Attch_0031_ACWS_RFP_Industry_QA_2016_05_06.pdf

ACWS Questions Answers Masterlist 2016_05_12 Sol #: W52P1J-16-R-0058

QUESTIONS / COMMENT MATRIX -- ARMY CONTRACT WRITING SYSTEM (ACWS)

RFP

SECTION

RFP

Vol #

RFP

Attch # PG: PARA: COMMENT / QUESTION: SUMMARY / RATIONALE: ACWS PMO APPROVED ANSWER / CHANGE

1.001 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Given the ACWS program size and complexity, highly experienced key personnel are essential to the success (or risk) of the program. Would the Government consider requiring key personnel resumes as part of Sub Factor 2 Management

Capabilities?

Key Personnel

RFP Change.

See revised Section L, M, SOO and Attch_0015 where "Key Personnel" Changed to "Key Personnel/Key Positions" and added clarifying language. No Resumes required. Revised L.4.2.1.5, Attch_0001 SOO para. 6.1 d) Personnel Management and the instructions for Attch_0015_ACWS_Staff_Level_Skills_Mix_Schedule_2016_04_04.xlsx. "Key Personnel/Key

Positions" are Contractor identified.

1.011 16 13

5.7 Government

Surveillance

Metrics

The Surveillance Matrix paragraph references the Performance Outcomes and

Services (Table 2). Please provide Table 2 or the list of six performance standards that must that must be performed by the contractor.

QASP

RFP Change.

See revised Attch_0016 Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan, Table 2, Surveillance Matrix: Performance Outcomes and

Required Services, was added in Section 5.7.

1.021 16 13

5.7 Government

Surveillance

Metrics

The Surveillance Matrix paragraph references the Processes/Products (Table 3).

Please provide Table 3 or the list of seven process /product groups of CDRLs and standards that must be delivered by the contractor.

QASP

RFP Change.

See revised Attch_0016 Quality Assurance Plan. Table 3, Surveillance Matrix: Processes/Products, was added in Section

5.7

1.031 16 11 5.3

Paragraph 5.3 of Attachment 16, the QASP, states that "The Performance

Requirements Matrix below includes the performance standards." We are unable to locate the referenced matrix or to find the referenced performance standards.

Please provide guidance where the referenced matrix is provided and if not included, please provide.

Clarification of requirements

RFP Change.

See revised Attch_0016 Quality Assurance Plan.

Table 2, Surveillance Matrix: Performance Outcomes and Required Services, and Table 3, Surveillance Matrix: Processes/Products, were added in Section 5.7

1.041 M 29 35 M.3.2.1.5.1

This section states that "The Government will confirm that at least one (1) of the

“Key Personnel” proposed is a presenter. More than one “Key Personnel” participating is preferred.", however, the Section L requirement for Key Personnel that was in the draft RFP was removed. Would the government please clarify the evaluation criteria.

Clarification needed to ascertain

Offerors can meet the evaluation criteria.

RFP Changed.

See revised Section L, M, SOO and Attch_0015 where "Key Personnel" Changed to "Key Personnel/Key Positions" and added clarifying language. No Resumes required. Revised L.4.2.1.5, Attch_0001 SOO para. 6.1 d) Personnel Management and the instructions for Attch_0015_ACWS_Staff_Level_Skills_Mix_Schedule_2016_04_04.xlsx. "Key Personnel/Key

Positions" are Contractor identified.

1.051 ID/IQ SOO 1 16 6.1.d

Section 6.1.d states "Notify the Government if one or more of the key personnel

(Contractor identified), for any reason, become or is expected to become unavailable for work for a continuous period exceeding 30 calendar days, or is expected to devote substantially less effort to the work than indicated in the approved IMS or as initially planned." Section L no longer contains a requirement for naming Key Personnel. Please clarify the SOO requirement.

Clarification of requirement.

RFP Change.

Section L and Attch_0001 ID/IQ SOO have been revised to clarify how Government is defining "Key Personnel/Key

Positions" as "Contractor Identified" and the Position Descriptions in Attch_0015 define the labor categories for these positions.

