Government_Response_-_Attachment_J-8_-_RFP_Questions_and_Comments_12-13-17.pdf

Question Number

Page Number Section Paragraph Question / Comment Government Response

DOES RESPONSE

REQUIRE RFP

EDITS? YES OR

NO

SECTION OF RFP

TO CHANGE DUE

TO Q&A

RFP SECTION

CHANGES TO BE

MADE

CHANGE

MADE?

1 4 Attach J‐4, 3.1 3.1.3.9.2

Does the requirement for “match the proposed hardware”, mean all aspects of the system, including not just CPU SKU and memory configuration, but the same manufacturer and model for the motherboard, etc.?

Yes, the requirement does mean all aspects of the system. The website maintains a collection of published tests on hardware configuration so this requirement allows an offerer to use the published test results for exact matching configurations.

NO N/A N/A N/A

2 138 L.9.3 III

The table in L.9.3, Volume III, Past Performance, shows that Section I of the J‐7 has a two page limit and Section II has a two page limit. Please confirm that by "Section I" the Government is referring to "Part I" and by "Section II" the Government is referring to "Part II."

Additionally, Part I of section A only requires three pieces of information ‐‐ name, address, and DUNs. The two page allocation for these three pieces of information will not take up two pages. Would the Government allow offerors four pages for Section A in it's entirety rather than two pages for Part I and two pages for Part II?

To provide additional space to respond, and to better align Attachment J‐7 with Section L.9.3.3.2, the Government has revised Attachment J‐7, Section L.9.3, and Sections L.9.3.3.1 ‐ L.9.3.3.3. These revisions include providing 3 pages for Attachment J‐7, Section A vice 2 pages. Offerors shall complete Section A using the field space provided.

YES

Attachment J‐7 L.9.3

L.9.3.3.1 ‐ L.9.3.3.3

Revised Attachment J‐ 7 to add additional fields for Section A ‐ Part I, and provide 2 additional pages for Part II. Revised L.9.3.3.1 ‐ L.9.3.3.3 to clarify instructions.

YES

3 137 L.9.3.0 1 Regarding Q&As, question number 2, the exclusion of page counts for diagrams still exists in the first paragraph.

Section L.9.3.0 has been changed in accordance with Amendment 0001 to remove diagrams from this section.

YES L.9.3.0

See Government response for description of the change.

YES

4 138 L.9.3. III

The table in L.9.3, Volume III, Past Performance, allows 16 pages total for the past performance volume. With a maximum of eight past performance J‐7s allowed, with two pages each allowed for Part I and Part II, that would be a total of 32 pages. We assume the Government wants two pages total for Part I and Part II which would be 16 pages. Please confirm.

To provide additional space to respond, and to better align Attachment J‐7 with Section L.9.3.3.2, the Government has revised Attachment J‐7, Section L.9.3, and Sections L.9.3.3.1 ‐ L.9.3.3.3. These revisions include providing 3 pages for Attachment J‐7, Section A vice 2 pages. Offerors shall complete Section A using the field space provided.

YES

Attachment J‐7 L.9.3

L.9.3.3.1 ‐ L.9.3.3.3

Revised Attachment J‐ 7 to add additional fields for Section A ‐ Part I, and provide 2 additional pages for Part II. Revised L.9.3.3.1 ‐ L.9.3.3.3 to clarify instructions.

YES

5 149 L.9.3.3.2 All

Regarding Q&As, question 13 advised that the Government would update the RFP and remove the list (1‐6). However, the list has not been removed. In addition to that list, there are other instructions to provide contract objectives, how objectives were achieved, aspects of performance quality, explanation of reason(s) for variances and any corrective action(s), copies of Cure or Show Cause documentation, indication of contract terminations, and an assessment of our performance with supporting rationale. Other than the list of 6 items that you intend to remove, are offerors to address all of the other requirements listed above in the Attachment J‐7, Section A ‐ Part II?

The Government's intent in answering Question 13 previously was to address the deletion of previous information in L.9.3.3.1, not L.9.3.3.2. In addition, the Government has revised Part II of Attachment J‐7 to more closely align with the items listed in L.9.3.3.2, as well as to provide additional space to provide responses to those items. Offerors shall complete Attachment J‐7, and provide Cure Notice or Show Cause documentation as is applicable to the contracts referenced in past performance.

YES

Attachment J‐7 L.9.3

L.9.3.3.1 ‐ L.9.3.3.3

Revised Attachment J‐ 7 to add additional fields for Section A ‐ Part I, and provide 2 additional pages for Part II. Revised L.9.3.3.1 ‐ L.9.3.3.3 to clarify instructions.

YES

6 G.11

In a Fixed Price environment, the performing contractor who has the risk of performance must be free to schedule and execute travel in the completion of that task order at their own discretion. This offeror understands all travel will be conducted within the guidelines of the Federal Travel Regulations as prescribed by the General Services Administration. However, please clarify that Clause G.11, travel identified in Task Order proposals, when awarded, constitutes COR approval to execute.

G.11 outlines general travel authorization procedures under the contract. Specific guidance on travel (e.g. firm‐fixed price vs cost‐reimbursible, pre‐authorization guidelines, etc.) will be further defined at the Task Order level.

NO N/A N/A N/A

Attachment J‐8 R&D HPCC Request for Proposal ST‐133R‐17‐RP‐0057 (Final)

Industry Questions and Answers #2 ‐ As of December 08, 2017

7 Attachment 1 It is not clear from the Government provided Attachment 1 ‐ Cost/Price Template for Ceiling Rates template, if the rates requested are for Government site, Contractor site, or both.

