N3943020R22450001.pdf

ACQR3877725

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to respond to questions, and to provide update documents and make corrections to the solicitation. See continuation pages.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 58

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 16-Sep-2020

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X N3943020R2245

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

20-Aug-2020

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer X is extended, is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

16-Sep-2020

CODE

NAVFAC EXWC

CODE ACQ / NAVAL BASE VENTURA COUNTY

1100 23RD AVE BLDG 1100

PORT HUENEME CA 93043-4301

N39430 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N3943020R2245

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0001

1. The SF33 block 9 has changed the due date to 5 Oct 2020 4:00 PM

2. As a result of the questions and answers the following documents are revised:

a. Attachment 2 – Price Schedule 20200916

b. Attachment 5 – Subcontracting Plan Template 20200910

c. Attachment 6 – Safety Factor 20200909

d. Attachment 9 – Sustainment Task Order PWS 20200909

3. As a result of the questions and answers the following NEW document is provided.

a. LENEL Donles list June 2020

4. Due to some offerors having trouble accessing the embedded files in Appendix B, the following files are provided:

a. AIM User Guide

b. Remedy Incident Guide

c. Remedy CDRL Submission Guide

d. Remedy Incident Categorization Information

5. As a result of the questions and answers, the following changes are made to the solicitation:

a. Section C: Paragraph 1.7.4 revised to remove the requirement that the Automated Access Control

Point Engineer/Developer be an employee of the Prime Contractor (Question 3).

b. Section J: Attachment 2 is renamed Price Schedule (Question 21).

c. Section L: Para 1.10.1.7 corrected to read Factor 5 (Question 54).

d. Section L: Para 1.10.1.2 has been correct to remove the reference to the price proposal (Question

16 & 52).

e. Section L: Para 1.11.4.2.3.3 has been changed to 20% (Question 44).

f. Section L: Para 1.11.6.1.1 has been revised to strike the word “ELIN” (Question 21).

g. Section M: Para 1.3.2.1.3 has been updated to correct grammatical errors (Question 97).

6. This amendment answers questions 1 through 100.

# Section Page Question Gov’t Response

1 SF-33 1 Given the complexity of this program and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and its impact, we respectfully request the Government extend the due date for receipt of offers to 09 October 2020.

The close date has been extended to 5 Oct 2020

2 RFP

Section C Para 1.6 & Attach 9 para 7.5.7

RFP -

15, Attach 9 - 45

"All personnel performing on this contract will be U.S. Citizens." Please confirm that all OCONUS personnel must be U.S. citizens as well.

Confirmed. All OCONUS personnel must be U.S.

Citizens.

3 RFP

Section C

1.7.4 and Attach 9

Para 7.5.3.4

RFP -

18 &

Attach 9 - 39

Please confirm that the ACP Engineers do not have to be employees of the Prime Contractor.

The cited references are contradictory.

Confirmed. ACP Engineers do not have to be employees of the Prime Contractor. RFP PWS Para 1.7.4 updated to remove the conflict with Attachment 9.

4 RFP

Section L

1.11.4.2.3.3 and 1.12

RFP 55

& 57

Please confirm that the SB Goals are 40% of the Total Subcontracted Dollars

Confirmed. Please see responses to questions 44, 95, and 96.

5 Attach 9 Para 4.3.4.1

Attach 9 - 21

Would the Government please confirm that any COVID related delays are covered under the waiver process identified in PWS Section 4.3.4.1?

Except for the essential services listed in the provision 252.237-7023 (Page 35) any non-essential COVID related delays would be processed under the identified Waiver process.

6 RFP

Section L 1.11.1.1.1

RFP 53 Does the Government expect offerors to provide a full preventive maintenance schedule as part of the technical approach maintenance plan?

No. For Preventive Maintenance (PM), the schedule and inspection tasking will be provided as Government Furnished Information at time of award.

However, Offerors should include their PM execution strategy as part of their technical approach.

7 Section I Clauses 252.229- 7012 &

RFP 46 In reference to Italy and Spain, will the Government please confirm that the technical work performed under this contract would qualify personnel as Technical Representatives (TR) and eligible for SOFA Status?

Confirmed. Service technicians are eligible for SOFA Status.

8 Attach 9 para 4.9

Attach 9 - 32

4.9 states that if an ACP-VG or ACP-AVG are added, the Contractor shall also perform monthly preventive maintenance. Will the Government please confirm that each PMI is considered a separate Gap Service Call?

Confirmed. Each PMI is considered a separate Gap Service call. However, a PMI may or may not require the full value of a Gap Service Call depending upon the Offeror's valuation of each Gap Service Call and the nature of the PMI.

9 Attach 9 para 1.4

Attach 9 - 9

PWS Section 1.4 states the following requirement: "Implementation of Cybersecurity policy and requirements to include C&A of the NAVFAC AT/FP Ashore Program Systems across the Enterprise." Will the Government please confirm that the costs associated with Cybersecurity policy should exclusively be included in Option 3 (Enterprise System Administration and Cybersecurity Administration Support) and Option 4 (Rism Management Framework [RMF])?

Confirmed. Costs associated with Cybersecurity policy is exclusive to Option 3 and Option 4.

10 Attach 9 para 4.5.1

Attach 9 - 22

In reference to PWS 4.5.1, will the Government please clarify who the responsible party is for Enterprise level regression testing to include patch management?

The Contractor is responsible for regression testing.

11 Attach 9 para 4.5.1

Attach 9 - 22

In reference to PWS 4.5.1, will the Government please clarify that the Contractors will be required to supply the standalone laptop ACAS scanners and External media devices?

