(Pre-Solic) 20170412 - Draft Solic Q&A Update.docx

Advanced Analytics Technical Solution Draft Solicitation of 3 April 2017 - Questions and Answers

Posted 13 April 2017

1. Question: The Schedule B CLIN 0001 does not seem to support the all of the Tier I and Tier II configurations identified in PWS 1.2. Would the government consider sub CLINs for each of the three Tiers?

Answer: SubCLINs will not be added; however, PWS section 3.2.6.1 has been updated in the RFP.

2. Question: Related to the question above, the licensing described in PWS 3.2.6 does not address all of the Tier I and Tier II configurations identified in PWS 1.2. Will the government clarify estimated times it will need licenses for each of the configurations?

Answer: In accordance with PWS section 3.2.6, the contractor shall price and deliver all required licenses under CLIN 0001 (i.e., both the nine software user licenses for engineering and logistics activities and the 2574 software user licenses for follow-on fielding of the AATS software to Marine Corps operating forces shall be delivered within 90 days of delivery order 0001 issuance). The effective date for software user licenses issued under CLIN 0001 shall be the date of delivery of the software user licenses.

3. Question: Can the government estimate the number of concurrent users in the Tier I and Tier II configurations?

Answer: The Government cannot estimate the number of concurrent users in the Tier I and Tier II configurations, as concurrency numbers are dependent on unit-specific requirements.

4. Question: The note on page 5 states the “Solicitation Attachment 14 provides a cross reference of Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) to PWS Sections”. Previously the government provided drafts of Attachments 6-9. Can the government identify the other attachments not previously provided so industry can determine how significant they are for the proposal effort?

Answer: All attachments will be provided with the final RFP.

5. Question: PWS 3.2.6.2 states “The contractor shall provide a local system licensing mechanism that can be utilized pre-deployment operate on SIPRNET and a DIL network environment.” Can the government explain further what it is looking for in this capability?

Answer: PWS section 3.2.6.2 has been updated in the RFP to include the following: The licensing mechanism must not be dependent upon resources beyond those available on SIPRNET and in a DIL network environment.

6. Question: The demonstration guidelines states “Each offeror will be notified 20 calendar days prior to the date of their demonstration. The notification package will include the scheduled date of the demonstration, along with preparation material for the demonstration.” In the previous draft and during the industry day it was stated that the demo plan, ontology and test data would be provided to the offerors that were selected for the demo. Are these items included in the preparation material? If the offeror is to bring their own test data, will the Government provide a data schema (dictionary) that can be used to create the simulated test data and/or configure our proposed solution?

Answer: The ontology and examples of test data will be provided in the preparation material. The offeror is not to bring their own test data. The RFP has been updated.

7. Question: The demonstration guidelines states “Note that prior to entrance into SPAWARSYSCEN Atlantic facilities, offerors must be processed through the Security office via the Joint Personnel Adjudication System (JPAS) visitor request process.” Is the JBC Security process also germane to gaining access?

Answer: Yes. Specific information for base access will be provided in the notification package to offerors. The RFP has been updated.

8. Question: The demonstration hardware section states “The offeror is allowed to use any and all hardware needed to correctly run their proposed software product as long as the hardware specifications or virtual machines pass the Government’s compliance check and do not exceed the maximums listed in Attachment 6.“ Most new laptops in this family are available with 2.25 TB across a solid state and a physical drive. The one notable exception is from a brand that is known for security issues. Will the government accept this as compliant providing the space used does not exceed the stated space available in Attachment 6?

Answer: Yes. The demonstration hardware, as configured, must not allocate more than the maximums listed in Attachment 6. The RFP has been updated.

9. Question: What OWL mechanism will the government-supplied ontology use to distinguish Property Types from Properties? Will it be done via subtyping properties (e.g., AATS property type “DateTime” represented as an OWL property “DateTime”, then OWL properties that subtype “DateTime” as “Date of Birth”, “Date of Death”, etc.) or will some other mechanism be used?

Answer: The Government-supplied AATS ontology will not define Properties, since Properties are an instance of Property Types. The “Date of Birth” and “Date of Death” examples in the question are both examples of Property Types. Regarding the OWL mechanism, the contractor shall provide the Government with all ontology implementation requirements necessary to provide the capability defined in the software specification (PWS 3.2.5.1.2).

10. Question: Will OWL domain declarations be used on properties to indicate the object types and/or relationship types to which those properties are “assigned”? If not, what OWL mechanism will be used to indicate that a property is “assigned” to an object or relationship?

