A002_Q&As_-_SAQMMA16Q0152.pdf

Department of State (DoS) Bureau of Consular Affairs (CA) Consular Systems Modernization (CSM) Solicitation Number SAQMMA16-Q-0152

Vendors Questions

Question Number

Reference Document Section/Page Issue/Background Question/Answer

1 RFP C.4.4.4, Subtask 4/pg.28 The Government indicates that “The requirements framework (Exhibit E)…”

Should this be Exhibit K?

This reference has been deleted.

2 RFP C.4.1, Subtask 1/pg. 21 The last 2 sentences in the second paragraph seem to be largely repeated by the third paragraph, with the exception of specifying who is to coordinate with the

COR.

Please confirm that the third paragraph is simply a restatement of the information from the previous paragraph.

Section C.4.1 has been amended.

3 RFP L.11 Instructions for formatting (vol. II&III)/pg. 82

Offerors are directed that Arial (no smaller than 8 pt) may be used for tables, figures, and graphics in Volumes II and III. There are no corresponding directions for tables, figures, and graphics in Volume I.

May offerors use Arial (no smaller than 8 pt) for tables, figures, and graphics in Vol I?

Yes, tables, figures, and graphics may use Arial (no smaller than 8pt).

4 RFP L.11.1 Table/pg. 83;

L.11.1.7(a)/pg. 86;

L.11.1.7.1 Paste Performance Info/pg.87

The table in Section L.11.1 limits the past performance profiles to 1 page each. L.11.1.7(a) and L.11.1.7.1 indicate a 3 page limit for each past performance profile.

Please clarify whether each past performance profile (defined by the table in L.11.1.7.1) is limited to 1 page or to 3 pages.

See Section L.11.1. Each performance profile is limited to one

(1) page.

5 RFP L.11.1.4/pg. 84 Exhibit J (5.0) Deliverables/pg. 2

Section L.11.1.4 directs offerors to provide a draft Program Management Plan with the proposal as part of their response to Task Order 1. Exhibit J table indicates that the draft Program Management Plan is to be submitted 30 DACA.

(1) Please clarify when offerors are to submit a draft Program Management Plan. (2) If the draft Program management Plan is to be submitted with the proposal, please exclude it from the page count for Task Order 1. The description in C.4.1 (Pg.22) includes a list of 17 requirements (at a minimum) to be included in a PMP, which would be very difficult to address comprehensively in the 35 pages allocated to Task Order 1.

The Program Management Plan will not be included in the page count. See revised Section L.11.1 table.

6 RFP L.11.1.4, subfactor 2/pg. 84 C.4.1/pg. 21

Section L.11.1.4 Subfactor 2 (b) requires offerors to submit a draft Program Management Plan. Section L.11.1.4 Subfactor 2 (c) requires offerors to submit a separate draft Quality Control Plan. C.4.1, pg. 22 lists the QCP as a part of the PMP, not a separate document.

(1) Please clarify whether offerors are to submit a QCP as part of the PMP or as a separate document. (2) If the draft QCP is required as a separate document due with the proposal, please exclude it from the page count for Task Order 1. A comprehensive Quality Control Plan would be very difficult to fit into the 35 pages allocated to Task Order 1.

See revised Section L.11.1 table. The Quality Control Plan is a separate document and will not be included in the page count.

Question Number

Reference Document Section/Page Issue/Background Question/Answer

7 RFP C.4.1 Subtask 2 Transition In/pg. 22; L.11.1.4 Subfactor 3 Transition/pg.85

Section C.4.1 says the transition-in plan and associated transition period for Task Order 1 will be specified in task orders. L.11.1.4 defines the transition period for Task Order 1 as 120 days. Exhibit J. Task Order 1, does not mention a transition period.

Please clarify the transition period for Task Order 1.

Transition period for Task Order One (1) is 120 days.

8 RFP L.11.1.7.1/pg. 87 Offerors are directed to provide a list of questionnaire recipients for each contract reference. It is not clear where this list should be included in the proposal.

Where should offerors include the list of questionnaire recipients? Is the list to be included in the page limitations?

Please submit Past Performance Questionnaire’s to Mikel Alderman at aldermanml@state.gov. This is not included in the page limitations. Questionnaire Recipients should be listed in the Past Performance Profile, as required by Section L.11.1.6(b) and the table L.11.6.1, which requires: Name, Phone Number, and Verified Email Address for References.

9 RFP L.11.3.2 Reps&Certs/pg. 93 L.11.3.7 Section K/pg. 96

Both references seem to ask for a completed Section K. Please identify the difference between the requirements in L.11.3.2 and L.11.3.7.

The RFP has been amended to delete RFP Section L.11.3.7.

10 RFP L.11.2.2(29)/pg. 91;

L.11.3.5 Cognizant Federal Auditor/pg.95

These references call for information regarding the offeror’s cognizant Federal Auditor to be provided in both the Price Volume and the Business Volume.

Are offerors to provide the same information in both volumes?

If not, in which volume would the government like the information?

Yes.

11 RFP L.11.2.2(30)/pg. 91;

L.11.3.5 Cognizant Federal Auditor/pg. 95

These references call for information regarding the offeror’s cognizant Federal Agency Official to be provided in both the Price Volume and the Business Volume.

Are offerors to provide the same information in both volumes?

If not, in which volume would the government like the information?

Yes.

12 RFP L.11.2.2(31)/pg. 91;

L.11.3.5 Cognizant Federal Auditor/pg.95

These references call for information regarding the offeror’s “business unit proposed to perform work” to be provided in both the Price Volume and the Business Volume.

Are offerors to provide the same information in both volumes?

If not, in which volume would the government like the information?

