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

RFP N66001-17-R-0169

Questions and Answers

Question 1: In regards to the submission of organizational experiences that address SOW 3.1, is the government evaluating experience on these exact systems or would similar experience performing systems engineering, software design, etc. be deemed relevant? If only experience on the stated systems is desired, then how would any company besides the incumbent be able to show relevancy?

Answer: Relevance is not strictly limited to the stated systems. Please review the explanation of relevance in RFP provision M-307(e), section 1.2.2. The Government disagrees with the assumption that there is only one incumbent.

Furthermore, the Government disagrees that only incumbents may be able to demonstrate relevant experience.

Question 2: The scope of this contract will include systems engineering, software design/development, integration, testing, installation, training, life cycle maintenance, procurement support, help desk services, management support, and system documentation for DRRS-S and all systems reporting readiness data into DRRS-S and into the enterprise.” Can the government confirm that past performances can be considered acceptable by describing work that fulfills the technical requirements without citing DRRS-S and enterprise systems.

Answer: Past performance will be evaluated in accordance with RFP provision M-307(e), section 1.2.3. The RFP states: “An offeror’s past performance is relevant when it is similar to the kinds of challenges that may occur under the contract contemplated by this RFP. Relevance may include, but is not limited to, similarity to work contemplated under the RFP with respect to complexity, length of performance, number of tasks, scope, type of work, and value.” The Government cannot comment regarding the relevancy of an offeror’s specific past performance at this time.

Question 3: Will the Government provide applicable architecture, CDRL, and DODAD artifacts for RCRP?

Answer: Documentation is available. Please review RFP provision L-3 for access procedures.

Question 4: When does the AMSRR accreditation expire?

Answer: AMSRR Afloat expires 8 July 2017. AMSRR Ashore expires 30 September 2017.

Question 5: Is AMSRR currently accredited under DIACAP or RMF?

Answer: Accreditation is currently being renewed through the RMF process.

Question 6: When does the RCRP accreditation expire?

Answer: RCRP accreditation expires 22 October 2017.

Question 7: Is RCRP currently accredited under DIACAP or RMF?

Answer: RCRP accreditation is being renewed through the RMF process.

Question 8: Section L (d), pg. 117, The RFP states hard copy proposals are to be delivered in person to Carlos Triay in San Diego, CA. Does the Government require both electronic upload and printed copies to be delivered by

August 17th and does this mean hand delivered by a representative from our Company? Is a mail service not permitted?

Answer: Please note that the proposal due date in the question is incorrect. Yes, both hard copy and electronic proposals are required to be submitted. Although both submissions are due on the proposal due date, “The electronic submission governs for the purpose of the submission, modification and withdrawal of bids and proposals” (see

SUBMISSION OF ELECTRONIC PROPOSALS (SEP 2008), paragraph (d)). The RFP will be amended to allow submission of hard copy proposals by mail.

Question 9: Can the SDP page limit be expanded from 50 pages to 75 pages?

Answer: The government believes 50 pages is sufficient to address the SDP; this page limitation will not be amended in the RFP.

Question 10: Page 18, Section 3.1.1 and Page 122, Section D

Section 3.1.1 states:

The contractor shall perform software engineering tasks at Software Engineering Institute (SEI) Capability Maturity

Model Integration (CMMI) Level 3 (or higher) software processes capability (or equivalent SEI rating). If the software developer does not have at least an SEI Level 3 rating, a risk mitigation plan and schedule shall be submitted to describe, in detail, actions that shall be taken to attain at least an SEI Level 3 or equivalent rating accreditation. The Government reserves the right to validate the software developer's process assertions and representations by conducting an evaluation or appraisals of the contractor's organization using commonly accepted

Industry/Government validation practices.

Whereas the SDP states:

Offerors shall also submit, as a part of their proposal, an SDP Rationale which describes why their specific approach is appropriate for the system(s) to be developed and how their proposed processes are equivalent to those articulated by CMMI-DEVR capability level 3.

1) Are we correct in assuming that contractors are not required to be CMMI Level 3 certified, but rather have processes that are equivalent to the requirements of CMMI?

2) A. Are contractors who are not CMMI Level 3 certified required to submit a Risk Mitigation plan and schedule with their proposal response?

B. If so, where is that to be included and can we assume it is outside of the page count?

Answer: Contractors are required to have either CMMI level 3 OR equivalent capability. A risk mitigation plan and schedule is not required to be submitted with the proposal.

Question 11: The solicitation states:

“SUBMISSION OF ELECTRONIC PROPOSALS (SEP 2008) part (3) Cost or Pricing Type Data: All information relating to cost and pricing type data shall be included only in the section of the proposal designated by the Contracting Officer as the Cost Proposal and in the second copy compatible with Microsoft Excel 2010. Under no circumstances shall cost and pricing type data be included elsewhere in the proposal.”

