uploaded within this Amendment (#4).

Question 22

Will the Government require sealed pricing packages from subcontractors?

The Government is not requiring cost and pricing data. Therefore, all pricing information must be provided in attachment 4.

Question 23

In Section D.1.c (Page 29 of 55) the Government requests that offerors certify compliance with SCA labor wage determinations. Will the Government provide the necessary wage determination requirement and identify what LCATs in the pricing spreadsheet are covered under the Wage Determination (WD)?

The Government has added the appropriate wage determination as an attachment included within the following Amendment (#4) to the Solicitation.

Question 24

Given the Task Order nature of this contract, when will the Government release the first

Task Order RFP for the offerors to price?

The Government intends to award its first Task Order soon after the time of the resultant

Contract award.

Question 25

This is an LPTA bid, thus acceptable marks must be met in Factor 1 - Technical and

Factor 2 - Past Performance before price is even evaluated. In the Evaluation Factors For

Award section C.3.E – Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings table (bottom of page 38), the Description for acceptable reads:

“Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown.” (emphasis mine).

The goal of this section is to achieve an “acceptable’ rating. Based on the description, this can be accomplished by not submitting any past performance data, and thus being deemed unknown, which is in turn acceptable. Can the government confirm if unknown past performance would be acceptable, or should it be a condition under Unacceptable?

Per the guidance in the Solicitation any offeror that does not have any Past Performance will be rated as acceptable for this Evaluation Factor. If an offeror does in fact have Past Performance they will be rated according to their Past Performance and should submit Past Performance data via the Past Performance Questionnaire, Attachment 3. Failure to submit past performance rather than a genuine lack of past performance where such exists is not appropriate. FAR 15.305(a)(2) clearly permits the source selection authority to consider information from "any other sources" in addition to contractor-submitted responses. It is to the advantage of offerors to provide relevant past performance information.

Question 26

Throughout section 4.3, integral references are made to System Engineering activities yet the labor categorization for non-key personnel and the table of estimated LOE (in pricing attachment 4) make no reference – unlike the Network Engineers who are broken out by relative skill level. Is this an oversight and will MSC provide a revised RFP with this category included in both Section 12 and the associated LOE estimate table (in pricing attachment 4)?

The following Amendment (#4) includes the minimum requirements for all non-key personnel listed in Attachment 4.

Question 27

Throughout section 4.3, integral references are made to System Engineering activities and requirements that involve the integral Information Assurance Engineering activities, yet the labor categorization for non-key personnel and the table of estimated LOE (in pricing attachment 4) make no reference to a billet for one or more Information Assurance

Engineers. Is this an oversight and will MSC provide a revised RFP with this category included in both Section 12 and the associated LOE estimate table (in pricing attachment

4)?

listed in Attachment 4.

Question 28

What are the requirements for font, size, and page margins? Are there different requirements for tables and graphics?

Answer:

The Government requires font size to be twelve (12) point font with one (1) inch margins on each side. These have been added to the Solicitation instructions Clause 52.212-1

(ADDENDUM) within this Amendment (#4). The Government will enable offerors to determine the appropriate requirements for the table and graphics.

Question 29

Evaluation Factors for Award Paragraph A.1. states “This is a lowest price technically acceptable (LPTA) source selection…”; however, Paragraph C.1 Lists Price as Factor 3 which is addressed in Paragraph C.4. stating “Price will not be scored or rated”.

Paragraph C.1 and C.4 are typically found in Best Value solicitations. Can the government confirm whether this solicitation will be an LPTA or Best Value selection?

Answer:

By definition the Government awards all contracts using a best value determination. For the purposes of this solicitation the best value will be found by using LPTA evaluation procedures verses a trade-off evaluation process. Therefore, the Government does intend to award based on

LPTA and will be evaluating the Factors of Technical, Past Performance, and Price accordingly.

