Attachment_0010_-_ACES_Q A__3_-_01JUL2016.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 0005 RFP Section A.4 &

Revised Attachment 003

Price Matrix

In the RFP Section A item #4, the period of performance for the contract is stated as: “Phase In: Time of award plus 30 days; Base Period: 11 months following phase in; Option Year 1: Base Year plus 12 months;

Option Year 2: Option Year 1 plus 12 months; Option Year 3: Option Year 2 plus 12 months; Option Year 4:

Option Year 3 plus 12 months; Clause 52.217-8: Option Year 4 plus 6 months; Phase Out: Last 30 days of performance” The last period of performance statement “Phase Out: Last 30 days of performance” does not specify which period of performance the cost of the phase out period will be applied by the government (i.e. 12th month of

“Option Year 4” or the final month of “Clause 52.217-8: Option Year 4 plus 6 months”). Does the government want the offerors to reduce the monthly costs of “Option Year 4” in the “revised Attachment 0003 Price

Matrix” to account for the reduced overall cost of the “Phase Out: Last 30 days of performance”?

The formulas set up for option year 4 calculate the monthly cost multiplied by 11. If an earlier option year ends up being the last option exercised, the last month of performance will be phase out. The six month period under 52.217-8 will be calculated by multiplying the monthly labor in Option Year 4 by six.

2 RFP

Amendment 0005 RFP Section A.4 &

Revised Attachment 003

Price Matrix

“In the RFP, Section A item #4, the phase out period is identified as “Phase Out: Last 30 days of performance”. Since the government has updated “Attachment 003 ACES Price Matrix” in Amendment 5, can the government clarify if the “Phase Out: Last 30 days of performance” is intended to be an additional 30 day period added to the last period of performance or if the phase out period will replace the last month of normal pricing during whichever period it falls?

The phase out is intended to replace the last month of normal pricing during whichever period it falls.

L.3 STANDARD

PROPOSAL

INSTRUCTIONS;

L.10.7, Amendment

0003, d.

“Unless specifically requested, pricing information shall not be contained in any volume except the Price Volume”

“L.10.7. Price Information: All information relating to the proposed price including all required supporting documentation must be included in the section of the proposal designated as the

Price Volume.

Under no circumstances shall this information and documentation be included elsewhere in the proposal.”

The Small Business Subcontracting Plan requirements found in the FAR specify pricing information such as estimated dollars and percentages of planned subcontracting to the various socio-economic business classifications. However, L.10.7 prohibits providing pricing information in the Management Volume, as instructed in Amendment 0003. Therefore, we request that the Small Business Subcontracting Plan be included either in Volume 4 or Volume 5.

Section L.10.7 has been revised to add, "This includes small business subcontracting data used to support the small business subcontracting plan referenced in Volume II, Management Approach."

ARMY CYBERSECURITY ENTERPRISE SUPPORT (ACES) W52P1J-16-R-0047 - Q&A #3

4 PWS pages 41-48

FAR 16.202-2 states that firm-fixed-price contracts are suitable to acquire “supplies or services on the basis of reasonably definite functional or detailed specifications.” Previous versions of the DRAFT RFP contained a CDRL table (see “DRAFT_PWS_Cyber_Identity_Management_03JUN15.pdf”, pages 41-48) in the PWS.

The CDRL table included the estimated length, quantity, and frequency of each deliverable required by the government across the period of performance. This information is the most significant variable to establish basis of estimate for the total labor hours required to ensure contract success, but has been removed from the final conformed solicitation. Will the government add to the PWS a CDRL table which includes the length, quantity, and frequency of each deliverable required in each contract year across the Period of Performance?

Please see updated Attachment 0001, PWS, dated 01JUL2016, Paragraph 4.3 - Deliverable Summary, which incorporates a deliverables table

5 PWS/QASP PWS: 3.7

QASP: 1.3

FAR 16.202-2 states that firm-fixed-price contracts are suitable to acquire “supplies or services on the basis of reasonably definite functional or detailed specifications.” Neither the PWS nor the QASP list any deliverables that are specific to Task 7: Network 2025. Would the government clarify that the only contractually required deliverables for Task 7: Network 2025 are the contract-wide requirements for a Monthly Status Report and Final Technical Report? If no task-specific deliverables exist, would the government provide the frequency, length, or other expectations for the required “assist” and “support” functions? It is unclear how the government will objectively evaluate firm-fixed-price proposals when there is inherent subjectivity in the government’s requirements.

