Amendment_002_Questions_ _Responses.pdf

Amendment 002 to RFP No. SB1341-14-RP-0005 NIST- Establishment of an FFRDC to Support the NCCoE

Amendment 002 Questions & Answers

RFP SB1341-14-RP-0005

The purposes of this amendment are as follows:

1. To provide responses to questions received from potential Offerors. This attachment details questions received from potential Offerors and the official NIST responses to those questions;

2. To attach the revised Request for Proposals (RFP) that contains all revisions made based on the questions received and the official responses to those questions. The attached document titled “Amendment 002 RFP” shows all changes being made via this amendment, and replaces the original RFP. The “Amendment 002 RFP” shall be used as the official RFP from the date of issuance of this amendment;

3. To provide information on the scheduled Site Visit that NIST will host to provide potential Offerors the opportunity to view both the current NCCoE facility and the NCCoE Phase II facility. Specific details on this Site Visit as well as instructions for registering for the Site Visit can be found in the text of the Amendment;

4. To add a separate period for submission of questions specifically related to the Site Visit that will be held on May 9, 2014.

During the period of May 9 – 15, 2014, Offerors may submit questions that are directly related to the Site Visit or the contents of the presentation(s) given at the Site Visit. These questions must be received via email at keith.bubar@nist.gov by no later than May 15, 2014 at 5:00 PM Eastern Time;

5. To extend the deadline for submission of questions to the RFP to Wednesday, April 23, 2014 at 5:00 PM Eastern Time. This change is reflected in the attached “Amendment 002 RFP”; and

6. To extend the official response deadline of this RFP to May 29, 2014 at 12:00 PM Eastern Time.

mailto:keith.bubar@nist.gov

No. RFP Reference Question Response

1 RFP TO2 SOW,

paragraphs 5.4 and 5.8, pp. 87-88; RFP instructions L.9.5.B.a.i (3rd paragraph on page 123)

The instructions for the number of Building Blocks to be priced are inconsistent. TO2 SOW paragraph 5.4 (page 87) states that the “number of Use Case (sic) Descriptions that will be pursued as projects…are expected to average four per year.” TO2 SOW paragraph 5.8 (page 88) states that “…the number of building block teams will vary with circumstances, but are anticipated to average two new projects per year”.

Instructions for Volume 5 Task Order Pricing (paragraph L.9.5.B.a.1 on page 123) state that “…the number of Building Block Descriptions anticipated to be designated for development is two (2) per year…”.

Please clarify the number of Building Block Descriptions that will be designated for development per year.

There was a typographical error made on page 87 of the original RFP, in the TO2 Statement of Work (SOW). The questioner correctly points out that the TO2 SOW mistakenly says that the “number of Use Case Descriptions that will be pursued as projects…are expected to average four per year.”

This has been changed so that it now correctly reads “The number of Building Block Descriptions that will be pursued as projects will vary depending on the results of analysis of comments received and the decision by the COR, but are expected to average two per year.”

This change is reflected in the attached “Amendment

002 RFP.”

2 RFP Reference: L.9 Proposal Submission Instructions, pages 127-128 of 133

Please provide the external package marking instructions for hand delivery of proposals.

Proposal packages must be marked with the following information:

Solicitation No. SB1341-14-RP-0005

Keith Bubar

NIST

Building 301, Room B152 100 Bureau Drive Stop 1640 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1640

3 RFP Reference:

L.8.2.2.1, page 116 of 133, Administrative Section: “The Administrative Section shall provide the Government with basic administrative information on the Offeror and its proposed team (if applicable).”

What information about the Offeror’s proposed team (if applicable) is required in this section? Where is information on the team required to be presented? If team information is required to be presented in the Executive Summary, then please increase the page limit in the Executive Summary to provide space for offerors to provide this information.

Information on the Offeror’s proposed team should be presented in the Executive Summary portion of the Administrative section. This information should include, at a minimum, a summary of all “members” of the Offeror’s team and shall clearly identify the Prime contractor. The Offeror must provide the DUNS number and official name (as listed in the System for Award Management) of any entity identified as a “member” of the Offeror’s team.