Yes. The Contractor will be required to supply the standalone laptop ACAS scanners.

12 Attach 9 para 4.5.2

Attach 9 - 28

Will the Government please provide the baseline location of the RMF system in section 4.5.2?

ENERMS- TBD, AMAS-

TBD, ONCERS- OTC San Diego, PSAC EA- OTC San Diego, NPACS- OTC San Diego, CDNS- TBD, GV- OTC San Diego, EHSS- Bayside Campus on NB Point Loma, Airfield Enclave- NAS Whidbey Island (lab to be at OTC San Diego), NESS Policy- N/A (No hardware or software), NESS LENEL Isolated- NSA Naples IT (lab to be at NIWC LANT), NESS LENEL Integrated- OTC San Diego, NESS DMP- OTC San Diego TBD locations not yet determined.

13 Attach 9 para 4.3

Attach 9 - 18

At the bottom of page 18, it discusses the building of a lab and using remote "internet" connectivity.

If we were to build a lab, we would need to connect to PSNET, which has limited internet connectivity. Would we need to create a PSNET site?

No. Creation of PSNET POPs is at the discretion of CNIC N61.

14 Attach 9 para 4.5.2

Attach 9 - 29

Bullet 1: "Execute and review weekly ACAS scans and upload results into VRAM/CMRS" If the CNIC C2SOC is conducting the scan, is their "compliance team" uploading the results?

Yes. C2SOC also uploads to CMRS (DoD version of

VRAM).

15 Attach 9 para 4.5.1

Attach 9 - 22

Section 4.5.1 list System Administrator and Cyersecurity Administrator together. According to best practice and DoD guidance, these functions are separate and distinct. Please confirm these are two separate and distinct individuals.

In many cases, especially with small IT solutions, these roles are assigned to the same person.

16 RFP

Section L

1.10 1. 2

RFP 52 Can the Government confirm that the SF33 and any Amendments (SF30) are only to be submitted and included in Volume 1, Tab B?

Confirmed. Section L Para

1.10.1.2 updated to deleted reference to price proposal.

17 RFP

Section L

1.10

RFP 52 Can the Government confirm that Tab H does not have a page limit?

Confirmed.

18 ATT 6 Attach 6 - 2-3

Please confirm that the second and third pages of Attachment 6 should read "Attachment 6" in the header, vice "Attachment I."

Confirmed. Attachment 6 updated to file named:

Attachment 6 - Safety Factor 20200909.

19 Attach 9 para 4.5.2

Attach 9 - 28

The below system is listed twice in Table 6.

(NESS HIRSCH) Please confirm the number of authorizations required.

The NESS HIRSCH listing is duplicated in error. The number of authorizations is one. Attachment 9 Paragraph 4.5.2's table has been updated.

20 Attach 9 para 4.5.2

Attach 9 - 28

The systems listed in Table 6 do not match the systems listed in the "Pre-Proposal Congerence Material." Specifically, the following systems are missing: AIM/REMEDY (11527) and NESS AMAG. Can the Government confirm that AIM/REMEDY (11527) and NESS AMAG are not part of the NAVFAC ATFP scope?

Costs for this item should be based upon the contents of Table 6.

21 Section L

1.10.2 and Section J

RFP -

52 (L)

& 38 (J)

The RFP makes multiple references to the ELIN pricing sheet. The final RFP included Attachment 2, which does not include an ELIN pricing structure. Instead, it requires bidders to price by Region and FoS. It's assumed this is an oversight.

Is this assumption correct?

If yes, will the Government remove all ELIN references from the RFP, including changing "1.10.2.1 Tab A - A completed copy of Exhibit A

– ELIN Price Schedule with narrative" to "1.10.2.1 Tab A - A completed copy of Attachment 2 with narrative"?

If no, will the Government provide a revised Attachment 2 that includes ELIN numbering and provide an extension of the proposal due date?

ELIN references have been removed from the RFP.

22 Attach 2 & Appen M

N/A Attachment 2 requires pricing for "Access Control Point - Pedestrian Gate" for the Japan region.

Appendix M does not list this asset in the Japan inventory. Please confirm the requirement in Attachment 2 is for a Pedestrian Gate Turnstyle.

The Government confirms that the inclusion of "Access Control Point - Pedestrian Gate" in the Japan region was in error, and should not be priced. An amended version of Attachment 2 has been produced.

23 Attach 2 & Appen M

N/A Attachment 2 requires pricing for "Mass Notification System - Net Centric" for the Singapore region. Appendix M does not list this asset in the Singapore inventory. In addition, Attachment 2 does not include a place to price the ESS-Facility Mission listed in Appendix M.

Please confirm the requirement in Attachment 2 should be for ESS Facility Mission and MNS- Giant Voice rather than MNS-Net Centric and MNS-Giant Voice. Will the Government provide an updated Attachment 2 to reflect this change?

The Government confirms that the requirement for Singapore should indeed be for ESS Facility Mission and MNS- Giant Voice rather than MNS- Net Centrict and MNS-Giant Voice. An amended version of Attachment 2 has been produced.

24 N/A N/A Will the Government provide a conformed RFP with all appendices and attachments?

No, as the documents are in different native file formats.

25 Attach 2 Attach 2 Labor

Tab

Pricing template and instructions are vague.

Should bidders provide direct labor costs ONLY or include associated Labor Burdens, as well, on the "Labor" tab?

The Government clarifies Labor prices to be reflective of fully burdened costs.

