Attachment_0009_-_ACES_Q A__2_-_29JUN2016.pdf

No. Document Reference Section Question Answer

Please specify a question category;

PWS, L&M,

Contracting, Technical, etc.

Reference paragraph # of document

1 RFP

Amendment 0003 & Amendment 0005 Subject

L.9.6.1 & M.13.6.1.2

Per Amendment 0003, the newly added L.9.6.1 states - “The Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall be submitted in Volume 2, not this Volume”. Per the above, there appears to be no way for the Small Business

Subcontracting Plan to be evaluated. Amendment 0005 Question/Answer #18 states – “see….section M.13.6.1.2 for evaluation of small business subcontracting plan”. However, section M.13.6.1.2 is included in M.13 which is designed to evaluate the “Small Business Participation Volume” not “Volume 2” (Management Approach). Therefore, with the current structure of sections L&M the Small Business Subcontracting Plan cannot be evaluated as part of “Volume 2” Management Approach. Will the government be adding an evaluation criteria to section “M.11 Volume II Management Approach” to enable the Small Business

Subcontractor Plan to be evaluated as part of “L.7 Volume II Factor II Management Approach”?

The Small Business Subcontracting Plan is not evaluated on an adjectival basis. Rather, this plan will be evaluated to ensure the offeror's proposed plan is consistent with its Small Business Utilization Plan. Section M.11.1.a has been revised to reflect this.

2 RFP Amendment 0005 - L.3.2.1

RFP, Section L, Paragraph L.3.2.1 states, "Proposal submissions shall also include one (1) redacted copy of the proposal, which shall have all Offeror - identifying information removed. The redacted proposal should not contain any Offeror references or information to track back to the Offeror. These references may be blacked out with a highlight text tool and shall be submitted in PDF format only." How does the government plan to use this information?

The technical and management evaluation teams will utilize the redacted volumes during their evaluations.

The Offeror only needs to submit a redacted copy of the Technical and Management Volumes.

3 RFP Amendment 0005 - L.3.2.1

RFP, Section L, Paragraph L.3.2.1 states, "Proposal submissions shall also include one (1) redacted copy of the proposal, which shall have all Offeror - identifying information removed. The redacted proposal should not contain any Offeror references or information to track back to the Offeror. These references may be blacked out with a highlight text tool and shall be submitted in PDF format only." With whom will this information be shared?

The technical and management evaluation teams will utilize the redacted volumes during evaluations.

4 RFP Amendment 0005 - L.3.2.1

RFP, Section L, Paragraph L.3.2.1 states, "Proposal submissions shall also include one (1) redacted copy of the proposal, which shall have all Offeror - identifying information removed. The redacted proposal should not contain any Offeror references or information to track back to the Offeror. These references may be blacked out with a highlight text tool and shall be submitted in PDF format only." Since fulfilling this requirement will result in significant portions of the proposal being redacted, will this version of the proposal be evaluated?

The Offeror only needs to submit a redacted copy of the Technical and Management Volumes. The content of the redacted proposal should not change, only offeror names will be unknown. Yes, this version of the proposal will be evaluated.

5 RFP Amendment 0005- L.8.1.2 & M.12.3

RFP, Section L, Paragraph L.8.1.2 states "Major subcontractors are defined as members of an Offeror's overall team who are expected to perform ten percent or more of the proposed effort." RFP, Section M, Paragraph M.12.3 states, "Major subcontractors are defined as members of an Offeror's overall team who are expected to perform ten percent or more of the proposed effort as identified in the Staffing Plan." Will offeror's proposals that include the past performance of "major subcontractors" receive higher evaluation scores than other offerors who do not? If so, how will that be calculated?

No. Prime past performance and subcontractor past performance are not weighted.

6 PWS Section 9.0

Travel Requirements are noted as $24,000 each year in the cost spreadsheet. However, within the PWS travel section 9.0, there are 21+ locations that are required to be visited each year, for multiple days, and with multiple personnel. Will the government provide an updated plug-in cost number to address travel requirements in the PWS and any additional travel required for CIAV tasks?

The Government has revised Attachment 0003 - Price Matrix, to reflect the surrogate plug-in for Travel at

$80,000.00 for the base and each option year.

