Amend_0001.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE F PAGES

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR No., street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

O

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended, is not extended.

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. Accounting and Appropriation Data (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS,

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

(X) A. (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN

THE CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. VE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES ( such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc .) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. REEMENT IS ENTERED INTO

PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. HER (Specify type of modification and authority)

THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO:

THE ABO

THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AG

OT

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

15C. DATE SIGNED

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Amendment 0001 to RFP SP4701-15-R-0008

FOR: WAWF/EDA Sustainment and Development Follow-on Effort

SUBJECT: Questions/Answers in response to Request For Proposal SP4701-15-R-0008

Question/Answer #1:

Question: Is there an incumbent contractor performing this (or similar WAWF) work?

Answer: CACI-ISS, Inc. currently supports the WAWF sustainment and development efforts and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Services LLC currently supports the EDA sustainment and development efforts.

Question/Answer #2:

Question: Please advise if the incumbent WAWF and EDA contracts under this effort provide for Transition-Out support. If so, what is the anticipated start and end date for the transition period?

Answer: Transition-out for the incumbent contracts are not a requirement under this RFP.

Question/Answer #3:

Reference: SP4701-15-R-0008_RFP, Page 4 of 225 Reminder Table and SP4701-15-R-0008_RFP L.4.1 WRITTEN RESPONSE, Page 162 of 225. The former states: “Prepare and return 4 copies of the Non- Price Proposal (3 hard copies and 1 Email Copy)” and the latter states “Offerors shall submit six (6) printed copies each of the Non-Price Proposal Volumes”

Question: Please clarify the number of hard copies for the Volume II Non-Price Proposal.

Answer: Offerors shall submit six (6) copies each of the Non-Price Proposal Volumes (5 hard copies and 1 Email Copy) and three (3) copies of the Price Proposal (2 hard copies and 1 Email Copy) in accordance with proposal submittal instructions listed on page 3 of the RFP.

Question/Answer #4:

Reference: Section B, Page 5: RFP indicates “Proposed prices include pricing for Sustainment of WAWF/EDA Support Services and the initial Systems Enhancements and Development Task Order, and pricing for the IDIQ Rough Order of Magnitude Tables (Not To Exceed Ceiling labor rates to be established for the IDIQ and to be used for subsequent Task Orders issued against the IDIQ).” “At time of submittal, the Offeror shall provide prices for the initial Development Task Order (TO) in accordance with the (PWS) listed in Attachment 1.”

Question: The CLIN structure does not currently provide for the Initial System Enhancement and Development Task Order in Base Year.

Answer: Refer to the table on page 7 of the RFP for the Initial System Enhancements and Development price submittal. The development efforts shall be rolled up into the tables listed on pages 5-7 of the RFP for the base and option periods.

Question/Answer #5:

Reference: Section B. Page 5

Question: Do the incentives apply to everyone on the CTA, including subcontractors?

Answer: The CPIF only applies to the Team Lead under the development portion of the IDIQ. The Government will not govern the agreements between the Team Lead (Prime) and their Subcontractors.

Question/Answer #6:

Reference: B. 2.2 ROM Table, Page 9

Question: IDIQ ROM (NTE) Table designates labor categories with estimated base and option year hours. Are vendors to use this as an annual LOE for purposes of the development estimate?

Answer: Yes, Offerors shall utilize the labor categories deemed appropriate for the LOE to best provide support to the customer.

Question/Answer #7:

Reference: Section B.3 Contractor Team Arrangement (CTA) Page 12: "First sentence states ""contractors will determine the relationship between the various team members, but they will all be primes and not subcontractors"".

Question: Please clarify the responsibility of the prime contractors based on the statement in B.3 as it applies to the requirements in C.16.1 Performance Measurements. Will the performance requirements as stated in C.16.1 be applicable to all prime contractors on the team or to the team lead?"

Answer: The Prime Contractor (Team Lead) is responsible for the work being performed on the contract. There will be no delineation of separate companies or business size, as this should be transparent to the Government.

Question/Answer #8:

Reference: Section B.3 Contractor Team Arrangement (CTA) Page 12: "First sentence states ""contractors will determine the relationship between the various team members, but they will all be primes and not subcontractors"".