26 Attach 2 Attach 2 Mgmt

Fees Tab

Would it be considered adequate to include indirect cost and profit in the respective Attachment 2 cost element tabs? For example, all indirect cost and profit associated with labor would be included in the "Labor" tab. This may result in no costs being captured in the "Mgmt Fees" tab.

Confirmed. It would be adequate to include indirect cost and profit in the respective Attachment 2 cost element tabs. (see also question #25.)

27 Attach 2 Attach 2 ODCs

Tab

Will the Government clarify what "ODC categories" they expect to see in this tab?

These categories could vary for each Offeror, but should contain any proposal costs not reflected in the other tabs.

28 Attach 9 Para 4.3.3.1

Attach 9 - 13

Will the Government confirm if the referenced AAR is required for all Critical Priority Service Calls or ONLY for those calls not meeting Technical Support Response Time and/or Target Timeframe for Problem Resolution?

Confirmed. AAR is required for all Critical Priority Service Calls.

29 Appen M Appen

M SLA

TAB

Some OEMs stated their exclusive relationship with the incumbent prevents them from providing a quote for support of their software. This provides an unfair advantage to the incumbent.

Will the Government provide baseline SLA plug numbers?

Attachment 2 has been updated to include SLA Plug Numbers in the base year. If offerors are using a different approach than using all SLA's, then adjustments to these numbers can be made and addressed in the price narrative. Otherwise offerors are encouraged to utilize the SLA costs provided.

30 Appen M Appen

M SLA

TAB

In contacting all named SLA vendors, approximately 50% state the Appendix M data provided is incomplete, inaccurate, or out of date and are unable to provide a price quote in accordance with the solicited Appendix M. How should bidders proceed? Will the Government provide baseline SLA plug numbers for price evaluation purposes?

See response to question 29.

31 Attach 9 para 4.5.2

Attach 9 - 28

Regarding the list of packages from the section cited:

1. What is the current ATO status of the listed packages? (Whether an initial RMF ATO been awarded or is pending.)

2. Where is the System Owner/ISSM located for each system?

Table 6 of Attachment 9 has been amended to reflect the ATO status and System Owner/ISSM information.

32 Attach 9 Para 4.5.2 and Appen

C

N/A How do the packages from Section 4.5.2 of Attachment 9, align to “Appendix C – List of Systems to be Sustained?”

1. Are the 15 packages listed in Section 4.5.2 of Attachment 9 inclusive of all the systems in Appendix C?

2. If so, would the Government add a column to Appendix C that specifies the RMF package/system name that each of the enumerated systems in Appendix C are accredited under?

3. Or does each system in Appendix C represent a unique RMF package that must be maintained?

1. No. The 15 systems listed in Section 4.5.2 align with RMF tasking under Option 4 of the PWS. Appendix-C contains all systems under sustainment.

This includes systems that align with those in Section 4.5.2, as well as other systems;

i.e., Legacy or systems without ATOs

2. N/A.

3. No. Not every system in Appendix -C has an ATO to be maintained.

33 Attach 9 Para 4.5.1

Attach 9 - 23

Is CNIC Security Monitoring a Network Operations Center (NOC) that operates 24/7/365 with watch-standers; or, does it refer to automated security monitoring?

1. Does “support” mean someone to troubleshoot issues with security monitoring? Or does it require personnel to perform full-time security monitoring duties?

2. Is support required 24/7/365 on-site? Or on-call with a short recall?

The support cited in this section is not related to the PSNET NOC, but is an enterprise security position that refers more generically to Cybersecurity monitoring of CNIC systems. The amount of coverage required will be dictated by the offeror's strategy and the requirements of the PWS.

34 DED D1

A017

A017 -

On Pg 4 of 5 on DED A017, offerors are directed to the USER Guide for the AT/FP AShore remedy System & AT/FP AIM portal: "Specific instructions are provided in Appendix B, Contractor User Guide for the AT/FP Ashore Remedy System and AT/FP Information Module (AIM) Portal to the NAVFAC AT/FP Ashore Program Sustainment Contract PWS for updating Work Log entries and adding attachments. The Maintenance Plan is a living document and will require periodic updates due to lessons learned over the life of the contract.

PMI tasks and their frequency will be evaluated and updated by the Government over the life of the contract." The document links embedded in Appendix B, Section 5 Attachments do not work and these documents are inaccessible. Would the Government provide the referenced documents (Appendix B, Section 5.1-5.4) to offerors?

A word version of Appendix B was posted in beta.sam. The word document must be enabled so the embedded attachments can be opened.

Embedded attachments will be provided with this amendment.

35 Attach 2 Attach 2 Mgmt

Fees Tab

What direct costs, indirect costs and profit should be capture in the Management Fee tab?

All Management Fees not already captured on another tab of this Attachment should be entered on this tab. (see also question #25 & #26)

36 Attach 2 Attach

Material and

ODC

Tabs

Is there any specific level of granularity the government is seeking on the materials and ODCs tab?

Material costs are grouped at the Project level by Region.

ODCs are grouped at the Region level. Amounts for both tabs should represent fully burdened costs.

37 Attach 9 para 4.5.2

Attach 9 - 21

RMF Step 3 references NIST SP 800-50 rev. 4 Assessment Procedures. NIST does not have a document under that specific title, will the government confirm the intended document reference and standard is NIST SP 800-53 rev. 4 Assessment Procedures?

Confirmed. NIST SP 800-53 rev. 4 is the correct reference.

38 Attach 9 para 1.4

Attach 9 - 9

Under “other support to include:” the government references C&A requirements, however C&A is an older DIACAP process that has been replaced by FMT A&A as defined in PWS 4.5.2 Options- RMF ISSP. Will the government clarify if legacy DIACAP C&A support will be required under this contract?