Please clarify.

Attachment J‐1 has been revised to provide tabs for Contractor Site Rates and Government Site Rates. Offerors shall provide rate pricing for both tabs. If proposed pricing for Contractor Site and Government Site are the same, the contractor shall nevertheless complete each tab.

YES

Attachment J‐1

L.9.3.4.1

Attachment J‐1 was updated to provide 2 tabs ‐ 1 for Contractor Site Rates, and 1 for Government Site.

L.9.3.4.1 was revised to reflect the requirement to complete the 2 tabs.

YES

8 Attachment 1 Are contractors allowed to modify the Government provided Attachment 1 ‐ Cost/Price Template for Ceiling Rates template to reflect elements of their disclosure statements?

Yes. Offerors may insert additional columns between Column C and Column H according to their accounting practices. L.9.2 has been revised to reflect this point.

YES L.9.2

L.9.2 was revised to state that Attachment J‐1 may be modified to add additional columns to include cost elements not currently in the spreadsheet.

YES

9 10, 18 L 9.3, L.9.3.3.1 Row 4 of Table; 2, 3

The instructions in the Format and Instructions for Proposal Submission table state "Use Past Performance Assessment Questionnaire supplied as Attachment J‐7 for Sections I ‐ II," but there are discrepancies between requirements stated in L and the current structure of J‐7 Section A. For example, Section L.9.3.3.1 states "Offerors shall be sure to provide the following information in filling out Section A of Attachment J‐7:

a. Contract place of performance, CAGE Code and DUNS Number.

b. Government contracting activity/commercial entity, current address, Procuring Contracting Officer's/commercial reference’s name, email address, and telephone number.

c. Government’s technical representative/COR/commercial reference, current e‐mail address, telephone and fax numbers.

d. Government contract administration activity, if delegated, the Administrative Contracting Officer's name, current e‐mail address, telephone, and fax numbers.

e. Contract Number (in the case of Indefinite Delivery type contracts, GSA contracts, and Blanket Purchase Agreements, include Delivery/Task Order Numbers).

f. Contract Type (specified type, e.g. Firm‐Fixed Price, Cost‐Reimbursement, Time‐and‐Materials, etc.). In the case of Indefinite Delivery contracts, indicate the specific type (Requirements, Definite Quantity, or Indefinite Quantity) and secondary contract type (FP, CR, T&M, etc.).

g. Award contract price and final or projected final price.

h. Original delivery schedule, including dates of commencement and completion of work. Final or projected final delivery schedule, including dates of commencement and completion of work.

But Attachment J‐7 Section A does not include a designated place in the template to include parts of a., b., all of c., all of d., and all of h. Does the government plan to issue a new Attachment J‐7 that includes all of the stated requirements from L.9.3.3.1?

Since the release of the Near‐Final Draft RFP, Section L.9.3.3.1 was revised in the Final RFP to remove the referenced request for information in "a‐h". Notwithstanding, Attachment J‐7 has been revised to include some components that were listed in previous versions of Section L. Offerors shall complete this revised version prior to sending Attachment J‐7 to their references.

NO N/A N/A N/A

10 10, 18 L.9.3, L.9.3.3.1 Row 4 of Table; 2, 3

If offerors are using Section A of the Past Performance Assessment Questionnaire supplied as Attachment J‐7 for Section I, can offerors be granted a 2 Page Limit per reference for Section 1? As Section A in the current PPQ is one page when not populated, and Section A currently does not include all of the requirements in section L.9.3.3.1 (as stated in question X above), it seems offerors would be limited to fewer than the maximum 8 citations if Section I is limited to 2 pages total.

Attachment J‐7 has been revised to reflect the list of items in L.9.3.3.2. In addition, Section L.9.3.3.1 ‐ L.9.3.3.3 have all been revised to clearly align the instructions for past performance submission with Attachment J‐7. Finally, Attachment J‐7 has been revised to provide 3 pages for Section A according to the revised fields provided. L.9.3 has been revised to reference a page limit of 40 pages: 3 page limit per reference for Section A ; 2 page limit per reference for Section B; and a maximum of 8 references.

YES

Attachment J‐7 L.9.3

L.9.3.3.1 ‐ L.9.3.3.3

Revised Attachment J‐ 7 to add additional fields for Section A ‐ Part I, and provide 2 additional pages for Part II. Revised L.9.3.3.1 ‐ L.9.3.3.3 to clarify instructions.

YES

11 18; 5, 6 L.9.3.3.2;

M.2.3.4

5; 1, 2, 3

The Instructions in L and the Evaluation Criteria in M list six similar requirements that should be included in each past performance citation. Section L requirements include:

1) Conforming to contract specifications to include the timely supply of personnel resources;

2) Maintaining program execution within proposed price;

3) Adherence to contract schedules;

4) Ability to resolve technical problems quickly and effectively;

5) Professional concern for the interest of its customers; and

6) Establishing and maintaining adequate management of subcontractors.

Section M requirements include:

1) Conforming to specifications and standards of good performance;

2) Maintaining program execution within cost/price;

3) Adherence to contract schedules;

4) Ability to resolve technical and management problems quickly and effectively;

5) Professional concern for the interest of its customers; and

6) Establishing and maintaining adequate management of team members.

We respectfully ask the government to consolidate the questions and remove duplications for clarity in the final RFP.

Sections L.9.3.3.2 and M.2.3.4 have been revised to have both sections match the language currently in Section L.

YES M.2.3.4

Revise M.2.3.4 to match L.9.3.3.2.

