Amendment_003_Questions_ _Responses.pdf

Amendment 003 RFP No. SB1341-14-RP-0005

Amendment 003 Questions & Responses

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; and

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 003 RFP” shows all changes being made via this amendment, and replaces the “Amendment 002 RFP,” which replaced the original RFP. The “Amendment 003 RFP” shall be used as the official RFP from the date of issuance of this amendment.

Questions & Responses

No. RFP Reference Question Response 1 L.9 Please specify how offerors and their subcontractors are to submit sealed bids in accordance with FAR Subparts

6.401 and FAR Subpart 14.101. We need to be clear on how this is to accompany, or be accomplished with, the CD submission.

FAR Part 14, Sealed Bidding, is not applicable to this RFP.

This RFP implements FAR Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, procedures. FAR 6.401(a) refers to Sealed Bidding procedures, but 6.401(b) refers to Contracting by Negotiation procedures. Offerors must follow the instructions given in the RFP for submission of the proposals.

2 RFP Attachment J.4, Task Order 1 SOW, paragraphs 5.2.1 and 5.2.4; RFP Attachment J.5, Task Order 2 SOW, paragraphs 5.3 and 5.5

Task Order 1 paragraph 5.2.1 specifies the development of the Use Case Definition Work Plan. After a decision is made by the COR for further development, some of these Use Cases result in the development of a Use Case Description in paragraph 5.2.4.

The required content for the SOW 1 Use Case Definition Work Plan is very similar to the Building Block Project Plan specified in paragraph 5.5 of Task Order 2. The required content for the SOW 1 Use Case Description is likewise very similar to the Building Block Description specified in paragraph 5.3 of Task Order 2.

However, the order of production is reversed in the two Task Orders. The Use Case Description follows the production (and is dependent upon) the Use Case Definition Work Plan in Task Order 1. In Task Order 2 the Building Block Description precedes the publication of the Building Block Project Plan, and the latter is dependent on the former. It appears that the specified order of production of these two documents is incorrect in Task Order 2. Please verify the order of production and the associated predecessor requirement for both sets of documents in both Task Order 1 and Task Order 2.

The order is specified correctly in the SOW.

3 RFP Attachment J.4, Task Order 1 SOW, paragraph 5.4.5; RFP Attachment J.5, Task Order 2 SOW, paragraph 5.11

Paragraph 5.4.5 of Task Order 1 specifies that “The contractor shall perform use case demonstrations identified in the Use Case Demonstration Schedule”

Paragraph 5.11 of Task Order 2 specifies “The contractor shall support, by providing subject matter and technical expertise, building block demonstrations identified in the Building Block Demonstration Schedule”.

Please confirm that the contractor is to assume a lead role in performing Use Case demonstrations, and a support role for Building Block demonstrations.

The contractor shall perform a lead role in the demonstration of both Use Case and Building Blocks by providing subject matter and technical expertise. The language in the referenced sections of the Task Order 2 SOW has been revised to reflect this change.

The attached “Amendment 003 RFP” reflects the changes made.

4 Section L.1.A, p. 114:

“Offeror must provide the following information for all 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.

The Offeror shall disclose the same information for each proposed subcontractor.”

The amount of contract information requested for Subcontractors may be exceedingly impractical to provide in the case of universities. In Section L, Volume 1, Subsection A (page 114) states that the Offeror must provide information for all contracts, both government and non-government, that its Subcontractors, their parent companies, subsidiaries, or other affiliated entities currently hold as a Prime of Subcontractor. In the case of Subcontractors that are affiliated with large universities, the volume of government and non-government contracts will easily run into the thousands, requiring a massive data collection effort for contracts that may have no bearing on the day-to-day operations and influences of the Subcontractor at issue. Where a Subcontractor is affiliated with a university, may we limit our level of contract disclosure to those entities having some degree of control or influence over the day-to-day research activities of the Subcontractor?

The changes made in Amendment 002 effectively reduced the documentation requirements for the Freedom from Organizational Conflict of Interest section of the Offeror’s proposal. No further changes to this section are being made in this Amendment.

5 Section J.4, T01f, 5.3.6 & 5.4.1 – Page 72 and

5.3.6 "Roster of Use Case Development and Demonstration Collaborators" - It is not specified how long the government will take to approve the "Roster of Use Case Development and Demonstration Collaborators."