Please see updated Attachment 0001, PWS, dated 01JUL2016, Paragraph 4.3 - Deliverable Summary, which incorporates a deliverables table

6 PWS/QASP PWS: 3.15

QASP: 1.3

FAR 16.202-2 states that firm-fixed-price contracts are suitable to acquire “supplies or services on the basis of reasonably definite functional or detailed specifications.” Neither the PWS nor the QASP list any deliverables that are specific to Task 15: Interoperability Assessment and Certification Technical Services.

Would the government clarify that the only contractually required deliverables for Task 15: Interoperability Assessment and Certification Technical Services are the contract-wide requirements for a Monthly Status

Report and Final Technical Report? If no task-specific deliverables exist, would the government provide the frequency, length, or other expectations for the required “assist” and “support” functions? It is unclear how the government will objectively evaluate firm-fixed-price proposals when there is inherent subjectivity in the government’s requirements.

Please see updated Attachment 0001, PWS, dated 01JUL2016, Paragraph 4.3 - Deliverable Summary, which incorporates a deliverables table

7 PWS/QASP PWS: 3.16

QASP: 1.3

FAR 16.202-2 states that firm-fixed-price contracts are suitable to acquire “supplies or services on the basis of reasonably definite functional or detailed specifications.” Neither the PWS nor the QASP list any deliverables that are specific to Task 16: Coalition Interoperability Technical Services. Would the government clarify that the only contractually required deliverables for Task 16: Coalition Interoperability Technical Services are the contract-wide requirements for a Monthly Status Report and Final Technical

Report? If no task-specific deliverables exist, would the government provide the frequency, length, or other expectations for the required “assist” and “support” functions? It is unclear how the government will objectively evaluate firm-fixed-price proposals when there is inherent subjectivity in the government’s requirements.

Please see updated Attachment 0001, PWS, dated 01JUL2016, Paragraph 4.3 - Deliverable Summary, which incorporates a deliverables table

8 PWS/QASP PWS: 3.17

QASP: 1.3

FAR 16.202-2 states that firm-fixed-price contracts are suitable to acquire “supplies or services on the basis of reasonably definite functional or detailed specifications.” Neither the PWS nor the QASP list any deliverables that are specific to Task 17: U.S. Army CIAV HQ Technical Services. Would the government clarify that the only contractually required deliverables for Task 17: U.S. Army CIAV HQ Technical Services are the contract-wide requirements for a Monthly Status Report and Final Technical Report? If no task-specific deliverables exist, would the government provide the frequency, length, or other expectations for the required “assist” and “support” functions? It is unclear how the government will objectively evaluate firm-fixed-price proposals when there is inherent subjectivity in the government’s requirements.

Please see updated Attachment 0001, PWS, dated 01JUL2016, Paragraph 4.3 - Deliverable Summary, which incorporates a deliverables table

9 PWS/L&M PWS: Section 11.0 L&M: L.7.1.1.a

Section 11 of the PWS describes Key Personnel requirements and emphasizes the critical role Key Personnel have in the successful accomplishment of the PWS. Section 11 also states that the contractor must submit resumes for, and the government must approve, all key personnel prior to assigning them to the contract. However, no resumes or letters of intent are required under Section L or M of the solicitation. This increases the government's risk in selecting a best-value offer and also means that Key Personnel will not be available for delivery on Day 1 of the contract because they have not been previously approved by the government. Would the government please amend Paragraph L.7.1.1.a to include "The Offeror shall include resumes for all Key Personnel"?

Paragraph L.7.1.1.a has been revised to add, "Sample resumes should be submitted for individuals identified as Key Personnel. The U.S. Government recognizes that short of a signed letter of commitment, personnel may change from time of proposal to time of award, however resumes proposed will serve as representation of the skill-sets the Offeror intends to solicit and propose."

10 PWS/L&M PWS: Section 11.0 L&M: M.11.1

Section 11 of the PWS describes Key Personnel requirements and emphasizes the critical role Key Personnel have in the successful accomplishment of the PWS. Would the government amend paragraph

M.11.1 to include "Key Personnel resumes will be evaluated to determine their relevancy of experience and abilities to meet PWS requirements'?

Paragraph M.11.1.a has been revised to add, "Sample resumes will be evaluated for all identified Key Personnel to verify appropropriate skill-sets are being proposed, and to determine relevancy of experience and abilities to meet PWS requirements.

11 L&M M.10.3 L.6.1.1

Paragraph M.10.3 defines Subfactor IA: Cybersecurity Technologies. The description provided in M.10.3 is different than the one provided in L.6.1.1. Would the government clarify that the description in L.6.1.1 is correct and amend the solicitation accordingly?