In the Staff Levels Skill Mix Schedule (Attch_0015), Offerors are responsible for identifying key "positions" (no names, no resumes) and the qualifications that they propose for those positions. The qualifications for those Offeror-identified positions are what Government expects to be committed to the program, and fulfilled if the individual serving in that position needs to be replaced.

See revised Section L.4.2.1.5, Attch_0001 ID/IQ SOO para. 6.1 d) Personnel Management and

Attch_0015_ACWS_Staff_Level_Skills_Mix_Schedule_2016_04_04.xlsx.

1.061 L 15 4.2.1.5.1

Will high speed internet for non government computers be provided at the demonstration site?

As indicated in the SV-1, many systems must interface with

ACWS. To demonstrate this ability would require internet access for demonstration servers/computers.

RFP Change.

Yes. See new Attch_0026 (Technology Demonstration Logistics), included in the RFP amendment. The Government will provide commercial (residential grade) internet access in the conference room. Offerors will be able to connect laptops to the router with a provided Ethernet cable or, if preferred, use the commercial WI-FI connection that will also be available in the conference room.

1.071 CDRL A005

A005 references a “DoD Risk Management Guide for Defense Acquisition

Programs.” Is the June 2015 “Department of Defense Risk, Issue, and Opportunity

Management Guide for Defense Acquisition Programs” the correct reference document for this CDRL?

“DoD Risk Management Guide for Defense Acquisition

Programs” is an old DAU document (2006).

RFP Change.

CDRL A005 revised. Yes, the DoD Risk, Issue, and Opportunity Management Guide, dated June 2015, listed in Attch_0001

ID/IQ SOO Paragraph 9.0 Compliance References is the intended and correct reference. CDRL A005 has been revised to reflect the correct reference title.

1.081

CDRL A003

Integrated

Master

Schedule

(IMS)

Attachme nt 0019 compare with

CDRL

A003

Attachment 0019 lists first submission for CDRL A003 as 90 days prior to SFR;

however, the A003 CDRL form states first submission is delivered 90 days after contract award.

Will the Govenrment please clarify which is the correct due date.

Clarification

RFP Change.

See revised Exhibit A, CDRL A003 and Attch_0019 changed to reflect that the first IMS submission is delivered 30 days prior to PDR.

1.091

Attachment

0016 Quality

Assurance

Surveillance

Plan

Attachme nt 0016 13 5.7

Paragraph 5.7 references Tables 2 and 3, but no tables exist in this attachment.

Please clarify.

Clarification

RFP Change.

See revised Attch_0016 Quality Assurance Plan. Table 2, Surveillance Matrix: Performance Outcomes and Required

Services, and Table 3, Surveillance Matrix: Processes/Products, have been added in Section 5.7.

1.101 Section H

Some bidders have had upfront access to information and interfaces for systems such as GFEBS, SPS and LMP.

A) Will the Government please clarify how the current incumbent contractors on these systems currently deal with OCI, as defined in this RFP?

B) Additionally, will the Government please provide technical documentation and specs for all system interfaces specific to ACWS, to include GFEBS and GEX, to ensure the most level competitive landscape and also provide offerors the ability to offer reduced schedule?

C) Or, will the Government please clarify how it intends to level the competitive landscape in terms of cost and schedule to account for this?

Clarification/OCI

No RFP Change.

A) All Contractors are required to comply with the Solicitation Section A and H Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) instructions for Pre and Post Award. In accordance with the FAR, the Government will not provide any one Offeror with details of another OCI plan.

B) See Attch_0010 Interface Development Strategy. The ACWS Program Office has published this as the extent of information controlled by this office. Interface technical documentation and specifications are controlled by the Agency and

Organization that are responsible for external systems. The specific technical requirements for any interface exchange are documented in a Memorandum of Agreement. After a contract is awarded, Interface Partners will provide details about their systems.

C) The Solicitation Sections L & M require full and open competition under FAR Part 15. The evaluation Factors defined in

Section M represent the Governments approach to a fair competition in the evaluation for Cost and Schedule. The ACWS

Source Selection Plan has been reviewed and approved as legally sufficient by the Competition Advocate and the Principle

Assistant Responsible for Contracting, Army Contracting Command - Rock Island as well as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Procurement).