Question: Please clarify the responsibility of the prime contractors based on the statement in B.3 as it applies to the requirements in C.16.1 Performance Measurements. Will the performance requirements as stated in C.16.1 be applicable to all prime contractors on the team or to the team lead?"

Answer: The Prime Contractor (Team Lead) is responsible for the work being performed on the contract. There will be no delineation of separate companies or business size, as this should be transparent to the Government.

Question/Answer #9:

Reference: B.4 Support of Socio Economic Programs. “The Team Lead, if a large business, is required to form Contractor Team Arrangements (CTA) with at least one (1) small business and at least one (1) other small business category referenced below to satisfy the DLA requirement that a minimum of 40% of the total sustainment price for the base and option years shall be dedicated to Small Business.” “No advantage will be given to a proposal that offers a percent of participation greater than 40 percent of the total sustainment for the base inclusion of and option years for this acquisition.”

Question: Given the language above and the inclusion of FAR 52.219-9 and FAR 52.219-16 within Section I of the RFP for the non CTA portion of the contract; please clarify the prime’s obligation with respect to small business subcontracting plan goals.

Answer: Offerors are required to form Contract Team Arrangements (CTAs) and designate a minimum of 40% of the sustainment efforts to small business. The 40% requirement for CTA does preclude Offerors from utilizing subcontractors in support of the WAWFE/EDA Support Services contract. Please refer to page 12 of the RFP for additional subcontractor guidance.

Question/Answer #10:

Reference: C.2 Scope, bullet #3, Page 17

Question: Will the contractor be responsible for conducting system and software testing or will testing be performed by an independent testing body?

Answer: Yes - Each contractor will be responsible for their own testing before JITC.

Question/Answer #11:

Reference: C.2 Scope, bullet #3, Page 17: “The contractor shall provide system test and evaluation, system and database documentation."

Question: Does this mean the contractor is to provide documentation for the system test and evaluation, or perform the actual test and evaluation?

Answer: For this particular section, system test and evaluation documentation is required. Section 1.5 refers to separate testing requirements.

Question/Answer #12:

Reference: C.2 Scope, bullet #3, Page 17

Question: What is enhancement encapsulation?

Answer: Enhancement encapsulation is the ability to provide users with a well-defined interface to a set of functions in a way which hides their internal workings. In object-oriented programming, the technique of keeping together data structures and the methods (procedures) which act on them as it relates to

WAWF & EDA.

Question/Answer #13:

Reference: C.2 Contract Scope, Page 17: "As directed by the COR, the contractor shall implement systems engineering, integration, software development, system architecture engineering, production support, and database operations at Joint Interoperability Test Command (JITC) and Defense Information

Systems Agency (DISA) Enterprise Services Directorate (ESD) Defense Enterprise Computing Center (DECCs) primary and alternate processing sites."

Question: Does the Government intend for software development to be conducted at JITC or the DECCs?

Answer: Depending on the development, software development may be accomplished at either JTIC or the DECCs. Any alternate locations will be directed by the COR.

Question/Answer #14:

Reference: C.3 Objective, Page 20

Question: Can the Government supply samples of the milestones and other information in the Integrated Master Plan prior to proposal submission so submitters can understand the level of documented granularity in order to build support estimates?

Answer: No – for purposes of this RFP, the government will not be providing samples of milestones and information from an Integrated Master Plan.

Question/Answer #15:

Reference: C.3 Objective - Relative to EDA..., Page 20

Question: Are all of the WAWF and EDA system interfaces accounted for in this section of the RFP?

Answer: No system interfaces listed in this section, this section refers to program objectives related to the EDA program.

Question/Answer #16:

Reference: C.4 System Requirements, Page 22

Question: Is this a complete and current list of WAWF and EDA system requirements: Hardware, Operating Systems, Programming Languages, Database Management Systems and Configuration Management? If not, can the Government provide a complete list of the current system requirements?

Answer: Section C.4 – Systems Requirements of the RFP contains a complete list of WAWF and EDA Systems requirements.

Question/Answer #17:

Reference: C.4 system Requirements: WAWF and EDA Performance Objectives. This states, “Process each real-time data input transaction within five seconds exclusive of network transit.

Question: For EDA will the applications’ performance be baselined prior to the contract start?