J.4.5.4.1 starts out stating “Immediately following the government’s COR approval of the initial Roster of Use Case Development and Demonstration Collaborators (see Task 5.3.6)}… It states that a Government Approval is given but there is no statement to How long the Government has to Approve the Roster.

This is dependent on the community of interest and will be determined on a case-by-case basis. Assigning a time constraint is difficult as each of these use cases is dependent on a number of factors both internal and external. However, the Task Order 1 SOW is revised to clarify that the COR will review and comment on the initial Roster of Use Case Development and Demonstration Collaborators within ten business days of receipt.

The attached “Amendment 003 RFP” document reflects this change.

6 N/A Will the government use a software tool to evaluate proposals? If so, which tool will be used?

The government does not intend to use a proposal evaluation software tool.

7 Attachment J.1

Sponsoring Agreement, XII.B., page 58

Please clarify Section XII (B) of the Sponsoring Agreement. Specifically, please confirm that only the NIST FFRDC property is subject to this clause and the sponsoring agency does not have the right to borrow against the underlying corporation's assets.

The language in the Sponsoring Agreement has been revised to clarify this section. Section XII.B of the Sponsoring Agreement now reads:

“The Contractor and/or its parent organization shall have the right in time of financial need to employ [Contractor Name]’s property as security in borrowing to meet [Contractor Name]’s obligations within the purposes set forth in its Articles of Incorporation and/or by-laws. To provide NIST the opportunity to eliminate the need for such action, at least sixty (60) days prior to any such borrowing the Contracting Officer and the Head of the Sponsoring Agency will be notified in writing setting forth the purpose and the amount of the borrowing.”

The attached “Amendment 003 RFP” document reflects this change.

8 Attachment J.1 Sponsoring Agreement, XII.D, pp. 58-59

With reference to Section XII (D) of the Sponsoring Agreement, please confirm that this clause applies to the NIST FFRDC only and not the underlying corporation's assets.

Yes, the “assets” to which XII(D) refers are those of the entity operating the NCCOE FFRDC rather than any parent entity.

9 H.18, pp. 32-34 Will the government please provide the following documents:

-DOC IT Security Program Policy and Minimum Implementation Standards (ITSPP) -DOC IT Management Handbook These additional DOC documents are also requested:

-DOC IT Management Handbook Management Plan -DOC IT Management Handbook Review Process

The documents requested are applicable to the contractor’s performance under the resultant contract, after award.

However, the documents are not necessary for proposal preparation purposes. Therefore, these documents will be made available to the contractor following award of the contract, but will not be provided prior to award.

10 Page 13 of RFP, Section

C IDIQ SOW, Section

IV

General Type Tasks" generically list the "Facilitate relationships", "Research and develop frameworks", "Collaborate with Federal Agencies… to deliver planning and documentation support..", "Collaborate with Federal agencies and state and local governments, industry, and academia to generate and facilitate technology transfer...". These can imply any number of IT services must be initiated, or can imply that existing DOC/NIST resources can be utilized (in some cases with slight modification). Which situation will this be? As an example, will the FFRDC operate under its own (new) Internet domain name, or will it use a subdomain of NIST/DOC? Email, identity management, Internet Service Provider, directory services, multifactor authentication, intranet web services, Internet web site, document management system, collaboration workspaces, e-mail distribution lists, web feeds, NIST/DOC timecard system, audio teleconference service/vendor, VTC vendor, webcast infrastructure, audio visual services, etc.

The NCCoE plans to operate under the DOC/NIST domain and utilize existing NIST/NCCoE information technology resources.

11 Page 14 of RFP, Section

C IDIQ SOW, Section

IV

Item (vi) - Staff support for NCCOE internal operating infrastructure. Has this infrastructure been defined?

What specifically is included? What are the Service Level Agreements (SLA) and Operating Level Agreements (OLA) the FFRDC is expected to meet?

Will the NCCOE infrastructure be under the NIST/DOC infrastructure umbrella (so will follow NIST/DOC operating procedures, SLAs, OLAs)? Does the FFRDC need to define what this infrastructure is and procure it? Will the DOC/NIST procurement teams be handling procurements, or will the FFRDC have to have its own procurement team?