Page 1 of 31 Attch_0031_ACWS_RFP_Industry_QA_2016_05_06

RFP

SECTION

RFP

Vol #

RFP

Attch # PG: PARA: COMMENT / QUESTION: SUMMARY / RATIONALE: ACWS PMO APPROVED ANSWER / CHANGE

1.111

Attachment

0002 TO 0001

SOO

Attachme nt 0002

CDRL A013 states it is due 60 days after the last day of the 12th month. This puts this CDRL out of the POP of the Risk Reduction Phase.

Will the Government please clarify how offerors should reflect their work in the

IMS?

Clarification

RFP Change.

See revised Exhibit A, CDRL A013, and Attch_0019 (CDRL list) revised to reflect that the CDRL is due 10 business days before the end of each task order period of performance / date of final product acceptance, after 95% or more of total contract costs have been incurred.

1.121

CDRL A003

Integrated

Master

Schedule

(IMS)

CDRL A003 IMS states first submission is 90 calendar days after contract award yet Block 10 states frequency is Bi-Weekly and subsequent submission is 30 days prior to PDR.

Will the Government please clarify the date for 1st submission of the IMS?

Clarification

RFP Change.

See revised Exhibit A, CDRL A003 Integrated Master Schedule. To clarify the 1st submission of the IMS CDRL: The first

IMS submission is due 30-days before PDR.

1.131

CDRL A003

Integrated

Master

Schedule

(IMS)

A) CDRL A003, IMS CDRL states first submission is 90 calendar days after contract award yet Block 10 states frequency is Bi-Weekly and subsequent submission is 30 days prior to PDR.

B) Please clarify whether or not the Government expects a bi-weekly submission thereafter regardless of Block 13.

Clarification

RFP Change.

See revised Exhibit A, CDRL A003 Integrated Master Schedule.

A) Revised BLOCK 10 to read "AsReq", Revised BLOCK 12, Date of First Submission is due 30-days before PDR. BLOCK

13, Subsequent Submission, 30-days before CDR of each Build.

B) The Government expects compliance with the DD 1423.

1.141 Sec. L N/A 0029

6 & 7, 17 and 18 L.3.1 & L.4.2.4.3

The proposal organization set forth for the Integrated Master Schedule indicated

Level 3 tasks. Please confirm that offeror may propose tasks below Level 3?

Clarification

RFP Change.

See revised Section L.3.1 Table Volume 1, Attachments, changed as follows: "(to a minimum of Level 3 tasks with a 1 April

2017 Contract Award) Compatible with MS Project 2013, No page Limit."

1.151 Sec. L N/A 0029

6 & 7, 17 and 18 L.3.1 & L.4.2.4.3

The proposal organization set forth for the Integrated Master Schedule indicated

(Level 3 tasks L.4.2.4.3) indicates that for Task Order 0001 all IMS activities at all anticipated levels are required. We recommend updating the proposal organization information to align with L.4.2.4.3.

Clarification

RFP Change.

See revised Section L.3.1 Table Volume 1, Attachments, changed as follows: "(to a minimum of Level 3 tasks with a 1 April

2017 Contract Award) Compatible with MS Project 2013, No page Limit."

1.161 A.

Volume

III

N/A 6 Please specify a PoP start date for the program. Clarification

RFP Change.

See revised Section L, L.4.2.4.2 changed as follows: "...For Government Planning purposes, the IMS shall reflect a 1 April

2017 Contract Award (ID/IQ and Task Order 0001)."

1.171

Quality

Assurance

Surveillance

Plan -5.7

16 13 2 Would the government please provide Table 2 referenced in this paragraph? Clarification

RFP Change.

See revised Attch_0016 Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan, Table 2, Surveillance Matrix: Performance Outcomes and

Required Services, added to the QASP in Section 5.7.

1.181

Quality

Assurance

Surveillance

Plan -5.7

16 13 3 Would the government please provide Table 3 referenced in this paragraph? Clarification

RFP Change.

See revised Attch_0016 Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan, Table 3, Surveillance Matrix: Processes/Products, has been added to the QASP in Section 5.7.

