N66001-17-R-0169 Draft RFP Questions & Answers.pdf

Draft RFP N66001-17-R-0169

Questions and Answers

Question 1: The Solicitation says the response is due June 21, 2017, at 4:00 PM. Is that the expected date this will be due? Is there an anticipated date of the final released?

Answer: The offerors will have 30 days to submit a proposal once the Final RFP is posted on SPAWAR

E-Commerce Central.

Question 2: Section B (a) says no more than 5 references total, however, Attachment 4 says no more than

3 references total. What is the correct number?

Answer: Section L-317, Volume III Section B will be updated to reflected no more than 3 references total.

Question 3: Are average or composite rates allowed to be used for labor categories if an individual name is not known at this time?

Answer: Yes, please see (Page 107) Section L-317 Volume II Direct Labor (a) and Page 112 Section

Corporate Cost Information (C) (4).

Question 4: Volume II (e) i, Page 107, Indicates we are to provide any other direct cost elements that are applicable to our proposal and the basis while page 110 provides specific amounts to propose for Other direct cost. Please clarify that we are to only propose the ODC amounts listed on page 110 to which the basis is “Government provided estimates”.

Answer: Please see (Page 110) Section L-317 Other Direct Cost Paragraph (c) and (d)

Question 5: Page 110, states the amounts in the table do not include any provision for G&A expense or other loading factors. It also states offers shall not propose fee on ODCs or on any indirect costs that are applied to ODCs. However, underneath the table it states that “For the ODC CLINs, Offeror shall propose amounts that are the sum of the Government stated amount and any indirect cost applied to the

Government stated amount.” Could the government please confirm we are to include appropriate indirect rates on top of the ODC estimates and will be reimbursed with such expenses during execution?

Answer: The RFP is accurate and in accordance (Page 110) Section L-317 Other Direct Cost Paragraph

(a) and (b).

Question 6: How many contract awards does the Government expect to award?

Answer: The number of awards is not specified.

Question 7: Given the extensive software development and life cycle support tasks across the SOW and the complexity of the DRRS enterprise, an offeror’s technical approach to performing software development and life cycle support should be of critical importance to the Agency for MAC I systems critical to the national and DoD mission. The importance of the Software Development Plan (SDP) was reflected in the most recent procurement for the DRRS-S Multiple Award Contract (MAC), which rated the SDP on an adjectival basis and as the most heavily weighted Non-price factor.

a. In order to adequately differentiate each offeror’s Software Development Plan, will the

Government change the evaluation criteria for the SDP to an adjectival rating rather than

Acceptable/Unacceptable? This would allow the government to fully evaluate the offeror’s approach, same-nature software experience and process experience in managing the full SDLC for systems consistent with those within the scope of this effort.

b. Will the Government increase the relative importance of the SDP among the non-price factors to be amongst the top three most important criteria given these considerations?

This will allow the Government the opportunity to better differentiate technical capability amongst bidders as it requires a detailed description of the bidder’s plan to perform software development and software development life cycle support to the quality and process maturity required for complex, mission critical systems.

Answer: The question has been considered. The SDP will now be evaluated on an adjectival and scaled basis. However the relative importance of the SDP has not been modified.

Question 8: SOW Section 3.0 Technical Requirements references “These capabilities are defined in the

DRRS-S/GVC CRD.” Will the Government please provide this document?

Answer: Yes. The Final RFP will have instructions on how to access the additional documents.

Question 9: In SOW Section 2.0, the Government lists 5 systems explicitly; however, in SOW Section

4.0 Program Life Cycle Support, DRRS-A and DRRS-MC are not included. Is Program Life Cycle

Support for DRRS-A and DRRS-MC anticipated to be performed under this MAC?

Answer: Please review the systems in the SOW.

Question 10: SOW Section 8.2 states “Software development environments will not be furnished or funded by the Government.” Will the Government confirm that all software development and test environments must be furnished by the contractor? Will the Government confirm that all software and test environments currently in use are provided by the contractor in contractor-controlled facilities?