Answer: Per PWS section 3.2.5.1.2, the contractor shall provide the Government with all ontology implementation requirements necessary to provide the capability defined in the software specification (PWS 3.2.5.1.2).

11. Question: Will the minCardinality axiom be used to indicate that a property is required? If not, what OWL mechanism will be used?

Answer: Per PWS section 3.2.5.1.2, the contractor shall provide the Government with all ontology implementation requirements necessary to provide the capability defined in the software specification (PWS 3.2.5.1.2).

12. Question: When the Government requires data entry functions to be available in disconnected mode, does that include automated ingest and dry-run and correction capability? Or does that include manual entry only? The concern is that the ETL and enrichment applications are typically server based applications, and will thereby induce a heavier load on the less heavily capable IW.

Answer: Yes. Per PWS section 3.2.5.10.9, the software shall allow the user operating in a DIL network environment to use the data entry capabilities of PWS section 3.2.5.2, which includes manual entry, automated ingest, and dry-run and correction capability.

13. Question: The PWS states: “The software shall provide the capability to deploy ontology updates to nodes operating in a DIL environment.” Does this mean a disconnected client needs to have the ability to only ingest a new ontology? Or does this mean a disconnected client needs to be able to make changes to and distribute an ontology?

Answer: The disconnected client must have the ability to ingest an updated ontology. It is not required that the disconnected client be able to make changes to and distribute an ontology.

14. Question: In previous Q&A, the Government identified 2,500 IWs that are identified to be AATS workstations. Does the Government intend for these workstations to individually be able to update and distribute ontologies? If so, what is to be the governing body to provide for version control and compatibility and design?

Answer: See answer to question number 13 above. The governing body is outside the scope of the RFP.

15. Question: PWS Section 4.0 - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (IT) SERVICES REQUIREMENTS includes several requirements that the contractor perceives to be unrelated to this product implementation (e.g., deployment on the ship, migration to NMCI, etc.). Would the Government please clarify these relationships?

Answer: The requirements of PWS section 4.1 shall only be required when applicable at the task order level.

16. Question: The PWS states: “Upon contract award, the prime contractor shall have and maintain a quality assurance process that meets contract requirements and program objectives while ensuring customer satisfaction and defect-free products/process.” Can the Government please define “defect-free”? Are there any acceptable defects (e.g., a security patch causes something to break in the solution)? Does this mean that there can never be a software defect?

Answer: As detailed under PWS section 6.1, the contractor shall have and maintain a quality assurance process. That process shall address and resolve any identified defects in the contractor’s products or processes, in accordance with the contractor’s quality assurance plan.

17. Question: For this solicitation, is a Special Security Background Investigation (SSBI) required for all cleared personnel?

Answer: An SSBI is not required. See PWS section 8.2.

18. Question: The Government specifies that “No Government property will be provided or acquired...” Does this mean the Government will not provide or acquire any hardware?

Answer: No Government property will be provided or acquired on this contract or any subsequent task order.

19. Question: With regard to the ALLOWABLE LABOR CATEGORIES AND KEY LABOR CATEGORY DESIGNATION section:

· Would the Government allow contractors to use a SME II or SME III LCAT? Our experience working with large-scale DoD software development and integration projects shows that some of the strongest DoD developers do not have a BA/BS Degree, but they do have technical training and or multiple years of specialized experience within a specific area that allow the project/Government to gain efficiencies. Examples of this specialized experience could be extensive experience developing and/or integrating USMC systems/services, or specialized intelligence knowledge.

· Alternatively, would the Government consider allowing additional years of experience in lieu of a BA/BS Degree?

Answer: Labor categories required to perform the contract along with minimum education and experience requirements are identified in clause 5252.237-9600.

20. Question: Provision 52.215-20 states: “(7) PROFIT – Identify the profit rate, total amount proposed, and the cost elements on which the profit is applied.” Since this contract is FFP and a bulk of the contract will be for the purchase of products/materials, will the Government confirm that profit is allowed on materials?

Answer: Offerors shall propose prices as indicated in Section B of the RFP. See RFP Section L, Factor F and provision 52.215-20, Alt IV for additional information.

21. Question: The Government has added a requirement to “Identify the profit rate, total amount proposed, and the cost elements on which the profit is applied.” Since this contract is FFP and FFP-LOE, will the Government require disclosure of profit on the FFP components?