7 Amendment 005

Per Amendment 005, will the government please confirm that "company identifying information to be redacted" and “Offeror - identifying information” applies only to company names and logos and only in

VOLUME I and II? Ambiguity in this area creates a significant compliance risk as offerors may not be aware of what specifically constitutes "company identifying information".

Correct. Offerors only need to redact offeror identifying information in volumes I and II. Offerors only need to redact company names and logos. Redacted volumes should not impact content of your proposal.

8 Amendments Will the government please provide SF30s for all Amendments so we can submit signed copies in accordance with section L?

The documents to sign will be provided with Amendment 0007.

9 L&M L.3.2.3 Section L requires that Digital MS Word files and MS Excel files be compatible with Microsoft Office 2013.

Would the government clarify whether offerors may submit files in PDF format?

PDF format is acceptable, Section L has been revised to reflect.

10 L&M L.3.2.5 Per section L.3.2.5, can the government clarify that offerors may include an introduction (up to 3 pages) in VOLUME III FACTOR III Past Performance in addition to the 5 page limit?

Yes, a 3 page introduction may be included. The 3 page introduction will not be counted towards the 5 page limitation for this volume.

ARMY CYBERSECURITY ENTERPRISE SUPPORT (ACES) W52P1J-16-R-0047 - Q&A #2

11 RFP L.3.2.1

Amendment 0005 9

Due to the new requirement under Section L.3.2.1 for offerors to “include one (1) redacted copy of their entire proposal, which shall have all offerors’ identifying information removed in all volumes”, which would entail a time consuming effort to redact company and partner information in all areas such as: headers, footers, tables, graphics, processes, illustrations, call outs, proof points and quotes from clients, logos within all five

(5) volumes; in addition - exhibits, resumes, letters of commitment, amendments, SAM/DSBS certifications, ISR’s, teaming arrangements, Past Performance, Contract Participation Matrix, Price Matrix, Security

Requirements, certificates, licenses, Memorandums of Agreement (MOA)s, coversheets, table of contents, indices, title pages, and section dividers and all other areas where company information may be located; will the Government consider a two (2) week extension to ensure compliance with all known facts and expectations so Offerors can provide a complete and accurate proposal? Also, can the government provide further guidance on naming convention for file submission for the redacted offerors proposal?

Only volumes I and II need to be redacted. There is no requirement for the naming convention of file submissions. However, recommend offerors identify which files are redacted. At this time, an extension is not being granted.

12 RFP L.3.1 35

Section L.3.1 states: “…12 point font or greater, Arial font…” Font requirements apply to bullets and other special text formatting, including tables and graphic displays.” To enable Offerors to provide graphics and tables with meaningful details illustrating their solutions and approaches, will the Government please allow font sizes smaller than 12 point for graphics and tables?

Tables and graphics may use smaller than 12 point font, with the minimum font size set at 8 point font.

13 L.10.7 (p40 of 46) Price Information Please confirm that the offeror’s completed Attachment 0003 (Price Matrix) is the only required supporting documentation required by Section L.10.7.

Attachment 0003 (Price Matrix) is the only required document required by Section L.10.7.

14 Extension We respectfully request an extension of three weeks once the workload/staffing data has been released. Due to milestone requirements of the supported customer, an extension is not anticipated.

15 Amendment 0004, A.1.b.i, “The signed, first page of the RFP and all signed

RFP Amendments shall be submitted in Volume I, Technical Capability.

No SF-30s were provided with: Amendment 0001, 0002, 0003. Will the Government be providing SF-30s for these amendments?

The Government anticipates providing these as part of a subsequent amendment.

16 L.3.1

“12 point font or greater, Arial font…typed in black on white background…Font requirements apply to bullets and other special text formatting, including tables and graphics displays.”

To allow for use of headings and subheadings in tables for ease of reading and evaluation purposes, will the Government allow for use of white font and background colors (or shades of black and gray) in headings and subheadings?

Yes, as long as the content is easily readable.

17 RFP L.3.2.5 Would the Government add an acronym list to the items outside of page count? Yes, an acronymn list is acceptable and will not count towards page limit.

18 RFP L.3.2.4

Would the Government update the page count for the technical volume from 50 pages to 75 pages? 50 pages does not allow bidders enough space to adequately describe their technical approach for the 40 page PWS that covers 19 Major Tasks with multiple subtasks.

The page limit for the Technical Volume has been revised from 50 pgs to 75 pgs and is reflected in section L.3.2.4.