YES

12 10, 18; 5, 6 L.9.3, L.9.3.3.2;

M.2.3.4

Row 4 of Table; 2, 3;

1, 2, 3

Section II – Contract Performance instructions clearly state that offerors shall use Attachment J‐7, Section A to provide a narrative that is to include contract objectives, how these objectives were achieved, and detail how the effort is relevant to the requirements of this solicitation. The descriptions shall include all aspects of performance quality, including the Offeror’s record of:

1) Conforming to contract specifications to include the timely supply of personnel resources;

2) Maintaining program execution within proposed price;

3) Adherence to contract schedules;

4) Ability to resolve technical problems quickly and effectively;

5) Professional concern for the interest of its customers; and

6) Establishing and maintaining adequate management of subcontractors.

In addition, Section M.2.3.4 says, Past Performance accomplishments shall include all aspects of performance, including the Offeror’s record of:

1) Conforming to specifications and standards of good performance;

2) Maintaining program execution within cost/price;

3) Adherence to contract schedules;

4) Ability to resolve technical and management problems quickly and effectively;

5) Professional concern for the interest of its customers; and

6) Establishing and maintaining adequate management of team members.

In addition, “The Government will evaluate the extent to which the past performance record encompasses the requirements in Section C.” Section C.5 Requirements includes 30+ pages of requirements.

Demonstrating recency, relevancy, and quality level in all solicitation requirements, and hitting the individual requirements above will be challenging given the 2 page limit per reference for Section II as stated in L.9.3. We respectfully request the government increase the page limit to 4 pages per reference in Section II.

Attachment J‐7 has been revised to reflect the list of items in L.9.3.3.2. In addition, Section L.9.3.3.1 ‐ L.9.3.3.3 have all been revised to clearly align the instructions for past performance submission with Attachment J‐7. Finally, Attachment J‐7 has been revised to provide 3 pages for Section A according to the revised fields provided. L.9.3 has been revised to reference a page limit of 40 pages: 3 page limit per reference for Section A ; 2 page limit per reference for Section B; and a maximum of 8 references.

YES

Attachment J‐7 L.9.3

L.9.3.3.1 ‐ L.9.3.3.3

Revised Attachment J‐ 7 to add additional fields for Section A ‐ Part I, and provide 2 additional pages for Part II. Revised L.9.3.3.1 ‐ L.9.3.3.3 to clarify instructions.

YES

13 10 L.9.3 Row 4 of Table

Volume III Past Performance Section III the government instructions state there is no page limit for this section. As Past Performance Assessment Questionnaires will be sent directly to NOAA staff, what is the government expecting Offerors to include in Section III of Volume III?

The referenced section of your question must NOT be completed by conforming offerors rather the actual references.

NO N/A N/A N/A

14 B.4.5 Subcontractor Competition Requirements for Task Order Proposals: For individual Task Order Proposals, vendor procurements may be the preponderance of information provided to NOAA, is it a correct understanding the term "subcontractor" in this clause refers to vendors?

Yes. NO N/A N/A N/A

138, 148‐149, Att J‐7

L.9.3; L.9.3.3.1;

L.9.3.3.2; Att J‐7 PPQ Section A

Format and Instructions for proposal submission Table; Vol III Past

Performanc e; Att J‐7

PPQ Section A

L.9.3.3.1 Section I – Contract Descriptions instructs to complete both Parts I and II of Attachment J‐7, Section A, and L.9.3.3.2 – Contract Performance calls for a narrative description to be submitted within Attachment J‐7, Section A, Part II. The page allocation in table L.9.3 calls for Sections I: 2 pages limit per reference, and Section II: 2 pages limit per reference. Please confirm that response to L.9.3.3.1 and L.9.3.3.2 requirements shall be presented in Section A Attachment J‐7 and should be no more than four (4) pages in total per each reference summing to a maximum page count of 32 pages for Vol III Past Performance vs 18 pages total page limit identified in L.9.3 Table

Attachment J‐7 has been revised to reflect the list of items in L.9.3.3.2. In addition, Section L.9.3.3.1 ‐ L.9.3.3.3 have all been revised to clearly align the instructions for past performance submission with Attachment J‐7. Finally, Attachment J‐7 has been revised to provide 3 pages for Section A according to the revised fields provided. L.9.3 has been revised to reference a page limit of 40 pages: 3 page limit per reference for Section A ; 2 page limit per reference for Section B; and a maximum of 8 references.

YES

Attachment J‐7 L.9.3

L.9.3.3.1 ‐ L.9.3.3.3

Revised Attachment J‐ 7 to add additional fields for Section A ‐ Part I, and provide 2 additional pages for Part II. Revised L.9.3.3.1 ‐ L.9.3.3.3 to clarify instructions.

YES

16 6

RFP, Section B.4.5

Subcontractor Competition Requirements for Task Order Proposals

1st Para

RFP indicates that "the Contractor is required to conduct subcontractor competitions for all subcontracted supplies and services proposed in response to task order solicitations."

Question: Can the Government clarify what is meant by "subcontractor competition"? Is this referring to subcontractors to the prime for parts and materials, for services, or both? Does this apply to subcontractors that are already on the Contractor's team at the time of award for services? It would seem to be inefficient to hold competitions for all services in each task order, particularly for those that are already covered by existing subcontractors. Does this clause apply to only those services not covered and/or mapped to existing subcontractors?

This clause is applicable to parts and materials requested in the Government's Request for Proposal(s) at the task order level., as well as all services and labor categories not already specified or identified at the IDIQ level.