For Phase I, the infrastructure has been defined. The Phase I infrastructure includes typical connectivity, administrative systems, email, etc. required to support a typical office environment. The contractor shall be required to meet applicable Service Level Agreements to be defined by NIST following the award of the contract. However, the government does not anticipate 24/7 IT systems support.

At this time, the NCCoE infrastructure is under the NIST DOC infrastructure umbrella. The term “Infrastructure,” as used here, is interpreted to mean the infrastructure outside of the labs. In future task orders not included in this RFP, the contractor may be required to help further define the facilities and infrastructure requirements for the Phase II facility, but there is no requirement for this in this RFP or the task orders included in this RFP.

The contractor shall be responsible for procuring what it needs to perform the work included in task orders issued under the resultant contract. However, the NIST Acquisition Management Division will be responsible for procuring goods and services for the NCCoE. A NIST Contracting Officer is the only individual authorized to issue task orders under the contract. Any items the FFRDC must procure during the period of performance of a given task order which were not already accepted in the contractor’s proposal for the task order must be approved by the COR prior to the purchase(s) being made.

12 Page 15 of RFP, Section

C IDIQ SOW, Section V Indicates EIT products produced and delivered shall be compliant with applicable standards of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. What specific document(s) or website(s) do you want used to develop the response? (For example,http://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/communications-and-it/about-the-section-508-standards/guide-to-the-section-508-standards OR http://www.section508.gov/ ) Can you point to the specific standards that DOC uses?

As stated in Section H.17 1352.239-71 Electronic and Information Technology, the VPAT template found at www.section508.gov should be used.

13 Page 33 of RFP, Section H.18 Security Requirements for Information Technology Resources

Need access to the DOC Information Technology Management Handbook which is supposed to be available on the DOC CIO website (page 33 item (d)). Need the DOC IT Security Program Policy. DOC CIO site indicates the documents are on the Commerce intranet (not accessible via the Internet)

The documents requested are applicable to the contractor’s performance under the resultant contract, after award.

However, the documents are not necessary for proposal preparation purposes. Therefore, these documents will be made available to the awardee following award of the contract, but will not be provided prior to award.

14 Page 87 of RFP, Section

5.4 of TO2 SOW`

"In TO #2, Section 5.4, p. 87, the RFP states: ""The number of Use Case 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 four per year."" We are assuming that instead of ""Use Case Descriptions"" it should read ""Building Block Descriptions"", and also that the ""average four per year"" is correct. Is this the correct interpretation?"

These typographical errors were corrected via Amendment 002 to the RFP

15 Page 97 of RFP, Section 3 of SOW

Task order lists applicable documents. Will "NIST National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence Program of Requirements" be distributed? Without this information, we cannot discern the NCCoE Phase II Facilities Planning Support requirements.

The “NIST National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence Program of Requirements” is not required for proposal preparation purposes. Although the Program of Requirements is not required for proposal preparation purposes, the applicable document(s) will be provided to the contractor following award of the contract. Section 3 of the Task Order 3 SOW has been revised to remove the “NIST National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence Program of Requirements” reference.

The attached “Amendment 003 RFP” document reflects this change.

http://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/communications-and-it/about-the-section-508-standards/guide-to-the-section-508-standards http://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/communications-and-it/about-the-section-508-standards/guide-to-the-section-508-standards http://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/communications-and-it/about-the-section-508-standards/guide-to-the-section-508-standards http://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/communications-and-it/about-the-section-508-standards/guide-to-the-section-508-standards http://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/communications-and-it/about-the-section-508-standards/guide-to-the-section-508-standards http://www.section508.gov/ http://www.section508.gov/

16 Page 114 of RFP, Section L.8 Must be submitted on CD. Is DVD an acceptable format?

DVD is an acceptable format, along with CD. However, all content requirements remain as stated in the Amendment 003 RFP document.

17 Page 114- Proposal Preparation/Organization Instructions, Section L.1.A.(a)

Does “Entity Holding Contract” refer to the customer of the Offeror, so that the list will list those who contract to buy the Offeror’s services (or goods)?

Yes.

