Market Research QA 2-22-17.pdf

Industry Questions & Government Answers 22 February 2017 *Blue font indicates update from 1/18/17 Q&A

Q&A Compiled for all three Command-Wide Contracts

Q&A Applicable to N65236-16-R-0026, N65236-16-R-0027 & N65236-16-R-0036 Industry Question Government Response

The Cyber Mission Engineering (R-0026) and Cyber Mission Assurance (R-0027) will be Full & Open, and thus unlikely for a SB to successfully compete for a prime contract.

As briefed at the C5ISR Government and Industry Partnership Summit, the planned acquisition strategy involves the issuance of a full and open competitive procurement with small business reserves. The Government plans on seeking industry feedback on the execution of this strategy in order to encourage maximum small business participation for the Cyber Mission Engineering as well as the Cyber Mission Assurance requirements. This contract strategy will not preclude small business from competing as prime contractor for either requirement. This will feature of the solicitation will enable the ability to award a prime contract(s) to successful SB.

For those Small Business’ and companies that just graduated to large business’, would the requirement to have an established office in the Charleston area be required prior to an award of the MAC IDIQ or subsequent TO’s? Or can the company establish a full time corporate presence after the initial TO award?

The source selection criteria have not been determined at this time. Additionally, any necessary contractor facilities requirements will be determined by the government prior to task order award.

To enable new contractors to enter/compete/win new work with SSC LANT, will SPAWAR allow the contractor to obtain the Navy / USMC Validator certificate 30 post award? Or will there be a requirement to have a certified validator prior to submission of a TO response?

The source selection criteria have not been determined at this time.

If SPAWAR established a Large Business contract and multiple Small Business Set Aside contracts, will SPAWAR restrict the number of Small Business teams a large business can participate on either within a single SB socio-economic category or within separate socio-economic categories?

The Government does not anticipate any restrictions on the number teams on which an offeror may propose;

however, if an offeror submits a proposal as a prime contractor on this RFP and is also proposed as a subcontractor for a different prime contractor on this RFP, the offeror must disclose to the prime for whom they will be a subcontractor that they are also proposing as a prime themselves.

For those companies that have “5” CPAR rated engagements within Federal Civilian Agencies, will SPAWAR discount or disregard these Past Performance examples since they are not Navy contracts?

The source selection criteria have not been determined at this time.

Request that notional, sample, or potential Task Orders that may support the Cyber Mission Engineering/Assurance contracts be made available to all potential bidders. That way, we can make the business case to invest B&P dollars, based on a qualified and quantified Task Order list that supports an IDIQ contract ceiling valuation of $500M.

This is currently being considered for the formal RFP process. More details will be provided at a later time.

7 Where do the responses for these questions get posted? And with what frequency?

All questions and answers will be posted on the SPAWAR e-Commerce website as questions are provided to the Government. It is the Government’s intent to update once a month when new questions are received. This update will be made mid-month.

Because single-award IDIQs have been mostly phased out, fewer companies will be able to report large contracts with a substantial dollar amount invoiced within the past 3 to 5 years. For the Cornerstone Contracts, will the Government consider lowering the qualifying threshold or expanding the window of relevancy to 10 years?

We are still in the Acquisition Planning phase but will take this into consideration.

9 What criteria will decide whether work goes onto a GWAC vs. a Cornerstone MAC?

This is an internal process and will depend on scope of work at the task order level.

10 Where can we find the Q&A input to the functional mailbox run by Ms. Sheela Casper?

The Command Wide MACS (Cyber Mission Assurance, Cyber Engineering, etc) can be found under SSC LANT Future Opportunities under the respective solicitation numbers. Included in the attachments for each of those is the Q&As, which are updated to show questions submitted to the functional mailbox. I recommend subscribing to the relevant solicitations by clicking on the "subscribe" button at the top of each E-Commerce page so you will be notified when updates are made.

Industry needs clear definition of the term “Cyber Hunt.” Some DoD definitions of “Cyber Hunt” or “Hunt Teams” comes in conflict with specific Title 10/50 restrictions. Please clearly define the terms “Cyber Hunt,” “Hunt Teams,” and other “Offensive Cyber Hunt/Kill” terms.

Cyber Hunt is not used in any of the command-wide draft PWS’s at this time.

Upon contract award will SPAWAR limit contractor marketing of the vehicle similarly to the rules limiting marketing for the Pillar contracts?