Answer: Yes. The Government will use proposed profit rate information to conduct price realism analysis.

22. Question: The revised solicitation changed the CPFF components to FFP-LOE. Given the complexity and magnitude of this project and the high level of risk associated with FFP awards, the Contractor respectfully recommends that the Government reconsider allowing CPFF for the services components.

Answer: , The Government has determined that utilization of FFP-LOE is appropriate for these requirements.

23. Question: There are perceived discrepancies within the solicitation regarding the total number of licenses required to be proposed (e.g., Sections 1.2; 3.2.6.1; B). Would the Government please clarify the total number of licenses for the AATS solution that each offeror should price?

Answer: See revised PWS section 3.2.6.1. Software user licenses will be purchased under CLIN 0001. Additional software user licenses may be purchased under CLIN 0011 in lots of 100 to support and expand the IAS FoS authorized acquisition objective (AAO).

24. Question: The Government specifies a two-page limit for Attachment 9. In examining Attachment 9, column B (Product Name) allows for one cell per PWS area. In the event that two products will satisfy the requirement for a line item, can the Contractor list both products and contract references for that section? If so, the spreadsheet has the potential to grow beyond two pages. Can the Government eliminate or expand the page limitation?

Answer: The final RFP has been updated to establish a four-page limit for Attachment 9.

25. Question: The Government states “A significant subcontractor is defined as a subcontractor or intercompany work agreement (IWA) team members that will be performing at least twenty percent of the total proposed labor hours.” We respectfully request that the Government consider changing this to “at least twenty percent of the total proposed contract value.” Given that the vast majority of this contract is materials/product (versus labor), the majority of our past performance will likely come from our OEMs. While the OEMs may not represent a “significant” portion of our labor hours, they certainly are considered significant to the overall contract.

Answer: The significant subcontractor designation relates to Factor B (Technical Services Support Capability) and therefore is based on percentage of labor hours. Section L, Factor C has been revised to clarify past performance requirements.

26. Question: The Government specifies “The minimum acceptable small business participation average goal, based on the total acquisition value for this solicitation, is 5%.” Given that the vast majority of this contract is materials/product, we respectfully request that the Government consider changing this to “The minimum acceptable small business participation average goal is 5% of the total proposed labor hours.”

Answer: Government will not change this requirement. Small business participation average goal will remain 5% of the total acquisition value.

27. Question: Given the significant number of items that the Contractor must demonstrate to meet the demo requirements, we request that the Government consider whether nine (9) hours is sufficient time to complete all acceptable/unacceptable elements, address any questions, and facilitate lunch/breaks, etc.

Answer: No change will be made to the demonstration time limits.

28. Question: In the instructions for Factor G, the Solicitation states: “Each offeror will be notified 20 calendar days prior to the date of their demonstration.” This revised solicitation significantly increases the complexity and depth of demonstration requirements; such that it sounds like the Government is seeking a nearly final solution/product at demo. Therefore, would the Government consider increasing the notification period from twenty (20) to thirty (30) calendar days?

Answer: No change will be made to the notification period.

29. Question: RFP Section L, Factor G states: “The demonstration process shall require at a minimum a server node, a network attached storage device, two laptop nodes, and all necessary switching equipment and cables.” We understand that having external storage is how the product will be deployed and that the purpose of the external storage is to provide high availability; however, for the purposes of demonstrating that the product works, external storage seems unnecessary.

· Recommend that the Government remove the requirement for the network storage device in the demo phase of this procurement.

· Alternatively, would it be sufficient for the contractor to certify that the demo was developed and tested using the contractor’s infrastructure which includes external storage (which is not easily disconnected from the contractor’s infrastructure) and then demonstrate the product without the external storage?

Answer: No change will be made to the demonstration requirements.

30. Question: There is no mention of Contractor Furnished Equipment (CFE) or Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) in this solicitation. Does the Government anticipate any GFE/CFE?

Answer: No GFE or CFE is anticipated for this contract or any subsequent task order.

31. Question: What will the period of performance be for CLIN 0001? The first 12 months after contract award?

Answer: CLIN 0001 is a supply item, and delivery of the AATS software is required within 90 days after delivery order 0001 issuance.

32. Question: Are all of the Tier 1/Tier 2 software licenses delivered under CLIN 0001? If so, what is the timeframe for delivery of all the licenses after contract award?

