ACSS II 18-R-0011 Q and A No 4.pdf

Request for Proposal (RFP) N66001-18-R-0011

ADVANCED CYBER SUPPORT SERVICES (ACSS)

IN SUPPORT OF GOVERNMENT NETWORK OPERATIONS AND SECURITY CENTER

Questions and Answers (Q & A) #4:

Q37: Organizational Experience; Page 119 of 127. Please confirm Prime contractors may submit contract references performed as a subcontractor.

A37: Yes.

Q38: L-TXT-12 - Submission of Proposals (Complex) (JUN 2017); Page 111 of 127. The instructions state that proposals shall be prepared on standard 8 1/2" by 11" formatted pages with 1" minimum margins and that the type used shall be no smaller than Times New Roman, 10-point. However, Attachment 2 - Reference Information Sheet does not comply with these margin and font requirements. Can the Government please clarify font and margin requirements for Reference Information?

A38: Proposals should follow instructions. Use Reference Information Sheet format for that portion of the proposal.

Q39: Please confirm resumes are required for the five (5) identified key personnel.

A39: Resumes are NOT required per the proposal instructions of the RFP. The key personnel must meet the requirement of the RFP during performance, and resumes (or other validating information) may be requested by the Government at any time to verify those personnel meet the performance requirements of the contract.

Q40: Please confirm Letters of Intent are required for the five (5) identified key personnel.

A40: There is no requirement for Letters of Intent for Key Personnel. However, please see L-TXT-12, Section 2.2 for how key Personnel shall be proposed. Furthermore, see L-TXT-12, Section 2.7(c)(2) which pertains to Letters of Intent for named new hires.

Q41: 3.2 Past Performance; Page 120 of 127. In Volume III - Written Capability Information, the Government allots 15 pages to Organizational Experience (the Reference Information Sheets) and 15 pages to Past Performance. Can the Government please clarify what information is required under the Past Performance section, since offerors are not to submit any additional references or narrative information?

A41: See A35 (Q and A No 3).

Q42: C-TXT-18 KEY PERSONNEL (JUN 2017); Page 60 of 127. The Government lists five (5) labor categories as key personnel. Some of these labor categories (e.g., the Applications Developer (Master)) have multiple Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) under them. Can you please confirm that only one (1) FTE per listed labor category is designated as key?

A42: Confirmed.

Q43: Task requirements for PWS 5.2.2.1 and 5.2.2.2 are duplicates; are these considered separate tasks?

Should one be corrected?

A43: PWS Section C 5.2.2.2 will be corrected via Amendment 0003 which is forthcoming.

Q44: What Section will the FTE for PWS 5.3.1 be a part of?

A44: S-3

Q45: Can the Government confirm that the support requirement for the NOC Service Desk will be 24x7x365 on the new contract?

A45: Confirmed

Q46: Can the Government validate the 24x5x52 support requirement for PWS 5.3.7? The Level of Effort (LOE) requirements in Volume II, Paragraph 2.3 do not account for this level of effort.

A46: Validated.

Q47: What are the skill sets expected to perform Transition responsibilities between Engineering and Operations?

A47: Active Directory/Exchange/Virtualization/Routing and Switching/ISSM

Q48: Do WRM personnel require the same level of 8570 certifications as the Tier III level technicians?

A48: Yes, IAT Level II

Q49: Do IT Asset and Configuration Management Support require 8570 certifications? If so, would an IAM 1 be considered acceptable?

A49: Confirm certifications required; IAT Level II

Q50: Do all EDM personnel require domain admin level access? If not, do they still require an IAT III certification?

A50: Only Domain Admins require IAT Level III

Q51: Do all EDM personnel require TS/SCI, or just personnel with domain admin or higher access requirements?

A51: Per Section C 5.3.9 all EDM personnel require access to JWICS and NSA accounts and email. A TS/SCI clearance is required to be able to have JWICS and NSA accounts.

Q53: The solicitation has identified the LOE for the NOC Service Desk as 3 FTEs (Helpdesk Specialists).

Can the Government provide the expected schedule to staff 24x7x365 with 3 FTEs?

A53: 0600 – 1800/1800 – 0600 Day Shift 1 is Sun – Tues (every other Wednesday) Shift 2 Sun – Tue (every other Sat) Shift 3 Thur – Sat (every other Wed) Shift 4 Wed – Fri (every other Sat)

Q54: Is after-hours support required from PWS sections requiring 8x5x52 support?