NO N/A N/A N/A

17 138 L.9.3 Row 2 Past Performance Section III the government instructions state there is no page limit for this section. As Past Performance Assessment Questionnaires will be sent directly to NOAA staff, what is the government expecting Offeror's to include in Section III of Volume III?

The intent behind the Section III reference is to address timelines for submitting Past Performance Questions. Sections L.9.3.3.1 ‐ L.9.3.3.3 have been revised to clearly this point.

Section III refers to Section B of Attachment J‐7, which is the questionnaire portion of the past performance template to be completed by Offeror's reference.

NO N/A N/A N/A

18 138, 148 L.9, L.9.3.3 2, 4

The Past Performance instructions state: "(18 Page Limit for Sections I & II Combined)

• Section I: 2 Page Limit Per Reference

• Section II: 2 Page Limit Per Reference." If Offerors put forth 8 contracts, which is the maximum number of contracts allowed per the instructions, the total maximum page count for Section I and II combined would be 32 pages based on the instructions. Can the government update the page count total to reflect total page count for Section I and Section II combined if 8 contracts are used?

Attachment J‐7 has been revised to reflect the list of items in L.9.3.3.2. In addition, Section L.9.3.3.1 ‐ L.9.3.3.3 have all been revised to clearly align the instructions for past performance submission with Attachment J‐7. Finally, Attachment J‐7 has been revised to provide 3 pages for Section A according to the revised fields provided. L.9.3 has been revised to reference a page limit of 40 pages: 3 page limit per reference for Section A ; 2 page limit per reference for Section B; and a maximum of 8 references.

YES

Attachment J‐7 L.9.3

L.9.3.3.1 ‐ L.9.3.3.3

Revised Attachment J‐ 7 to add additional fields for Section A ‐ Part I, and provide 2 additional pages for Part II. Revised L.9.3.3.1 ‐ L.9.3.3.3 to clarify instructions.

YES

19 138, 148, 160 L.9.3, L.9.3.3;

M.2.3.4 Row 2, 3, 5

The Offeror respectfully requests the government increases the page limit for Section II:

Contract Performance to 4 pages. The government requirements to address all aspects of performance quality, which includes six specific requirements in addition to requirements in Section C cannot be adequately fulfilled in the current two page limit for Section II: Contract Perfromance.

Attachment J‐7 has been revised to reflect the list of items in L.9.3.3.2. In addition, Section L.9.3.3.1 ‐ L.9.3.3.3 have all been revised to clearly align the instructions for past performance submission with Attachment J‐7. Finally, Attachment J‐7 has been revised to provide 3 pages for Section A according to the revised fields provided. L.9.3 has been revised to reference a page limit of 40 pages: 3 page limit per reference for Section A ; 2 page limit per reference for Section B; and a maximum of 8 references.

YES

Attachment J‐7 L.9.3

L.9.3.3.1 ‐ L.9.3.3.3

Revised Attachment J‐ 7 to add additional fields for Section A ‐ Part I, and provide 2 additional pages for Part II. Revised L.9.3.3.1 ‐ L.9.3.3.3 to clarify instructions.

YES

20 138 L.9.3 Row 2 Does the government expect the Past Performance volume template, specifically Section A, Part II, to match exactly with the PPQs sent to our customers?

Yes. NO N/A N/A N/A

21 136 L.9.2 7

Instructions state: "Offerors are not permitted to alter the template formats provided, and shall adhere to the font types and sizes as have already been pre‐selected within these documents." We ask that we are allowed to extend the cell sizes with Attachment J‐7, which is the required template for the Past Performance volume, so we can adequately address all of the government's Past Performance requirements for this volume?

Attachment J‐7 has been revised to reflect the list of items in L.9.3.3.2. In addition, Section L.9.3.3.1 ‐ L.9.3.3.3 have all been revised to clearly align the instructions for past performance submission with Attachment J‐7. Finally, Attachment J‐7 has been revised to provide 3 pages for Section A according to the revised fields provided. L.9.3 has been revised to reference a page limit of 40 pages: 3 page limit per reference for Section A ; 2 page limit per reference for Section B; and a maximum of 8 references.

YES

Attachment J‐7 L.9.3

L.9.3.3.1 ‐ L.9.3.3.3

Revised Attachment J‐ 7 to add additional fields for Section A ‐ Part I, and provide 2 additional pages for Part II. Revised L.9.3.3.1 ‐ L.9.3.3.3 to clarify instructions.

YES

22 149; 161 L.9.3.3.2, M.2.3.4

2; 2 The six Section II ‐ Contract Performance requirements differ between the Instructions and the Evaluation Criteria in sections L and M of the RFP. Can the government standardize those requirements?

Yes Sections L.9.3.3.2 and M.2.3.4 have been revised to have both sections match the language currently in Section L.

YES M.2.3.4

Revise Section M to match language in Section L.

N/A

23 Attachment 1 Are contractors allowed to modify the Government provided Attachment 1 ‐ Cost/Price Template for Ceiling Rates template to reflect elements of their disclosure statements?

Yes. Offerors may insert additional columns between Column C and Column H according to their accounting practices. L.9.2 has been revised to reflect this point.

YES L.9.2

L.9.2 was revised to state that Attachment J‐1 may be modified to add additional columns to include cost elements not currently in the spreadsheet.

YES

24 151 & 152 L L.9.3.4.1 & L.9.3.4.2(a)

If an offeror has an approved pool where contract administration is an indirect function, is it acceptable to provide the resume, rate and commitment of time for the contract support key personnel requirement but charge the cost as an indirect charge. It will meet all the requirements for commitment of time and a person identified that meets the qualification requirements, but it will not reflect as a direct charge to the contract.