The Government is in the process of reviewing the marketing limitations for this effort.

Will information on the anticipated 3rd Quarter industry day, including registration information, be released on via FBO/e-Commerce?

The Government will release all updates on the forthcoming procurements on FBO and e-Commerce.

Currently it still is the intent of the Government to have an Industry day in 3rd Quarter Fiscal Year 2017.

Q&A Applicable to N65236-16-R-0026 Industry Question Government Response

This question is in reference to the security clearance requirement for the Cyber Mission Engineering MAC. The current status indicates it is TS/SCI for the MAC and all Task Orders. Is the government considering making it Secret level and then based upon the task order, having a requirement for TS/SCI based upon the task order requirement?

The Government anticipates that most of the task orders will require predominately TS/SCI access, thus any awardees without this DSS certification would have to get facilities upgrades to TS at time of award and maintain this level of Facility Clearance in order to compete on future requirements.

With Regard to the RFI on small business reserves, para 3.a, last sentence states Those small businesses will have an equal opportunity to bid on subsequent Task Orders. In this possible strategy, The final acquisition strategy has not yet been determined; however, the Government anticipates that utilizing Small Business Reserves would enable awarded small businesses MAC holders to compete on the Task is that opportunity to bid on subsequent task orders among the small business entities that qualify for the IDIQ or equally with large businesses as well, and if a small business is scored adequately on the task order they would get preference for that award over a large competitor?

Orders set aside for small businesses. It would not preclude the small business from competing on other full and open MAC task order solicitations. However, the small business would not be given preference over large businesses under the full and open MAC task order competitions.

Q&A Applicable to N65236-16-R-0027

Is the Government intending for this to be a SB set-aside, F&O or combined competition in NAICS code 541330?

a. If SB set-aside, will it be further defined by socio-economic category?

b. If the latter, what will the SB goals be for large companies and will there be a SB set-aside track for some subset of Prime awards?

The Government anticipates a full and open competitive acquisition with small business reserves. The source selection criteria have not been determined at this time.

Has the Government considered using the GSA IT-70 Schedule (SIN 132-51) as a possible contract vehicle for this work?

The Government is evaluating all available contracting vehicles that are capable of providing the required support for these efforts taking into account the security level and classification requirements of various requirements.

Q&A Applicable to N65236-16-R-0036

The Cyber Mission Systems, Kits, & Supplies (R- 0036) has been labeled a Supply type contract with a NAICS 34220, which has a HUGE employee size threshold of 1,250 employees. In addition, this appears to be aimed at mature small business “procurement services” companies (e.g.

MERCOM) who buy a huge $volume of materials for the government but do not provide “engineering services” like we do. It thus appears that your strategy is aimed at having the large businesses deliver the engineering services, while SPAWAR reaches its Small Business goals via Material Procurement companies. This strategy unfortunately (and hopefully inadvertently) serves to restrict small engineering services firms from growing and prospering, an unintended side effect we believe is also not in the best interest of SPAWAR itself in the future. Can you provide further information to the Small Business Engineering community that will help allay our concerns? How does a company like mine get a chance at a SPAWAR prime contract with the current strategy?

The Government's strategy sets this procurement aside to Small Business based on market research conducted by the Government. The Government anticipates that there will be robust competition from small business concerns, based on the market survey results and the level of industry interest in this effort. SPAWAR's strategy does not intend to restrict small business. It has been determined that NAICS 334220 is the appropriate code for this procurement based on the required tasking and the size standard for each NAICS is determined by the Small Business Administration.

In reference to DoD service providing comment on the kitting contract, does the government plan to accept past performance citations from the Army, SPAWAR will review past performance from other Government agencies for current and relevant contract references as determined by the source selection criteria.

Air Force, Defense Agencies, Joint Staff, or COCOMs?

Is SSC Atlantic aware of the Promotion of Value- Based Defense Procurement (LPTA) document, and are they taking this into consideration when developing the acquisition strategies?

Yes.

For the facility security clearance, is the government’s intent to require the facility be within a certain distance from the place of performance?

The requirements are still being developed but the current intent is not to require a facility within a certain distance from performance.

Would the Government consider using NAICS 335999 with a size standard of 500 employees, used for C5ISR ARCHITECTURE

ENGINEERING AND INTEGRATION

PRODUCTION AND INTEGRATION

SUPPORT contract? Doing so will truly make this opportunity a Small Business Set Aside, eliminating medium size companies falling under NAICS 334220 with a size standard of 1,250 employees.