Yes.

mailto:aldermanml@state.gov

Reference Document Section/Page Issue/Background Question/Answer

13 RFP L.11.1.4 Subfactor 2(d)/pg.

Offerors are directed to provide the Basis of Estimate (BOE) for the staffing/labor mix and number of full time equivalents (FTEs) for each CLIN in the proposed task order 1. The staffing/labor mix and number of FTEs for each CLIN is provided by the government in RFP Exhibit I, Pricing Table 4, IDIQ Prices.

It does not seem reasonable to expect offerors to develop BOEs for staffing when the labor mix and FTEs are provided by the government. Offerors have no way of knowing how the government developed the staffing requirements. Please delete the BOE requirement from Volume I.

The RFP-specified hours provided in Pricing Table 4 are the Government’s estimate cumulative of all task orders contemplated under the IDIQ contract and are being used for price evaluation purposes for award of the IDIQ contract. See RFP Section M.7.1.7 (Price). The requested BOE information applies only to Task Order 1 and Task Order 2, and is being used for technical evaluation purposes for award of the IDIQ contract.

14 RFP L.11.1.4 Subfactor 2/pg.84 L.11.1.5 Subfactor 2/pg.85

Both of these references require a completed staffing matrix, and the template for the matrix is supplied. There is no place in the template to indicate the time period covered by the matrix (base year, option year 1, etc.).

What period should offerors reflect in the staffing matrix?

Task Order One (1) – Staffing Matrix should reflect the Base period of 24 months. Task Order Two (2) – Staffing Matrix should reflect the Base period of 12 months, Option Year One

(1) and Two (2).

15 RFP L.11.2.1(4)/pg. 88;

Exhibit I, Tab 4

The RFP defines a man-year as 1,880 man hours in L.11.2.1. Exhibit I, Tab 4 appears to use 1,920 man-hours per man-year.

Please clarify how many man-hours are to be used to calculate a man-year.

The Government has amended RFP Section L.11.2.1(4) (Price Proposal Information) to read, “In Pricing Table 4, the number in the “Hours” column represents 1,920 RFP-specified estimated productive hours multiplied by an RFP-specified estimated number of full-time-equivalent (FTE) employees.”

There is no change to Pricing Table 4.

16 RFP L.11.1.5 Subfactor 1/pg. 85 C.4.2/pg. 22-25

Offerors are instructed to respond to the requirements in Section C.4.2 and Task Order 2, Finance and Resource Management. Section C.4.2 contains a list of “projects” that include Finance and Resource Management.

In addition to the approach for Project 3: Finance and Resource Management, should the proposal response include the specific approach for addressing Business Capability Project 4, Project 5, Project 6 and the other projects described on pages 23 and 24. If Projects 4 through 6 are to be addressed, will the government provide an additional 10 pages to the Factor 4 response.

No. Project 4 through 6 should not be included.

Reference Document Section/Page Issue/Background Question/Answer

17 RFP C.4.2/pg. 22 4th paragraph Requires adherence to CST application coding standards. Can the government please provide the document describing those standards?

The CA/CST software coding standards will be provided upon award. They reference common industry guidance and aim to standardize naming conventions, coding style, and other syntax and structure recommendations to help CA/CST improve consistency across the source code of mission system implementations.

18 RFP L.1/pg. 80 The deadline for questions is May 22, two weeks and two days before the proposal submittal deadline. Assuming the government requires at least a week to respond to industry questions, this offeror is concerned that we may not have enough time to incorporate the responses into our proposal.

Would the government consider revising the due date to allow offerors 3 weeks following receipt of answers to enable us to incorporate any additional information or direction into our proposal?

A001 has extended the proposal due date until June 21, 2017 at 5:00pm.

19 RFP L.11.1 Vol. I Tech Proposal Page count requirements for Factor 3: Reponses to Task Order 1 and Factor 4: Response to Task Order 2: The page count limits are very restrictive to compliantly address all the requirements, instructions and evaluations factors specified in: C.4 – Specific Tasks, Task Order Requests, Proposal Instructions (Section L), Evaluation Factors (Section M).

The required draft plans and other artifacts below will consume significant page count. Will the government consider removing the following items from the page count requirements?: Draft Program Management Plan, Draft Quality Control Plan, Staffing Matrix, Subcontractor’s Qualifications Matrix, Resumes of Key Personnel, and Resumes of additional Key Personnel Proposed. In addition, will the government allow a total of 35 pages for Factor 4 – Response to Task Order 2?

See Section L.11.1 table. The page count for Factor 4 will not be increased.

20 RFP C.1 Purpose & Objectives/pg.16

Is there a need to integrate both structured and unstructured data?

Yes.

21 RFP C.1 Purpose & Objectives/pg.16

Could you give some examples where there are rapid but temporary surges in system usage?

In 2006, the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative required U.S.

citizens to have a passport for air travel to Canada and Mexico.

A surge of applications and passports were processed during this time. Passports have a 10-year validity. From 2016 – 2018, CA expects temporary surges in passport applications to renew passports issued in 2006.

Reference Document Section/Page Issue/Background Question/Answer

22 RFP C.1 Purpose & Objectives/pg.16

Could you give some examples of latency issues in the current operating model?

Generally, the Department operates systems deployed in domestic data centers as well as at domestic and international field sites. Department users and customers are also located in well-connected CONUS locations as well as poor-performing networked locations overseas

23 RFP C.4.4.10 Subtask 10, Data Strategy & Migration/pg. 31

Could you comment on the quality of the legacy and external data?

As a part of this task, the Government expects offerors to prepare an approach to perform data migrations where necessary, to include handling data quality issues. Currently, CA/CST integrates data between multiple disparate systems to support mission processes.