Yes, this is an acceptable approach. To be clear, the Government requires labor rates and labor hours for the Contracts Manager in the Sample TO Pricing, which would then be used to generate the Offeror's total evaluated price for proposal analysis purposes. In addition, the Government requires ceiling rates for the Contracts Manager for the Base IDIQ Ceiling Spreadsheet.

NO N/A N/A N/A

138, 148‐149, Att J‐7

L.9.3; L.9.3.3.1;

L.9.3.3.2; Att J‐7 PPQ Section A

Format and Instructions for proposal submission Table; Vol III Past

Performanc e; Att J‐7

PPQ Section A

L.9.3.3.1 Section I – Contract Descriptions instructs to complete both Parts I and II of Attachment J‐7, Section A, and L.9.3.3.2 – Contract Performance calls for a narrative description to be submitted within Attachment J‐7, Section A, Part II. The page allocation in table L.9.3 calls for Sections I: 2 pages limit per reference, and Section II: 2 pages limit per reference. Please confirm that response to L.9.3.3.1 and L.9.3.3.2 requirements shall be presented in Section A Attachment J‐7 and should be no more than four (4) pages in total per each reference summing to a maximum page count of 32 pages for Vol III Past Performance vs 18 pages total page limit identified in L.9.3 Table

Attachment J‐7 has been revised to reflect the list of items in L.9.3.3.2. In addition, Section L.9.3.3.1 ‐ L.9.3.3.3 have all been revised to clearly align the instructions for past performance submission with Attachment J‐7. Finally, Attachment J‐7 has been revised to provide 3 pages for Section A according to the revised fields provided. L.9.3 has been revised to reference a page limit of 40 pages: 3 page limit per reference for Section A ; 2 page limit per reference for Section B; and a maximum of 8 references.

YES

Attachment J‐7 L.9.3

L.9.3.3.1 ‐ L.9.3.3.3

Revised Attachment J‐ 7 to add additional fields for Section A ‐ Part I, and provide 2 additional pages for Part II. Revised L.9.3.3.1 ‐ L.9.3.3.3 to clarify instructions.

YES

26 n/a Attachment J‐1

Cost/Price Template for Ceiling Rates

The Attachment J‐1 Cost/Price Template for Ceiling Rates has component cost buildup for Direct Labor, Fringe Benefits, Overhead, G&A and Profit. May we modify the template by adding in additional columns between the direct labor rate (column C) and the loaded hourly rate (column H)? This will enable the offeror to add indirect rate components consistent with our standard bidding process and forward pricing rate buildup.

Yes. Offerors may insert additional columns between Column C and Column H according to their accounting practices. L.9.2 has been revised to reflect this point.

YES L.9.2

L.9.2 was revised to state that Attachment J‐1 may be modified to add additional columns to include cost elements not currently in the spreadsheet.

YES

27 44 Attachment J‐4, Appendix F

8.a 8.b

The Warranty Section of Appendix F states both that "The scheduler shall provide support and license for entire R&DHPCS enterprise" and that "Warranty shall be provided for the scheduler coincident with the warranty of the CS." Could the Government please clarify that the main purchase of licenses for the BQS are to include only the CS and TDS being acquired as part of the SOO, and that the warranty only covers these additional scheduler licenses?

The R&D HPCS enterprise license is to cover the entire enterprise, including Gaea. For informational purposes, the R&D HPCS program currently has 110,000 cores in Oak Ridge (Gaea), approximately 30,000 cores in Fairmont (Theia), approximately 45,000 cores in Boulder (Jet), and approximately 2,000 cores in Princeton (PPAN), and additional growth should be considered for the Theia replacement. Therefore, an enterprise license should include at a minimum of 200,000 cores at four major geographically dispersed locations.

YES

Att. J‐4, Appendix

F

Add reference to 200,000 cores as the minimum requirement for the licenses.

N/A

RFP is an IDIQ with FFP, T&M, CR and CPFF task orders, technically the IDIQ should have included both the 52.2451‐1 (limited liability of loss) and 52.245‐1 Alt 1 (Full liability). Then at the individual task order level (when issued), the Gov’t could list which applies to scope of work.

Will the list of 1800+ lines listed as GFP be flowed to the contractor as accountable property on the IDIQ award?

Yes, that is correct. NO N/A N/A N/A

29 4 B.3 1 What will the frequency of Task Orders be?

The Government cannot predetermine the precise quantities of supplies or services that the Government will require during the contract period. However, historically the Government has issued roughly 5‐10 Task Orders each Fiscal Year, which does not include orders for major equipment purchases or miscellaneous supply or service requirements.

NO N/A N/A N/A

30 4 B.4 1 Please provide a facility by facility Clearance requirement as this may vary depending on the location. (i.e. DOE‐Q, TS, TSSCI, etc.)

For unprivileged access, a NACI is currently required; for privileged access, a Background Investigation. There is no location specific clearance requirement.

NO N/A N/A N/A

31 16 C.4.3.3.1.1 1 Is Tape the long term storage method, or would other options be a possibility?

Currently, the long term storage medium is tape. The Government continually reviews other options for consideration and approval. Thus, over the life of the contract, other options may become a possibility.

NO N/A N/A N/A

32 16 C.4.3.3.1.1 1 What is the projected refresh cycle of each cluster?

The refresh cycle and strategy for each cluster depends on a number of factors, and differs from cluster to cluster.

NO N/A N/A N/A

33 35 C.5.3.5.2 1 Who is allowed to remotely access the clusters for maintenance as part of the award?