The appropriate NAICS for this procurement is 334220.

6 Where do the responses for these questions get posted? What Frequency?

All questions and answers will be posted on the SPAWAR e-Commerce website as questions are provided to the Government.

How does the current version of N65236-16-R- 0036 directly or similarly relate to the Market Survey from 2015 when the majority of the systems are Navy?

The Government analyzed its current requirements in the PWS against the requirements of the original Mobile C4I PWS requirements and determined there was not a significant difference in the areas that were evaluated under the posted market survey. Although task areas were added to the PWS, those additions were not in the major task areas that were evaluated in the market survey nor would they have been used to determine the acquisition strategy. Therefore, the results of the posted market survey were applicable to this requirement.

During the industry presentation, believe you all announced that SB plan would be removed on final RFP. Since this was released as NAICS 334220, which is considered “small” but isn’t really, will there be additional small business objectives associated with this award? Will there be Socioeconomic targets to receive Prime awards?

The source selection criteria have not been determined at this time.

9 Will there be a limited number of Prime awardees? The source selection criteria have not been determined at this time.

At the IDIQ level, will companies be allowed to Prime one proposal and sub on another Prime’s proposal? Will companies be allowed to sub to multiple Prime proposals (non-exclusive)?

If an offeror submits a proposal as a prime contractor on this RFP and is also proposed as a subcontractor for a different prime contractor on this RFP, the offeror must disclose to the prime for whom they will be a subcontractor that they are also proposing as a prime themselves.

3.2.2.X, In many cases, the deliverables do not seem to match the requirements. Many of the deliverables appear to be DoD 5000 products;

however, these types of services are often not mentioned in the narrative. Recommend a good review of the products under each phase.

We are reviewing the additional detailed specifics in

3.2.2 and a finalized PWS will be available during the solicitation.

3.2.2.X, In many cases, locations are cited, such as “lab” (3.2.2.4) and “test environment” (3.2.2.3), without notification if these are Government or contractor provided. Recommend the Government clarify facilities when required as to whether the Government will provide the facilities or if the contractor needs to provide the facilities.

We are reviewing the reviewing additional detailed specifics in 3.2.2 and a finalized PWS will be available during the solicitation.

3.2.2.X, Some of the sections do a good job of providing a high-level explanation of the work required, whereas other areas only provide a sentence or two of amplifying information. We believe the Software Defined Radio section is a good model for the type of information portrayed in these sections. Recommend strengthening some of the language in the narrative to highlight contractor requirements.

We are reviewing the reviewing additional detailed specifics in 3.2.2 and a finalized PWS will be available during the solicitation.

3.2.2.X, Level 4 PWS requirements (PWS X.X.X.X) call out system prototyping, LRIP, FRP, etc. for systems that are already in planning or deployed and in sustainment. This wording is used at the beginning of each section; however, some of these phases don’t appear applicable to certain functional requirements. Recommend the Government ensure that these various phases (e.g.

prototyping, etc.) are indeed required by the contractor for each section.

We are reviewing the reviewing additional detailed specifics in 3.2.2 and a finalized PWS will be available during the solicitation.

3.2.2.X, Some of the systems are Joint at the COCOM level vice Service level (i.e., equipment/systems); wheeled/tracked vehicles, MRAP (USA/USMC); Intel Systems (SIGINT, JWICS); Cryptographic systems (development/prototyping is an NSA function).

Recommend the Government clarify the end user base?

End users will be defined at the task order / delivery order level.

3.2.2.2, The requirements in the KM and Data Fusion section appear more suited to the SATCOM section (PWS 3.2.2.3). The requirements appear to be a cut and paste effort from the SATCOM exception except for the M&S requirements. Those requirements do appear to be more appropriate for the SATCOM section;

however, the M&S requirements do not appear in that section.

We are reviewing the reviewing additional detailed specifics in 3.2.2 and a finalized PWS will be available during the solicitation.

3.3 PM, Recommend Government clarify if some

task orders require use of company tools that are compatible with SPAWAR/NAVY enterprise tools, such as Risk Manager, CMPRO, or VISIO?

Requirements will be identified at the Task Order / Delivery Order Level.

3.5 T&E, Recommend Government clarify if some

task orders require use of company tools that are compatible with SPAWAR/NAVY enterprise tools?