Legacy DIACAP C&A support are not required under this contract.

39 RFP

Section L

1.11.5

RFP 54 Will the government permit a one page executive summary in Factor 5 to allow offerors to summarize and highlight their overall past performance information?

No. As the factor is written, this information could not be considered.

40 RFP Sec L N/A Will the government confirm an acronym list and compliance matrix may be provided and excluded from page count?

No. (Not confirmed).

41 Attach 6 N/A Will the government allow offerors to use 10 point font for completion of the Attachment 6 form?

Yes, or alternatively see the response to question 98.

42 Attach 2 N/A Attachment 2 does not include the ESS- Facility Mission FoS for Singapore. Will the government provide an updated Attachment 2 in order for offerors to provide prices for labor, material and SLAs for this FoS?

(see question #23)

43 Section L Para

1.11.1.1.1

1.11.1.1.2

RFP 53 The instructions contained in these sections only require offerors to respond to paragraphs 2.2 of the respective DED. Will the government confirm offerors should submit plans addressing all sections of DED A017 and A020 as an appendix?

No. Offerors should respond only to paragraphs 2.2 of the respective DED, and instruction within the RFP.

44 Section L para

1.11.4.2.3.3 & 1.12

RFP 55

& 57

In Section L 1.11.4.2.3.3, the SB goal is 40% of contract value and in Section L 1.12, the SB goal is 40% of total subcontract dollars. The 40% subcontracted dollars goal aligns perfectly with the Navy’s goal of 40%. The math equation is impossible to achieve 40% on both total contract value and total subcontracted dollars. In order for the SB Participation and Commitment document to be in agreement with the SB Subcontracting Plan, will the government consider revising the SB Participation Plan minimum SB goal to a range of 15 - 20% of total contract value instead of 40%?

Concur, section L para

1.11.4.2.3.3 has been changed to 20%

45 Attach 4 & n/a The solicitation does not address a requirement for subcontracting to AbilityOne firms; however, Attachment 4 and Attachment 5 include an AbilityOne subcontracting goal line item. Will the government consider removing the AbilityOne goal requirement from both Attachment 4 and 5?

No, there is also no target for Veteran Owned Small Business, but firms may propose to utilize those firms.

46 Attach 3 & n/a Will the Government allow offerors to use 10 point font for completion of Attachments 3 and 4?

Section L Para 1.10 allows for 8-point Times New Roman or Calibri for tables or Graphics.

The only page restriction is on the narrative.

47 Attach 9 para 4.2.1

& 8.0

Attach 9 - 8 &

Section 8, Government Furnished Equipment, Material and information does not include the PMI checklists. Will the government modify Section 8.0 to include the PMI checklists?

No. Sample PMI checklists are included as Attachment 8.

Complete GFI PMI checklists will be made available upon award.

48 Attach 9 para 4.6.2.4

Attach 9 - 22-

Will Offerors need to coordinate with PSNet and the CNIC ECB when developing an ECP?

No. Offerors will coordinate ECPs through NAVFAC ATFP Ashore Program.

49 RFP

Section L para 1.11.2.1.3

RFP 53 Section L requires the awardee to submit certain programmatic elements 60 days after contract award (safety plan, environmental plan), however Appendix D1 lists the Safety Plan, Quality Plan, and Environmental Plan as due 30 days after contract award. Since these are critical to the program we assume the CDRL is a 30 day submittal after contract award?

Confirmed. The designated CDRLs are due 30 days after contract award.

50 Appen D1 A020

DED

A020 -

In this section of the DED the government requested “The supportability Strategy deliverable shall include the list of forward supply parts, with locations, and a list of Field Level/Organizational Level Maintenance activities and their locations.” Due to page count restrictions, offerors will be unable to provide a complete and comprehensive list of parts for each forward location. Will the government allow offerors to submit the replacement parts list as an Appendix to Factor 1 and be outside the page limit?

List of supply parts are not required as part of Supportability Strategy Plan draft submission.

51 Section L Para

1.11.1.1.2

RFP 63 In Section L 1.11.1.1.2 the government instructs offerors to address the deliverable requirements in DED A020, paragraph 2.2. Paragraph 2.2 of DED A020 contains Table 1 and the instruction that "The Contractor's Supportability Strategy submittal shall follow the outline provided in Table 1." The Supportability Strategy Outline in Table 1 does not align with the technical requirements detailed in the narrative section of paragraph 2.2. Will the government confirm Offerors do not need to follow the prescribed outline in Table 1?

DED A020 paragraph 2.2 narrative only identifies deliverable content. It does not specify organizational structure of the submittal.

Offeror should utilize the outline provided in Table 1 to organize their content. Some discretion is allowed for where content is most appropriately positioned within the outline sections.

52 Attach 9 Par 4.7

Attach 9 - 23

The Government references paragraph 4.3.5 in this section. Section 4.3.5 does not appear in Attachment 9. Will the Government provide the correct section reference?

The section referenced has been deleted from the final version of the PWS. The sentence referencing Section

4.3.5 is no longer applicable, and should be struck out.

53 Section L para

1.10.1.2 & 1.10.2

RFP 52 The instruction for Section 1.10.1.2 Volume I Tab B is unclear. Please confirm Volume I Tab B should include the signed Standard Form 33 and all Amendments (SF30s)?

Confirmed, see response to question 16.