A54: Confirmed

Q55: Please clarify that the hours in Section 2.3 (Estimated Level of Effort) are correct. The sum of the hours in Section 2.3 (pages 114 & 115) is 190,080 per year but the hours on B-TXT-04 (page 4 & 5) shows 182,400 (delta of 7,680). The variance repeats for all contract years.

A55: See A33 (from Q&A No 3)

Q56: L-TXT-12. Is there any missing text in this section? (1) Propose on-Government-site overhead rates (i.e., rates associated with performance at Government facilities) for 100% of the level of effort for each labor category specified in paragraph 2.3 below; and [TEXT TRAILS OFF HERE] A56: Nothing missing; 100% performance at the Government-site. The “and” was unnecessary.

Q57: Regarding the Top Secret Facility Clearance, would the Government please confirm that if a joint venture (JV) is proposed as a prime, the JV will require a Top Secret Facility Clearance matching the JV company name and DUNS/CAGE Codes as a legal entity (Corporation, LLC, etc.), as according to NISPOM 1-201, 2-102b and 2-104, a Facility Clearance held by an individual concern within a JV is deemed non-compliant?

A57: Joint Ventures will require a Top Secret Facility Clearance to perform work under the contemplated contract.

Q58: Are Tables of Contents desired in any or all volumes, and will they be exempted from page limits?

A58: Tables of Contents are not necessary. If provided, they will not be included in the page count.

Q59: A recency standard of 1 January 2013 on Organizational Experience can represent work that took place five years ago, with technologies long since out of date, and work performed so many years ago loses relevance, particularly in cyber. For the sake of obtaining the most relevant examples of experience, will the Government consider raising the relevancy requirement to 1 October 2015, a three-year window of performance?

A59: No.

Q60: Will past performance from the prime contractor be weighted more heavily than past performance from a subcontractor/teaming partner?

A60: Past Performance from the prime contractor and from a subcontractor will be treated equally, all other things equal.

Q61: Similarly, will past performance as a prime contractor be weighted more heavily than past performance as a subcontractor?

A61: Past Performance from the prime contractor and from a subcontractor will be treated equally, all other things equal.

Q62: Referencing 5.2.1.1 NetCOP – KEY ACTIVITIES: The Contractor shall support the following key activities associated with NetCOP. In general, do well-developed, written standards and criteria for incident and triage classification exist?

A62: Yes

Q63: Referencing 5.2.1.3 Operational Directives Reporting System Support. Does this application exist today and is it up-to-date with respect to security and technology?

A63: Yes

Q64: Is the place of performance at only Quantico MCB or is it distributed across the MCEN at key data centers CONUS and OCONUS as well? If the performance under this contract is distributed across the MCEN at key data centers CONUS & OCONUS, can the Government identify which locations and which contract personnel will reside at those locations?

A64: Distributed across the MCEN and other remote locations. MCCOG Detachments are located at:

Camp Foster, Japan; Camp Lejeune, NC; Panzer Kaserne, Germany; HQMC Arlington, VA; Kansas City, MO; Camp Pendleton, CA; New Orleans, LA; MCB Hawaii, HI; Camp Humphreys, Korea. INS Tier III support is currently located at Camp Lejeune, HQMC, and MCB Hawaii.

Q65: Will the Government prohibit all large businesses from participating in this acquisition as a significant subcontractor as per the spirit of the Office of Small Business Programs Guidebook for

Facilitating Small Business Team Arrangements to increase competition and expand opportunities for small business by promoting teaming with other small businesses?

A65: No.

Q66: How does the Government plan to prevent the awardee from being disqualified as an affiliate under the Ostensible Subcontractor Rule (13 CFR 121.103, 13 CFR 125.6, FAR 19.1) and whereas under the current evaluation criteria, the prime contractor lacks relevant experience and must rely upon its more experienced subcontractor to win the contract see Size Appeal of Modus Operandi, Inc., SBA No.

SIZ-5716 (2016)?

A66: It is not the Government’s responsibility to prevent an awardee from being disqualified as affiliates under the Ostensible Subcontractor rule.

Q67: During evaluation, what quantitative weight will the Government place on Organizational Experience/Past Performance submitted from the prime contractor verses other Organizational Experience/Past Performance associated with a significant subcontractor?

A67: The Government is not using numerically weighted factors. Adjectival ratings will be used for Organizational Experience (i.e. Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, Unacceptable) in accordance with the Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method outlined in the DoD Source Selection Procedures of 31 March 2016. Also, See Q60 and Q61.

Q68: L-TXT-38 Submission of Electronic Proposals: What is the Government’s guidance/instruction for the electronic submittal/upload of a subcontractor’s sealed package containing complete cost information requested under a CPFF subcontract?