24 RFP C.4.4.10 Subtask 10, Data Strategy & Migration/pg. 31

Do you expect the successful offeror to cleanse the data as part of the Data Migration?

Yes, the Government expects the awardee to cleanse and/or compensate for data quality issues as a part of any designed migration strategies.

25 RFP C.4.4.10 Subtask 10, Data Strategy & Migration/pg. 31

Could you share Consular One Data Architecture Standards and published data models?

Per Section C, designs from Projects 1 and 2 will be provided as a part of the task upon award. Overarching data models are not yet complete and are not available to be shared at this time.

The eventual awardee will be requested to provide input into the evolution of required data standards and canonical models.

26 Exhibit Exhibit K Sample TO 2, 5.2 Is the contractor expected to evaluate the COTS products after project initiation?

See Section C.4.4.11 and Exhibit K.

27 Exhibit Exhibit K Sample TO 2, 5.2 How long will it take to procure the products once they are evaluated after the project initiation?

The identification and acquisition of products requires coordination between the government which must approve the product and provide the funding and the contractor who must procure the product. As these tasks are undertaken, the Contractor and Government will discuss a reasonable schedule to be reflected in the IMS.

Reference Document Section/Page Issue/Background Question/Answer

28 Exhibit Exhibit K Sample TO 2, 6.0 What is the scope of the System Design Document deliverable two weeks after the project initiation?

The scope of the Systems Design Document due two (2) weeks after the project initiation is to propose an initial design of the solution for the Finance and Resource Capability Project.

29 RFP L.11.1.5 Factor 4:

Response to TO 2/pg. 85

Do you expect a gradual transition to an FRM product from the corresponding legacy system?

Yes.

30 RFP L.11 Proposal Preparation Instructions & Formatting/pg.82

L.11 states the Technical Proposal, Volume I is an Electronic submission. Further it states “Offerors shall submit each electronic proposal volume via fbo.gov.

Fbo.gov does not accept electronic submission.

Please clarify how electronic proposals are to be delivered.

See revised Section L.11. Hard copies and electronic (CD format) will be required for submittal.

31 RFP L.11 Proposal Preparation Instructions & Formatting/pg.82

Section L.11 gives paper size, font size for tables, figures and graphics, headers and footers specifically for Volume

II &III.

Please confirm that the same format is applicable for Volume I Technical Proposal as well.

See response to question 3.

32 RFP L.11.1 Vol. Technical Proposal/p.83 L.11.1.7 Factor 6: Past Performance/pg. 86

The table in L.11.1 states Factor 6 Past Performance is limited to 1 page per past performance. Section L.11.1.7 states 3 pages or less for each reference.

Please confirm that 3 pages per reference is correct.

See response to question 4.

33 RFP L.11.1.4 Factor 3:

Response to TO 1/pg. 84 L.11.1.5 Factor 4:

Response to TO 2/pg. 85

Both L.11.1.4 and L.11.1.5.1 request a draft quality control plan.

Due to the detail being requested, would the Government allow the two draft quality control plans to be provided outside of page count?

See amended table in Section L.11.1.

34 RFP L.11.1.4 Factor 3:

Response to TO 1/pg. 84

Due to the detail being requested for the draft Program Management Plan, would the Government allow the PMP to be provided outside of page count?

See response to question 5.

35 RFP L.11.1.4 Factor 3:

Response TO1, Subfactor 2: Program Management & Staffing/pg. 84 L.11.1.5 Factor 4:

Response to TO2, Subfactor 2: Program Management & Staffing/pg.

Both Task Order 1 and Task Order 2 require resumes of the Key Personnel.

Due to the limited page count and significant material required within that page count, would the Government allow the resumes to be provided outside of page count?

See amended table in Section L.11.1.

Reference Document Section/Page Issue/Background Question/Answer

36 RFP RFP: General Comment The RFP does not address the existence or responsibilities associated with the production and/or non-production environments associated with this program.

Is the Contractor to assume that these hosting environments, along with their administration, are provided GFE to the CSM contract?

No, environment management is not part of the Consular Systems Modernization effort.

37 RFP L.11.1.4, Subfactor 3/pg. 84 Section L.11.1.4 indicates that “the draft Transition-In Plan must explain how it will inherit the current environment”.

Please provide additional information on what the scope of “the current environment” includes. For instance, does it include existing legacy system environments, and, if so, which ones and what are they? Does it include production environments, and, if so, to what extent? Does it include non-production environments, and, if so, what currently constitutes that environment?

See Exhibit J, Sample Task Order One (1) – Section 6.0 Current Environments. The current environment includes the systems listed in this section. A production support environment will be used to perform activities as defined in Exhibit J, 3.0 Activities.

38 RFP L.11.1.4, Subfactor 3/pg. 84 This section indicates the “transition will be accomplished in the designated transition period (120 calendar days) shown via schedule.

(a) To which “schedule” is this referring?

(b) In what timeframe and under what conditions will the current environment be made available?

Section L.11.1.4 has now been changed to L.11.1.3. See amended language, Subfactor 3. The transition period is defined as 120 days. By the end of the transition period, the contractor is expected to have full control of production support environments. The plan should address the transition from existing contractor to CSM contractor.

Reference Document Section/Page Issue/Background Question/Answer

39 RFP L.11.3.4 Subcontracting Plan/pg. 93

Section L.11.3.4 indicates that “the Offeror’s subcontracting plan shall … meet or exceed the DoS small business participation goals as set forth below:

Classification Percentage of Utilization

HUBZone 3%

VOSDVO 3%

WO 5%

8(a) 5%”

Please confirm that “VOSDVO” should be “SDVOSB” and that “WO” should be “WOSB.”