1.191 SOO 6.0 11 3

Is the ATP decision based on the acceptance of documents provided during

TMRR?

No RFP Change.

None of the CDRLs are "Acquisition Milestone Documents" as defined in DODI 5000.02. The Government PdM has responsibility to produce the regulatory and statutory required documents. However, the acceptance of the CDRLs identified in Attch_0002 Task Order SOO and specifically those annotated with (**) as Success Criteria will inform the Government

PdM in writing the required documents and briefing the Milestone Decision Authority in the ATP-2 (Milestone B) Decision.

1.201 3 2 4 1

Figure 2 indicates that Solution Deployment (CLIN 6) and Operations and

Sustainment (CLIN 8) will not be funded. However, Task Order SOO 6.6 and SOO

6.8 both require plans to be developed during Risk Reduction. Please confirm if offerors should includes these plans in the Risk Reduction phase and where to include the price.

The SOO calls for minimal work to be performed for Solutions

Deployment and Operations &

Support to develop Plans and deploy and maintain the OOTB solution.

RFP Change.

See revised Attch_0002 Task Order SOO Figure 2 that reflect the CLINs 6 & 8 are used for "Planning Only" to allow the

CDRLs to be resourced.

1.211 Is the period of performance for TO 0001 fixed at 12 months or can offerors propose a shorter POP?

Clarification requested since the

RFP prefers a schedule that provides LD, IOC, and FD capability earlier than the

Notional Schedule.

No RFP Change.

The Task Order 0001 Period of Performance is set at 12 Months. This permits a thorough execution of the Attch_0002 Task

Order SOO Objectives and an orderly ramp up to the ATP-2 Decision.

1.221 Since resumes are not required by the RFP, where should offerors describe/identify their proposed key personnel?

Key personnel are still referenced in L.4.2.1.5 and SOO para 6.1.

However, there is no specific instruction to include/identify them in the proposal.

RFP Change.

See revised Section L and Attch_0001 Task Order SOO that better clarify how Government is defining "Key Personnel/Key

Positions". Resumes are not required.

See revised Attch_0015 Staff Levels Skill Mix Schedule (Attch. 15), Offerors are responsible for identifying "Key Positions"

(no names, no resumes) and the qualifications that they propose for those positions.

The qualifications for those Offeror-identified positions are what Government expects to be committed to the program, and fulfilled if the individual serving in that position needs to be replaced. Offerors are reminded to review L.4.2.1.5, Attch_0001

SOO para. 6.1 d) Personnel Management and Attch_0015_ACWS_Staff_Level_Skills_Mix_Schedule_2016_04_04.xlsx.

1.231 1 18 6.2e

In Amendment 0001, with the revision of language to allow the “ACWS Software

Solution Operating in a Government Designated Hosting Facility and/or the

Contractor's Facility” for the Risk Reduction Phase (TO-001), would the government consider allowing Contractor Facility-based hosting for ALL ACWS solution deployments for TO-002 and beyond, to include Production and COOP use?

Use of Contractor facility-based hosted environments may affect product selection, license types, license costs, etc. and offer overall savings to the ACWS program.

No RFP Change.

See Attch_0001 ID/IQ SOO and Attch_0002 Task Order SOO, both revised for other questions, provide the Government's

Objectives for Hosting at a Government Site.

To clarify, for the Solicitation, the Government is not considering use of a contractor facility to host production or COOP software.

Page 2 of 31 Attch_0031_ACWS_RFP_Industry_QA_2016_05_06

RFP

SECTION

RFP

Vol #

RFP

Attch # PG: PARA: COMMENT / QUESTION: SUMMARY / RATIONALE: ACWS PMO APPROVED ANSWER / CHANGE

1.241 1 10 6.3.2f

Pertaining the delivery of the PDR approved solution into the target development environment at the Government designated hosting facility no later than 12 months after contract award: would the government entertain the option of repurposing licneses already purchased and deployed for Risk Reduction blueprinting (or the contingency licenses also deployed during TO-001), the implication being that following PDR one or both of the aforementioned environments would be decommisioned in order to reuse said licenses?