A68: In accordance with L-TXT-12, section 2.1(d)(2), the subcontractor cost information can be submitted by the prime or the subcontractor may submit this information under separate cover directly to the Contracting Officer via the SPAWAR E-Commerce web site.

Q69: Section L Submission of Proposals, Section 3.2 Past Performance, Para (b): Can the Government please confirm that the requested copies of CPARS for each reference falls outside of the 15-page limit for Section 3.2 and are to be submitted as an Appendix to this volume?

A69: Confirmed. CPARS and/or Past Performance Questionnaires do not count against any page limits.

Q70: Can the Government confirm that SBA Final Rule 81 FR 34243 (May 31, effective June 30, 2016) applies to this acquisition, where ‘Similarly Situated Entities’ constitute meeting prime performance requirements in excess of 50% [considering both the prime and subcontractor(s) meet the same Small Business set-aside designation and also meet the size standard under this solicitation]?

A70: No. We follow the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and this rule has not yet been incorporated into the FAR.

Q71: Can the Government confirm that ‘Similarly Situated Entities’ and their respective Organizational Experience/Past Performance submitted under this bid will be evaluated as one collective prime since the rule constitutes compliance with the prime performance requirements under this Small Business set-aside?

A71: See A70. Not Applicable.

Q72: With respect to a OCI mitigation plan, in which volume does the Government wish to receive this information?

A72: If applicable, include Mitigation Plan in Volume II.

Q73: Can the Government confirm that any OCI mitigation plan, which may be required, be submitted by the offeror as an Appendix and does not count against any page limitations?

A73: Confirmed; will not be counted against page limitations.

Q74: The Government has identified Key Personnel to be identified by the offeror. However, there are no instructions regarding the submittal of Key Personnel resumes to demonstrate suitability for executing the Government’s requirements. Does the Government intend to have offerors submit resumes for Key Personnel and which volume would the Government prefer that this information reside?

A74: See A39.

Q74: Can the Government confirm that resumes for Key Personnel will be submitted by the offeror as an Appendix and does not count against any page limitations?

A74: See A39.

Q75: Regarding Amendment 0001 and the statement: “(e) Relevant experience is considered to be network operation and maintenance services projects of a similar magnitude to this acquisition. The offeror should demonstrate organizational experience operating enterprise-level wide area networks worth at least $10.5M per year.” Can the Government clarify as to whether the $10.5M per year requirement refers to the value of the enterprise-level wide area networks being supported or the annual value of the contractor’s contract being cited?

A75: The “$10.5M” refers to the annual value of the work cited by the Offeror.

Q76: There appears to be a difference in the CLIN structure where Section B (pg 2-4) includes CLINs 1- 10; however, Sections B-TXT-04 and B-TXT-10 (pgs 4-6) list the CLIN structure as 1-13. Can the Government please confirm the CLIN structure for this opportunity?

A76: B-TXT-04 and B-TXT-10 will be revised in a forthcoming amendment to reflect the CLIN structure in Section B.

Q77: Given the Government has parameters by which it will determine if and when a cost reasonableness analysis will be performed, would the Government please remove the requirement for Subcontractor unsanitized proposals until after a proposed Prime has been determined to be within the technical competitive range?

A77: No.

Q78: Is the Government requiring Prime Contractors to issue CPFF type Subcontracts? Given the proprietary nature and administrative management of a CPFF type subcontract, can the Government confirm that Prime offerors will not be negatively rated for selecting an alternate contract type?

A78: Prime contractors should follow the guidance in L-TXT-12, Section 2.1(d)(1). Contractors that follow L-TXT-12, Section 2.1(d) will not be negatively rated for type of subcontract.

Q79: Will the Government consider a two-week extension for proposal submission?

A79: The RFP will be extended to 23 October 2018.

Q80: The answer to ACSS II 18-R-0011 Q AND A NO 3.pdf, Question 30 indicates that an offeror submitting a past performance under $10.5M could receive a neutral/acceptable rating and then be further evaluated for organizational experience. Would the Government confirm this interpretation?

A80: An offeror without a record of relevant past performance, or for whom information on past performance is not available, may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (which is different and separate from Organizational Experience). Such offerors will receive a neutral rating. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered acceptable.

Q81: 3.0 Volume III – Written Capability Information, 3.1 Organizational Experience (e): If the prime contractor has a past performance exceeding the $10.5M threshold, would the Government be interested in seeing a 2nd past performance under $10.5M threshold also aligned with the PWS scope and could this potentially result in a stronger overall score for the prime?

A81: Follow the submittal instruction per Section L-TXT-12, part 3.1.