Answer: Yes, the application performance will be baselined prior to the contract start.

Question/Answer #18:

Reference: C.4 System Requirements – EDA must meet bullet #4, Page 23

Question: What official documents are required to be archived and will the Government be providing that list?

Answer: The primary function of Electronic Document Access (EDA) is to allow authorized users access to official Department of Defense (DoD) documents via a Web browser. EDA is a Web based document repository system with electronic document management to eliminate paper files that facilitates information sharing among DoD communities and provides secure access to single-source DoD official documents. EDA provides the user a read-only view of various documents such as Contracts and Modifications, Vouchers, and Government Bills of Ladings (GBLs). EDA stores documentation from all of DoD agencies. This allows information sharing inter and intra agencies. EDA is one of many vehicles of which DoD is moving towards a paperless environment. The contractor is not responsible for storing, archiving, etc.; only supporting the ability for the storing of said documents.

Question/Answer #19:

Reference: C.4 System Requirements – WAWF must meet...EDA must meet... bullet 5, 6 & 7, Page 23

Question: Do both WAWF and EDA currently meet the minimum performance objectives documented in this section?

Answer: Prior to contract award, the WAWF and EDA minimum performance objectives will be met.

Question/Answer #20:

Reference: C.4 System Requirements – WAWF must meet...EDA must meet... bullet 5, 6 & 7, Page 23

Question: If they do not meet the current performance objectives, will the WAWF/EDA PMO make additional system resources available to meet the minimum performance objectives?

Answer: Prior to contract award, the WAWF and EDA minimum performance objectives will be met.

Question/Answer #21:

Reference: Subtask 1.1.4 Quality Control Plan, Page 26

Question: What are the WAWF and EDA PMO's established performance metrics?

Answer: The PMO established performance objectives will be provided after contract award in accordance the information provided in Subtask 1.1.4.

Question/Answer #22:

Reference: Subtask 1.1.7, Page 27

Question: The Task Order does not provide for a CLIN to support Transition In. Should the Transition- In effort and Transition-In Plan be priced within the Sustainment Task Order?

Answer: Yes, the Transition-In effort should be incorporated under Sustainment in the base year.

Question/Answer #23:

Reference: Subtask 1.1.10 Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) Best Practices, Page 29

Question: What is the expected or required CMMI rating as a result of this SCAMPI?

Answer: CMMI shall be used to ensure best practices for methods and the tools to support EDA and WAWF. The Government will not mandate which of the five levels of CMMI the Contractor will utilize;

however, a SCAMPI report (CDRL A013) is required based upon the process and product improvement.

Question/Answer #24:

Reference: Subtask 1.1.10 Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) Best Practices, Page 29

Question: Does every member of the CTA (prime, partner, subcontractor) have to individually participate in the SCAMPI assessment? Is it the Government's intention to cover the expense of the SCAMPI assessment.

Answer: It is the Team Lead's responsibility to ensure that CMMI best practices are conducted and a Standard CMMI Appraisal Method for Process Improvement (SCAMPI) appraisal is assessed, and produce a SCAMPI report for the WAWF EDA application modules. Those expenses will not be covered by the Government.

Question/Answer #25:

Reference: Task 1.4 - System Break-Fix, Page 30

Question: Will any Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) be provided to support the WAWF and EDA development environments? If not, will the contractor be expected to incur the full lifecycle costs of all hardware and software for both the WAWF and EDA systems?

Answer: Yes, GFE will be provided when necessary.

Question/Answer #26:

Reference: Task 1.5.2 Testing Support, Page 32

Question: Is the Test Manager a Government or contractor position? Where will the Test Manager be located?

Answer: The PM and COR will assign the Test Manager (Government position) as appropriate. The information will be forwarded upon the task assignment.

Question/Answer #27:

Reference: Task 1.2 Trouble Ticket/Problem Resolution, Page 29

Question: Are the tasks identified in Subtask 1.2.1 Business Requirements Analysis intended to fall under Task 1.2 Trouble Ticket/Problem Report Resolution and are there other Business Requirements Analysis requirements?

Answer: Subtask 1.2.1 is correct as stated.