Reuse of licenses lowers overall

ACWS costs, especially since

RR environments do not have stated purpose post Risk

Reduction phase.

No RFP Change.

See revised Attch_0024 Software Disclosure, changed in response to other questions. The Offeror should propose the most cost-effective solution possible for Licensing.

1.251 ACWS SOO 0001 12

“Milestone Decisions (MS) are redesignated as Authorization to Proceed (ATP) decision points and the required documentation will be tailored at each point.”

Can the Government make available the tailored list of documentation required for each ATP DP?

No RFP Change.

No additional information will be released before contract award. For ATP-2, see DoDI 5000.02, Table 2 - Milestone and

Phase Information Requirements, for a Milestone B decision.

2.001 L 29 4 L.1.2.4

It is the prime bidders’ responsibility for responding to all post submission requests.

Please confirm that subcontractors will not receive ENs directly from the Army.

ASSIST

No RFP Change.

The Government will not send Evaluation Notices (ENs) directly to any Subcontractor, unless the Prime directs that communication.

As stated in L.1.2.4, it remains of PRIME Contractors responsibility to establish accounts for their SUBCONTRACTORS to respond to Government ENs.

2.002 L.4.4.2 III 20, 21

P21 and

N/A

The support Tabs require input based on the fact they are shaded blue. Will the

Government be providing a revised workbook?

Disconnect between Government provided number for ODC and

Travel

RFP Change.

See revised Attch_0020 and Attch_0021 that now allow for pricing of CLINS 0006 and 0008.

2.003 L (a) III RFP 61 (a)

Respectfully request that FAR 52.215-20, Alternate I be changed to FAR 52.215-

20, Alternate IV

The rationale:

1. The implementing FAR clause, 15.408(l), follows the hierarchy at FAR 15.402

2. Under 15.402, the Government “shall purchase supplies and services at fair and reasonable prices.” To established reasonableness, the contracting officer shall obtain a certificate unless an exception applies

3. Under the exceptions listed in FAR 15.403-1(b), the first is adequate price competition

4. According to the standards for adequate price competition established under

15.403-1(c), there is a reasonable expectation that this solicitation will have two or more responsible offerors providing independent prices

With an exception reasonably established for the proposal, the implementing clause, FAR 15.408(l) indicates that FAR 52.215-20 be included in the solicitation using Alternate IV (see 15.408(l)(4))

FAR Clause RFP Change.

See revised Section I, the Government changed from Alt I to Alt IV.

2.004

Solicitation - 4.

NOTICE OF

PRE-AWARD

OCIs

5 N/A 18-19 4(b) and 4(c)

The government states that individuals and their POC information from the support contractors are listed. However, only the support contractor name and address are provided. Would the government please provide the individual names, email addresses, and phone numbers for each of the listed support contractors?

OCI / Support contractor NDAs are required to be included in the contract volume.

RFP Amendment 0002.

See Section A and I of Amendment 0002. Each listed company now has a POC Name, e-mail and phone. The FAR 9.505-4 requirement is met with an agreement with the firms cited.

2.005

Solicitation - 5.

NOTICE OF

POST-

AWARD OCIs

5 N/A 19 Missing 5(d)

5(a) states the following: “(a) The Government will, in appropriate circumstances, release to the ACWS contractor, its subcontractors, and its individual employees, nonpublic information in the performance of this contract, subject to the protections referenced at paragraph (d) of this instruction.” However, no paragraph (d) is found. Would the government please provide paragraph (d)?

OCI / Clarification required to develop OCI Mitigation Plan.

RFP Amendment 0002.

See revised Section A, Para 4 OCI. The statement "...referenced at paragraph (d) of this instruction.” was an error. The amendment 0002 removed that portion of the statement.

2.006

9. PROPOSAL

REQUIREME

NTS

5 N/A 21 9(b)(2)

9(b)(2) states: “(2) Describe any relevant limitations on future contracting, the term of which has not yet expired, to which the offeror or potential subcontractor agreed.”

Would the government please clarify this instruction?

OCI / Required for OCI Mitigation

Plan

No RFP Change.