Yes. These have been updated in the solicitation.

40 RFP L.11.3.4 Subcontracting Plan/pg. 93

Please clarify that the small business goals are based on total subcontracted dollars.

Yes. Small business goals are based on total subcontracting eligible dollars.

41 RFP L.11.3.2 Reps & Certs/pg.

L.11.3.7 Section K/pg. 96

Please clarify what the difference is between L.11.3.2 (completed Section K) and L.11.3.7 (Offerors shall submit all information required under Section K) – they appear to be the same.

The RFP has been amended to delete RFP Section L.11.3.7.

42 Exhibit Exhibit E – DD254 Security Requirements

See C.4.4.4 Subtask Requirement Management/pg. 28 In lieu of a DD254, it looks as if Exhibit E was provided in error.

Please provide a DD254.

The reference under C.4.4.4 has been deleted. Exhibit E been updated to provide the Draft Bidders remains the DD254.

43 RFP L.11.1.4 Factor 3:

Response to TO1, Subtask 2/pg. 84 L.11.1.5 Factor 4:

Response to TO2, Subtask 2/pg. 85

The requirement states, “The Offeror shall provide a Staffing Matrix using the format provided in the sample matrix”.

Due to the significant amount of information required and the limited page count, can the Offeror provide the data requested in a different format for best use of space as long as the data requested is present (Name, Role/Position, Responsibilities/ Description, Brief Qualifications Summary, Contractor’s Labor Category and Descriptions, Task Supported and Hours)?

No, the Staffing Matrix shall remain in the format provided.

44 RFP L.11.1.4 Factor 3:

Response to TO1, Subtask 2/pg. 84 L.11.1.5 Factor 4:

Response to TO2, Subtask 2/pg. 85

Due to the number of FTEs to support this engagement and the requested information for the Staffing Matrix, would the Government allow the Staffing Matrix to be provided outside of page count?

Yes, the Staffing Matrix can be provided outside the page count.

Reference Document Section/Page Issue/Background Question/Answer

45 Exhibit Exhibit J – Sample TO 1, Section 8.0, Period of Performance L.11.2.2, Item 7/pg. 89

The period of performance in the Sample Task Order exhibit indicates that the “Base period of IDIQ is 24 months and eight

(8) 12-month option periods.” Please clarify the period of performance for Task Order One.

See Exhibit J, Section 8.0 the language has been clarified to reflect the task order performance.

46 RFP L.11.1.4, Subfactor 3, Transition/pg. 85

A draft Transition Plan is requested. Due to the detail being requested, would the Government allow the draft Transition-In Plan to be outside of page count?

Yes, please see amended table in Section L.11.1.

47 RFP L.11.1.7 Factor 6: Past Performance/pg. 86

Please confirm that the Prime’s subcontractors (if a small business) do not have to provide references that are, “similar in dollar value, scope, magnitude, and complexity to the PWS”, but instead should meet these criteria relative to the magnitude of their role as a subcontractor on the CSM team.

Subcontractor past performance should be relevant to the level of effort the scope, magnitude, and complexity they will be proposed to perform under this PWS. See amended language in Section L.11.1.7.

48 Exhibit Exhibit J, Sample TO 1, Section 5.0, Deliverables

Task Order One calls out the following deliverables: 1) IT Asset Mgmt Plan, 2) Integration and Environments Support Plan(s) and 3) IT Non Production Service Level Agreement(s). However, C.4.4 no longer contains any scope of work that would support the production of these documents, nor the work that would be associated with them.

Was it the government’s intent to remove these deliverables when the “Non-Production Environments Planning, Implementation, Operation, and Management” subtask was removed from the Statement of Work?

See amended table in Exhibit J, Section 5.0 TO1.

49 Exhibit Exhibit G – Labor Category Descriptions Exhibit J, Section 11.0 Key Personnel Exhibit K, Section 12.0 Key Personnel

Both Sample Task Orders 1 and 2 identify key personnel under the heading of “labor categories.” Other than Program Manager, the sample task order labor categories do not appear in the labor categories listed in Exhibit G.

Are we correct in assuming that the task order key personnel are simply titles that we map to the appropriate categories in Exhibit G? If not, please update Exhibit G to define the labor categories.

Reference Document Section/Page Issue/Background Question/Answer

50 Exhibit Exhibit D, ConsularOne Project Schedule, Project 3 Exhibit K, Section 9.0, Period of Performance

The schedule for Project 3, as represented in Exhibit D, is indicated as being from Jul 17 through Mar 19 (21 months), which seems to be consistent with the length for all other Project packages/releases. The period of performance for Task Order 2, as specified in Exhibit K, Section 9, however, indicates that the period of performance for the Task Order, and presumably Project 3, would be “36 months following task order award”, making it from Aug 17 – Jul 20.

Are we correct in assuming that Exhibit D, with a period of performance of 21 months, is the correct period of performance, consistent with the intended length of all other project releases? If not, please update Exhibit D, for all projects, so that we can provide an accurate BOE and plan for Task Order 1.

Exhibit D is provided as a notional schedule to give Offerors an idea of the anticipated start dates; however, schedules may change over time. Offerors shall use the Period of Performance noted in each of the Sample Task Orders (Exhibit J & K) to formulate their proposal. The notional schedule of Exhibit D has been updated to align with the period of performance for Exhibit K.

51 RFP L.11.2.1 Price Proposal Information/pg. 88 Exhibit I, Pricing Table 4

L.11.2.1 4 states “In Pricing Table 4, the number in the “Hours” column represents 1,880 RFP-specified estimated productive hours multiplied by an RFP-specified estimated number of full-time-equivalent (FTE) employees.