Question/Answer #28:

Reference: Subtask 1.5.4 – Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) Interoperability Annual Test. This states that the contractor shall ensure that, as a Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) enabled information system, WAWF e-Business Gateway and EDA is tested in a centralized or component-specific testing facility (e.g. JITC) approved by the DOD PKI PMO in accordance with the PKI interoperability test plan.

Question: Please confirm that this test is to be coordinated through the PMO.

Answer: Yes, this test is to be coordinated through the PMO.

Question/Answer #29:

Reference: Task 1.6 – Documentation & Task 2.7 Documentation. Both sections state the following:

The contractor shall provide Updated Documentation (CDRL A036 & CDRL A090) as required, Page 34.

Question: Please confirm that the updates intended are limited to only that documentation specified for delivery within the CDRL list. Note: There are documents identified within the PWS that are not identified in the CDRL list.

Answer: As stated in Task 1.6 and Task 2.7, “the contractor shall provide updated documentation as required. Documentation that may be affected includes, but is not limited to.” The Government may require additional documents updated that are not cited on the lists contained on pages 34 and 52 of the RFP as determined appropriate.

Question/Answer #30:

Reference: Subtask 1.7 Configuration Management, Page 35

Question: Are all versions of Source Code and Documentation for WAWF and EDA currently checked into the Government CM system?

Answer: Yes.

Question/Answer #31:

Reference: Subtask 1.101.1 - Technical Support, Page 36.

Question: Please confirm that the contractor will be given full access to the Test, Training, Production and Back-up systems managed by JITC and the DISA DECC?

Answer: In the RFP, task has been corrected to read as 1.8.1 - The report shall consist of the operational efforts as detailed in Section 1.8.1.

Question/Answer #32:

Reference: Subtask 1.9.1 - Production and Development Baselines. The contractor shall ensure that WAWF/EDA production and test application baselines are operational 24 hours a day, 7days a week, Page 36.

Question: Please confirm that the contractor will be given full access to the Test, Training, Production and Back-up systems managed by JITC and the DISA DECC?

Answer: The contractor will be authorized to work directly with JITC and DISA. This action will be overseen by the PMO, a Government employee.

Question/Answer #33:

Reference: Subtask 1.9.2 - Management Reporting Systems (MRS) Support/Business Intelligence, Page 37.

Question: Can the Government provide a detailed description of the current system WAWF and EDA architecture that needs to be maintained for support estimation purposes?

Answer: No, the architecture will not be released at this time.

Question/Answer #34:

Reference: Subtask 1.9.2 -Management Reporting System (MRS) Support / Business Intelligence, Page 37.

Question: Will two separate MRS systems be maintained, one for EDA and one for WAWF?

Answer: Yes, two separate MRS systems shall be maintained – one for EDA and one for WAWF.

Question/Answer #35:

Reference: Subtask 2.2.1 Task Order Management Plan: Global - Entire RFP, Page 40.

Question: The RFP appears to have two different CDRLs for most deliverables. Is it the Government's intent for each CDRL to be a separate deliverable?

Answer: Yes, CDRLs and Deliverables are listed in detail throughout the PWS and Deliverable Table is provided on pages 55 - 60 of the RFP.

Question/Answer #36:

Reference: Task 2.5 Testing, Page 48.

Question: Does an independent testing group have a role in the tasks identified in Task 2.5 Testing? If so, what specific activities will the independent test group be performing and what specific activities will the contractor be required to support?

Answer: No, the contractor is responsible for all tasks identified in Task 2.5.

Question/Answer #37:

Reference: Subtask 2.5.3 Security Test and Evaluation - Bullet 2 &3, Page 50.

Question: Will the ST&E Test Conditions/Procedural scripts and ST&E Test Report deliverables be the responsibility of the contractor or will they be generated by an independent testing group?

Answer: This will be conducted by JITC and supported by the Contractor as appropriate.

Question/Answer #38:

Reference: Task 2.6 Training, Page 51.

Question: How much classroom training is required (estimated number of sessions, locations durations, etc.) for accurate estimation purposes?

Answer: Offerors shall develop the training estimate based upon the following requirement: "The contractor shall provide all follow-on training after a system has been changed; develop and deliver a Training Plan (CDRL A087) for each training engagement; deliver Training Material Updates (CDRL A088); develop a Training Program and Materials (CDRL A089) to support classroom, hands-on and computer-based training methods as required by the Government. The contractor shall train identified users during and after system deployment; and train selected providers of help desk support. As a minimum, User’s manuals shall be updated, as specified in Section 3.2.6"

Question/Answer #39:

Reference: Task 2.7 Documentation, Page 52.