Answer: Yes, all Tier I/II software licenses will be delivered under CLIN 0001. PWS section 3.2.6.1 of the final RFP has been updated to identify timeframes for license delivery/activation.

33. Question: Are the number of hours shown for CLIN0004 the max on the IDIQ contract for all 5 years or for price evaluation only? If for all 5 years, it averages 2.6 FTE per year for all the support requirements listed under CLIN 4. This seems too little for the total contract support.

Answer: Yes, the number of hours under CLIN 0004 is the maximum on the contract for all five years; however, the Government anticipates the majority of the hours under CLIN 0004 will be expended in year 1.

34. Question: What will the period of performance be for CLIN 0009?

Answer: Period of performance will be provided in Section F of the RFP.

35. Question: If the 2574 Tier 3 software licenses are delivered under CLIN 0001, then are the CLIN 0011 lots (14 lots of 100 each = 1400) in addition to the 2574 Tier 3 software license deliveries?

Answer: Yes.

36. Question: If the total Tier 3 systems equal 2574, and 1400 AATS IW software licenses are delivered under CLIN 0011, when and under what CLIN are the remaining 1174 Tier 3 licenses delivered?

Answer: All software user licenses for the 2574 Tier III systems will be purchased under CLIN 0001. If needed, additional licenses will be purchased under CLIN 0011. See PWS section 3.2.6.

37. Question: What CLINs will be awarded under Delivery Order 0001?

Answer: The Government anticipates awarding CLIN 0001, CLIN 0002, and CLIN 0003 under Delivery Order 0001.

38. Question: Will the Government provide Attachment 13 - Delivery Order 0001 Statement of Work for review prior to the final RFP?

Answer: All attachments will be provided with the final RFP.

39. Question: Will the Government provide Attachment 14 for review prior to the final RFP?

Answer: All attachments will be provided with the final RFP.

40. Question: Are the Intelligence Servers at Tier 1 Unix or Windows?

Answer: See PWS Section 1.1 for a description of the IS-W. The Government has updated the final RFP to clarify the IAS FoS composition outlined in PWS section 1.2.

41. Question: The draft RFP references 20 Tier 1 fielded systems and 132 Tier 2 fielded systems. Is this the number of physical servers or the number of AATS Tier 1/2 servers licensed for AATS software?

Answer: No. The referenced numbers identify the number of fielded systems. PWS section 1.2 of the final RFP has been updated to reflect 10 fielded Tier I systems.

42. Question: Is the number of AATS server based licenses 152? That is; are there 152 instances of identical AATS server based licensed software, or do multiple servers make up an AATS suite of servers supporting each echelon, and therefore less than 152 support sites?

Answer: There are 152 instances of identical AATS server-based licensed software. Multiple servers do not make up an AATS suite of servers supporting each echelon.

43. Question: Are the 152 Tier 1/Tier 2 systems networked together or is each server a standalone instance of AATS support?

Answer: The configuration of Tier 1 and Tier 2 systems is determined at each installation site.

44. Question: How many physical servers are in a Tier 1 fielded system (of which there are 20 fielded systems)?

Answer: There are 10 fielded Tier 1 systems. Each Tier 1 system is comprised of two identical stacks of hardware. Each stack has 2 physical servers. PWS section 1.2 of the final RFP has been updated to reflect 10 fielded systems.

45. Question: How many physical servers are in a Tier 2 fielded system (of which there are 132 fielded systems)?

Answer: There are 132 fielded Tier 2 systems. Each Tier 2 system has one stack of hardware. Each stack has 2 physical servers.

46. Question: There is no indication as to when all of the Tier1/Tier2 server software is to be delivered? When is the expected delivery of licenses for all 152 fielded systems?

Answer: See PWS Section 3.2.6.1.

47. Question: Attachment 6 and requirements in 3.2.2 for operating system infrastructure on VMs: Not enough information is provided to determine the type/number of licenses of MS Server 2012R2 or RHEL7. In order to get accurate Windows Server 2012 R2 licensing requirements, we need to understand the hardware layout for the Vmware ESXi 6.0 environment outlined in the RFP. Per draft attachment 6: IS Specs tab: Identifies 2 Vmware ESXi 6.0 hosts available for the solution in Allocation Tier I and 2 Vmware ESXi 6.0 hosts in Allocation Tier 2. How many physical processors are in each of the physical host running Vmware ESXi 6.0?