In reviewing the hours provided in Table 4, it appears they are more closely aligned to 1,920 productive hours for a full-time-equivalent.

Should bidders use 1920 productive hours basis for hours in Pricing Table 4?

The Government has amended RFP Section L.11.2.1(4) (Price Proposal Information) to read, “In Pricing Table 4, the number in the “Hours” column represents 1,920 RFP-specified estimated productive hours multiplied by an RFP-specified estimated number of full-time-equivalent (FTE) employees.”

There is no change to Pricing Table 4.

52 RFP L.11.1 Vol. I: Tech Proposal L.11.1.7 Factor 6, Past Performance

Please clarify that the list of questionnaire recipients is outside of page count.

See response to question 8.

53 RFP General Comment Is there an incumbent Contractor currently performing these services or is this is a new requirements. If there is an incumbent, could you please provide the contract number?

See Exhibit J (pg. 1 & 2). No further information beyond Exhibit J to be provided.

54 RFP L.11.1 Vol I. Tech Proposal/pg. 83 L.11.1.7, Factor 6: Past Performance/pg. 87

“Each profile shall be limited to three (3) pages or less for each Prime and Subcontractor.”

The table on page 83 states that each past performance is limited to 1 page, while page 87 states 3 pages.

Please confirm that past performance profiles are limited to three pages or less.

See response to question 4.

Reference Document Section/Page Issue/Background Question/Answer

55 RFP L.11.1.7 Factor 6: Past Performance/pg. 86

“References will return completed questionnaires via email directly to the Contracting Officer and Contracting Specialist listed below by the proposal due date.”

Please confirm that past performance questionnaires should be sent by clients directly to Primary Contracting Officer (CO), Vincent J. Sanchez, and the Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO), Mikel L. Alderman.

Yes. See response to question 8.

56 RFP L.11.3.2 Reps & Certs/pg.

L.11.3.7 Section K/pg. 96

The referenced section state the following respectively: “The Offeror shall provide a completed Section K with the Offeror’s name included on the bottom margin of each page.” And “Offerors shall submit all the information required under Section K of this solicitation.”

FAR clause 52.204-8 is included in the solicitation. If Offeror is currently registered and has completed the Representations and Certifications section of System for Award Management (SAM) electronically, please confirm that in lieu of Section K, Offeror will only be required to provide the appropriate paragraph in 52.204-8 to reflect that they are compliant within

SAM.

Please see FAR 52.204-8(d).

57 RFP L.11.1.4 Factor 3:

Response to TO 1/pg. 84 L.11.1.5/pg. 85

The Offeror must provide a draft Program Management Plan that details how the program will be managed in accordance with PWS requirements.

The Offeror must provide a draft Quality Control Plan that demonstrates how quality, as outlined in the performance requirements summary, will be met.

The staffing plan must identify and provide resumes for all proposed key personnel either proposed by the contractor and/or identified in this statement of work.

The Offeror shall provide the Basis of Estimate (BOE) for the staffing/labor mix and number of full time equivalents (FTEs) for each CLIN in the proposed task order 1/2.

Please confirm that Offerors may provide the Basis of Estimates, draft Program Management Plan, draft Quality Control Plans, draft Transition Plan, and Key Personnel Resumes for Factor 3 and Factor 4 as appendices outside the page count.

Yes. Please see table under Section L.11.1

58 RFP G.5 TO Proposal Request & Submission Procedures/pg.

46 paragraph 8

Paragraph 8) of section G.5 outlines the items that contractors should submit for travel costs within a price proposal. Please confirm that applicable cost burdens may be included in offeror's price proposals.

Yes. RFP Section G.5(b)(8) states that its instructions are in addition to the ones contained in RFP Section G.5(b)(7), which permits the application of the negotiated applicable provisional billing indirect cost rate(s) under cost-reimbursement arrangements and the materials portion of time-and-materials arrangements. For other arrangements, applicable indirect cost rate(s) may be applied as well.

Reference Document Section/Page Issue/Background Question/Answer

59 RFP Section I – Contract Clauses/pg. 62

Section B.12 states that this contract is not subject to the Service Contract Labor Standards statute. Section I includes FAR clauses 52.222-46, Service Contract Labor Standards, 52.222-46 and 52.222-44, Fair Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Labor Standards - Price Adjustment. Please confirm that Service Contract Labor does not apply, and labor rates / prices will not be adjusted based on DOL wage determinations.

The RFP has been amended to delete FAR 52.222-41, FAR 52.222-43, and FAR 52.222-44 from RFP Section I. FAR 52.222-46 does not pertain to the Service Contract Labor Standards statute and is not in the RFP.

60 RFP B.4 Fixed Fully-Loaded Hourly Labor Rates/pg. 7 L.11.2.2 Price Proposal Instructions/pg. 92 paragraph 34

Section B.4 e) states that the negotiated fixed fully-loaded hourly labor rates apply regardless of whether the individual performing the labor works for the prime contractor or a subcontractor.

Section L.11.2.2 Price Proposal Instructions, paragraph

34) states that offerors shall conduct appropriate cost or price analyses to establish the reasonableness of proposed subcontract prices, and shall include the results of these analyses.

Subcontractors will be subject to the prime's labor rate ceilings. The Prime's team-wide hourly labor rates will be determined to be reasonable as a result of a competitive procurement. Furthermore, the prime contractor bears the risk of any subcontractor rates that may exceed the team-wide contract ceiling hourly rates. While the Offerors shall analyze and determine all subcontractor prices to be fair and reasonable, the FAR discourages the government from obtaining additional cost or pricing information and analysis, when the prime contract price is based on adequate competition (See FAR 15.402).