Paragraph M.10.3 has been revised to read, "Cybersecurity Technologies; The USG will evaluate the Offeror’s technical experience and approach to meeting the PWS requirements with regards to implementing state of the art cybersecurity technologies, engineering, policy, and operations in a large diverse organization.”

12 L&M M.10.4 L.6.1.2

Paragraph M.10.4 defines Subfactor IB: DoD and Foreign National Systems Analysis. The description provided in M.10.4 is different than the one provided in L.6.1.2. Would the government clarify that the description in L.6.1.2 is correct and amend the solicitation accordingly?

Paragraph M.10.4 has been revised to read, "DoD and Foreign National Systems Analysis; The USG will evaluate the Offeror’s technical experience approach to meeting the PWS requirements with regards to analysis performed on

DoD and Foreign National Systems and its ability to recommend improvements and/or integration strategies moving forward.”

13 PWS 3.2 Can the government confirm that full-time dedicated graphics support on-site to complete the deliverables in

Task 2? The government will require full-time onsite graphics support

14 PWS 3.2 Can the government confirm that full-time dedicated on-site IMO support is required to execute the deliverables in Task 2? The government will require full-time onsite IMO support

15 PWS 3.14.1 3.14.2 For cost efficiency, would the government confirm that the TS/SCI requirement for Task 14 applies only to PWS 3.14.1 and 3.14.2?

The TS/SCI requirement applies to sub-tasks 3.14.1, 3.14.2 and 3.14.3

16 L&M M.10.2

Will the government change M.10.2. (currently: "The USG will conduct its analysis by evaluating the information submitted by the Offeror in response to Section L. The USG will evaluate the Offerors understanding of the requirements and the completeness/adequacy of the response under the three subfactors:") to say ""The USG will conduct its analysis by evaluating the information submitted by the Offeror in response to Section L. The USG will evaluate the Offerors understanding of the requirements and the completeness/adequacy of the response under the two subfactors:"?

This change already occurred prior to this amendment.

17 QASP Section 1.4 The QASP describes limitations for the Contractor’s total liability. The current solicitation Instructions, PWS, and QASP do not indicate where the Contractor assumes liability, how it is assessed, or what the adjudication process is. Would the government please delete Section 1.4?

Please see updated Attachment 0002, QASP, dated 30JUN2016 which removes paragraph 1.4

18 QASP Section 1.4 30 The Government states “The Contractor’s total liability for this Task Order will not exceed 5.0% of the total contract value.” Can the Government provide details as to how the 5% will be calculated? Additionally, can the Government elaborate as to how these disincentives will be applied?

Please see updated Attachment 0002, QASP, dated 30JUN2016 which removes paragraph 1.4

19 QASP Section 2.2 For the QASP, can the government confirm that CIO/G-6 feedback to the selected offeror for the purposes of performance management will be provided in writing?

The CIO/G6 COR will provide written feedback in summary form on a monthly basis

20 QASP Section 1.3 2 Within the Table Headings, the Government identifies an ‘Allowable Deviation Standard’. Can the Government elaborate as to how the standard is derived?

The acceptable quality standard for all deliverables are 100% accuracy (final product) with concern to the accuracy/content of the deliverable

21 QASP Section 1.3 2

Within the Table Heading, the Government identifies and acceptable level of ‘95% error free’. Is 95% based on the volume of text? Further, the Government allows 24 hours to correct. Would the Government allow 5 business days for corrections due to the potential research which may need to be conducted or due to the size of the document?

The acceptable quality standard for all deliverables are 100% accuracy (final product) with concern to the accuracy/content of the deliverables. The government will allow 5 business days for corrections unless the COR requires corrections in less than 5 business days

22 PWS Section 3.2 The PWS describes that support to the Deputy Director, Cyber Security Directorate is required. Is this the Civilian Deputy Director, the Military Deputy Director, or both? Civilian Deputy Director

23 PWS Section 6.0 In the PWS, Under the Security Requirements section, a TS SCI clearance is listed for the CIAV Lab Lead yet under the PWS Section 3.18 Task 18: CIAV support task there is no mention of TS SCI work required. Is this level of clearance required of the CIAV Lab Lead?

Yes, the CIAV Lab Lead will require TS SCI clearance

24 PWS Section 4.0

The PWS States that the “contractor shall submit three copies of each deliverable to the COR plus one copy in pdf format.” As currently written, and using the most conservative estimates from the PWS, submitting three hard copies to the COR will exceed 5,000 pages. Would the government please change this requirement to read that the “contractor shall submit deliverables in the format necessary to support CIO/G-6 operations plus one copy in pdf format to the COR.”?