Answer: PWS section 3.2.6.1 of the final RFP has been updated to indicate that the offeror shall not propose operating system licenses as part of the proposal. The IAS-FoS has infrastructure already in place.

48. Question: How many physical cores are on each physical processor on each physical host running Vmware ESXi 6.0?

Answer: There are eight physical cores on each physical processor.

49. Question: Are the Vmware Hosts clustered together and using Vmware Vmotion for high availability?

Answer: Yes.

50. Question: In Section 3.2.4.2 the PWS references " AATS software package version upgrades as they are released and no less than semiannually", but the CLIN descriptions in Section B, Pages 2, 3, and 4 speak to annual deliveries. Is the Government expecting semiannual or annual software deliveries?

Answer: CLINs 0005 through 0008 of the final RFP have been updated to read, “Under CLIN 0001, including Software Updates and Security Updates in accordance with the Performance Work Statement”.

51. Question: Please define the term "AATS Software Package"? Is it one set of Tier 1 VM's plus 1 set of Tier 2 VM's plus 1 set of Tier 3 software? Are the Tier 1 and Tier 2 VM's for the Unix or Windows Intelligence Servers or both?

Answer: Revised “AATS Software Package” to “AATS Software” throughout the RFP. All virtual machines will be hosted on the Intelligence Server – Windows.

52. Question: Please clarify what licenses are being referred to here and under CLIN 0011? Are these a full set of Tiers 1, 2 and 3 SW licenses or just the Tier 3 IW Software?

Answer: Under CLINs 0001, 0005, 0006, 0007, and 0008, and 0011, licenses are for all Tiers.

53. Question: We are unclear what the requirement at PWS Section 3.2.5.11.4 is asking for. Can you provide a Use Case description to clarify the intent of this requirement?

Answer: Per PWS section 3.2.5.2.1.8, files can be attached to Objects. Per PWS section 3.2.5.2.11.3, replication can be configured to exclude files. If an Object is replicated under the condition that files are excluded from replication, then the AATS software shall replicate file metadata (e.g. file name, file size, file modification date/time stamp, etc.). See PWS Section 3.2.5.11.4.

54. Question: Please define the term "integration licenses"?

Answer: “Integration licenses” are software user licenses to support engineering and logistics activities. PWS section 3.2.6.1 of the final RFP has been updated.

55. Question: Please define the term "software user licenses (2574 users)"? This appears to be a reference to the total number of Tier 3 fielded systems referenced in paragraph 1.2. Is the Government asking for the ability to license the software on the IW separately from the Intelligence Server and to have their support periods run independently?

Answer: PWS section 3.2.6.1 of the final RFP has been updated. The Government is not asking for the ability to license the software on the IW separately from the Intelligence Server; however, the IW must operate in a DIL environment.

56. Question: Please clarify the license counts in Paragraph 3.2.6.1 with regard to the 20 Tier 1, 132 Tier 2 and 2574 Tier 3 fielded systems referenced in Par 1.2?

Answer: PWS section 1.2 of the final RFP has been updated to reflect 10 Tier I fielded systems as well as PWS section 3.2.6.1 to clarify quantity of licenses required.

57. Question: PWS section 3.2.6.1 states: "The contractor shall also provide software sustainment, software updates, and security updates for the AATS software for a period of one year after activation of the software user licenses on the IAS software baseline." It is unclear when the AATS software licenses will be delivered/activated under CLIN 0001; however, the requirement for sustainment for one year after activation seems to be in conflict with CLIN 0005 which describes software sustainment for Year 2; Can you please de-conflict the sustainment timeframes and provide a consistent view of how licenses and sustainment shall be delivered?

Answer: Section B and PWS section 3.2.6.1 of the final RFP have been updated to clarify sustainment timeframes and how sustainment shall be delivered.

58. Question: PWS section 3.3.1.3 paragraph is essentially a proposal instruction. Will the Government move the proposal instruction requirements to Section L and provide a copy of referenced Attachment 15 for review?

Answer: The offeror is required to submit information related to computer software and technical data in accordance with Section L, subfactor A4, and the Government will evaluate this information in accordance with Section M, Subfactor A4. All attachments will be provided with the final RFP.

59. Question: Will the Government provide Attachment 15 for review prior to the release of the final RFP?

Answer: All attachments will be provided with the final RFP.

60. Question: PWS section 3.3.1.4 paragraph is essentially a proposal instruction. Will the Government move the proposal instruction requirements to Section L?