Based on the above, will the government confirm that offerors must conduct appropriate cost or price analysis of subcontract prices to determine reasonableness, but do not need to submit the results of such analysis and remove that portion of the requirement from paragraph 34)?

FAR 15.404-3(b) (Subcontract Pricing Considerations) expressly states in part, “The prime contractor or subcontractor shall—(1) Conduct appropriate cost or price analyses to establish the reasonableness of proposed subcontract prices;

(2) Include the results of these analyses in the price proposal…” Because the FAR uses “shall,” the Government, each prime offeror, and each subcontractor offeror (if applicable) must comply with this requirement. FAR 2.101 (Definitions) states in part, “”Shall” means the imperative.”

Moreover, FAR 15.402(a)(2) requires the Government to obtain data other than certified cost or pricing data, which applies to this source selection, as necessary to establish a fair and reasonable price. The Government considers the obtainment of the results of the analyses described in FAR 15.404-3(b) as necessary.

Reference Document Section/Page Issue/Background Question/Answer

61 RFP L.11.2.2, 11 & 33/pg. 89/92 Note/pg. 92

The note requires the incorporation of the full $850M potential value of the contract into the indirect rate pools.

For this amount to actually affect the applicable indirect rates, the contractor would have to receive the total potential value. Based on the natural calculations of indirect rates, the impact would be automatic. Should the contractor not receive the full amount, their actual indirect rates could conceivably be much higher than the calculated and abated indirect rates. This would result in the Contractor losing money on Cost-Plus task orders.

Please confirm that contractors will be able to adjust the ceiling indirect rates if the actually award money is not as projected -i.e., falls short of the expectation to receive all $850M.

No. The contractor will not be able to adjust the negotiated ceiling indirect cost rates. However, the RFP has been amended to delete the following sentence from Section L.11.2.2(11) (Price Proposal Instructions): “As a single-award IDIQ potential contract, the impacted dollars used to derive, in part, the indirect cost rates proposed in Pricing Tables 1 and 2 shall reflect the maximum quantity of $850,000,000.” Instead, the impacted dollars used to derive, in part, the indirect cost rates proposed in Pricing Tables 1 and 2 shall reflect the offeror’s management decision/business forecast.

62 RFP L.11.3.5 Business Systems, JV, and Policies/pg. 94

Please confirm that a DCMA-endorsed (Approved) Accounting System meets the requirements of L.11.3.5 - Cost Accounting System.

Submission of a letter identifying an affirmative cost accounting system adequacy determination, and issued by the offeror’s cognizant Federal agency official (CFAO), is evidence that the offeror may submit and the Government will consider, pursuant to RFP Section L.11.3.5(Cost Accounting System)(c).

Reference Document Section/Page Issue/Background Question/Answer

63 RFP B.9 NTE Profit Percentages for T&M, Labor Hour & FFP/pg. 12

It is inconsistent with FAR regulations to request profit percentage for T&M, Labor Hour and FFP when there is adequate price competition. The government will determine the winning contractor’s total price, including fully burdened T&M rates, to be fair and reasonable based on the competition.

To the extent that work within the scope of the contract gets added in the future as T&M or FFP, the contractor will incorporate profit into the proposed T&M rates or FFP based on investment and risk associated with the work (this question is limited to T&M, LH, and FFP efforts and doesn’t apply to CPFF work). The government will then have the opportunity to negotiate fair and reasonable T&M rates or FFP, both of which would include profit.

It is inconsistent with FAR to establish and limit profit to a NTE percentage at the time of initial award for these types of contracts before such future work is even identified, or the corresponding risks known.

Will the government confirm that it will negotiate the total price, including profit, at the time that future new work is added as T&M or FFP, and remove the requirement to provide a NTE profit percentage as part of this initial contract award?

No. Also: 1) The Government found no such inconsistency in the FAR. 2) As a contemplated single-award IDIQ contract, there will be no competition at the task order level. 3) The Government determined that the risk among all potential task orders is similar. 4) Soliciting and negotiating at the IDIQ level a not-to-exceed (NTE) profit percentage rather than a fixed profit percentage allows for flexibility to agree at the task order level to a profit percentage that accords precisely with the presumed risk. 5) Soliciting and negotiating a profit percentage at the IDIQ level facilitates administration at the task order level.

Reference Document Section/Page Issue/Background Question/Answer

64 RFP H.2 Security Requirements/pg. 51-52

A TOP SECRET facility clearance is required for this initiative.

(a) A facility security clearance at TOP SECRET level is required for performance on this contract/ task order and any subsequent task orders in accordance with the DD Form 254, Department of Defense Contract Security Classification Specification. The Defense Security Service, a member of the Department of Defense (DOD), should issue the TOP SECRET facility clearance.

(a) Subcontracting firms must possess facility security clearances commensurate with their level of access.

Please confirm that only the Prime Contractor is required to have a Top Secret facility clearance, and that subcontractors are only required to have facility security clearances commensurate with their level of access.

The prime and all subcontractors are required to have a Top Secret facility clearance.

Per the DD Form 254 Contract Security Classification Specifications, Secret or Top Secret (TS) clearances are required for contract performance. The prime contractor must have a facility clearance level (FCL) equal to or greater than that required for any/all contract performance. Thus, the prime contractor will require a TS FCL. The subcontractor(s) may perform work with a Secret (FCL) on work that only requires access to Secret material. However, the subcontracting firm would not be eligible for contract performance requiring access to Top Secret information. Thus, the subcontractor is only required to have an FCL commensurate with the level of access required for contract performance.