Question: Task 2.7 Documentation section references "Inspection and Acceptance by the Government, Section 5.3". The SF33 and Task 1.6 Documentation both reference Section E. What is the difference between the three references?

Answer: Task 2.7 was changed to “Section E.” Deliverable distribution shall be in accordance with the Delivery Schedule listed in C.6.

Question/Answer #40:

Reference: C.6 Deliverables, Page 55

Question: Multiple deliverables are duplicated. Please confirm that these multiple deliverables will be combined into a single deliverable.

Answer: Deliverables listed in the Delivery table provide all deliverables required per Task and Subtask, deliverables will be combined as appropriate.

Question/Answer #41:

Reference: C.8 & C.9, Page 64

Question: In what role does DAI play in this solicitation set?

Answer: In sections C.8 & C.9 reference to DAI PMO should read WAWF/EDA PMO

Question/Answer #42:

Reference: C.15 Personnel, Page 72

The contractor’s Management Proposal shall include a staffing plan that includes a matrix listing of all personnel (both key personnel and non-key personnel) of the Contractor, where appropriate, the Offeror’s subsidiaries/subcontractors/teaming partners; their government-related experience, and the commitment of these personnel to the contract.

Question: Is the Staffing Plan and matrix to be provided outside of the 50 page limit for Management as an attachment?

Answer: RFP page limitations of have been changed; please refer to updated RFP for changes.

Question/Answer #43:

Reference: C.15 Personnel, Page 72

Question: Please clarify the requested content of the Letter of Intent? Is this a commitment to remain with the program or a commitment to "resultant requirement" as stated.

Answer: The "Letter of Intent" is to signify the commitment of the proposed personnel for the resultant award.

Question/Answer #44:

Reference: C.15 Personnel, Page 76

Question: Please explain the references for the Senior Software Architect key position to have experience in "legacy systems to include bridge, scaffolding, glue-code or integration software development/management".

Answer: As stated on page 76, the Software Architect (Key) requires experience in legacy systems to include – bridge, scaffolding, glue-code or integration software development/management.

Question/Answer #45:

Reference: C.15.5 Personnel Administration: The Government requires that a contractor provide an Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) mitigation plan be submitted if a perceived or actual OCI exists (see Section H.1. for further information), Page 84.

H.1.1 However, before being eligible to receive an award, the Offeror shall submit an acceptable OCI plan (including mitigation plans for any identified OCIs).

Question:

a) Please confirm that offerors are required to submit an OCI plan with their proposal only IF an actual or potential existing OCI is identified.

Answer: OCI plans are only required IF an actual or potential OCI exists or is identified.

b) And, please confirm that if no actual or potential OCI is identified, a statement certifying such is sufficient.

Answer: OCI plans are only required IF an actual or potential OCI exists or is identified. Please include OCI information in the Executive Summary of the Offerors Proposal. As a result, the Executive Summary page limitation is hereby changed to 10 pages.

c) If an OCI plan is required to be submitted with the proposal, please advise where it should be placed within the proposal, i.e. Cost Volume?

Answer: In accordance with H.1.1 (c) “By submission of its offer, the Offeror represents, to the best of its knowledge and belief, that –

1) there are no relevant facts that could give rise to an OCI, as defined in FAR Part 2; or

2) the Offeror has disclosed all relevant information regarding any actual or potential conflicts of interest.

Question/Answer #46:

Reference: C.16.3 Incentives Performance Measurements / CPIF Tasks, Page 91

Question: Page 91 references inclusion in the Monthly Performance and Progress of reporting “measure the contractor’s cost and schedule performance by Cost Element Structure (CES) using the government-approved Work Breakdown Structure (WBS). The report shall include the current cost and Level of Effort (LOE). The MPPR shall also include the current cost and labor effort (i.e., labor hours and Costs expended) by labor category, for each task and sub-task.”. Will the resulting reporting be evaluated as a form of Earned Value Management technique that will be applied to incentive fee determination?