However, the Technical proposal, Volume III, Section E, Small Business Participation Plan states that “For each subcontractor proposed, offerors must ensure that the subcontractor names and values listed in the Small Business

Commitment Sheet match the subcontractor names and values listed in Volume II of the proposal”. The Small

Business Commitment Sheet (Attachment 7) includes columns for “$ Value of the Subcontract” and “% of Total

Acquisition Value”.

Inclusion of this data in Section E, Volume III, will result in cost and pricing data embedded within the technical proposal. The total bid pricing for the offeror’s proposal can be derived / ascertained from the dollars and percentages of total acquisition. Will the government remove “$ Value of the Subcontract” from this attachment or ensure this information is not reviewed or evaluated during the technical evaluation process?

Answer: The Government will remove “$ Value of the Subcontract” from RFP Attachment 7.

Question 12: The SUBMISSION OF ELECTRONIC PROPOSALS (SEP 2008) part (a) states that offeror shall submit their proposals electronically. The final paragraph of the clause states, “Offerors shall deliver hard copy proposals in person to the delivery address below.” Will the Government please remove the hard copy delivery requirement given the electronic submission?

Answer: Hard copies are required. The RFP will be amended to allow submission of hard copy proposals by mail.

Question 13: Section 2.1.2, pg 10 lists IEEE/IEC 12207:2008(E) Systems and Software Engineering-Software Life

Cycle Processes as an applicable document for this solicitation. Section 3.3.2, page 18 references 12207.0, which is the dated standard and which has been updated by the 12207:2008(E) standard. Will the Government please update

Section 3.3.2 to reference 12207:2008(E) as the 12207.0 is dated 1996 and 12207:2008 is the current standard and aligns to the applicable documents section (2.1.2)?

Answer: The RFP will be amended to updated the standard to 12207:2008(E).

Question 14: Section 3.4.7 references “DoD Instruction 8510.01-M”. Will the Government update this reference to

“DoD Instruction 8510.01”. This change aligns to the most recent release of the Instruction covering Risk

Management Framework (RMF) for DoD Information Technology (IT).

Answer: Yes – 8510.01-M was cancelled by 8510.01. The RFP will be updated.

Question 15: Section L, Section B – Organizational Experience references Software Lifecycle Support ((SOW Para

3.1.1)). However, Software Life Cycle Support is referenced in SOW Para 3.2. Will the Government please update the SOW reference in Section L to reflect “Software Lifecycle Support (SOW para 3.2)”? SOW 3.1.1 is also already embedded in SOW para 3.1, Program Life Cycle Support.

Answer: Yes. The RFP will be updated.

Question 16: Section L states, “The type used shall be no smaller than Times New Roman, 10-point.” Will the

Government allow 8pt font for graphics?

Answer: The RFP is correct and will not be modified with regard to font size for graphics.

Question 17: Will the Government please confirm that references to “each program” or “the programs” in Section A of Volume III. As written “programs” is not defined which may lead to different interpretations amongst offerors.

Will the Government please specify “each program” refers specifically to the DRRS-S, RCRP and AMSRR programs referenced in Understanding of the Work and Requirements to clarify this requirement?

Answer: Yes, “ each program” refers to DRRS-S, RCRP, and AMSRR. This will be clarified in the RFP.

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 RFP Q&A.

Question 19: Section L, Volume II, 2.4 states, “Additionally, these amounts do not include any provision for G&A expense or other loading factors Offerors shall not propose fee on ODCs or any indirect costs that are applied to

ODCs.” Is G&A considered an indirect cost applied to ODC? Will government confirm we should be applying our approved G&A rates to ODCs?

Answer: The question misquotes the RFP. The RFP states:

“Additionally, these amounts do not include any provision for G&A expense or other loading factors. Offerors shall not propose fee on ODCs or on any indirect costs that are applied to ODCs.” (RFP provision L-317, 2.4(a))

Furthermore, the RFP states:

“For the ODC CLINs, offerors shall propose amounts that are the sum of the Government stated amount and any indirect cost applied to the Government stated amount.” (RFP provision L-317, 2.4(b))

Question 20: Will the Government confirm that offeror’s proposals will be incorporated into the final award?

Answer: The Government does not anticipate incorporating the offeror’s proposal(s) into the final award(s).

Question 21: The Government provided DRRS-S Information Support Plan (ISP) document is dated 2012-09-17.

The Interface Requirements Specification (IRS) artifact is dated 2015-12-21.

Answer: The ISP is the government vetted and approved document. The IRS has been removed from the list of available artifacts.

Question 22: Please provide the specifications, standards, and descriptions for the systems outlined in the subject solicitation as per 252.211-7001 (page 104 of the solicitation). More specifically, we request Interface Control

Documents, Interface Design Description Documents, Database Design Descriptions, system specifications, program briefs, Department of Defense Architecture Framework documents, and concept of operations briefs for the systems listed in the statement of work (DRRS-S, AMSRR, and RCRP).

Answer: Please follow the procedures in 252.211-7001 and L-3 for retrieving applicable program documents.