The page limits for the Executive Summary portion of the Administrative section have been increased from two (2) pages in length to four (4) pages in length. This change is reflected in the attached “Amendment 002 RFP.”

4 RFP Reference:

L.8.2.2, page 117, Additional Sections, first para.: “Unless otherwise stated in the description of each section of the Technical Proposal below or in the Exclusion section directly below all information contained in the Offeror’s technical proposal will be considered in the page limits.”

For the government’s ease of evaluation we would like to include tables of contents, lists of figures, acronym lists, and cross-reference matrices in our proposal volumes. Please confirm that these items will be excluded from the page limits.

Offerors may include tables of contents, lists of figures, acronym lists, and cross-reference matrices in their proposals, and these items will not be counted against the page limitations that have been set.

5 Section L.8.2.2.B.2,

pp. 117-118:

“…Offeror shall provide a detailed description…” “This attachment containing the listing and description of the proposed labor categories is not included in the 150 page limit for the Technical Proposal.

However, the attachment containing the labor category listings and descriptions is limited to 20 pages in length.”

The combination of the page limit and TNR-11 point font size requirement for the labor categories listing will result in a constraint on the number of labor categories that an offeror may bid. Since the listing of labor categories represents the only labor categories on which contractor personnel may work on any task order issued against the intended IDIQ contract [25 years], and to ensure that offerors can provide the detailed descriptions required, please remove the page limit on the attachment containing labor category listings and descriptions.

The 20-page limit originally placed on the attachment containing the labor category listings and descriptions has been removed. This change is reflected in the attached “Amendment 002 RFP.”

6 Section L.8.2.2.A, second bullet, page 117: “The Offeror may propose no more than two (2) candidates for each position.”

If an offeror proposes two candidates for one of these key personnel positions, how will this be evaluated?

The Offeror need only propose one candidate for each position, and the intent is for each position to be filled by one person per position. However, should the Offeror propose two candidates for any of the Key Personnel positions, the Offeror shall designate one candidate as the primary candidate for the position, while a second candidate may only be proposed as a backup for the position. The government may consider the qualifications of both candidates proposed, but the candidate identified as the primary candidate will be evaluated as the candidate to fill the position, while the backup candidate will be evaluated as an individual who would only act in the absence of the primary candidate proposed.

The attached “Amendment 002 RFP” reflects the changes discussed in this response.

7 L.8.4, Volume 4:

Subcontracting Plan, Table 1, page

Are the stated participation goals a percentage of total subcontracted value, or total contract value?

The small business participation goals stated in Section L.8 of the RFP are meant as percentages of total contract value. The DOC Small Business Goals listed in Section L.8 of the RFP are for informational purposes only. The offeror’s Subcontracting Plan goals should be set at a level that the offeror reasonably expects can result from its expending good faith efforts to use small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and women-owned small business subcontractors to the maximum practicable extent.

8 L.8.4, Volume 4:

Subcontracting Plan, pp. 119-120

Do second-tier/lower-tier subcontractors count against achievement of the small business subcontracting goals?

Yes.

9 SF-33 and L.9.2, Proposal Submission Instructions, p. 127

The SF-33 requires an original and 5 copies of the proposal.

L.9.2 requires 5 copies of the entire proposal. Please clarify the number of copies required.

As stated in Section L.9.2, the Offeror shall submit five (5) copies of its entire proposal. Therefore, a total of five copies are required. The SF33 has been amended in the attached “Amendment 002 RFP” document to reflect this change.

10 M.2.A, p. 131: “The evaluation of the Management Approach will consider the following: …The qualifications of the proposed Key Personnel to be assigned to the base IDIQ contract.”

Also M.2.B.3, p.

132, “…the Government will consider the following:…the qualifications of the Offeror’s proposed Key Personnel…”

Which qualifications of the proposed Key Personnel will be considered? How will these qualifications be evaluated?

The government will consider the qualifications of the candidates proposed- such as education, experience, and certifications- to determine the extent of their ability to perform the duties of the position(s) each are being proposed for.