65 RFP L.11 Proposal Preparation Instructions & Formatting/pg. 82-83

Proposals shall use 12 point, Times New Roman font, with 1-inch margins, and pages shall be numbered consecutively.

(b) 12-point size type shall be used. The font shall be Times New Roman with one exception – Arial may be used for tables, figures, and graphics. The font size for tables and figures, and any other type of inserts can be no smaller than 8 point; The font size for any graphics as it appears on the printed page can be no smaller than 8 point;

Please confirm that the 8 point Arial font limit for graphics, figures, and tables set forth on pages 82-83 for Volumes II & III also apply to Volume I.

See response to question 3.

Reference Document Section/Page Issue/Background Question/Answer

66 RFP G.5 Task Order Proposal & Proposal Submission Procedures/pg. 44 L.11.2.2 Price Proposal Instructions/pg. 88 paragraph 26 Exhibit I – Pricing Tables

Section G.5 does not specify the inclusion of Fixed Fee on any Materials or ODCs with Task Order Proposal Submissions.

The IDIQ Price Proposal Instructions and Pricing Tables, however, apply the proposed NTE Fee Percentage to the Materials plug figure for the purposes of calculating the total evaluated price.

Will the government permit the application of the NTE Fixed Fee to Materials and ODCs during task order performance? If not, recommend removal of the Fixed Fee application to the Materials amount in tab 4 of the IDIQ Price Exhibit I.

Yes. See RFP Section G.5(b)(3) and B.10. Application of the negotiated NTE fee percentage(s) [or discount of such percentage(s)] shall be applied accordingly at the task order level based on the task order type. For example, they shall be included in a cost-plus-fixed-fee task order proposal, but they shall not be included under the materials portion of a time-and-materials task order proposal [pursuant to FAR 52.232-7(b)(7)].

67 RFP Standard Form 33/pg. 1 The Date Issued (04/05/2017) on Standard Form 33 does not match the date of 05/05/2017 when the RFP was actually released.

The “Date Issued” was not updated to reflect the actual release date of the RFP and it appears that the “Due Date” block for all offers was not updated either. Would the Government please update the proposal due date in cell number 9 of page 1 of the RFP (the SF 33) to provide the time for proposals consistent with the originally intended deadline?

No. The FBO posting date will serve as the official record for the solicitation’s release.

68 RFP RFP Pg. 6 L.11.1.4/pg. 84 L.11.1.5/pg. 85

The CLIN table shown does not include titles for the CLINs and there is no description for the services to be provided under each CLIN. Section L.11.1.4 (Factor 3 – TO 1) requires the following: The Offeror shall provide the Basis of Estimate (BOE) for the staffing/labor mix and number of full time equivalents (FTEs) for each CLIN in the proposed task order 1. Section L.11.1.5 (Factor 4 – TO 2) requires the following: Provide the Basis of Estimate (BOE) for the staffing/labor mix and number of full time equivalents (FTEs) for each CLIN in the proposed task order 2.

There are no CLINs defined in TO 1 and TO 2 and the CLINs shown in RFP page 6 are undefined. Would the Government please provide the CLIN information necessary to provide the BOE required by RFP L.11.1.4 and L.11.1.5?

The CLIN structure on page 6 is intended for administrative purposes only, while more specific CLIN structures will be addressed at the task order level. The Contractor should provide the appropriate staffing/labor mix that would meet the requirements of the contract.

69 RFP C.4.3.2/pg.27 In Section C.4.3.2 Subtask 2: Tier III & IV Support states that offerors shall perform the following tasks:

• Utilize provided tools to perform incident, problem and service request management (BMC Remedy)

• Track and record all Tier III & IV resolutions and corrective actions using IT service management system (Remedy)

In light of significant budget pressure, does the Government plan to continue using Remedy or plan to transition to a more cost-competitive platform?

This information is not relevant.

Reference Document Section/Page Issue/Background Question/Answer

70 RFP C.4.3.2/pg.27 In Section C.4.3.2 Subtask 2: Tier III & IV Support states that offerors shall perform the following tasks:

• Utilize provided tools to perform incident, problem and service request management (BMC Remedy)

• Track and record all Tier III & IV resolutions and corrective actions using IT service management system (Remedy)

a) Is CA/CST responsible for the instance of Remedy covering Service Requests and Resolutions/Corrective Actions?

b) Or, are these functions provided by the Bureau of Information Resources Management (IRM)?

This information is not relevant.

71 RFP C.4.3.2/pg.27 In Section C.4.3.2 Subtask 2: Tier III & IV Support states that offerors shall perform the following tasks:

• Utilize provided tools to perform incident, problem and service request management (BMC Remedy)

• Track and record all Tier III & IV resolutions and corrective actions using IT service management system (Remedy)

If CA/CST is responsible for Service Requests and Resolutions/Corrective Actions, is the Government open to exploring opportunities to reduce total cost of ownership through transition to cloud-based ITSM platforms as opposed to on-premise infrastructure-heavy environments?

The Service Desk requirements are out of scope of this contract.

72 RFP C.4.4.4/pg. 28 In Section C.4.4.4 Subtask 4: Requirements Management states that the contractor will be responsible for contributing to the ongoing refinement of ConsularOne requirements and their maintenance in the repository tools (i.e. IBM Rational DOORS).

Will the Government stay with IBM Rational DOORS or is the Government planning to upgrade this technology?

There are no plans at this time to upgrade this technology.

73 RFP C.4.4.7/pg. 30 Section C.4.4.7 Subtask 7: Integration Testing States the contractor shall “collaborate with test support organizations that perform compliance testing”.

a) Please confirm if all of the existing systems on ConsularOne are 508 compliant.

b) If not, will the government require the contractor to bring them into compliance?