Section 4.0 of the PWS revised to read, "The contractor shall submit deliverables in the format deemed necessary by the COR to support CIO/G6 operations plus one hard copy in

PDF format to the COR"

25 PWS Section 11.0 Paragraph 11 of the PWS identifies all personnel supporting "Task 12: Current Operations Division Technical Services" as key personnel. Would the government clarify that this should read "Task 14: Current Operations

Division Technical Services"?

Please see revised Attachment 0001, PWS, dated 01JUL2016, Section 11.0 Key Personnel, revised to read, "The Government has identified specific Key Personnel

Positions critical to the successful accomplishment of this PWS. The contractor shall provide the Government a copy of candidate resumes for any Key position for approval prior to being assigned to this contract. Key Personnel Positions are the PM, Executive Assistant to the Director, Executive

Assistant to the Deputy Director, Cyber Security Directorate, personnel supporting Task 14: Current Operations Division Technical Services, the CIAV Lab Lead and all Task Leads.

No personnel are considered “mission essential.”

26 PWS 3.2 3

The Government states the Contractor shall support two (2) Cyber security divisions with executive and admin support services, as well as, named positions. Can the Government elaborate as to the number of personnel which will need support?

The named positions and 2 cybersecurity division chiefs

27 PWS 3.2 3 The Government states the Contractor will coordinate executive level meetings and VTC’s. Can the Government elaborate as to the frequency and volume of these events? As required by the COR, many times per day.

28 PWS 3.0 1

Within this Section, the Government identifies a number of deliverables which will be derived through ‘Studies’. Are these studies on-going or are they intended to be new studies initiated after award? How will new studies resulting in not yet identified deliverables be addressed given the Firm Fixed Price nature of the contract?

The estimated studies per year are approximately 10.

29 PWS 3.5.5 13 POM development support is specifically listed in the COMSEC section. Which other tasks also require budget / G8 types of support? No other tasks require POM support

30 PWS 3.8.7 19 The Government is requesting JTSO support. Will this work need to be conducted on site at Ft Meade? No, the on-site location will be Ft. Belvoir

31 PWS 3.9.3 21 The Government identified a need for Mobility development. Will this work need to be conducted at PEO C3T and the mobile computing environment team at APG, Maryland? No, the on-site location will be Ft. Belvoir

32 PWS 3.18.17 34

Can the Government provide an estimate as to the number of DoD and Coalition exercises supported per year? Can the Government provide where these exercises will be performed? Is this support identified in

PWS Section 9.0: Travel?

The estimated number of exercises supported is 9 per year both CONUS and OCONUS and representative travel requirements are included in the travel table

33 RFP L.3.2.5 36

Section L.3.2.5 states: “Page limits also do not include: …Resumes, letters of commitment, exhibits…” Can the Government please confirm resumes and letters of commitment are not a required part of the response?

If resumes and letters of commitment are a required part of the response, can the Government confirm the requirement applies only to Offerors’ proposed Key Personnel?

Section L.3.2.5 has been revised to remove "letters of commitment" from the paragraph.

34 PWS 11.0 39

Section 11.0 of the PWS states: “Key Personnel Positions are the PM, Executive Assistant to the Director, Executive Assistant to the Deputy Director, Cyber Security Directorate, personnel supporting Task 12:

Current Operations Division Technical Services, the CIAV Lab Lead and all Task Leads.” Considering the Government is mandating the Key Personnel for Offerors based on the above list, will the Government provide clarification to the number of Key Personnel required for “Task 12: Current Operations Division

Technical Services”?

No, the government expects the vendor to propose a solution that satisfies the Cybersecurity Directorate's requirements

35 PWS 11.0 39

Section 11.0 of the PWS states: “Key Personnel Positions are the PM, Executive Assistant to the Director, Executive Assistant to the Deputy Director, Cyber Security Directorate, personnel supporting Task 12:

Current Operations Division Technical Services, the CIAV Lab Lead and all Task Leads.” Considering that the Government is requiring the Key Personnel for Offerors to the above list, can clarification be provided to the number of Key Personnel required for the top level task (i.e. 3.14 Task 14 Current Operations Division

Technical Services) and sub tasks (i.e. 3.14.3 Cybersecurity Score Card Analysis)?

No, the government expects the vendor to propose a solution that satisfies the Cybersecurity Directorate's requirements

36 PWS 3.17 31-32

The Government states “Key personnel to include: Task Lead and Change Management positions.”