Question 30

Section 4.1.12 Matrix has numerous references which appear to be either in error or incomplete. Specifically, CDRLs A101 and A102 appear to reference PWS section 4.1.1;

CDRL A106 references PWS 4.1.3 but section 4.1.3 does not address CDRL 106; CDRL

A106 in para. 4.1.4 references metrics; CDRL A107 in paragraph 4.1.12 references PWS

4.1.4 Monthly Status Reports, which are not addressed in paragraph 4.1.4, and nowhere in section 4.1 is CDRL A107 referenced. Will the government please correct or clarify CDRL requirements for the entire section 4.1?

Answer:

A107 has been moved out of the Contract Management Task area to the Project Management

Support Services Task Area, but the details of those individual deliverables will be addressed in specific Task Orders as provided/defined by the Gov’t Task Order Leads. The remaining discrepancies in the table have been corrected.

Question 31

The matrix provided in Section 7 is unclear. Would the government clarify the Section 7 requirements? Specifically:

a) Line 1: References PWS section 4.1.1 which addresses the Contract Kick-off Meeting and the Transition Plan which shall be presented. However, Section 7 matrix states the

Format for A003 is the DI-MGMT-80347. But, CDRL A003 is for a Contract

Management Plan and the DI-MGMT-80347 is for a Task Order Management Plan.

b) Line 2: References PWS 4.1.2 Contract Management Plan and states DI-MGMT-

80004A may be used; however, Section 7 references CDRL A008 which is for a

Performance Cost Report and the use of DI-MGMT-80368 is for a general contract status report format.

c) Line 3: References PWS 4.1.3 Contract Management Review; however, Section 7 title for line 3 is for a Software deliverable.

Answer:

The following Amendment (#4) removes the table in Section 7 of the PWS as it conflicts with the deliverables defined under the task areas. The actual deliverables not defined in Section 4 of the PWS will be defined within resultant individual task orders.

Question 32

Paragraph 4.1.7 requires ISO 9001:2000 certification. This certification has been withdrawn and replaced by ISO 9001:2008 which is valid through the end of the year to be replaced by ISO 2001: 2015. Will the government accept ISO 9001:2008 or 9001:2015 certifications?

Answer:

Per the Solicitation the Government requires ISO 9001:2000 certification “or higher”. Given that

ISO 9001:2008 and/or 9001:2015 is considered higher than ISO 9001:2000, the Government will also accept ISO 9001:2008 or 9001:2015 certifications.

Question 33

Resumes – in the re-issue of this solicitation several of the key personnel requirements have changed from previous releases which are significantly impactful and which negate the recruiting efforts in which small businesses have already expended significant sums. While these changes eliminate many of the candidates previously recruited, they will contribute little if anything towards the quality of the candidates. Specifically: Paragraph 12.2

Program Manager has been changed to Contracts Manager, yet the ITIL requirement which was previously preferred is not now optional. Paragraph 12.5 The Information

Systems Security Engineer now requires a B.S. degree thereby eliminating a vast majority of highly skilled and experienced Veteran Navy Security Engineers with years of experience supporting DoD/Navy Information Security programs. In view of the expense incurred and the fact these changes will not result in any credible gain in quality of key personnel, would the government reconsider the changes to Key personnel requirements?

Answer:

The Government will not be reconsidering the current Key Personnel requirements for this

Solicitation.

Question 34

The attachment titled PERFORMANCE_QUESTIONNAIRE_ITESS has the previous

ITESS solicitation number in the footer (N62387-17-R-3001), and requests forms be submitted “BEFORE THE CLOSING DATE OF THIS SOLICITATION (09 June 2017).”

Is this the correct questionnaire template?

Answer:

The Performance Questionnaire attachment has been revised accordingly and attached as part of this Amendment (#4).

Question 35

The attachment title PAST_PERFORMANCE_DATA_SHEET_ITESS has the previous

ITESS solicitation number in the footer (N62387-17-R-3001). The Past Performance Data

Sheet is also referred to as Attachment 2 in the RPF instructions, but titled Attachment 3 in the document itself. Is this the correct data sheet template?