54 Section L para

1.10.1.7 & 1.11.5

RFP 52 Section 1.11.5 refers to the Past Performance section as Factor 5, however Section 1.10.1.7 labels Volume I Tab G as Factor 4 Past Performance. Will the government confirm whether Past Performance is Factor 4 or Factor 5?

Paragraph 1.10.1.7 updated to state "Factor 5" vice "Factor 4"

55 Section L para 1.9.2

& 1.10

RFP 51-

Section 1.9.2 directs offerors to separate each factor submission into individual files as reflected in Section 1.10. Will the government confirm it expects to receive 8 separate files for Volume 1 (Tabs A-H) and 5 separate files for Volume 2 (Tabs A-D and Exhibit A)? This would result in a total of 13 separate files being submitted.

Confirmed.

56 Section L para 1.9.2

& 1.10

RFP 51 Will DoD Safe accept zip files? Yes, DoD SAFE accepts zip files. Note there is an 8 GB size limit.

57 Attach 9 para 4.4 and Attach

Attach 9 - 22 & Attach

2 - SLA

Tab

PWS Section 4.4 references AtHoc Software and License for the Contractor to purchase AtHoc Network Alerting System and Telephone Alerting System software licenses. Should the contractor allocate the licenses equally across each Region- FOS in the Attachment 2 SLA sheet on the row for the Mass Notification System- Net Centric?

Yes. By-site license costs should be listed for each location. Enterprise license costs should be pro-rated across the FoS.

58 Attach 9 para 4.4 and Attach

Attach 9 - 22 & Attach

2 - SLA

Tab

With respect to all Software SLA pricing, will the government consider providing total quantities and locations for all software to ensure that no contractor obtains an unfair advantage by pricing a lesser known quantity of software.

See response to question 29.

59 Append M N/A With respect to "APP-M Subcomponent+Detail+for+Systems+to+be +Sustained +-+20200713+Final-2", sheet "Software Support SLAs", there are no total quantities for the software licenses nor are they broken out by region as the Attachment 2 SLA sheet requires. In discussion with the software manufacturers such as SIS and Northrup Grumman, the totals of each software listed in sheet "Appendix M - Asset Details" differs from what they have identified as the accurate software inventory. Considering that the Navy AT/FP software system inventory is sensitive information, they are unwilling to release to contractors the exact quantity nor locations of software inventory for pricing purposes. Using the government provided totals could result in a contractor underestimating the true cost, apportioning the costs unfairly to projects with higher quantity counts, unfairly providing a low price, and have a basis for a change order. Should contractors use the government provided asset totals or accept the manufacturer provided pricing without any reference to total quantity?

See response to question 29.

60 Attach 9 para 1.4 & Append M

Attach 9 - 9

For the Athoc SLA, the inventory consists of 38 assets across 3 sites (Coronado, Yokosuka, and Hickam). All components are missing serial numbers. Please confirm that this inventory is accurate, and provide the serial numbers or site IDs so that Offerors can contact Blackberry / Athoc to obtain SLA pricing. If NAVFAC is unable to verify the detailed inventory (including serial numbers or site IDs) for Blackberry, please provide a basis for how vendors should price the SLA so that there is an equal basis for evaluation (i.e., how will NAVFAC ensure that all Offerors are bidding the same solution)?

61 Attach 9 para 1.4 & Append M

Attach 9 - 9

For the Kingfisher SLAs listed in Attachment 9, there are a total of 159 components in the inventory, approximately half of which are missing serial numbers. Please confirm if the intent of the SLAs for Kingfisher is to extend the warranty for the hardware (most of the inventory consists of receivers) or if there is a software component for which the SLA should apply. If NAVFAC is unable to provide details on the SLA for Kingfisher (including serial numbers or site IDs), please provide a basis for how vendors should price the SLA so that there is an equal basis for evaluation (i.e., how will NAVFAC ensure that all Offerors are bidding the same solution)?

See response to question 29.

62 Attach 9 para 1.4 & Append M

Attach 9 - 9

For the Honeywell / Vindicator line item listed in Attachment 9, there are a total of 4 Vindicator components listed in the inventory in Appendix M, which are collectively at Kitsap, Hickam, Crane, and Anderson. Please confirm if the intent is to include other Honeywell components, or strictly just the Vindicator components listed. If the Vindicator components, please confirm if the total of 4 line items is correct or if there are additional Vindicator assets that should be priced out.

See response to question 29.

63 Attach 9 para 1.4 & Append M

Attach 9 - 9

For the NetApp SLA listed in Attachment 9, please confirm if this maintenance is currently active as it is not listed in Appendix M.

See response to question 29.

64 Attach 9 para 1.4 & Append M

Attach 9 - 9

For the Alertus SLA identified in Attachment 9, there are no corresponding components with manufacturer Alertus (nor are there any components with that description) in the detailed inventory (Appendix M). Please provide clarification on what should be priced out as far as the manufacturer and product.

See response to question 29.

65 Attach 9 para 1.4 & Append M

Attach 9 - 9

For the Whelen SLAs listed in Attachment 9, there are a total of 584 components in the inventory, approximately half of which are missing serial numbers. Please confirm if the intent of the SLAs for Whelen is to extend the warranty for the hardware (most of the inventory consists of amplifiers, speaker drivers, and circuit cards), or if there is a software component for which the SLA should apply. If NAVFAC is unable to provide details on the SLA for Whelen

(including serial numbers or site IDs), please provide a basis for how vendors should price the SLA so that there is an equal basis for evaluation (i.e., how will NAVFAC ensure that all Offerors are bidding the same solution)?