Government and contractor (including subcontractor) personnel who are granted accounts with administrative privileges, after passing all vetting requirements, may access the clusters remotely for maintenance.

NO N/A N/A N/A

34 36 C.5.3.5.4 1 According to the diagram only 2 clusters have tape, according to C.4.3.3.1.1 all clusters have tape backup. Which statement is true?

The Government is not clear of the question as there is no discrepancy. Tape backup is cited in all of the diagrams in the appendices. Perhaps, the potential offeror is confusing our long‐term storage archive with tapes for tape backup. Only Princeton, NJ and Fairmont, WV have a HSM, which is largely unrelated to tape backup.

NO N/A N/A N/A

35 18 C.5.0.4 1 Is the government looking for Hardware recommendations, trends, or just market research.

Please clarify.

C.5.0.4 involves, among other things, market research, insight into trends, as well as identifying cutting edge hardware.

NO N/A N/A N/A

Attachment J‐ 4 ‐ Sample Task Order ‐ Statement of Objectives_11‐

16‐ 17_FINAL.doc x page 4

3.1.3.9.2 Peak

SpecFP Rate

The minimum performance of a compute system shall be determined by the sum of the peak SpecFP rate from each individual node using the SPEC CPU 2017. Is this using the SPECfp_rate_base or the SPECcpu2017fp_rate_base?

Please use SPECrate® 2017 Floating Point. YES Attachment J‐4, Section 3.1.3.9.2

Add reference to SPECrate 2017 Floating Point

YES

37 General Will the Government please provide the datacenter floor layout for the Fairmont site? This is needed to calculate cable lengths.

Please refer to RFP_Appendix_B (NOAA Facility CONOPS) for datacenter floor layout diagrams.

NO N/A N/A N/A

38 General Due to the complicated nature of the solution will the Government extend the due date to January 19, 2018?

No. Given the robust industry engagement with multiple publications of draft RFP's, site visits and an industry day, the Government has taken into account the complicated nature of the solution. However, given the delay in response to industry Q&As, a proposal extension has been provided in Amendment 0001 to January 12, 2018.

NO N/A N/A N/A

39 130 L.4 Has NOAA determined if this will be a single or multiple award contract? If multiple, how many awards does NOAA intend to make?

The resulting contract from this RFP will be a Single Award IDIQ. Please see B.3, L.4 and M.2.1 for reference.

NO N/A N/A N/A

40 156 M.2.1 d)

Evaluation Factors

Can NOAA please provide the individual weightings for each of the non‐pricing evaluation factors?

As specified in M.2.1, Para. (d), the non‐price evaluation factors are in descending order of importance. No additional weighting information will be provided.

NO N/A N/A N/A

41 1 Attachment J‐6

Attachment J‐6, Subcontracting Plan Outline, specifies in its introductory paragraph "...successful offerors, to submit an acceptable subcontracting plan that identifies the total planned dollars and percentage of the acquisition…". However the template provided does not show where percentages shall be entered. Secondly, as an IDIQ with only a single sample task to price, it is unclear how offerors will establish accurate dollar values and percentage goals by small business classification.

Q1. Are offerors restricted to use Attachment J‐6 or may they use their own standard Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

Q2. May offerors establish attainable goals by percentage only without specifying dollar amounts?

Q1: For purposes of proposal submission, Offerors shall solely use the template provided via Attachment J‐6.

Q2: The Government refers the Offeror to Section L.9.3.1.7, which advises that Offerors should assume an annual task order amount of $10,000,000.00 for developing subcontracting plans. In addition, per FAR 19.704(a)(1) and (2), subcontracting plans are required to have both separate percentages for each socioeconomic category, as well as a statement of total subcontracted dollars anticipated for the contract.

As such, Attachment J‐6 has been revised to require total subcontracting dollars required, as well as percentage goals per socioeconomic category. In addition, the total acquisition cost has been revised to reflect the $10,000,000.00 task order amount estimated per contract period, over a 10 year POP.

YES Attachment J‐6

See Government response for description of the change.

42 1 Attachment J‐4 Section 1.h Attachment J‐4 Sample Task Order, Appendix F, section 1.h: We believe having the requirement for all commands to supply XML output restricts batch solutions. We request NOAA to remove this from requirement.

Attachment J‐4, "Sample Task Order", Appendix F, Section 1.h is hereby changed to read, "The scheduler shall provide command output which can be parsed with non‐proprietary software to be utilized in monitoring and other post‐ processing". This change is reflected in Amendment 0001.

YES

Attachment J‐4, Appendix F

See Government response for description of the change.

YES

43 1 Attachment J‐4 Appendix B

Attachment J‐4 Sample Task Order, Appendix B, & README.BM2, Interconnect Performance benchmarks are two benchmarks, one on interconnect bandwidth and one on interconnect latency. The bandwidth test reports results for packet size from 1 Byte to double the packet size up to and including 4 MiB, providing a total 23 packets sizes and three values – MB/s, Messages/s and Messages/s/pair per packet size. Then it needs to run using 1 core, all cores and all hyperthreading cores (3 sets), and then ran between two nodes close and remote, 16 nodes close and remote, ¼, ½, and all nodes (7 variations). For this one test the total values to report on are 23 packet sizes * 3 values *3 sets *7 variations for a total of 1449. For the latency test for packet size is from 0 Byte, 1 Byte, then doubling the packet size up to and including 4 MiB, providing a total number of packet sizes are 24 and with 1 output value, 3 sets and 7 variation. For the latency test the total values to report on are 24 packet sizes * 1 value * 3 sets * 7 variations for a total of 504 for a grand total of 1,953 items to report and vendors agree to these performance numbers. These values could change from difference OS kernel updates due to security patching, some up and some down. None of the hardware vendors have been willing to commit to all these numbers. NOAA has not provided a specific acceptable level for each of the 1953 metrics, nor a ranking of which of the sizes and hop counts are of most interest. If all numbers are of interests then we request that the requirement be changes to have this test run during acceptance testing and the complete results reported at that time. It would also be reasonable to change the benchmark to report up to 4 total values for ICP if NOAA also provides specific requirements on what values are acceptable.