CST requires all systems to be Section 508 compliant. Please see Section C.4.3.

74 RFP E.2/pg. 35 RFP Section E.2 states that the contractor shall ensure that status and performance data are available through SharePoint to coincide with the monthly CSR.

a) Please confirm that this is an existing government-provided SharePoint-based system?

Yes

b) If not, will SharePoint be provided as GOTS?

No Response required.

c) Will the contractor be required to set up the SharePoint instance to suit the needs of the government?

No response required.

Reference Document Section/Page Issue/Background Question/Answer

75 RFP E.2.1/pg. 27;

J.1/pg.66;

L.11.1.4/pg.84 L.11.1.5/pg.

RFP E.2.1 states the following: “The Contractor’s metrics should include the Government’s metrics outlined in the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) or Performance Requirements Summary (PRS) plus any additional ones it feels are needed to properly gauge the performance of the Contractor’s activities.”

The RFP did not provide a QASP or a PRS; and Section J does not identify them as part of the RFP; however, Section L.11.1.4 requires the offeror to “provide performance measures in addition to those stated in the PWS”. Will the Government provide the QASP or PRS in order to allow the contractor to determine what/if any additional performance measures should be included as required by RFP E.2.1?

See amended language in Section E.2.1 and table in E.2.

76 RFP and

TO

Request 1

F.1/pg.39 TO1 – paragraph 5.0/pg. 2

The due dates for these deliverables are inconsistent. On page 39 (RFP F.1) the first WAR is due NLT 15 days after contract award (DACA) and the CSR is due NLT 15 days after the full reporting month. On page 2 of TO1 the requirement states that the first WAR is due 7 DACA and the first CSR is due 30 DACA.

Please confirm due dates for the initial submissions of the WAR and CSR.

See amended table in Exhibit J (TO1).

77 RFP Section F.2 Place of Performance

The RFP states “For the duration of this TO, work associated with the Consular Systems Modernization (CSM) will be performed primarily in the Washington DC Metro area. The Contractor shall have the majority of its staff at a location, which includes meeting space, within 25 miles of the Annex at 600 19th St, NW, Washington DC. Some activities may need to be performed at the DoS facilities, including data centers.

a) Please confirm that the primary place of performance will be in the contractor’s facility.

b) Also please indicate if any government space will be made available to the contractor throughout transition?

c) If the government allows contractor space at government facilities - please describe the space.

No space will be provided at government facilities. See F.2 Place of Performance.

78 RFP Section F.2 Place of Performance

In order to ensure a smooth Transition it is important for the transition personnel to be close to their government counterparts, to facilitate timely interchange.

We respectfully request office space and a dedicated conference room at the governments facility during transition to facilitate knowledge transfer and to facilitate access to both government and outgoing contractor personnel. Will the government allow this?

See respond to question 77.

Reference Document Section/Page Issue/Background Question/Answer

79 RFP H.6/55 (GFE) It is logical that the Contractor will track information, materials, and data and should return GFE to DOS at the end of the contract. It is unclear what property or equipment (other than workstations) should be tracked and returned under the scope of this contract.

a) Please provide an inventory of all GFE (hardware specifically) that the Contractor will be responsible to track.

b) Please confirm that no infrastructure (servers, storage, communication equipment, etc.) is in-scope for this effort with the exception of the Government Furnished workstations.

All current GFE has been outlined in Section H.6. Should future GFE be identified, it will be done at the task order level.

Reference Document Section/Page Issue/Background Question/Answer

80 RFP H.10 RFP Section H.10 indicates that any “person” whose objectivity in performing the contract work is or might be otherwise impaired or who has an unfair competitive advantage is deemed to have an Organizational Conflict of Interest and is ineligible to participate in the procurement.

a) Will the Government ensure there are no instances of OCI by disqualifying any company that performs IV&V work on those systems to be consolidated and modernized under the ConsularOne effort as they have knowledge not available to competitors?

Any OCI will be reviewed and considered against a firm’s existing DOS contract and OCI risk mitigation plan. If any firm competing under this effort does not disclose a potential OCI it will be considered unfavorable for their continued participation if discovered after the fact DOS will pro-actively review and consider this matter seriously as proposals are received and address these matters as they arise with industry.

b) Will the government disqualify those companies supporting legacy systems from whom the Government may have requested directly pertinent information to this solicitation, as they have clear competitive advantage through knowledge of the enterprise architecture which is unavailable to other competitors? See above response.

c) Will the government provide access to EA artifacts and legacy systems to the interested bidders to ensure a level playing field for this competition to ensure there are no hidden competitive advantages that would prompt a protest?

Relevant architecture artifacts for ConsularOne and legacy systems will be provided as a part of this task upon award.

Overarching ConsularOne architecture models are not yet complete and are not available to be shared at this time. The eventual awardee will be requested to provide input into the evolution of the overall system architecture.

81 RFP

H.12/ Pg. 58 H.12 ASSOCIATE CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT …(c) A copy of such agreement shall be provided to the Contracting Officer for review before execution of the document by the cooperating contractors.

Will the Government confirm that the Associate Contractor Agreement will be required only if entering into a CTA (typically under FSS) with another contractor?

Section H.12 has been deleted.

Reference Document Section/Page Issue/Background Question/Answer

82 RFP

Contracting Officer for review before execution of the document by the cooperating contractors.

We assume that the requirement to enter into an Associate Contractor Agreement is limited to when Prime is buying off another's schedule and therefore proposing their schedule in the prime’s bid, or a joint venture situation?

If this is a wrong assumption, please:

a) Specify how the government perceives the…