66 Attach 9 para 1.4 & Append M

Attach 9 - 9

For the PC Logic SLA identified in Attachment 9, there are no corresponding components with manufacturer PC Logic in the detailed inventory (Appendix M). Please provide clarification on what should be priced out as far as the manufacturer and product.

See response to question 29.

67 Attach 9 para 1.4 & Append M

Attach 9 - 9

Under the SLA list in Attachment 9, there is a generic entry for "Original Equipment Mfgs". Is there a specific OEM manufacturer or manufacturers that this applies to? Using the term "OEM" for an inventory of over 100K items, most of which are missing serial numbers or site IDs, cannot be priced as is. Please provide details on what should be priced here by Offerors.

See response to question 29.

68 Attach 9 para 1.4 & Append M

Attach 9 - 9

Under the SLA list in Attachment 9, Moog is listed as a vendor. Under Appendix M, there are 37 line items for Moog in the inventory, 25 of which reside in Bethesda, and there are a smaller number of components at Seal Beach, Hickam, Portsmouth, and Orlando. These are primarily power converters, inverters, servo drive units, etc.

Is the intention of the SLA to extend the warranty on these hardware components, or to maintain SLA for just the 3 controllers listed under Bethesda, or are there additional controllers or software components that this applies to? Please provide details of what Offerors should price for SLAs for Moog.

69 Attach 9

Append M

Attach 9 - 9

For the SLA line item for Bridgepoint in Attachment 9, there are a total of 9 line items in the detailed inventory in Appendix M, all of which reside at Newport and Guam. All items are missing serial numbers or other information that could be used to identify the components and obtain SLA pricing. Please provide confirmation that (a) this is the total inventory of Bridgepoint material for the NAVFAC solicitation, and (b) provide serial numbers or site IDs for this equipment so that offerors can obtain SLA quotes from the manufacturer. If NAVFAC is unable to confirm the inventory for Bridgepoint, please provide a basis for how vendors should price the SLA so that there is an equal basis for evaluation (i.e., how will NAVFAC ensure that all Offerors are bidding the same solution)?

See response to question 29.

70 Attach 9 para 1.4 & Append M

Attach 9 - 9

Lenel ESS is the 3rd item under the Software Support SLAs tabs for Appendix M. In order to quote Lenel support, Lenel requires Dongle IDs for the systems along with the locations. Lenel has stated that they can quote the SUSP for NAVFAC in one of two ways:

• If the system is one Enterprise system, then offerors only need the Enterprise Master Dongle

ID.

• If the system is comprised of multiple standalone PRO systems (which appears to be the case based on the part numbers of SWS-PROI).

Unfortunately, the inventory seems inadequate to obtain a quote from Lenel, as there are only [8] line items for Lenel software in the entire inventory, and there are no Dongle IDs listed for them. These are as follows:

• NSA Souda Bay – (2) line items

• NSA Bahrain – (2) line items

• NSA Rota - (2) line items

• NSA Naples - (2) line items This implies the Navy only has 8 licenses for the entire NAVFAC program, which seems inaccurate. Please provide a listing of Lenel Dongle IDs for the NAVFAC programs so that Offerors can obtain pricing from Lenel. Please also confirm that the Lenel SUSP maintenance is current and active for all sites, as Lenel may implement a retroactive charge for sites that allow SUSP to lapse. If NAVFAC is unable to provide

The Government provides "LENEL Dongles list June 2020.xlsx" a detailed list of Dongle IDs for Lenel systems, please provide a basis for how vendors should price the SLA so that there is an equal basis for evaluation (i.e., how will NAVFAC ensure that all Offerors are bidding the same solution)?

71 Attach 9 para 1.4 & Append M

Attach 9 - 9

There is a significant amount of Cisco hardware and software in the inventory. In order to maintain ATOs for the systems, Cisco SmartNET is required to be able to legally download and apply new IOS images that are on the DoDIN Approved Products List (APL). Please confirm if either (a) the hardware has SmartNET currently active and if so, if that maintenance should be quoted on this contract, or (b) if there are waivers for the system that allow the End of Life (EOL) hardware to be used while still maintaining the ATOs.

SmartNET is not utilized currently, and there is no EOL waiver. Currently, manual deployment of Cisco IOS is the norm after lab testing.

72 Attach 9

Append M

Attach 9 - 9

The SPOK inventory includes a total of 43 line items dispersed between Naples, Souda Bay, Bahrain, Rota, Deveselu, and Sigonella, none of which identify a serial number. In order to get maintenance pricing, Offerors need serial numbers or site IDs for the SPOK sites. Please confirm the quantities and locations for SPOK and provide serial numbers or site IDs for the SPOK software. If NAVFAC is unable to provide a detailed list of SPOK software assets, please provide a basis for how vendors should price the SLA so that there is an equal basis for evaluation (i.e., how will NAVFAC ensure that all Offerors are bidding the same solution)?

See response to question 29.

73 Attach 9 para 1.4 & Append M

Attach 9 - 9

The Valor CAD inventory includes 53 line items dispersed between Naples, Guam, Souda Bay, Bahrain, Sigonella, Deveselu, and Andersen, which represents only regions Europe and Marianas-Guam. In order to get SLA pricing, Offerors need serial numbers or site IDs for the Valor CAD sites, none of which are provided in the detailed inventory in Appendix M. Please confirm the quantities and locations for Valor and provide serial numbers or site IDs for the Valor software. If NAVFAC is unable to provide a detailed list of Valor software assets, please provide a basis for how vendors should price the SLA so that there is an equal basis for evaluation (i.e., how will NAVFAC ensure that all Offerors are bidding the same solution)?

See response to question 29.