18 Page 114- Proposal Preparation/Organization Instructions

Format Instructions. The RFP states that page size cannot exceed 8.5" x 11". This restriction precludes the use of 11" x 17" foldouts to graphically portray our understanding of the detailed process requirements of the Task Order SOWs. Recommendation: allow 11" x 17" foldouts to show complex flowcharts and diagrams.

The proposal preparation and organization instructions have been revised to allow for charts, diagrams, figures and other graphics to be on 11”x17” size pages. The attached “Amendment 003 RFP” reflects these changes.

19 Page 114- Proposal Preparation/Organization Instructions, Section L.1.A

Description of Contracts. The RFP states that the offeror must provide detailed information on "all contracts, both government and non-government…" The same information is required for each proposed subcontractor.

Since there is no timeframe specified this an open-ended requirement that could involve thousands of contracts for the offeror and its partners. It is impossible to comply with this requirement. Recommend limiting this requirement to contracts that are active or have been active in the last three years.

The changes made in Amendment 002 effectively reduced the documentation requirements for the Freedom from Organizational Conflict of Interest section of the Offeror’s proposal. No further changes to this section are being made in this Amendment.

20 Page 114- Proposal Preparation/Organization Instructions, Section L.1.B

Compliance Program. Are the Compliance Officer's responsibilities focused on OCI requirements or compliance with all corporate policies and procedures?

The Compliance Officer’s responsibilities should, at a minimum, be focused on compliance with all OCI requirements, policies and procedures.

21 Page 115- Proposal Preparation/Organization Instructions, Section L.1.A.(b)

"Does ""Project Officer and Contracting Officer” refer to officials employed by the contracted customers of the Offeror?

Yes. The “Contracting Officer” refers to the Contracting Officer that signed the contract for the government or other entity. The “Project Officer” refers to the individual(s) at the Government or other agency in charge of leading the project.

22 Page 115- Proposal Preparation/Organization Instructions, Section L.1.B

Is the Compliance Officer responsible for Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) compliance exclusively?

The Compliance Officer’s responsibilities should, at a minimum, be focused on compliance with all OCI requirements, policies and procedures.

23 Page 117, Section L.2.2 Tables/Graphics/Illustrations or any other displays that the Offeror includes in its proposal will be included in the page limit, and are subject to the spacing and font limitations specified earlier in this document. Question:

Would the DOC consider an Arial font and a font size of no smaller than 8pt for tables/graphics /illustrations?

Would the DOC consider an Arial font and a font size of 8pt for headers/footers? Would the DOC consider an Arial font and a larger font size for the Cover pages?

Changes to address these concerns were made via Amendment 002 to the RFP.

24 Page 132, Section M.B.3 Key Personnel Qualifications. The RFP Section M.B.3 states: " The qualifications of the Offeror’s proposed Key Personnel and their ability to perform the activities required by the Statement of Work." The Draft RFP listed qualifications in Section L. Since specific qualifications have been removed in the Official RFP, what criteria will the qualifications of our resumes be rated against?

As revised via Amendment 002 to the RFP, 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.

25 Page 127, Section L.2, Proposal Delivery Requirements

SF33 Form indicates a deliverable of 1 Original and 5 Copies Sealed* but RFP page 127 indicates 5 Copies

Amendment 002 to the RFP corrected this typographical error. The Offeror need only submit a total of five (5) copies of the proposal. The amended SF33 in the “Amendment 002 RFP” document correctly reflects this

26 Page 35 and 36, section H.20

There are references to sections H.21.b and H.21.c but these sections do not exist in the RFP

These are typographical errors that have been corrected in the attached “Amendment 003 RFP.” Please see the attached “Amendment 003 RFP” for the changes made to these sections.

27 Page 60 and 61, Required format for base contract labor categories

Base Contract Labor Categories Table: Can columns two and three of template on RFP page 60 be combined with the Excel spreadsheet template provided by the agency?

Column #2 of the template found in Section J.2 Required Format for Base Contract Labor Categories Description is for the “Labor Category Title.” In the MS Excel external attachment spreadsheet referenced in Section J.3, there is already a column for “Labor Category Title.” Column #3 in Section J.2 is for the “Description of work to be performed under Labor Category.” The MS Excel external attachment spreadsheet referenced in Section J.3 does not contain a column for this information because the MS Excel spreadsheet is for pricing information. Therefore, the formats provided in the RFP should be used as they are currently shown in the RFP.