Q82: 3.0 Volume III – Written Capability Information, 3.1 Organizational Experience (a): The Government’s requirement for corporate experience/past performance is “Cite at least one reference for work performed by the prime offeror, no more than one reference per subcontractor, and no more than three (3) references total.”. Will the Government confirm that more qualifying and highly rated past performances score higher than simply one qualifying and highly rated past performance? For example, Team A submits one acceptable past performance that receives an Exceptional rating. Team B submits three acceptable past performances that all receive an Exceptional rating. Will the Government confirm that Team B receives a stronger score for this step of the evaluation?

A82: Per M-TXT-06, part 1.2.2, the Past Performance factor will be rated as follows: Acceptable or Unacceptable.

Q83: 3.0 Volume III – Written Capability Information, 3.2 Past Performance: If one member of a Joint Venture has relevant past performance, will the Joint Venture company’s past performance be rated as acceptable?

A83: Per 13 CFR 125.8(e), the evaluation of past performance will consider work done individually by each partner to the joint venture as well as any work done by the joint venture itself previously.

Q84: N66001-18-R-0011, 2.2 Key Personnel: The requirement is to identify at a minimum one individual name for each key personnel labor category that will satisfy the requirements in clause C-TXT-18. Would the Government’s evaluation more accurately assess risk with a more thorough technical evaluation of key personnel which could be accomplished via a technical proposal and/or resume?

A84: See A39.

Q85: 2.0 Volume II – Price/Cost Information: Will the Government be providing a template for price buildup?

A85: Cost proposal shall be in accordance with L-TXT-12, 2.0 VOLUME II - PRICE/COST INFORMATION of the RFP.

Q86: Will the Government please allow Offerors to provide an Executive Summary as a part of Volume III – Written Capability?

A86: No, an Executive Summary is not requested and will not be considered by the Government.

Q87: Section L.3.2 of the RFP provides instructions to Offerors regarding CPARS and PPQs. Can Offerors submit PPQs in addition to CPARS, or can only one or the other be submitted?

A87: If a performance assessment exists from CPARS, then submit only the most recent performance assessment from CPARS (not a PPQ). If no CPARS performance assessment exists, then submit a PPQ. Do not submit both.

Q88: The RFP identifies that the Government will review Past Performance IAW FAR 15.305 where an offeror without a record of relevant Past Performance, or for whom information on past performance is not available, may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on Past Performance. However, under M- TXT-06 of the RFP, the Government identifies that Past Performance is part of ‘Step One’ of the evaluation, but further states that offerors that receive a Marginal or lower evaluation rating will not be considered for award. In Q&A #3, A23, the Government states that Organizational Experience will not be rated on a pass/fail basis. Instead, adjectival ratings will be used (i.e. Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, Unacceptable). Then this A23 goes on to state that offerors that are rated ‘Marginal’ or lower will not be part of the tradeoff as they will not be considered for award.

In the RFP instructions, as they specifically relate to 3.1 Organizational Experience, no technical approach or understanding of the requirements is requested. However, the Government is choosing to apply the adjectival ratings, under DoD Source Selection Procedures (April 1, 2016), where these Adjectival Ratings do not correlate with the information requested for submittal to satisfy the requirements of the RFP.

Extract from DoD Source Selection Procedures:

* Outstanding: Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

* Good: Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

* Acceptable: Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

* Marginal: Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

* Unacceptable: Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

The RFP does not request any of the information that would match the adjectival ratings and descriptions listed above.

a. There is great confusion regarding how the Government will apply these adjectival ratings in respect to the information required for submittal. Can the Government please provide clear guidance and clarify, with descriptions, how the Government intends to evaluate offerors?

Q88a: Adequate guidance pertaining to the technical evaluation factors and their relative importance has already been provided in Section M of the RFP (see M-TXT-06). Furthermore, DFARS 215.300 requires DoD commands to follow the principles and procedures in the DoD Source Selection Procedures which includes the ratings definitions provided therein.

b. If the only information being requested by the Government is related to the offeror’s Past Performance and contract details under Attachment 2, Reference Information Sheets, how does the Government plan to assign a ‘Marginal’ rating to contractors who, per FAR 15.305, may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on Past Performance?

Q88b: As stated in Section M, Evaluation of Capability will include two separate evaluation factors; one factor is Organizational Experience and one factor is Past Performance. The citation you provided from

FAR 15.305 only applies to the Past Performance factor and not to the Organizational Experience factor.

In other words, an offeror that does not have relevant experience can be rated “marginal” or

“unacceptable” for the Organizational Experience factor.