A new README.BM2 file will be generated that requires 10 guaranteed values.

The government requires guarantees for the following cases:

1. Two nodes with one thread per node using the two topologically closest nodes with 0 bytes for latency and 32768 bytes for bandwidth

2. Two nodes with the number of threads equal to the number of physical cores per node using the two topologically closest nodes with 0 bytes for latency and 32768 bytes for bandwidth

3. 16 nodes with the number of threads equal to the number of physical cores per node with 0 bytes for latency and 32768 bytes for bandwidth. The nodes in the group should be topologically adjacent.

4. n/2 nodes with the number of threads equal to the number of physical cores per node with 0 bytes for latency and 32768 bytes for bandwidth. The nodes in the group should be topologicaly adjacent.

5. The get bandwidth results should be guaranteed for 32768 bytes.

6. The put latency results should be guaranteed for 8 bytes.

This is a total of 10 values.

These results should not be construed as the most important nor the most typical, but to simply make the offeror workload more manageable.

The

README.BM2

has been updated and provided to all offerors who have requested the original benchmarks.

Benchmarks Benchmarks YES

44 148‐149

L.9.3.3.1 – Section I – Contract

Descriptions;

L.9.3.3.2 – Section II – Contract

Performance;

Attachment J‐7

Paragraph 1 of each section

The Government refers to Section I ‐ "Contract Descriptions" as ' Section A – Parts I and II of Attachment J‐7 – Past Performance Questionnaire', then the Government refers to Section II "Contract Performance" as ‘Section A – Part II of Attachment J‐7 – Past Performance Questionnaire'. Currently there is an overlap of where Part II of the Past Performance Questionnaire is supposed to be addressed. Q: Can the government clarify the Section of Volume III Past Performance where it wants the contractor to address Part II of the Questionnaire?

Attachment J‐7 has been revised to reflect the list of items in L.9.3.3.2. In addition, Section L.9.3.3.1 ‐ L.9.3.3.3 have all been revised to clearly align the instructions for past performance submission with Attachment J‐7. Finally, Attachment J‐7 has been revised to provide 3 pages for Section A according to the revised fields provided. L.9.3 has been revised to reference a page limit of 40 pages: 3 page limit per reference for Section A ; 2 page limit per reference for Section B; and a maximum of 8 references.

YES

Attachment J‐7 L.9.3

L.9.3.3.1 ‐ L.9.3.3.3

Revised Attachment J‐ 7 to add additional fields for Section A ‐ Part I, and provide 2 additional pages for Part II. Revised L.9.3.3.1 ‐ L.9.3.3.3 to clarify instructions.

YES

45 138

L.9.3 (Volume III of table) – Format and

Instructions for Proposal

Submission

N/A

The government states there is an 18 page limit for Sections I and II combined, however the contractor can provide up to 8 PP references. Given Section I has a 2 page limit per reference and Section II has a 2 page limit per reference, the total page limit would exceed the 18 pages.

Q: Are the page limits listed correctly by the government for both Section I and Section II? If not, can the government please address the overall page limit allotted for Past Performance, as 8 past performance references will not fit in 18 pages if the 4 pages per past performance is utilized.

Attachment J‐7 has been revised to reflect the list of items in L.9.3.3.2. In addition, Section L.9.3.3.1 ‐ L.9.3.3.3 have all been revised to clearly align the instructions for past performance submission with Attachment J‐7. Finally, Attachment J‐7 has been revised to provide 3 pages for Section A according to the revised fields provided. L.9.3 has been revised to reference a page limit of 40 pages: 3 page limit per reference for Section A ; 2 page limit per reference for Section B; and a maximum of 8 references.

YES

Attachment J‐7 L.9.3

L.9.3.3.1 ‐ L.9.3.3.3

Revised Attachment J‐ 7 to add additional fields for Section A ‐ Part I, and provide 2 additional pages for Part II. Revised L.9.3.3.1 ‐ L.9.3.3.3 to clarify instructions.

YES

46 148

L.9.3.3 – Volume III –

Past Performance

The government states that CPARS ratings and questionnaires may also be used in the proposal evaluations as available. Q: Can the government clarify if it is acceptable for offerors to submit CPARS instead of Attachment J‐7 – Performance Questionnaires? If this is not acceptable, can the government please elaborate and clarify how CPARS are to be submitted and evaluated? Are they able to be submitted as an attachment or in addition to J‐7? If additional CPARS are submitted in addition to J‐7 for a given reference, will the submitted CPARS be counted against the page count per reference or the total 18 page count?

Attachment J‐7 is the submission requirement for the past performance volume. The sentence, "Previous CPARS ratings and questionnaires may also be used in the proposal evaluations as available" is hereby deleted in its entirety from Section L.9.3.3.

YES L.9.3.3

See Government response for description of the change.