11 M.2 Evaluation

Criteria, p. 133 Please provide evaluation criteria for Volume 4 Subcontracting Plan.

Offerors must submit a Subcontracting Plan in accordance with the instructions given in Section L.8 of the RFP. The Subcontracting Plan will be reviewed to determine whether it is acceptable in accordance with FAR 19.704-5. The DOC Small Business Goals listed in Section L.8 of the RFP are for informational purposes only. The offeror’s Subcontracting Plan goals should be set at a level that the offeror reasonably expects can result from its expending good faith efforts to use small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and women-owned small business subcontractors to the maximum practicable extent.

12 C.1 IDIQ SOW, p.

14, C. Facilities Management

If there are contractors currently in place at the NCCoE Rockville facility to perform IT services, mail room, etc., when will those responsibilities transition to the FFRDC awardee?

There are contractors currently providing IT support services and strategic and communications planning support services to the NCCoE at the current facility.

It is anticipated that these requirements will transition to the FFRDC operator within the first year of the IDIQ contract, or as soon as possible.

13 Section J.1, Sponsoring Agreement, VI.B.4,

p. 51

The referenced paragraph states that NIST will provide the FFRDC with sufficient access to classified information. Is there any requirement for the FFRDC to handle classified information?

If the handling of classified material is required it will be specified at the task order level. However, FAR 52.204-2 Security Requirements and 52.204-2 Alternate I are added to Section I of the RFP for inclusion at the base contract level.

14 Section J.1, Sponsoring Agreement, VI.D.7.b.A, p. 53

May the FFRDC perform non-sponsor work for tribal governments, educational institutions, institutions of higher learning, other FFRDC-type non-profits, and/or non-US governments? This range of entities is typical for many other FFRDCs.

NIST has revised the language in the Sponsoring Agreement found in Section J.1 of the RFP so that it reflects that the FFRDC may be authorized to perform non-sponsor work for public sector and not-for-profit entities on a case-by-case basis. Non-sponsor work may be performed only after the FFRDC has requested and obtained written permission to undertake each individual non-sponsor work effort. This request must be submitted in writing to the NIST Contracting Officer at least sixty

(60) days prior to the requested start date of such work. The NIST Contracting Officer will respond within thirty (30) days of receipt of request. The NIST Contacting Officer reserves the right to deny such requests if he/she determines that the non-sponsor activities may adversely impact FFRDC work for the sponsoring agency.

The revised language is reflected in the attached “Amendment 002 RFP.”

15 Section J.5, Task Order #2 SOW throughout

There are numerous references in this SOW to “use case”.

Please confirm that all such references should be to “building block”.

The attached “Amendment 002 RFP” reflects the corrections made to correct the incorrect terminology in the TO2 SOW.

16 Section J.5, Task Order #2 SOW, 10.

Key Personnel, p.

The Technology Partnerships SME key personnel requirement was deleted from TO#2 in the final RFP. We recommend that the Technology Partnerships SME key personnel be retained in TO#2, given the need for collaboration with/among technology providers in the development of building blocks.

The Key Personnel positions described in the SOW’s for each respective task order will remain as they are currently written. However, Offerors may still include additional positions in their proposals that would perform services as non-Key Personnel.

17 Section J.6, Task

Order #3 SOW, 3.

Applicable Documents, p. 97;

and Amendment 001 to the Draft RFP, answer to question #39

Please provide the NCCOE Program of Requirements document that is listed as one of the applicable documents.

NIST plans to provide the NCCoE Program of Requirements in a future amendment.

18 Section J.6, Task Order #3 SOW, 4 Scope 1.e Technical support for the full range of IT and support systems required for FFRDC operations, p. 97, and Amendment 001 to the Draft RFP, answer to question #42

Please specify the technical support that is required. What is the full range of IT and support systems that are required for FFRDC operations? E.g., who provides help desk support for GFE laptops?

The technical support should be considered all Tier 1 support. This includes Tier 1 help desk support for GFE laptops.

19 Section J.6, Task Order #3 SOW, 5.6,

p. 100: “The design shall also identify 1) server requirements;

2) other IT terminal and network systems requirements and sources…”

Please confirm that the requirement is for the design to identify facilities requirements for the server room and other facilities requirements to support IT systems, and not to design server or other IT systems requirements.