Answer: The incentive fee will be determined via the section C.16.3. The quoted portion of this question is only a partial determination of the incentive fee, and there is no mention of report being evaluated as a form of EVM technique. Please refer back to the section for evaluation criteria.

Question/Answer #47:

Reference: Section L requires that the Offeror shall submit resumes for all persons proposed in the Key Personnel roles listed in the PWS. Key personnel roles defined within Section C.15.2 are as follows:

• Program Manager (Senior)

• Project Manager (Senior)

• Software Architect

• Systems Engineer (Senior)

• Quality Control (QC) (Senior)

Additionally, the RFP states that any personnel to be considered for any of the key roles/labor categories above must submit a resume (e.g. if multiple Developers are proposed, each needs a resume submitted).

Additionally, Page 72 of 225, C.15 Personnel. States that “***All personnel (both key personnel, and non-key personnel) of the contractor, and where appropriate, the contractors’ subsidiaries/ subcontractors/ teaming partners shall provide letters of intent…”

Section M then states that the Government will review and evaluate the Offeror’s resumes for those persons proposed for the key personnel positions listed in the PWS for the IDIQ, Sustainment efforts and the Systems Enhancement and Development efforts.

Question(s):

1) Page 76 includes “Software Engineer (Senior) – Key” but this position is not included within the list on Page 72. Please clarify if Software Engineer (Senior) is a key position.

Answer: Yes, the Software Engineer (Senior) is “Key”, the “Key” Personnel listed on page 74 has been changed.

2) Please confirm that resumes are to be submitted ONLY for key personnel.

Answer: Resumes are only be submitted for Key Personnel.

3) Please confirm that letters of intent are to be submitted for key personnel.

Answer: Letters of Intent are only to be submitted for Key Personnel.

4) Is it the Government’s intent that all non-key personnel be named?; and therefore that Letters of Intent be provided for all non-key personnel?

Answer: No.

5) Is it the Governments intent that the hours provided within Section B – Ceiling Rate table, be used as the basis for calculating the number of named FTEs required by both Key and Non-Key Labor Categories for Development? And that all FTE’s proposed within a key personnel labor category be named with a resume required?

Answer: The Offeror shall use the ROM tables to develop the offerors solution (to include key and non-key personnel, if applicable) for the development efforts. Resumes are required for all key personnel labor categories.

6) If it is the Government’s intent that both a technical and cost response be developed for the Initial Development Task Order PWS, are the hours proposed for the Initial Development Task Order intended to be a subset of the estimated development labor hours provided by the Government or are they in addition to the hours included within the Ceiling Rate tables for the Base Year for purposes of FTE definition and key personnel resume submission?

Answer: Yes both a technical and cost response are required for the Development Task Order. Offerors shall submit a response to the Development effort based upon the PWS listed in Attachment 1 to the RFP.

All key personnel are proposed for the entire IDIQ and shall work on development task orders as well;

therefore, key personnel resumes shall be submitted for the IDIQ.

Question/Answer #48:

Reference: L.4, Page 160. SubFactor B of Factor 1. “Technical Approach to Management and System Enhancements”.

Question: Please clarify intent for SubFactor B of Factor 1. Is it correct to assume it should read:

“Technical Approach to Management of System Enhancements”.

Answer: Yes, RFP corrected.

Question/Answer #49:

Reference: Section L, 4.1 p 161 of 225 Section specifies font size for basic text but does not specify font size for tables, graphics and spreadsheets.

Question: Is it acceptable to use Arial Narrow 9 point font in tables, graphics and spreadsheets?

Answer: Yes

Question/Answer #50:

Reference: L.4.4.2 Non-Price Factor 2: Management Approach (Total - 50 page limit) Integrated Master Schedule (IMS), Page 166.

Question: Is an Integrated Master Schedule required to be submitted with the proposal? If so, is it to be an attachment to the 50 page Management Approach; or is it intended to be a deliverable in the execution of the contract?

Answer: Page limits have been removed; please refer to updated RFP for changes. Offerors may include the Management Approach as an attachment.

Question/Answer #51:

Reference: L.4.4.2 Non-Price Factor 2: Management Approach (Total - 50 page limit) Work Breakdown Structure (WBS), Page 166.