47 136 L.9.2 – Format Instructions

The government states “Align all text in ‘Align Left.’ Do not ‘justify’ text.” Q: Does “all text” refer to just the body paragraphs of the response, or does it also include all text in the cover page, headers and footers, table headers and cells, page numbering, etc?

The referenced language does not refer to cover page(s), headers and footers, table headers and cells and page numbering, etc. Section L.9.2 is hereby revised to clarify this point.

YES L.9.2

Revise L.9.2 to state that the justifying text guidance does not apply to cover pages, headers and footers, tables, page numbering, etc.

N/A

48 N/A Attachment J‐4

– Section 3.1.3.24.1.4

When the government says “NAG – Qty. 3 floating licenses”, do you mean the compiler or the math library, or both?

The Government is referring to the compiler in this instance. NO N/A N/A N/A

49 N/A Attachment J‐4

– Section 3.3.14

Can the government please clarify if “the system augmentations” are synonymous with our response to the sample task order (Volume II – Section III: Technical Solution)? Or is it only part of it?

The "system augmentations" referred to in 3.1.14 are synonymous with, and specifically referring to, the requirements associated with the Sample Task Order (i.e.

Volume II ‐ Section III: Technical Solution).

NO N/A N/A N/A

50 145

L.9.3.2.1.3 – Proposed System

Enhancements

Can the government please clarify if “Proposed System Enhancements” are synonymous with our response to the sample task order (Volume II – Section III: Technical Solution)? Or is it only part of it?

No, Proposed System Enhancements are not synonymous with the response requirements for the sample task order (i.e.

Volume II ‐ Section III: Technical Solution). Whereas the sample task outlines a specific government requirement to address, the Proposed System Enhancements item requires the offeror to present new potential solutions to improve NOAA's system as recommended by the offeror.

NO N/A N/A N/A

51 128 L.1 L.1 Please clarify if it is the Governments intent for offerors to provide subcontractor information (if applicable) for the ID/IQ ceiling as well as the Sample Task in order to comply with FAR 52.215‐22.

This clause would apply at the Task Order level as is applicable.

For purposes of proposal submission, this clause is applicable to the Sample Task Order (i.e. Volume IV ‐ Section II: Sample Task Order Pricing).

NO N/A N/A N/A

52 149‐151 L.9.3.4 L.9.3.4.1

The RFP states "The Offeror should base the rates on the most highly qualified employee or class of employees within a category, working in the highest cost location, considering the higher cost of performance at a Government or Contractor site." If teaming (prime/subcontractor) is proposed should the ID/IQ ceiling rates be based on the most qualified employee or class of employees within the team (prime and team members labor) or based on the prime offerors labor only? If subcontractor data is required should subcontactors provide fully disclosed cost detail supporting their proposed price at the same level as the prime (i.e. a full cost volume proposal)?

L.9.3.4.1 has been revised to require the submission of Contractor Site and Government Site rates at the IDIQ level.

Attachment J‐1 has also been revised to provide tabs for Contractor Site Rates and Government Site Rates. Offerors shall provide rate pricing for both tabs.

Q1: Offerors who are teaming should price according to the most qualified employee/class of employees, which can be prime or sub labor categories.

Q2: The Government requires full disclosure of cost detail for subcontractor data to the extent that subcontractors shall be used to fill the Base IDIQ labor categories. This is notwithstanding the documentation requirements to support any subcontracted items for the Sample Task Order.

YES

Attachment J‐1

L.9.3.4.1

Attachment J‐1 was updated to provide 2 tabs ‐ 1 for Contractor Site Rates, and 1 for Government Site.

L.9.3.4.1 was revised to reflect the requirement to complete the 2 tabs.

YES

53 147 L.9.3.2.3 1

The government lists six (6) parts/ elements to Section III, including, L.9.3.2.1 – L.9.3.2.3.5, of which, a technical solution is not listed individually. The second listed element, Performance Work Statement (PWS) L.9.3.2.3.2, does state that the offer shall… “Address…proposed technical solution for meeting the SOO requirements.” Will the government please clarify if the proposed technical solution for the sample task order SOO requirements is to be provided as part of the PWS response or if the offerors technical solution is to be provided separately as a part of Section III?

The Offeror's proposed technical solution for the sample task order SOO requirements encompasses the submission of all six elements under L.9.3.2.3. Concerning the PWS submission requirement, this document should provide the Offeror's response for meeting the SOO minimum requirements, and should be supported through the remaining submission elements outlined in L.9.3.2.3.

NO N/A N/A N/A

C.5.1.1

Attachment J‐2

NOAA R&D HPCS Industry Q&A Response dated 11/9/17, states the following:

"Because the PWS and Attachment J‐2 allows for PMP certification of the proposed Program Manager within one year of contract award, how will offerors who propose a Program Manager currently holding a PMP certification be rated, as compared to an offeror who proposes a Program Manager who will obtain certification after award (for example: will those currently holding a PMP certification be more favorably rated?)"

It appears that Section C.5.1.1 and Attachment J‐2 of the Final RFP were not updated to reflect this “at time of award” clarification. Can the Government please update/modify the RFP accordingly?

C.5.1.1 and Attachment J‐2 were in fact previously updated to reflect that the PMP certification is required throughout contract performance. For additional clarity, Section L.9.3.2.2.3 and Section M.2.3.2.3 have also been revised to state that a PMP Certification is required at time of proposal submission, or no later than July 31st, 2018, provided that supporting documentation is included which indicates that the certification could be obtained by that date.

YES

L.9.3.2.2.3 M.2.3.2.3

Specify that evidence of possessing a PMP is required at time of proposal submission, or can be obtained by July 31st, 2018.