28 Page 95-97, Section J.6.1

SOW and Purpose statements do not define "Phase 1" Facilities scope. Is there intention for the FFRDC to provide any Facilities Planning or Management for the existing Facility located at 9600 Gudelsky Dr, Rockville, MD. 20850? If so, more information on existing facility as well as expectations of required services will need to be clarified.

There are no Facilities Planning or Management requirements of the contractor for the Phase I facility located at 9600 Gudelsky Drive, Rockville, MD 20850.

29 Page 99-104, Section J.6.5.3-6

Draft RFP Questions & Answers "Attachment to Amendment 1" response 17 stated "….FFRDC contractor will be responsible for all aspects of management and maintenance support for NCCoE Phase II facility under subsequent future task orders". Final RFP pages 99 - 104 make multiple references to Phase II activities but due do not make reference to "future task orders". Is the intention to include management and maintenance services for Phase 2 as a part of this RFP response / award or to defer this work to subsequent future task orders after award?

The Official RFP is the only document applicable to this solicitation. As indicated in the Official RFP, Task Order 3 does not contain any requirements for Facilities Management or Maintenance services for the Phase II facility. Task Order 3 includes Facilities Planning Support services for the Phase II facility, but no Facilities Maintenance or Management services. No other task order in this RFP includes Facilities Management or Maintenance services either.

30 Page 99-104, Section

J.6.5.3-6 Facilities Planning Support / Phase II tasks - Draft RFP Questions & Answers "Attachment to Amendment 1" response 25 stated "NIST anticipates a change in the Task Order 3 contract type from a Firm-Fixed Price to a Cost type task order". Please clarify if this is the case and. if so, that the Facilities Planning & Support Phase II tasks would not be scoped and priced until after contract award.

As stated in the Task Order 3 Statement of Work in the Official RFP, Task Order 3 is a Cost type task order.

However, that does not mean that the Facilities Planning & Support services for the Phase II facility would not be scoped and priced until after contract award. The cost/price of all requirements included in Task Order 3 (as well as the other two task orders) as detailed in the official RFP must be accounted for in the Offeror’s Business Proposal, as detailed in the Proposal Preparation and Organization Instructions.

31 Page 75, Section J.4.5.4.5.

"In TO #1 for performing demos, the RFP is not explicit with respect to the lifetime nor frequency of the demos. For costing purposes, are there guidelines for the number of instances that the demo is performed for interested parties, and/or for the length that a demo build is expected to be active?"

Frequency of demonstrations is highly dependent of the community of interest. For costing and proposal preparation purposes with regards to demonstrations, a build should be considered active for one year. During this one-year period, it is expected that four demonstrations would take place.

32 Page 34-37, Section H.20

Subsection H.20.b references subsection H.21.c. There is no Section H.21 in the RFP. Does the government intend for this reference to be H.20.c?

Similarly, Subsection H.20.c.2 references H.21.b. Does the government intend for this reference to be H.20.b?

These are typographical errors that have been corrected in the attached “Amendment 003 RFP.” Please see the attached “Amendment 003 RFP” for the changes made to these sections.

33 Page 118 Section L.8 Would the government consider exempting MS Excel workbooks from the 8.5x11 page size constraint in support of the contract pricing as part of the submission of the Business Volume?

Yes. MS Excel workbooks submitted as part of the Business Volume are not subject to the 8.5 x 11 page size constraints.

The attached “Amendment 003 RFP” document reflects this change.

34 Page 114-115, section L.8.1.A(a) and (b)

Please clarify under Section A. Description of Contracts that the entity holding the contract is the government or other contracting activity; and if the contract is held as a subcontract, if the contract number identification and contact information should include the prime contract number/contact information as well as the subcontract number/contact information?

The “entity holding the contact” refers to the government or other agency that awarded the contract, which can also be considered the “customer” of the Offeror. If the Offeror performed as a subcontractor, the contract identification and contact information should be the Prime Contract number and contact information

35 Page 116-117, Section

L.8.2 Would the government consider allowing offerors to provide a cover sheet for each task order response, not subject to the page count limitation for Volume 2?