Question: Is an Integrated WBS required to be submitted as part of the proposal response? if so, is it to be an attachment to the 50 page Management Approach; or is it intended to be a deliverable in the execution of the contract?

Answer: Page limits have been removed; please refer to updated RFP for changes. Offerors may include the Work breakdown Structure as an attachment.

Question/Answer #52:

Reference: L.4.4.2 Non-Price Factor 2: Management Approach (Total - 50 page limit) Communication Plan, Page 167.

Question: Is the Communication Plan to be provided as an attachment to the 50 page Management Approach, or included within the allotted page count?

Answer: Page limits have been removed; please refer to updated RFP for changes. Offerors may include the Communication Plan as an attachment.

Question/Answer #53:

Reference: L.4.4.2 Non-Price Factor 2: Management Approach (Total - 50 page limit) Quality Management Plan, Page 167.

Question: Is the Quality Management Plan to be provided as an attachment to the 50 page Management Approach, or included within the allotted page count?

Answer: Page limits have been removed; please refer to updated RFP for changes. Offerors may include the Quality Management Plan as an attachment.

Question/Answer #54:

Reference: L.4.1 No page limit for Past Performance and L.4.4.5 Non-Price Factor 5: Past Performance (Total - 15 page limit), Page 168.

Question: There is a discrepancy (15 pages vs unlimited) in the page limit listed for Past Performance.

Request 30 pages be allotted for Past Performance.

Answer: There is no limit for Past Performance, Section L.4.4.5 has been corrected; please refer to updated RFP for changes.

Question/Answer #55:

Reference: M.3 The Offeror's proposal must address all of the Non-Price Factors with respect to the IDIQ PWS (Section C), Task Order (TO) 0001 PWS and Task Order 0002 PWS. When “the PWS” is referenced in the factors below, it refers to the IDIQ PWS (Section C) and Task Order 0001 PWS and Task Order 0002 PWS. However, please note that Non-Price Factor 4 – Partnering & Strategic Alliance relates to the IDIQ PWS (Section C) only.

However, B.2.1 (page 8) states: “The Initial Development Task Order shall be used for evaluation for the Offerors ability to support the Offerors technical solution and cost elements and may be issued as a CPIF TO at time of IDIQ if the Government determines the proposed Development efforts are required at IDIQ award.” And, Attachment 1 (Page 186) Initial Development PWS advises that this is a sample PWS to be used for development evaluation, that it may or may not be awarded at time of IDIQ award and, serves as the sample PWS format for later use.

Question: Is it the Government’s intent that both a technical and cost response be developed for the Initial Development Task Order PWS (Optional)? If so, a) where is the Technical Response to be provided (within the page count of Volume 2, or an addendum thereto)?; and b) where is the cost/price to be provided (no CLIN established)? Please provide page count if in addition to the page count currently allotted to Volume II.

Answer: Section M.3 of the RFP has been changed. Yes, both a technical and cost response should be provided for the Initial Development PWS found in Attachment 1 of the RFP. Offerors shall include a response to both the Non-Price and Price Proposal in the appropriate Volume.

Question/Answer #56:

Reference: Attachment 1 - 3. Ease of Use.

Question: Does the government intend to force EDA data providers to send text-based PDFs? Should this be an edit as EDA loads PDFs? Can EDA reject non-text based PDFs from official government systems/users?

Answer: At this time, EDA utilizes PDFs. The purpose of the development PWS (Attachment 1) is for the offeror to provide a solution/approach to the task/efforts listed in the PWS for the current EDA support customers.

Question/Answer #57:

Reference: Attachment 1, Page 186.

Question: Given the stated limitations of PDFs, is it the intent of the Government to eventually move away from PDF entirely for all documents in EDA?

Answer: The purpose of the development PWS (Attachment 1) is for the offeror to provide a solution/ approach to the task/efforts listed in the PWS for the current EDA support customers.

Question/Answer #58:

Reference: Attachment 1 - 1, Code Editing Capabilities, Page 186.

Question: Given the stated limitations of PDFs, is it the intent of the Government to eventually move away from PDF entirely for all documents in EDA?

Answer: The purpose of the development PWS (Attachment 1) is for the offeror to provide a solution/ approach to the task/efforts listed in the PWS for the current EDA support customers.