The requirement is for identifying facilities, server and IT Systems requirements.

20 Section J.4, Task

Order #1, 8. GFx, p.

80; Section J.5, Task Order #2, 8.

GFx, p. 93; and Section J.6, Task Order #3, 8.GFx, p.

What software (in addition to the standard operating system) will be on the NIST-provided laptops?

Basic office tools, required monitoring and management utilities and remote access tools will be included on the NIST-provided laptops.

21 N/A Has a contractor performed similar work to this for the government in the past? If available, please provide the incumbent contract number.

If you are unable to provide a contract number, is it safe to assume this is a new requirement for the government?

This is a new requirement. The vast majority of the work to be performed by the FFRDC operator has not been provided by contractors to the NCCOE in the past. There are contractors currently providing IT support services and strategic and communications planning support services to the NCCoE. These requirements will be transitioned to the FFRDC operator following the award of the IDIQ contract.

The NCCoE receives IT support services from the contractor, Information Technology Coalition, Inc., under Purchase Order number SB1341-12-SE-0688.

The NCCoE receives strategic and communications planning support services from the contractor, A- Team Solutions, Inc., under Purchase Order SB1341-

13-SE-0377.

22 Page 113 As an academic institution eligible to submit a proposal to

RFP_SB1341-14-RP-0005 as either a prime or subcontractor the requirement to submit all contracts currently held is troublesome and does not appear to be in alignment with the U.S. Government policies and regulations on excessive data requests vice only requiring essential relevant data be provided to make a determination/assessment or in this case an evaluation determination. We request the Department of Commerce and NIST consider modification of the below referenced section to reflect only relevant contracts applicable to the work to be performed under RFP_SB1341- 14-RP-0005 resultant contract and/or a definition of what NIST means by contract with exclusion categories for non applicable types of contractual vehicles.

If the Department of Commerce and NIST are not able to clarify the requirement below, we additionally request guidance on how you wish us to comply in light of Federal requirements (among others) that obligate our academic institution on most contractual arrangements to notify the sponsor in advance of any release of information and/or those that are prohibited from disclosure in part (i.e. cannot release sponsor information required by NIST below) or are entirely unacknowledged/restricted including Federal classified restrictions, Federal, State, Local, Tribal and Commercial non-disclosure requirements, and as such we request immediate acknowledgement of this question by the NIST contracting officer (Keith Bubar) to confirm receipt and would appreciate an expedited response.

NIST has revised the language in Section L.8 to change the requirements for submission. The revised language is reflected in the attached “Amendment 002 RFP.” Offerors need only submit the required information for all relevant contracts, both government (local, state and federal) and non-government it, its parent company, subsidiary, or other affiliated entity currently holds as a Prime or Subcontractor. For proposal preparation purposes, a relevant contract is one under which the Offeror performs or performed work that is related to or similar in nature to any element of the scope of work of this contract, or work whose performance or results could affect the performance of any work performed under this contract.

23 L.8, first para., p. 114 Does “the proposal shall be…indexed (cross-indexed as appropriate)” mean that a table of contents must be supplied? If so, please confirm that the table of contents does not fall within the page limitations for any page-limited volumes.

This means that some form of a table of contents must be included in the proposal. Offerors may include a table of contents for each volume of the proposal if necessary. Any table of contents included in the proposal will not count against the page limitations set on the proposal or any of the volumes therein.

24 L.8, first para., p. 114 Does “cross-indexed” mean a compliance matrix, a cross-index between volumes or sections, or something else? Please confirm that the cross-index does not fall within the page limitations for any page-limited volumes.

The instructions call for “cross-indexing” as appropriate. Therefore, if one volume of the proposal references another volume of the proposal, this must be appropriately cross-indexed. However, it is not a requirement that a proposal be cross-indexed if not appropriate. Any cross-index tables, matrices, or other figures of that nature will not count against the page limitations set on the proposal or any of the volumes therein.