Yes. Each task order response included in the proposal may have a Cover Sheet identifying the section or subsection.

This Cover Sheet will not be counted against the page limitations already set in place. However, the Cover Sheet is limited to one page in length.

36 Page 124, Section L.8.5.B.b

The Task Order Direct Labor Breakdown table implies that each individual, key or not, is identified separately.

Will the government consider allowing offerors to identify key personnel individually and to provide total proposed labor hours for the balance of the level of effort proposed for a particular labor category?

The language included in the referenced section of the RFP has been revised to clarify that the only contractor employees that need to be individually identified are Key Personnel. The language now reads:

“The offeror shall provide a detailed breakdown of the calculations leading to the Total Direct Labor indicated in Table 2 above. The format in Table 3 below shall be used to show this breakdown. The offeror must show the proposed labor categories, number of individuals under each labor category, names of individuals for each key personnel proposed, the fully burdened hourly labor rate to be charged under each labor category, the total ceiling estimate of the number of hours under each labor category, and the total cost associated with each labor category based on the estimated number of hours and fully burdened hourly labor rate.”

The attached document titled “Amendment 003 RFP” reflects these changes.

37 Page 119-120, Section

L.8.4 – Question #8 on Amendment 002

Question #8 in the Amendment 002 Questions & Responses document asked: “Do second-tier/lower-tier subcontractors count against achievement of the small business subcontracting goals?”

The response given by the government was: “Yes.”

FAR 52.219-9 (JUL 2013) paragraph (l) ["L"] says in part: ...Credit cannot be taken for awards made to lower tier subcontractors, unless the Contractor or subcontractor has been designated to receive a small business or small disadvantaged business credit from an ANC or Indian Tribe

Please clarify this position since FAR prohibits credit for second-tier/lower-tier subcontractor awards

To clarify the response given in Amendment 002, Question #8, Subcontract award data reported by prime Contractors and subcontractors shall be limited to awards made to their immediate next-tier subcontractors. Credit cannot be taken for awards made to lower tier subcontractors, unless the Contractor or subcontractor has been designated to receive a small business or small disadvantaged business credit from an ANC or Indian Tribe.

38 Page 132 Can you please advise me as to whether certification and accreditation in the cyber security field counts as cyber security experience with regards to Corporate Experience on page 132 of the RFP.

Any information on the Offeror’s experience included in its proposal will be evaluated in accordance with the language in the Corporate Experience evaluation factor detailed in Section M of the RFP.

39 Page 58 of 135, Section

J.1 Sponsoring Agreement, Article

XII.B

The RFP states: “The sponsoring agency shall have the right in time of financial need to employ [Contractor Name]’s property as security in borrowing to meet [Contractor Name]’s obligations within the purposes set forth in its Articles of Incorporation and/or by-laws. To provide NIST the opportunity to eliminate the need for such action, at least sixty (60) days prior to any such borrowing the Contracting Officer and the Head of the Sponsoring Agency will be notified in writing setting forth the purpose and the amount of the borrowing.”

1. Please clarify what appears to be two disjointed sentences. The first sentence indicates that the "sponsoring agency" (NIST) shall have right to use the contractor's property to borrow money, however the second sentence appears to impose a 60 day notification requirement on the Agency to notify itself (CO and Head of agency). Was this intended to say that the contractor shall use its property to borrow but must notify NIST 60 days prior to doing so?

2. Please clarify what context the Agency means by "in time of financial need"; is this in time of the Agency's financial need or the Contractor's financial need?

3. As a subsection under Article XII. Non-Renewal, Termination, or Dissolution, Disposal of Assets and Settlement of Liabilities, is the borrowing limited to a winding down of the contractor's operation of the

FFRDC?

4. Please clarify what is meant by the reference to the Contractor's Articles of Incorporation and/or by-laws, i.e., "...borrowing to meet [Contractor Name]'s obligations within the purposes set forth in its Articles of Incorporation and/or by-laws."

1. The language in the Sponsoring Agreement has been revised to clarify certain areas. Section XII.B of the Sponsoring Agreement now reads:

“The Contractor and/or its parent organization shall have the right in time of financial need to employ [Contractor Name]’s property as security in borrowing to meet [Contractor Name]’s obligations within the purposes set forth in its Articles of Incorporation and/or by-laws. To provide NIST the opportunity to eliminate the need for such action, at least sixty (60) days prior to any such borrowing the Contracting Officer and the Head of the Sponsoring Agency will be notified in writing setting forth the purpose and the amount of the borrowing.”