Answer:

The Past Performance Data Sheet attachment has been revised accordingly and attached as part of this Amendment (#4).

Question 36

The Government Excel workbook includes the 6 Month Option as a separate worksheet tab apparently to be priced; however, the solicitation (i.e., second paragraph; Factor 3- Price

Factor; page 12) states “… Offerors are required only to price the base and option periods.

Offerors shall not submit a price for the potential six (6) month extension of services period.” Is it the Government’s intention for Offerors to in fact price out this six month extension?

Answer:

Yes, this section of the Solicitation has been revised as part of this Amendment (#4) accordingly to adhere to the Government’s intention of receiving the six month extension as part of the offeror’s price proposal.

Question 37

The solicitation (i.e., 4. Volume IV- Price; d; page 5) states “For the purposes of the total evaluated price, the travel CLIN estimated price of $1,175,000 is pre-filled in for the five (5) year ordering period of the resultant ID/IQ.” However, the related grand total is actually

$1,060,000 if the aforementioned requirement that offerors not price the 6 Month Option is in effect. The remaining $115,000 for the 6 Month Option would bring the grand total over the POP to $1,175,000. Consistent with the aforementioned question, should Offerors price out the six month extension- to include the related Travel costs?

Answer:

As stated in the previous answer, the Government is requiring offerors to price the six month extension within their price proposals.

Question 38

The Government Excel workbook also contains a line item for ODCs on each of the worksheet tabs. These are not referenced in the solicitation as was done for Travel. Will the Government be adding related language to the solicitation in an Amendment?

Additionally, will Offerors be required to also price out the six month extension- to include the related ODC costs?

Answer:

The Government will amend this section of the Solicitation to include language in regards to the

Other Direct Costs (ODC). Offerors are required to provide pricing for the six month extension.

Question 39

The pricing attachment provides labor categories and estimated hours; however, may the contractor propose alternative hours and labor categories other than that listed by the government?

Answer:

No, the Government is going to incorporate the successful offerors attachment 4 into the resulting contract to establish rates that the Contractor will be required to use in proposing for individual task orders.

Question 40

Can the Government please clarify the font limitations for this response, such as the size and style?

Answer:

The Government requires font size to be twelve (12) point font with one (1) inch margins on each side. These have been added to the Solicitation instructions within this Amendment (#4).

The Government will enable offerors to determine the appropriate requirements for the table and graphics.

Question 41

Will the Government provide the contract number for the current iteration of this contract?

Answer:

This requirement is a follow-on to contract number N00178-10-D-5938-EL01 with the incumbent being Cambridge International Systems.

Question 42

Will the government clarify if the ISSE position requires a certification (IAM II or II, or other)?

Answer:

The Government is requiring the DoDI 8570.01-M IAT/IAM Level-III Compliant Certification

(such as CISSP) for the ISSE position.

Question 43

Section 8.1 and 8.2 conflict with each other. Section 8.1 states personnel must “have a current eligibility for SECRET clearance” and that personnel “shall obtain SECRET clearances”, while section 8.2 states “The Contractor shall provide personnel that have a current U.S. Government SECRET security clearance where necessary.” Will the government allow uncleared personal to work on contract while Secret clearance is being processed?

Answer:

The Government requires individuals hired to work under the resultant contract to have the ability to obtain a Secret Clearance if one has not already obtained one. Hence, the language in

Section 8.1 references the “eligibility” to obtain Secret Clearances. Section 8.2 is requesting offerors to provide personnel that have a current U.S. Government Secret Clearance “where necessary”. The Contractor should consider and anticipate potentially significant delays in obtaining clearances for individuals without current security clearances, and plan to avoid impacts on successful execution of tasks.

Question 44

Can the Government provide additional requirements for the non-key personnel (years’ experience, certifications, education, etc.)?

Answer:

listed in Attachment 4.