74 Attach 9 para 1.4 & Append M

Attach 9 - 9

The GEOCOM CAD inventory includes 56 line items dispersed between Souda Bay, Bahrain, Rota, Sigonella, Deveselu, and Andersen, which represents only regions Europe and Marianas- Guam. In order to get SLA pricing, Offerors need serial numbers or site IDs for the GEOCOM CAD sites, none of which are provided in the detailed inventory in Appendix M. Please confirm the quantities and locations for GEOCOM and provide serial numbers or site IDs for the GEOCOM software. If NAVFAC is unable to provide a detailed list of GEOCOM software assets, please provide a basis for how vendors should price the SLA so that there is an equal basis for evaluation (i.e., how will NAVFAC ensure that all Offerors are bidding the same solution)?

75 Attach 9 para 1.4 & Append M

Attach 9 - 9

The Stancil inventory consists of 18 line items for voice recording components, dispersed between Jacksonville, Point Loma, Washington, Guam, Seal Beach, China Lake, Ventura County, Fallon, El Centro, Souda Bay, Rota, Sigonella, and Deveselu. Jacksonville, El Centro, and Rota are missing serial numbers; and the serial number lengths and formats are inconsistent among the other components, though this may be acceptable since there are a mix of components. Please confirm that this represents the total inventory to be priced for Stancil, and provide the serial numbers for the missing line items. If NAVFAC is unable to provide a detailed list of Stancil software assets, please provide a basis for how vendors should price the SLA so that there is an equal basis for evaluation (i.e., how will NAVFAC ensure that all Offerors are bidding the same solution)?

See response to question 29.

76 Attach 9 para 1.4 & Append M

Attach 9 - 9

The SolarWinds inventory consists of 55 line items dispersed between Naples, Hickam, Souda Bay, Bahrain, Rota, and Pensacola, representing regions Hawaii, Europe, and Southeast. There are no serial numbers identified for Naples, Hickam, Souda Bay, and Bahrain, and there appear to be duplicates listed for Rota (though it is unclear if this represents two sets of servers, one older and one newer, or whether this is a duplicate entry).

Please confirm that this listing represents the complete inventory for SolarWinds to be priced for SLAs, provide the missing serial numbers, and clarify if the inventory for Rota is accurate or a duplicate. If NAVFAC is unable to provide a detailed list of SolarWinds software assets, please provide a basis for how vendors should price the SLA so that there is an equal basis for evaluation (i.e., how will NAVFAC ensure that all Offerors are bidding the same solution)?

77 Attach 9

Append M

Attach 9 - 9

The Milestone inventory consists of 104 line items, but serial numbers for only 3 of the 104 line items, which are all at Whitbey Island. This leaves assets with no identification for Newport, Mid South, Mechanicsburg, Lemoore, Hampton Roads, Kings Bay, Norfolk, San Diego, Coronado, Seal Beach, Yorktown, Point Loma, Pensacola, Corpus Christi, Kingsville, Oceana, Fallon, Great Lakes, and Bahrain. Please confirm that this listing represents the complete inventory for Milestone to be priced for SLAs and provide the missing serial numbers and Milestone SLCs so that Offerors can obtain quotes from the manufacturer. If NAVFAC is unable to provide a detailed list of Milestone software assets, please provide a basis for how vendors should price the SLA so that there is an equal basis for evaluation (i.e., how will NAVFAC ensure that all Offerors are bidding the same solution)?

See response to question 29.

78 Attach 9 para 1.4 & Append M

Attach 9 - 9

The Commend inventory is fairly comprehensive from a hardware perspective. However, from an SLA perspective, there are 15 line items for application software, none of which have serial numbers listed, and that inventory is all at Point Loma. Please provide the missing serial numbers so that Offerors may contact Commend to get pricing for the SLA. In addition, please confirm that the inventory provided is complete and accurate. If NAVFAC is unable to provide the missing serial numbers and/or confirm the software inventory for Commend, please provide a basis for how vendors should price the SLA so that there is an equal basis for evaluation (i.e., how will NAVFAC ensure that all Offerors are bidding the same solution)?

79 Attach 9

Append M

Attach 9 - 9

The FLIR inventory is fairly comprehensive from a hardware perspective (there are over 1000 items, mostly cameras). However, from an SLA perspective, there are only 6 Cameleon line items in the inventory, and none have serial numbers listed. These 6 assets represent the inventories from Newport, Mechanicsburg, and Hampton Roads. Please confirm that this represents the entire FLIR Cameleon inventory to price for SLAs, and provide the missing serial numbers so that Offerors may obtain pricing from FLIR for the SLAs. If NAVFAC is unable to provide the missing serial numbers and/or confirm the software inventory for FLIR, please provide a basis for how vendors should price the SLAs so that there is an equal basis for evaluation (i.e., how will NAVFAC ensure that all Offerors are bidding the same solution)?

See response to question 29.

80 Attach 9 para 1.4 & Append M

Attach 9 - 9

For the SLA listing in Appendix M, there is an entry for “IP Security Center”. There are no vendors or assets with this product name. The only entry that includes the term “Security Center” is the EMBASSY Security Center, listed at Hampton Roads, which has no serial number listed. Please confirm if this is the asset to be priced for the SLA, or identify the correct manufacturer and part number along with serial number(s) for the items to have SLAs priced out.

If NAVFAC is unable to provide the missing details, serial numbers and/or confirm the software inventory for the IP Security Center, please provide a basis for how vendors should price the SLAs so that there is an equal basis for evaluation (i.e., how will NAVFAC ensure that all Offerors are bidding the same solution)?