2. The phrase “in time of financial need” is meant to refer to the Contractor and/or it parent organization’s financial need.

3. The borrowing is not limited to the winding down of the contractor’s operation of the FFRDC. The Contractor and/or its parent organization shall have the right in time of financial need to employ [Contractor Name]’s property as security in borrowing to meet [Contractor Name]’s obligations within the purposes set forth in its Articles of Incorporation and/or by-laws.

4. This refers to the FFRDC contractor or its parent organization’s Articles of Incorporation and/or by-laws.

40 Attachment J.5, Task

Order 2 SOW, Sections

4.0 and 5

Section 4.0, Scope, of Task Order 2 states that “The contractor shall provide engineering support to the NCCoE in 1) identifying opportunities for developing automated security platform building blocks that show promise for mitigating the cybersecurity-related business and infrastructure risks…” However, no such task appears in the Section 5 requirements. No source for the opportunities is identified, and no task is specified to analyze or otherwise evaluate them. This is also in contrast to the comparable Task Order 1 scope and requirements that specifically define an analysis subtask in Section 5.1.4 of Task Order 1.

Please specify the source of the “opportunities” identified in the scope for Task Order 2, and whether or not the contractor is responsible for analysis and recommendation of potential Building Block candidates.

The contractor is responsible for analysis and recommendation for potential building block candidates in collaboration with NIST, the NCCoE and communities of interest. Section 5.1 of the Task Order 2 SOW has been revised to reflect that the contractor requirements include “identifying requirements and opportunities for security automation building blocks.”

The attached “Amendment 003 RFP” reflects this change.

41 Attachment J.4, Sections

5.2.5 and 5.2.6

In attachment J.4, Sections 5.25 and 5.26, page 70 of the Final RFP (Amendment 002), please confirm that the COR will have identified the final Use Cases to pursue (actual number varies, but likely to average 4 per year) prior to publication of the final 'Use Case Description' and solicitation of letters of interest from technology providers.

If the question is referring to sections 5.2.5 and 5.2.6 of the Task Order 1 SOW, the response is yes. The COR, based on results of analysis and comments received, will identify use cases to pursue.

42 Section J.4.10, J.5.10, J.6.10, J.6.5.1, and L.5.B.a.ii

The Government indicated in several places in the RFP that there is a role for a “Task Order PM” and some indication of a few of the responsibilities of such a role.

However, no clear SOW area defines or accounts for the scope of task order management activities.

One might assume they would be spread across the several subtasks of each task order or one might assume that they are included in overall management of the effort in Task Order 3 (see J.6.5.1), though this scope does not clearly include this effort. The reference in L.5.B.a.ii “In the cost proposal for Task Order #3, the offeror shall clearly indicate the origin of all costs associated with overall operations management and program/project management of the task orders, and it shall be made clear the amount of these costs attributable to each of the three task orders.”

We request the Government indicate their intent as to where the scope of effort for Task Order management activities is to be detailed in the Offeror’s Response.

The offeror’s scope of effort for Task Order Management should be detailed in the offeror’s response to Task Order 3.

43 Section J.6, Task Order

#3, SOW 5.3

With the impending due date of the RFP, the missing NIST National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence Program of Requirements and government-provided floor and utility layouts and descriptions for the Phase II NCCoE facility at 9700 Great Seneca Highway, Rockville, MD 20850 pose a challenge in responding compliantly to the RFP. Since the transition to the new facility will not take place immediately, would the government consider providing a list of the subject matter experts and LOE as the basis for the proposals in order to allow the selection process to proceed?

The “NIST National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence Program of Requirements” is not required for proposal preparation purposes. Although the Program of Requirements is not required for proposal preparation purposes, the applicable document(s) will be provided to the contractor following award of the contract. Section 5.3 of the Task Order 3 SOW has been revised to remove the “NIST National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence Program of Requirements” reference, as this document is not necessary for the contractor to perform Task 5.3.

The attached “Amendment 003 RFP” document reflects this