Answer: The offeror is required to submit information related to computer software and technical data in accordance with Section L, subfactor A4, and the Government will evaluate this information in accordance with Section M, Subfactor A4.

61. Question: PWS section 3.3.1.5 paragraph is essentially a proposal instruction. Will the Government move the proposal instruction requirements to Section L?

Answer: The offeror is required to submit information related to computer software and technical data in accordance with Section L, subfactor A4, and the Government will evaluate this information in accordance with Section M, Subfactor A4.

62. Question: Section 3.5.6, Product Improvement Training references CLIN 0004, shouldn't this be CLIN 0009?

Answer: Yes. The final RFP has been updated.

63. Question: Section 5.1 states "The PM shall have authority to approve task order proposals or modifications in emergent situations." What is the highest value anticipated for proposals or modifications in emergent situations?

Answer: See clause 52.216-19 for order limitations.

64. Question: Is the SPAWARSYSCEN Atlantic Contractor Check-in portal supposed to be active for contractors now or will it be activated upon contract award?

Answer: The SPAWARSYSCEN Atlantic Contractor Check-in portal is expected to be active upon contract award.

65. Question: Will we receive a draft DD Form 254?

Answer: All attachments will be provided with the final RFP.

66. Question: Can bidders assume that OCONUS performance will be limited to non-high threat/contingency operations locations? If so, would the Government consider updating the "Note" to reflect the following to ensure clarity? "Note: Under this contract and any subsequent task orders, the contractor shall not travel to Afghanistan. Any other OCONUS performance will be limited to non-high threat/contingency operations locations."

Answer: See updated PWS section 14.1 of the final RFP for planned performance locations.

67. Question: Clause 5252.216-9217, Alt I appears to be speaking to the Delivery Order process that will be used on the contract after Delivery Order 1 (since it is awarded concurrent with the IDIQ contract). Please confirm this applies to Delivery Order 2 and beyond.

Answer: Clause 5252.216-9217, Alt I shall apply to all delivery/task orders issued under the contract.

68. Question: Will the Government provide the anticipated not to exceed value of oral orders prior to release of the final RFP?

Answer: The final RFP has been updated to remove reference to oral orders.

69. Question: Paragraph 52.216-1, Type of Contract, indicates the Government intends to award a single award IDIQ contract. However, para 5252.216-9217, is confusing and indicates a multi award IDIQ. Please clarify. (NOTE: The Government desires more than one offeror to submit a proposal to this action. To that end, the Government requests that, should a potential offeror decide not to propose on this action, they document to the Government via email why no proposal is being submitted. In this email, the offeror is requested to indicate if a total of 30 days to respond to the RFP would cause the offeror to submit a proposal. )

Answer: The final RFP has been updated.

70. Question: In subsection (c) it states that the 10 listed Labor Categories are the only ones that will be chargeable on this contract but they do not include all the labor categories required to execute the FFP-LOE CLINs. For example the Cyber Security/IA personnel required to support CLIN 0004 for the scope described in Section 3.4.6 are not listed. Similarly the Quality Engineering support required in Section 6, the FSO Security Officer Support required in Par 8.1.2 and the Program office support personnel such as the Contracts Administrator, Subcontracts Administrator, Financial Analyst and Clerical support to name a few. Will the Government allow the contractor to propose additional allowable Labor Categories for the additional direct bill personnel required to execute CLINs 0004 and 0009?

Answer: Clause 5252.237-9600 and provision L-328 (Level of Effort) of the final RFP have been updated.

71. Question: There appears to be a conflict between 5252.237-9600 and paragraph L-328 (3). Please clarify the Government's intent as to what additional labor categories may be added to the contract.

Answer: Clause 5252.237-9600 and provision L-328 (Level of Effort) of the final RFP have been updated.

72. Question: The Page Limitations section references "Reference Information Sheet – Summary Data, Attachment 1A" and "Reference Information Sheet – Contract Specific Data Attachment 1B" however, neither attachment was provided in the draft documentation. Will the Government provide those attachments?

Answer: The attachments will be provided with the final RFP.

73. Question: In the Past Performance instructions, the draft document references "Attachment 2 – Past Performance Questionnaire" however, Attachment 2 was not provided. Will the Government provide the attachment?

Answer: The attachments will be provided with the final RFP.

74. Question: In the Section L Format Instructions, a page is defined as 8.5"x 11." Will the Government revise the formatting instructions to allow 11" x 17" foldouts?