"IPSecurityCenter" is a proprietary product of CNL Software- recently purchased by the Everbridge company.

81 Attach 9

Append M

Attach 9 - 9

For the SLA listing in Appendix M, there is an entry for Mastermind. There are a total of 5 entries in the master inventory for Mastermind, with no serial numbers, part numbers, and the vendor is listed as “Unknown”. Currently, 4 of those line items are for Yokosuka and 1 is for Guam. As listed, it will be impossible for Offerors to price this SLA. Please provide details on the manufacturer and serial numbers, and verify that the quantity of 5 is correct. If NAVFAC is unable to provide the missing details, serial numbers and/or confirm the software inventory is accurate for Mastermind, please provide a basis for how vendors should price the SLAs so that there is an equal basis for evaluation (i.e., how will NAVFAC ensure that all Offerors are bidding the same solution)?

See response to question 29.

82 Attach 9 para 1.4 & Append M

Attach 9 - 9

The Avaya inventory appears to be fairly detailed and includes serial numbers for most of the components. However, the total inventory for Avaya is 28 line items, all of which reside at Hickam. Please confirm that this is correct and complete as far as what vendors should use to price the SLA.

83 Attach 9

Append M

Attach 9 - 9

For Cooper Notification SLAs, from the Appendix M inventory, there are a total of 156 line items, none of which are software. Please confirm if the intent for the SLA for Cooper is to purchase extended warranty / maintenance on the hardware inventory (mostly speakers) or if there are software asset(s) missing from the inventory.

Also, of the 156 line items, there are only 20 serial numbers recorded, making it difficult to get an accurate quote from Cooper if the intent is to extend warranty for all line items. Please clarify what component(s) the SLA(s) are intended to protect for Cooper Notification, and verify the locations and quantities to be purchased. If NAVFAC is unable to provide the missing details for Cooper Notification, please provide a basis for how vendors should price the SLAs so that there is an equal basis for evaluation (i.e., how will NAVFAC ensure that all Offerors are bidding the same solution)?

See response to question 29.

84 Attach 9 para 1.4 & Append M

Attach 9 - 9

For Harris SLAs, if the inventory consists of 21 line items, 17 of which are radios and 4 of which are transmitters. This inventory resides in Chinhae, Washington Naval Observatory, Arlington, and Anacostia-Bolling. Please confirm if this is the full inventory of Harris components to be maintained under and SLA. If not, please identify what additional components are to be protected by a Harris SLA. If NAVFAC is unable to confirm the full inventory for Harris, please provide a basis for how vendors should price the SLAs so that there is an equal basis for evaluation (i.e., how will NAVFAC ensure that all Offerors are bidding the same solution)?

85 Attach 9

Append M

Attach 9 - 9

For the Veritas SLAs, there are no line items in the inventory with manufacturer Veritas, nor are there any entries with the Netbackup product in the description. Please provide details on what vendors should price as far as an SLA for Veritas.

If NAVFAC is unable to provide details on the Veritas inventory, please provide a basis for how vendors should price the SLAs so that there is an equal basis for evaluation (i.e., how will NAVFAC ensure that all Offerors are bidding the same solution)?

See response to question 29.

86 Attach 9 para 1.4 & Append M

Attach 9 - 9

PWS - Section 1.4 lists 29 vendors for SLA, while Appendix M - Software Support SLAs lists

22. Some of the vendors are different between the two lists, in addition to the discrepancy in quantities. Please clarify which list of vendors should be used to price SLA support.

See response to question 29.

87 Attach 9 para 4.5.1

Attach 9 - 22

Do the operating systems (ESXi, Microsoft Server, etc), database management systems (Oracle and Microsoft SQL) fall under existing enterprise software license agreements or are “SLA” maintenance agreements required for these? If these exist under another contract, please confirm that. If there are no Enterprise License Agreements maintained for the systems, please confirm that vendors are not required to upgrade operating systems as part of the Cybersecurity support, as this is not legal without software support or buying new operating system licenses.

1) Systems within the VMS FoS (PSAC-EA system) are supported by the:

- NAVY ELA for Microsoft and VMWare

- Cisco Smartnet JELA

- Contractor will be responsible for others (Oracle/Netapp/etc.)

2) Software and Hardware Supporting AMAS is supported by the vendor as part of their propriety solution.

3) Other systems have SW that is not part of these ELAs.

Software Operating System Upgrades – The vendor will be required to maintain the software at the current baseline. OS upgrades for sustained systems should be communicated through the customer via an ECP. Vendor will be required to support “Updates” to the current OS as required to maintain the system baseline.

88 Attach 9 para 4.5.

Attach 9 - 28

In the draft solicitation pricing sheet, the government provided the RMF stage for each system. Can the government confirm for each Family of Systems, the RMF stage each system is in process?

Table 6 of Attachment 9 has been amended to reflect the ATO status and System Owner/ISSM information.

89 Attach 2 N/A is Option 4 for systems that are at RMF Step 6, and Option 3 is for systems that are at Steps 2 – 4? I.e., would STIG / SCAP updates be priced under Option 3 for systems that do not have an ATO, and be priced under Option 4 for systems that have an ATO and are under continuous monitoring?

As described in the PWS, Option 3 requires system administration and Cybersecurity administration support for systems identified under APP-C. Option 4 provides "Risk Management Framework (RMF) support for Accreditation Steps 1 through Step 4 and Step 6 (beyond accreditation)..." Offerors should price these as separate options; i.e., as though either option could be exercised independent of the other.

90 DED A020 A020 -

After the pre-proposal conference…