Answer: The contractor is expected to come to each task order fully equipped to perform. ODC’s are not available to augment the contractor’s capability, rather they could cover the materials, and supplies that will be consumed in performance, and provide for limited replacement of DRRS equipment necessary to keep systems operating. The government will not provide software development, testing, and training environments as Government Furnished Equipment.

Question 11: The SOW references “systems within the enterprise are designated as high as Mission

Assurance Category I (MAC).” Is DRRS-S a MAC I system?

Answer: Yes.

Question 12: Will the Government provide the Information Support Plan, including all available DODAF artifacts for the DRRS-S system?

Answer: Yes. The Final RFP will have instructions on how to access the additional documents.

Question 13: Section L requires offerors to “submit a Technical Understanding that provides a separate response to each of the following requirements.” However, Section M states the “Government will evaluate the Technical Understanding document to determine how well the responses demonstrate the offeror’s overall understanding of the anticipated tasking.” Will the Government confirm that the requirements are evaluated in the aggregate? Will the Government confirm there are no formal sub-factors in this Section?

Answer: Yes, the Government confirms there are no formal sub-factors in this Section. See RFP( Page

121) Section M -307 Paragraph (c)(2). The RFP has been clarified to reflect the topics will be evaluated in aggregate.

Question 14: When does the DRRS-S accreditation expire? Is DRRS-S currently accredited under

DIACAP or RMF?

Answer: The DRRS-S accreditation expires on 12 January 2018. DRRS-S is currently accredited under

DIACAP.

Question 15: As it relates to Requirement 2, 3 and 4 in Section A, Technical Understanding, will the

Government confirm that references to “each program” or “the programs” refers specifically to the

DRRS-S, RCRP and AMSRR programs referenced in Requirement 1?

Answer: Yes, the RFP will be clarified.

Question 16: Section L-317 of the RFP states “Offerors may not circumvent page limitations by cross-referencing other sections of the proposal.” Will the Government confirm that cross-referencing within a

Section is permitted? For example, as Requirement 1, 2, 3 and 4 in Section A references the systems and program understanding described in Requirement 1 also within Section A, referencing content across each of these Requirements will prevent duplicative content within the page limitations for Requirements 2, 3 and 4?

Answer: The reference statement will not be removed.

Question 17: SOW Section 4.2 Software Development Lifecycle Support which includes key tasks such as transition planning, software development, engineering changes, requirements management, interoperability, SOA, database maintenance and other activities. However, this task is not required for

Section B, Organizational Experience. Given the mission criticality of the systems as detailed in this solicitation, Software Development Life Cycle support is a key SOW area. These task areas are critical to reflect a bidder’s organizational experience. Will the Government add “Software Development Lifecycle

Support (SOW para 4.2)” to Section B, Organizational Experience section and Attachment 4, Organizational Experience Matrix for this solicitation?

Answer: The question has been considered. However, evaluation factors in the RFP will not change.

Question 18: Will all answers to questions for the Draft and final RFP be incorporated into the solicitation by reference or by modification?

Answer: The RFP will reflect any necessary changes that result from this Draft RFP Q&A.

Question 19: Will the Government confirm that the five adjective combined technical/risk ratings as reflected in the most recent DoD Source Selection Procedures manual will be used for the evaluations of

Sections A and B? Will the Government modify the solicitation to incorporate the ratings either by reference or by text for clarification?

Answer: Yes, Section A and B will be evaluated in accordance with Department of Defense Source

Selection Procedures dated 01 April 2016.

Question 20: As this is a Multiple Award Contract (MAC) encompassing the entire DRRS enterprise with up to 135 FTEs annually, will the Government confirm that relevant “value” for Organizational

Experience and Past Performance factors will be assessed against comparable historical average annual expenditure for systems referenced by name in the SOW? Each of the DRRS systems are currently executed under different contracts and are awarded through different contract agencies and therefore, only represent a segment of the overall MAC value. For example, the DRRS-S system historical contract value differs greatly from the overall MAC annual level of effort. However, the DRRS-S system represents the exact type of work referenced in the SOW.