Answer: Government will not revise the page definition.

75. Question: Will the Government consider increasing the page count indicated in the Proposal Format instructions for Factor A, AATS SW product, from 30 pages to 40 pages? This would allow offerors to provide a more detailed and thorough response to the AATS solution Software Product offering.

Answer: Government will not revise the page count.

76. Question: Will the demonstration script be included as part of the Notification Package?

Answer: No. As indicated in Section L, the demonstration script will be provided on the day of the demonstration.

77. Question: Can the Government confirm that the Software Licensing Disclosure, Attachment 15, is also excluded from the AATS Software Product Description’s 30-page limit?

Answer: As stated in provision L-317, there is no page limit for the Software Licensing Disclosure (Attachment 15), and it is not included in the 30-page limit for the software license description under Factor A.

78. Question: Concerning CLIN 0009 hours. Are the CLIN 0009 hours replicated in each of the remaining 4 years? or Are CLIN 0009 hours are to be spread at the contractor’s discretion among the remaining 4 years.

Answer: Projected allocation of CLIN 0009 labor hours by contract year will be included in Attachment 4A (Prime Pricing Model) to be provided with the final RFP.

79. Question: concerning CLIN 0004, will the government verify that CLIN 0004 hours are allocated to the base year?

Answer: Projected allocation of CLIN 0004 labor hours by contract year will be included in Attachment 4A (Prime Pricing Model) to be provided with the final RFP.

80. Question: AATS draft solicitation dated 3 April 2017 on page 44, paragraph 4.2 requires the use of existing government licensing agreements wherever possible for commercial product license acquisition. Can the AATS program clarify if the program can use either the DON licensing agreements or the MCIA agreements? For example, Microsoft products are required to be purchased thru a DON agreement with Insight Public Sector; whereas, under MCIA authority, Microsoft licenses are purchased under an ICBPA thru Dell and administered thru DIA. A better understanding of how the AATS program can utilize these various types of government software ELA contracts will allow a more accurate price, and definitive license language as required by paragraph 3.3.1.3.

Answer: The Government will evaluate proposed software licensing agreements as indicated in the RFP.

81. Question: The Draft RFP does not include a requirement that software be sourced from an American vendor. Will the Government allow software components to be purchased from a foreign vendor/software company?

Answer: To be determined.

82. Question: In the latest DRFP for AATS, there are many references to clause 5252.227-9216. We have been unable to discover what that clause is or to obtain a copy of the clause. It seems to have been added to the latest DRFP version issued April 3 as I was not in the previous version of the DRFP. Would the government please provide the full text of the clause?

Answer: The full text of provision 5252.227-9216 will be provided with the final RFP.

83. Question: Is the response date for questions/comments on the AATS PWS now April 28?

Answer: No, the response date for questions/comments on the AATS DRAFT RFP documents posted on 3 April 2017 is Thursday, 6 April 2017 at 5:00 pm Eastern as identified in the narrative provided in the 3 April 2017 DRAFT RFP posting. NOTE: The 28 April 2017 Response Date identified on the FedBizOpps (FBO) website (and all previous Response Dates cited in this information block to date) is an FBO system requirement and is intended to identify the actual closing date for the RFP. However, as the final/official RFP is still pending, the Government will continue to extend the "closing date" on the FBO "Response Date" block to ensure the web link remains active and viable and can be utilized to post the official AATS RFP.

84. Question: On what basis has SPAWAR concluded that the USMC AATS requirement cannot be met by a commercial item? Has SPAWAR also examined whether modified commercial items could meet the USMC AATS requirements or whether the USMC AATS requirements could be modified in a manner which allows them to be satisfied by commercial items?

Answer: Based upon market research, the Government has determined the AATS requirement to be non-commercial. As identified in the draft and final RFP, offerors are encouraged to use commercial item and non-developmental item components, to the maximum extent practicable.

85. Question: Why does SPAWAR believe that the USMC AATS requirement may need non-commercial development?

Answer: Based upon market research results, the Government has determined that non-commercial development may be required for initial delivery of the AATS software as well as during performance of the subject matter expert technical support services under CLINs 0004 and 0009.

86. Question: What specific USMC AATS requirements cannot be met by commercial item solutions?

Answer: Through market research, the Government has determined that there is no commercial solution that meets the entire AATS requirement; however, as identified in the draft and final RFP, offerors are encouraged to use commercial item and non-developmental item components, to the maximum extent practicable.