25 L.8, first para., p. 114 The referenced paragraph states, “page numbers may be included in the margins.” May we also please reference in the margin: FAR/disclosure language, offeror’s name/logo, RFP number, section titles, and proposal title?

Yes.

26 L.8, first para., p. 114 The nature of this proposal may require that screenshots and preexisting documentation excerpts be presented to fully explain the offer. These items will likely not be in Times New Roman 11 point font. Are we correct that items of this nature will not be held to the font requirement?

Items such as screenshots or preexisting documentation in which it is unreasonable to change the font type and size to fit the stated font requirements are excluded from those font requirements.

27 L.8, first para., p. 114 Spreadsheets are usually completed in san serif fonts (the default in MS Excel is now Calibri) because of the readability of the numbers and to provide a cleaner, more streamlined document. Is a san serif font acceptable for the spreadsheets in Volume 5 Business Proposal?

Acceptable font types for MS Excel spreadsheets are “San Serif,” “Calibri,” and “Times New Roman.” These changes have been reflected in the attached “Amendment 002 RFP.”

28 L.8, first para., p. 114 Logos and company identifiers are existing items and will likely not be in Times New Roman 11 point font. Are we correct that items of this nature will not

Correct.

be held to the font requirement?

29 J.4 Task Order 1 SOW, section 5.3.1, page 71.

This paragraph requires that a Use Case Team Development Work Plan be developed for “each published Use Case Description.” By the logic in

5.2.1 and 5.2.4, the number of Use Case Descriptions published is set at 8 per year. However, paragraph

5.2.6 states that the number of Use Case Descriptions that will be “pursued as projects” are expected to average four per year. Since the team development activities described in SOW paragraph 5.3 are targeted at these “pursued projects,” is it correct to assume for proposal purposes that the number of Use Case Team Development Work Plans to be developed is expected to be four per year?

It is correct to assume for proposal purposes that the number of Use Case Team Development Work Plans to be developed is expected to be four per year.

30 J.5 Task Order 2 SOW, section 5.9, The first sentence of this paragraph appears to be missing an object of the prepositional phrase. Please specify what is being referenced in the phrase “On completion of the ..(?).. specified in each…”

This typographical error has been corrected in the attached “Amendment 002 RFP.” The sentence now correctly reads: “On completion of the agreements specified in each Building Block Work Plan (see Task 5.6), deliver to the COR a Roster of Building Block Development and Demonstration Collaborators with completed agreements for each technology provider identified in the roster included in an appendix.”

31 L.8.5.B.a.ii, page 123;

J.4.Task Order 1 SOW Sections 5.1

– 5.4, pages 66 - 76 J.5. Task Order 2 SOW Sections 5.1

– 5.4, pages 85 - 86

Instructions in the 2nd paragraph direct the offeror to “add an additional cost breakdown to Table 2 above that shows the proposed amount for each phase per Use Case for each of the Cost Elements in Table 2.”

Comparable language for Building Blocks is included in the 3rd paragraph of the instructions.

However, many of the activities required by Sections

5.1 and 5.2 of Task Order 1, and Sections 5.1 through

5.5 of Task Order 2, are not associated with any specific Use Case or Building Block.

For example, Task Order 1 Section 5.1.1 addresses

The language included in Section L.8.5.B.a.ii has been amended to address this issue. The revised language is reflected in the attached “Amendment 002 RFP.” This specific section now reads as shown below:

“As stated in the Task Order 1 SOW, the number of Use Case Descriptions anticipated to be designated for development is four (4) per year, or eight (8) for the entire two-year period of performance of the task order. Each Use Case has three key phases. The first phase is requirements definition (see requirements from Section 5.1 of the Task Order 1 an unspecified number of “problems” that are analyzed and subsequently reduced to Use Case recommendations, which are made at the rate of 1 per month (12 per year) in Section 5.1.4. The number of Use Cases subject to further definition is reduced to 8 per year in Section 5.2.1, and further reduced to four per year that will be pursued as projects in Section

5.2.6. The average of four per year remains fixed

through Sections 5.3 and 5.4.