Answer: The Offeror should follow the instructions in Section M Step One 1.2.2. (Page 122)

Question 21: For each reference in the Organizational Experience and Past Performance factors, will the

Government confirm bidders can reference multiple contract and task order numbers in a single reference so long as it pertains the same referenced system or systems? For example, the period of 2012 through today encompasses a five-year period, and it is very likely that multiple contracts and task orders will cover this period for the same reference system(s) either in sequentially or in parallel as the acquisition strategy for systems varies greatly between agencies. Allowing offerors to reference more than one contract / task order numbers will allow offerors to demonstrate the full depth and breadth of the complexity, length of performance, number of tasks, scope, type of work and value for a reference system(s).

Answer: No. Block 3 of each Reference Information Sheet may reference multiple task/delivery order numbers under a single contract, but may not contain multiple contract numbers.The RFP has been clarified accordingly.

Question 22: Section B, pg 2 and 3 of 126 of the solicitation references Items 0003 and 1003 as “Data-

Base Period – Not Separately Priced.” Will the Government please clarify the purpose of these Items and provide any SOW references that apply to these?

Answer: Please see 5252.216-9217 DELIVERY/TASK ORDER PROCEDURES (SEP 2014)—

ALTERNATE II. Data CLINS refers to Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) which will be specified at Task Order level.

Question 23: Will the Government please clarify that Item 1002 Other Direct Costs (ODC) should reference the “option period of three years” and not the “base period of two years”? Will the government update the solicitation accordingly?

Answer: Yes, RFP will be updated.

Question 24: The first paragraph in SOW Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 appear to be duplicative. Will the

Government clarify whether these task paragraphs are intended to be the same? If not, will the

Government update the solicitation accordingly?

Answer: SOW has been updated.

Question 25: Will the Government increase the page limitations for Requirements 2, 3 and 4 in Section

A, Technical Understanding to 6 pages each? The current page limitations are insufficient for bidder’s to adequately present a technically differentiating approach for the complexity of tasks described for three different systems.

Answer: The RFP has been revised to include one page limitation for the entire Technical Understanding section.

Question 26: Given the solicitation requires the SDP to be submitted IAW with the content of the SOW, and must include (a) the information described in DID DI-IPSC-81427B, (b) a SDP rationale, and (c) descriptions of software experience and process experience, will the Government increase the page limitation for the SDP to 75 pages? This will allow offerors to submit a compliant response addressing all requirements of the solicitation?

Answer: No, the page limitation will remain 50 pages.

Question 27: What is the operational context that the pair-wise and strength of association relationship to readiness output are being used for?

Answer: The readiness contribution of each level of the readiness hierarchy is weighted using two distinct methodologies (Strength of Association and Pairwise Comparison), so that the most important elements have the largest impact on readiness. These methodologies produce operationally driven quantitative readiness that dynamically changes as requirements change. The result is a more accurate readiness picture which clearly demonstrates a unit's overall ability to accomplish its mission and measures the impact each resource has on assigned capabilities' contributions to the Joint Capability

Areas.

Question 28: Can you please explain the estimated Level of Effort? There is a large increase in hours after the base period but no corresponding increase in requirements. For additional context, the Training

Specialist, Help Desk Specialist, and Senior System Analyst hours drop in Year 3 and then rise above

Year 2 in Year 4.

Answer: There are currently contracts in place supporting some of the readiness reporting enterprise requirements. As these contracts end, the requirements will be competed on the GRFME contract. As indicated by the increase in total hours after the base, it is expected the ramp up will begin in year 2. The estimated labor category hours are based upon a projection of the type of work needed as the requirements are transitioned to GRFME.