Please note that DoD Directives/Instructions are readily available at http://www.esd.whs.mil/DD/DoD-Issuances rather than upon request. Please also note that additional system documents were added to the access location

(available upon request per the RFP) on 26 June 2017 and 30 June 2017.

Question 23: Request: OSD Memo 2 Aug 2010, Defense Readiness Reporting System (DRRS) Standards and

Technical Interface Specifications for Interoperability, which was listed in the SOW 2.1.2 (page 9 of the solicitation).

Answer: Please follow the procedures in 252.211-7001 and L-3 for retrieving applicable program documents.

Question 24: RFP Section M 1.2.4, Page 122: The solicitation reads, “The Government will evaluate the offeror’s previous experience in developing software using the same or similar approach as proposed for this solicitation. The results of any standard model-based process maturity appraisals performed within 24 months prior to proposal submission...”

A CMMI certification is valid for a three year period; accordingly maturity appraisals are conducted every three years (i.e. 36 months) instead of every two years (i.e., 24 months). Will the government change 24 months to 36 months?

Answer: RFP provision M-307(e), section 1.2.4 will be corrected to state 36 months.

http://www.esd.whs.mil/DD/DoD-Issuances

Question 25: RFP Section C, Statement of Work 3.3.6, Page 15: The Statement of Work reads, “The contractor shall test the software, provide test reports, and demonstrate successful operation of the developed software to the

Government.”

Will the Government provide a classified test environment for qualification (acceptance) testing? If the contractor is responsible for providing this environment, will the Government provide a SIPRNET connection in the contractor’s facility?

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. No SIPRNET connections will be provided.

Question 26: RFP Section C, Statement of Work 3.3.2, Page 18: The Statement of Work reads, “This approach shall be documented in a Software Development Plan (SDP) (see DID No. DI-IPSC-81427B for required format and content).” RFP L-317, Volume III-Technical, Section D- Software Development Plan, Page 115 “The offeror’s entire Software Development Plan, inclusive of the draft SDP, SDP Rationale, and all descriptions of previous software experience shall be limited to not more than 50 single sided pages.”

Will the Government exempt the following from the SDP limitation of 50 pages: Title Page, Table of Contents, Notes, and Appendices?

Answer: The stated page limitation will not be modified.

Question 27: SF33, proposal due date, 18 July 2017.

Will the Government extend the proposal due date by 2 weeks to August 1, 2017? Given the extensive detailed requirements of the RFP, this extension will provide for increased competition and better proposals for the

Government to evaluate.

Answer: The proposal due date will be extended to 27 July 2017.

Question 28: RFP Section L-317, Submission of Proposals: The RFP reads, “The type used shall be no smaller than

Times New Roman, 10-point. For each factor, the Government will evaluate the specific content requested by this solicitation.”

May Offeror’s use 8-point font in the Arial family for graphics, tables, and charts as long as the font is legible?

Answer: The RFP is correct and will not be modified with regard to font size for graphics.

Question 29: RFP Section L-317, Submission of Proposals: Are the Cover Page, Title Page, Tables of Contents and Figures, and the Acronym List excluded from the page-count limitation for Volume III?

Answer: This information is not requested as part of Volume III. As such, this information would not be considered.

Question 30: Attachment 5, Reference Information Sheet. Should Offerors include Attachment 5, Reference

Information Sheet, in Section B Organizational Experience or in Section C Past Performance?

Answer: In accordance RFP provision L-317 III.B., the Reference Information Sheets should be submitted as part of Section B of Volume III.

Question 31: RFP, Section E – Small Business Participation. Is there a page limit for Attachment 7, “Small

Business Participation Commitment Sheet” or for the Small Business Subcontracting Plan?

Answer: There is no page limitation. However, please note that in accordance with RFP provision L-317 III.E., the only submission required is one copy of RFP Attachment 7.

Question 32: RFP L-341(d) – Submission of Electronic Proposals. The solicitation reads, “Offerors shall deliver hard copy proposals in person to the delivery address below.”

Are FedEx and UPS permitted as means of proposal delivery in lieu of in person delivery?

Answer: The RFP will be amended to allow submission of hard copy proposals by mail.

Question 33: RFP L-339 – Notice of Organizational Conflict of Interest. Is there a page limit for the OCI Plan?

Answer: There is no page limitation associated with an OCI mitigation plan, if applicable.

Question 34: Attachment 1 – DD254. Should Offerors include the DD254 as a placeholder within the Volume 1 –

Offer?

Answer: No. Although the DD-254 is an attachment to the RFP, offerors are not to complete or submit this document with the proposal.

Question 35: When the Government released the GRFME RFI and SOW in 2016, there was a reference to OSD

Memo 2 Aug 2010, Defense Readiness Reporting System (DRRS) Standards and Technical Interface Specifications for Interoperability. Will the Government supply a copy of that memo please?

Answer: The document is available. Please follow the procedures in 252.211-7001 and L-3 to obtain a copy.