However, in PWS section 11: Key Personnel, Change Management positions are not listed as being ‘Key’.

Can the Government clarify if Change Management positions will be considered as ‘Key’? Could the Government also provide an estimate as to the number of baseline changes that will need to be managed on a yearly basis?

Change management personnel are Key personnel.

Estimated number of baseline changes are 900+ per year.

PWS 10 39 In Section 10 of the PWS the Government states:

The Government released Attachment 0008 Q&A Dated 17 June 2016, which clarified the IA certifications as only applying to Tasks 3 & 5. Section 10 states “Additionally, all personnel performing on the contractor team must possess, at a minimum, upon the start of performance of the contract, one of the four credentials below under this paragraph 10 (items 1 through 4). All experience must have been gained within the past ten years.

1. Three (3) years of experience in developing Army policy, preparing planning documents and conducting studies and analysis.

OR

2. A bachelor's degree in a technical major and five years of technical experience developing information technology solutions, OR

3. Ten (10) years of experience in Information Assurance designing, developing and implementing Identity Management and COMSEC technologies and building network identity architectures, analysis and plans.

OR

4. A doctorate degree in any of the hard sciences (i.e., non-social science, non-liberal arts degree).”

Can the Government clarify if these experience requirements also only apply to Tasks 3 & 5 or do these requirements apply across all task areas?

38 PWS 3.2 Can the government confirm that the Cybersecurity Directorate requires full-time dedicated Staff Action Control Officer (SACO) support on-site to complete the deliverables in Task 2? The SACO task requires full-time on-site support

39 L&M L.5 and M.9

In order to support TS/SCI clearances required in the PWS, the prime must hold a current U.S. facility clearance at the Top Secret level. The current L.5 and M.9 states the requirement is only a Secret Facility

Clearance. Will the government update L.5 and M.9 to clarify that the requirement for this procurement is a Top Secret facility clearance?

Sections L.5 and M.9 have been revised to reflect minimum Top Secret Facility Clearance required.

40 Att 0004 (PPQ), M.12.5.1

#5. Quantity and Monthly Delivery rate Please clarify the intent behind Quantity and Monthly Delivery rate on the PPQ, Line #5. This helps establish the size, scope, and complexity of past performance contracts completed.

41 PWS 3.3.1

“Paper will detail the testing and evaluation of emerging technologies in PKI. This will encompass 2-5 product evaluations annually. “

Does the Government intend for the Contractor to perform the testing and evaluation versus only reporting on the testing and evaluation?

The task requires evaluation, assessment, and reporting. No hands-on testing required.

42 PWS 3.0 all Subparagraphs

The PWS provides limited information regarding the amount of effort required to perform the ACES contract.

With over 120 deliverables specified in the PWS that lack definition as to frequency, complexity, and technical topics the development of a Firm Fixed Price bid is very difficult to non-incumbent contractors.

Hence, offerors are likely to bid vastly different staffing profiles based upon internal assumptions that are likely to be contrary to the Government’s requirement or stated goals. Failure to provide such information will greatly increase the risk of successful delivery and reduce competition. Request the Government provide historical staffing by task for incumbent contract or further detail as to the frequency and type of support required.

Please see updated Attachment 0001, PWS, dated 01JUL2016, Paragraph 4.3 - Deliverable Summary, which incorporates a deliverables table

43 PWS 3.2, Task 2

“Provide administrative/tech nical support to the

Cyber Security Directorate……..”

What does the technical support to the PBO, IMO, and ISSO entail since this task appears to be more administrative related?

Technical support would typically include coordination concerning NIPR/SIPR drop installation, lifecycle replacement of office automation, documenting location and assignment of office automation, etc.

The experience requirement applies to all tasks with the exception of Task 2; Executive and Administrative Support37

44 PWS 3.0

“The COR will prioritize tasks and communicate to the contractor the start and required completion date for each task and associated deliverables, and deliverable specific format and content requirements.”

Will the Government provide a list of tasks by priority level on a weekly, monthly, or quarterly basis?

The COR will meet with the on-site PM on a daily/weekly basis to priroritize tasks and clarify/address issues with task performance.

PWS paragraphs:

3.3.1 - Emerging PKI

Technologies Analysis;

3.3.2 PKI

Transformation; 3.15.1 Capability

Interoperability Management

Testing Requirements

Please clarify the testing requirements in the referenced PWS areas. Does the government expect the contractor to provide the necessary facilities and technical infrastructure to support the testing requirement in the PWS?

The Government does not require the vendor to provide test facilities and/or infrastructure