Question 45

Will government consider Masters in Engineering if Bachelors is not in Engineering or

Math for the Contract Manager?

Answer:

The basic qualifications for Contract Manager within Section 12.2 of the PWS require a B.S. in engineering, math, and/or science, but the Government will accept a Masters in engineering if the Bachelors were not in engineering, math, and/or science.

Question 46

The Government lists the FEAC certified Black Belt as both a basic and Desired Skill. Can the Government please clarify if the FEAC certified Black Belt is a required skill?

Answer:

Yes, the Government requires a FEAC certified Black Belt or equivalent Enterprise Architecture

Certification as a required skill for this requirement.

Question 47

Under 4.2, Project Management Support Services, the lower level items jump from section

4.2.2.2, Trip Reports directly to Item 4.2.7, Project Management Deliverables. Was something deleted or was 4.2.7 miss-numbered?

Sections between 4.2.2.2 and 4.2.7 have been deleted and were therefore not renumbered.

Question 48

Similarly, System Engineering Support services, the lower level items jump from Section

4.3.5, Test and Evaluation Support services to 4.3.11, System Engineering Deliverables.

Was something deleted or was 4.3.11 miss-numbered?

Sections between 4.3.5 and 4.3.11 have been deleted and were therefore not renumbered.

Question 49

Task Area 4, In-Service Engineering Activity (ISEA) Support Services begins activity descriptions at Section 4.4.2. Was there a 4.4.1 describing additional functional requirements?

Section 4.4.1 was removed.

Question 50

A contract manager is required and the position is defined, but there is no category defined within the pricing worksheets for this position. Would the Government clarify this disconnection between the technical requirements and the pricing instructions?

The Contract Manager is the labor category equivalent of the Task Order Project Manager.

Question 51

We have found 8 discrepancies in due dates between what is presented in the PWS and what is in the CDRLs. Can you please deconflict these dates for us? The attached document, highlights the discrepancies in Yellow.

Answer:

The following Amendment (#4) will address the conflicts with the PWS and CDRLs accordingly. Revised CDRLs have been attached for A209, A216, A501, A601, and A708 as a result. Each of these 8 areas of discrepancy within the PWS and CDRLs has been addressed.

Question 52

Could the Government accept CPARS/PPIRS information in lieu of questionnaires for the evaluation of Contractor past performance?

The Government requires all offerors to utilize the Past Performance Questionnaire as part of their proposal submission.

Question 53

We currently don’t have facility clearance as a prime, in addition to our sub we would use.

With this solicitation would there be any reason the Government would be willing to recommend a contractor for facility clearance.

The Government requires the offeror to have a facility clearance. The Government will be unable to provide any recommendations to a Contractor for facility clearance as it is the offeror’s responsibility to determine the appropriate facility with the required clearance for this effort.

Question 54

Section 12.3 Project Manager (Key) provides requirements for this key billet. The proposal pricing guidance (LOE estimates in attachment 4) provided from MSC indicates five FTE for this function. As there is no separate non-key description for project manager, is it MSC's intention that five key resumes be provided with the proposal for this billet category, or is one sufficient?

Answer:

The Government no longer will require offerors to submit resumes as per revisions to the

Solicitation under the current Amendment. Section 12.1 has been updated accordingly. Any Key

Billet Staff names should be provided as a list within Volume 2.

Question 55

In PWS section 12.1, 8 positions are identified as key personnel. However, on line 9 of the revised pricing spreadsheet, the Project Manager (Key) has an estimated 9640 hours per year. This is equivalent to 5 FTEs. Is the government requesting 12 key personnel, or is estimated hours for Project Manager (Key) supposed to be 1920?

Answer:

The requirement is for five (5) full time employees (FTE) for the Project Manager (Key) position

(9600 hours per year). The pricing Spreadsheet has been updated accordingly.

Question 56

If the Project Manager (Key) position is 5 FTEs, is the government requiring 5 resumes?