Since Section 5.1 of Task Order 1 consists of “level – of-effort” activities that are not Use Case-specific, and Section 5.2 contains activities for candidate Use Cases that never reach development under 5.3 and 5.4, how does the Government want these activities represented in Table 2 given the instruction to provide information “per Use Case”?

(this question is also applicable to Building Blocks, Task Order 2, Sections )

SOW). The second phase is Use Case description (see requirements from Section 5.2 of the Task Order 1 SOW). The third phase includes Use Case team development and Use Case builds (see requirements from Sections 5.3 and 5.4 of the Task Order 1 SOW). For Task Order 1, Offerors must add an additional cost breakdown to Table 2 above that shows the proposed Cost Element amount for each phase; and for the second and third phases only, Offerors must also show the proposed Cost Element amount per Use Case in Table 2.

As stated in the Task Order 2 SOW, the number of Building Block Descriptions anticipated to be designated for development is two (2) per year, or four (4) for the entire two-year period of performance of the task order. Each Building Block has three key phases. The first phase is Building Block requirements determination (see requirements from Sections 5.1 and 5.2 of the Task Order 2 SOW). The second phase includes Building Block description and planning (see requirements from Sections 5.3 through 5.5 of the Task Order 2 SOW).

The third phase includes Building Block team development and Building Block build, demonstration, and documentation (see requirements from Sections 5.6 through 5.12 of the Task Order 2 SOW). For Task Order 2, Offerors must add an additional cost breakdown to Table 2 above that shows the proposed Cost Element amount for each phase; and for the second and third phases only, Offerors must also show the proposed Cost Element amount per Building Block in Table 2.

32 Draft RFP Amendment 001, answer to question #34

Will the government facilitate a site visit by bidders to the Phase II facility during the proposal period?

NIST has included information on the scheduled Site Visit in this Amendment.

33 L.8.2.c, p. 118, Corporate May offerors cite corporate experience from Offerors shall include information on the relevant

Experience Section subcontractors, or is corporate experience from the Offeror only?

Corporate Experience of the prime contractor and may include the experience of proposed subcontractors that would perform major or critical aspects of the requirement.

34 L.9.2, p. 127, first para., “Searchable

PDF”

Is it correct to assume that only text and captions be searchable, and not graphics, which are images?

Correct.

35 L.8, p. 114, first para., indexing Is it expected that the index/table of contents be static or interactive (hyperlinked)?

It is not required for the index/table of contents to be interactive.

36 Section M, page 131 In Section M, page 131 the Government indicates that the factors are listed in descending order of importance. Can the government further elaborate on the relative level of importance of the Evaluation Factors? For example, is the Management Approach significantly more important than the Technical Capability and Task Order Responses or slightly more important, etc.? This additional level of granularity would help the offerors in structuring their response and ensure that NIST receives proposals most reflective of their desired areas of emphasis.

The government will not provide further detail on the relative importance of each evaluation factor.

37 Section L.8, page 114, first para.: “In all sections of and attachments to the Offeror’s proposal, the Offeror must use font Times New Roman, a font size of no smaller than 11 point…” and Section L.8.2.2, page 117, Additional Sections, first para: “Tables/Graphics/Illustrations or any other displays that the Offeror includes in its proposal…are subject to the spacing and font limitations specified earlier in this document.”

Please consider changing the formatting requirements for the proposal to the following:

• Times New Roman or Arial font with a minimum 11 points for the text and heading

• Arial with a minimum 9pt for the graphics, tables, and captions

• 6 points space after paragraph for paragraphs of multiple sentences

• No font or size limitation on information in the 1 inch margins

• Information in the margins is limited to page numbers, disclosure text, section names, proposal title, RFP number, and offeror’s name and/or logo.

These requirements allow for differentiation of headings from text, and graphics and captions from

The government has amended Section L.8 of the RFP to accommodate some of these requested changes. These changes are reflected in the attached “Amendment 002 RFP.”

text, without a significant decrease in the font size for the reviewer. The size difference between 9 pt Arial and 11 pt times is shown below, the main difference being the narrower letters—f, i, l, j. Having a second font results in a document that is easier to read.