Requirements will be identified at the Task Order / Delivery Order Level.

5.4 EVM, Recommend clearer language for the

EVM requirements. It appears that the EVM is required for certain sized Programs at the DO level; however, shouldn’t the EVM be based on

EVM implementation will be determined at the delivery/task order level since this IDIQ contract is utilized by multiple users and programs and may not be necessary for every order issued under the MAC.

the DO and not necessarily the Program? If a DO has 1 FTE, would EVM still be required even if it is a large program.

7.2 Electronic Format, Recommend the

Government clarify versions of software that are required.

Requirements will be identified at the Task Order / Delivery Order Level.

8.1.2 Security Officer, Recommend the

Government provide further information on what the Cyber Security Workforce (CSWF) that is used for an FSO to track data?

Requirements will be identified at the Task Order / Delivery Order Level.

8.2 Personnel, The Government is making this

(CSWF) applicable more frequently. Recommend the Government provide information on which positions are reportable under CSWF and what the minimal level of certification is for those particular positions?

Guidance and certification requirements will be in accordance with SECNAV Manual 5239.2 and DOD Directive 8140.01.

11.2.3 Property Transfer between Government and

Contracts, Section 11.2.3 seems to indicate that the Contractor will be required to store COMSEC material per the following. "As a backup process to the electronic tracking, SSC Atlantic property management specifies use of …. And/or COMSEC Material Report (SF 153) to validate actual transfer of property physically occurred.

Recommend the Government clarify if this is indeed required and release a draft DD 254.

Clarification will allow contractors to better prepare for the contract requirements and determine pursuit/bid decisions.

COMSEC storage may be required at the Task Order / Delivery Order level.

Small Business Subcontracting Plan, A Small Business Subcontracting Plan is typically not required for a small business set aside contract.

Recommend the Government delete the requirement for a Small Business Subcontracting Plan

Yes, this will be removed from the RFP PWS.

Recommend the Government consider including a table or separate tables that list the system and what is required for the system (e.g. ICD, CONOPS, AOA, SEP, CDD, CPD, etc.)? This would provide contractors a better method of identifying the support requirement and determine relevancy requirements.

The Government is currently finalizing the PWS and will make sure all requirements are clearly defined.

With a broad-scoped PWS to support a large MAC, it can be difficult for companies to make bid decisions without knowledge of award criteria expectations. Releasing a draft version of Sections L & M and the DD 254 would provide prospective companies plenty of time to build appropriate Teams to offer their best capabilities to the Government without expending undue resources.

Recommend the Government release draft versions of Section L /M and DD254?

The Government plans to post a draft for Sections L&M and DD254 prior to release of the formal solicitation.

Due to the complexity of the PWS and enormous amount of systems covered, a technical proposal submission will allow the contractor to expand

The source selection criteria have not been determined at this time.

upon their experience and knowledge in addition to the PP. It will also allow the entire experience of the team to be shown. Will the Government have a requirement for a Technical proposal write up in addition to the PP requirement?

Can the Government provide further information on what the value of the PP be and how many past years 3 or 5 is required to be considered Relevant Experience?

The source selection criteria have not been determined at this time.

29 Key Personnel, Can the Government identify the key labor categories?

If key personnel are required, they will be identified in the draft RFP.

6.2.1, Software, This section requires CMMI for Services or Products from the Prime by Contract award. The context of the requirement in the section is wrapped around software development (e.g. "Due to existing Program requirements, the contactor shall have a QMS for all software services provided under this contract that also conforms to the standards of Software Engineering Institute's CMM and/or CMMI..." If a prime will not focus on software development, shouldn't this be considered at the DO level? Would the Government consider placing these restrictions at the DO level vice the contract level especially since some prime contractors will not focus on S/W development? Furthermore, if only a portion of a DO requirement is software development, recommend the Government allow the CMMI requirement to be fulfilled by a subcontractor with the necessary software expertise.

The Government is editing the PWS to reflect that the contractor’s quality management processes do not require formal CMMI appraisal, although it is desired.

An updated draft PWS will be posted when available.

The Government will not distinguish whether the prime or subcontractors are required to meet the requirements of 6.2.1.

Which IPTs and/or competencies are driving the requirements for the subject IDIQ MAC?

The specific requirements will be driven at the task order level by various IPTs/Competencies."