Answer:

The Government no longer will require offerors to submit resumes as per revisions to the

Solicitation under the current Amendment. Section 12.1 has been updated accordingly.

Question 57

The Base and Option Years all use 1928 as the standard for one FTE, except for Option

Year 2 that uses 1920 hours. Is this difference intentional?

Answer:

The Government has updated attachment 4 to correct all FTE’s as 1920 hours consistently.

Question 58

The PPQ template provided has the wrong due date (2017) and says it can be faxed back to the government. The RFP Proposal Preparation Instructions states “Fax submittals will not be considered.” Will a new template be provided? Can offerors update the current one?

Answer:

The Government has updated the PPQ template accordingly.

Question 59

The instructions for technical Subfactor B ask for offerors to respond to a list of specific relevant experience tasks. Item f asks for experience “Developing, implementing and maintaining an Information Technology laboratory for developing and sustaining

Department of Navy (DoN) accredited systems and networks.” Will the government allow for experience around DoD and other similar agency systems and networks?

Answer:

The Government will accept similar relevant experience developing, implementing and maintaining an accredited Information Technology engineering and testing laboratory.

Question 60

Will the government provide an additional 10 pages for technical sub factor 1:

Understanding the Requirements?

Answer:

The Government is no longer requiring specific page limits for the required sub factors. Instead the following Amendment provides an overall page limit of 60 pages for the Technical Volume

2. The page limit table within Section C of the Proposal Preparation Instructions of the

Additional Instructions to Offerors FAR 52.212-1 ADDENDUM.

Question 61

The government has stated that the project manager is a key personnel, and that resumes should be provided for all key personnel. On the pricing spreadsheet, the government lists the hours as 9640 for the Project manager, indicating five are required to support this work. Does the government require five resumes be submitted, one for each project manager as indicated on the pricing spreadsheet?

Answer:

The requirement is for five (5) full time employees (FTE) for the Project Manager (Key) position

(9600 hours per year). The pricing Spreadsheet has been updated accordingly. The Government no longer will require offerors to submit resumes as per revisions to the Solicitation under the current Amendment. Section 12.1 has been updated accordingly.

Question 62

Will the government consider equivalent work experience instead of the MS for the

Contract Program Manager?

Answer:

As stated in Section 12.2 of the PWS the Government is requiring a MS Degree from an institution accredited by an organization recognized by the Council for Higher Education

Accreditation (CHEA) required, and will also accept equivalent work experience in direct support of DoD system engineering including IT systems project management for the Contract

Manger.

Question 63

Will the government consider any other Masters level degree or only an MS for the

Contract Program Manager?

Answer:

The Government is requiring a MS degree for the Contract Manager, but will also accept a

Masters in Engineering. The Government will also consider equivalent work experience in direct support of DoD system engineering including IT systems project management if an MS degree is not present.

Question 64

Will the government consider a Foundations level ITIL Certification for the Principal

Business Process Reengineering Specialist?

Answer:

No, the Foundation level is the entry level certification which offers a general awareness of the key elements and is not sufficient for the Principal Business Process Reengineering Specialist position.

Question 65

What does the government consider an acceptable equivalent for the requested FEAC certified Black Belt or equivalent for the Senior Enterprise Architect (EA)?

The Government requires a Master’s degree in Enterprise Architecture or Graduate Certificate in

Enterprise Architecture with relevant work experience as an acceptable equivalent.

Question 66

There seems to be a discrepancy between option year 2 and the remaining periods.

Specifically, 1920 hours is used for multiple labor categories in option year 2, whereas in the remaining periods the estimated hours are 1928. Does the government see a change in the level of effort in option year 2 to reflect this?

Answer:

The Government has updated attachment 4 to correct all FTE’s as 1920 hours consistently.

Question 67

There are eight (8) Task Areas outlined in Section 4. Please confirm we are to provide responses to all 8 task areas.