Question/Answer #59:

Reference: Attachment 1 - 1, Code Editing Capabilities, Page 186.

Question: Is it the Government’s intent to have EDA provide an option to convert and display PDF content as an HTML document?

Answer: The purpose of the development PWS (Attachment 1) is for the offeror to provide a solution/ approach to the task/efforts listed in the PWS for the current EDA support customers.

Question/Answer #60:

Reference: Attachment 1 - 1, Code Editing Capabilities, Page 186.

Question: Will the Government require that all PDF data providers label all embedded images prior to submitting a PDF to EDA?

Answer: Please respond to this section based upon your Company's ability to complete the task as provided.

Question/Answer #61:

Reference: Attachment 1 - 1, Code Editing Capabilities, Page 186.

Question: Does the Government have non-repudiation concerns if official government documents can be edited after they are awarded?

Answer: Please respond to this section based upon your Company's ability to complete the task as provided.

Question/Answer #62:

Reference: Attachment 1 - 1, Code Editing Capabilities, Page 186.

Question: Can the Government provide examples of images within PDFs that should be optimized?

Answer: No.

Question/Answer #63:

Reference: Attachment 1 - 1, Code Editing Capabilities, Page 186.

Question: Will the Government require all data providers for EDA to have the necessary data feeds altered and in place prior to the implementation of the requirements in Attachment 1?

Answer: Please respond to this section based upon your Company's ability to complete the task as provided.

Question/Answer #63:

Reference: Attachment 1 - 1, Code Editing Capabilities, Page 186.

Question: Where does the official post award contract of record for DoD contracts reside and does it reside in EDA?

Answer: Please respond to this section based upon your Company's ability to complete the task as provided.

Question/Answer #64:

Reference: Attachment 1 - 2. Search, Page 186.

Question: Is the purpose of this requirement is to read and store and/or edit and store the metadata data associated with the PDF and make it available as search fields?

Answer: Please respond to this section based upon your Company's ability to complete the task as provided.

Question/Answer #65:

Reference: Attachment 1 - 2. Search, Page 186.

Question: Does the Government want to expand search to all PDF contents or only searchable metadata and index data?

Answer: Please respond to this section based upon your Company's ability to complete the task as provided.

Question/Answer #66:

Reference: Attachment 1 - 2. Search, Page 186.

Question: Are there specific meta-data based queries that the government would like implemented in EDA and if so, can the Government delineate those requirements for accurate estimation purposes?

Answer: Please respond to this section based upon your Company's ability to complete the task as provided.

Question/Answer #67:

Reference: Attachment 1 - 2. Search, Page 186.

Question: Will the Government ensure that EDA data providers ARE REQUIRED to supply a specified set of meta-data when they create PDFs that are loaded in EDA?

Answer: Please respond to this section based upon your Company's ability to complete the task as provided.

Question/Answer #68:

Reference: Attachment 1 - 2. Search, Page 186.

Question: Various tools create and implement the larger PDF standard in different ways. Is there a specific PDF standard or tool that Government wishes to require or utilize?

Answer: Please respond to this section based upon your Company's ability to complete the task as provided.

Question/Answer #69:

Reference: Attachment 1 - 3. Ease of Use, Page 186.

Question: Before storing and indexing PDF files should EDA validate the PDF contents and reject image only PDFs to ensure PDF text is readable?

Answer: Please respond to this section based upon your Company's ability to complete the task as provided.

Question/Answer #70:

Reference: Attachment 1 - 3. Ease of Use, Page 186.

Question: Is this a point forward solution or is it a requirement of the contractor to investigate converting/ labelling/ rendering existing PDFs in EDA where possible?

Answer: Please respond to this section based upon your Company's ability to complete the task as provided.

252.203-7999 Prohibition on Contracting with Entities that Require Certain Internal Confidentiality Agreements)(FEB 2015)

ISSUED BY: DLA Contracting Services - Philadelphia 700 Robbins Avenue, Bldg. 26N-9519 Philadelphia, PA 19111-5096 Attn: DCSO-P, H. Orlando (215) 737-5844

1. Questions and Answers as submitted in response to RFP SP4701-15-R-0008 are hereby incorporated on the subsuquent pages (2-19).

2. Contents of the RFP are changed, refer to red text in updated RFP.