Answer:

Yes, the Government is requiring responses to all eight (8) Task Areas in the PWS.

Question 68

The 60-page limit applies to Volume II according to the Proposal Instructions. Confirm proposers are to provide resumes in Volume II-Technical.

Answer:

The Government no longer will require offerors to submit resumes as per revisions to the

Solicitation under the current Amendment. Section 12.1 has been updated accordingly.

Question 69

The PWS states: The Government is requiring resumes for key personnel up to one double sided page per resume. Would the Government consider three pages to allow proposers to more fully demonstrate candidates meet/exceed the minimum requirements?

Answer:

The Government no longer will require offerors to submit resumes as per revisions to the

Solicitation under the current Amendment. Section 12.1 has been updated accordingly.

Question 70

The RFP states: Technical Non-Disclosure Agreement. The offeror shall ensure that the required fields within the Technical Non-Disclosure Agreement (Attachment 6) are completed. Will the Government provide Attachment 6 or clarify that the NDA included should be used in lieu of Attachment 6?

Attachment 6 was uploaded to the Solicitation within Amendment #1 as attachment J-0016.

Question 71

Table 1 – Volume Page Limits states that Volume III Past Performance has no page limit, while Attachment 2 (Past Performance Data Sheet) states: 12. Provide a summary description of contract work. Describe the scope and complexity of work, its relevancy to the efforts to be performed under this solicitation and a description of any problems encountered and your corrective actions. Additional details, to include past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience and subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement can be attached to this form but shall not exceed two (2) pages in length. Confirm the 2-page limit applies only to any “additional details.”

Answer:

The Government is requiring the 2-page limit for the additional information concerning key personnel who have relevant past performance and subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement.

Question 72

In section 12.1, Key Personnel, multiple positions include requirements for various

Microsoft certifications. The Microsoft certification process/environment has significantly changed in quantity and complexity in recent years. There are various certification paths for similar yet specialized skills such as Microsoft Certified Solutions Expert (MCSE), Microsoft Certified Solutions Developer (MCSD), Microsoft Certified Solutions Associate

(MCSA), and Microsoft Specialist.

a. For consistency, would the government consider including “or equivalent certification” for all Microsoft required certifications?

b. Given the ambiguity of the various certification paths, would the government consider making the certifications “preferred” such as other certification requirements in this solicitation. Or, would the government consider including “or equivalent work experience” in the specific area to ensure the candidate has the skills and experience?

Answer:

a. Yes, the Government will consider equivalent certifications.

b. Yes, the Government will consider equivalent certification and work experience.

Question 73

Given the IDIQ nature of this solicitation, offerors must evidence that they can propose a team of professionals that can cover a matrix of projects/tasks that cover multiple areas of

IT Engineering. Would the government accept a matrixed solution to Key Personnel

Professional Certifications. For example, if the Network Engineer and the Engineering Lab

Manager collectively cover the requirements for the positions, would the government consider that an acceptable solution? This approach would support the government’s intent for the team to have all skills and capabilities required to successfully accomplish the work?

Answer:

No, all key positions such as the Network Engineer and the Engineering Lab Manager are separate and the Government requires separate FTEs to perform these roles. A single individual possessing a comprehensive set of skills would not satisfy the requirement.

Question 74

Several of the key personnel requirements specify a person must have a B.S and or an M.S

"from an ABET Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC) Accredited Institution"

We believe in each case in which the government is specifying a degree from an accredited university they should specify "from an institution accredited by an organization recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA)".

ABET does not accredit institutions they accredit programs as can be seen from their website which states in part "We accredit programs, not institutions." Furthermore and only as an example an individual with a B.S and or an M.S. from MIT may not qualify under this requirement since some MIT programs are not ABET accredited, all MIT programs however are accredited by the New England Association for Schools and

Colleges (which is recognized by CHEA).

Answer:

Both degrees from institutions with ABET accredited programs or an institutions accredited by an organization recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) are acceptable.