To clarify 9(b)(2), Describe any contract that the contractor is currently performing as either the prime or the subcontractor, where the Period of Performance is still ongoing, that may have a potential OCI.

2.007

9. PROPOSAL

REQUIREME

NTS

5 N/A 21 9(c)

9(c) states: ” Representation. The offeror represents, by submission of its offer, that to the best of its knowledge and belief it has disclosed all relevant information regarding any other organizational conflicts of interest as required in paragraph

(c)(2) of this instruction.” However, there is no paragraph (c)(2). Would the government please provide paragraph (c)(2)?

OCI / Required for OCI Mitigation

Plan

RFP Change.

See revised Section H, Para 9(c) OCI. The statement "…as required in paragraph (C)(2) of this instruction.” was an error the amendment removed that portion of the statement.

2.008

L.4

INSTRUCTIO

NS FOR

PREPARATIO

N OF

PROPOSAL

CONTENT

5 N/A 27 1 L.4.6.2 Contract

Information

The government states “Offerors shall complete all “fill-in” data.” Please confirm that offerors are required to return only those sections requiring fill-in data versus resubmitting all of sections A-K.

Query submitted in order to clarify the government’s request and potentially save the submission of superfluous information.

RFP Change, L.4.6.2 Contract Information, Revised to read: "Offerors shall complete and submit a complete solicitation (e.g. Standard

Form 33 and Sections A-K) to include responses to all "fill-in" data herein."

2.009

Amendment

001 -

Solicitation H, 4, b.

V Amendme nt 1

p. 3 4(b)

Amendment 1 made the following change under 4(C) “The listed contractors in

Section H has been changed from "expressly prohibited" to "may be prohibited".

See Section H for the change.” Will the government please change this language back to “expressly prohibited”?

OCI / Patent OCI No RFP Change.

Amendment 0003 provided the last update to the OCI instructions.

Page 3 of 31 Attch_0031_ACWS_RFP_Industry_QA_2016_05_06

RFP

SECTION

RFP

Vol #

RFP

Attch # PG: PARA: COMMENT / QUESTION: SUMMARY / RATIONALE: ACWS PMO APPROVED ANSWER / CHANGE

2.010 LM 0029_LM 14 L.4.2.1.4 (e)

Is it the Army’s intent to “competitively procure” associated software license(s) outside of, or separate from, this solicitation?

It is unclear as to Army’s intent, as there is CLIN 0009 “Licenses

(for Commercial Software), included in award of this solicitation, however, the below section mentions an intent to

“competitively procure.” Section

States: Describe a Software

License Approach to meet the requirements of the Army

Contracting Enterprise and the objectives of the SOO and the

RFP. The approach should provide the Government the ability to operate and maintain the proposed software and software solution, and competitively procure it.

RFP Change.

No, the Government does not have an objective or a requirement to transition the maintenance of the software code from the

Contractor to the Government in either Attch_0001 Task Order SOO and Attch_0002 ID/IQ SOO.

See revised Section L.

Paragraph L.4.2.1.4 (e)

The approach should provide the Government the ability to operate the software, maintain the proposed software licenses, the software solution configuration, and after the Ordering Period ends, to competitively procure the ACWS Solution.

See revised Section M.

Paragraph M.3.2.1.4. Solution Deployment sub-para e.

"A License approach that provides the Government the ability to operate the software, maintain the proposed software licenses, the software solution configuration, and after the Ordering Period ends, to competitively procure the ACWS Solution is preferred.

2.011

LM -

SubFactor 2:

Management

Capabilities

0029_LM 16 L.4.2.2

Would the Government consider requiring key personnel resumes as part of Sub

Factor 2 Management Capabilities?

Given the ACWS program size and complexity, highly experienced key personnel are essential to the success (or risk) of the program.

RFP Change.

No Resumes required. See revised Section L, M, SOO and Attch_0015 where "Key Personnel" Change to "Key

Personnel/Key Positions" and added clarifying language. Revised L.4.2.1.5, Attch_0001 SOO para. 6.1 d) Personnel

Management and the instructions for Attch_0015_ACWS_Staff_Level_Skills_Mix_Schedule_2016_04_04.xlsx. "Key

Personnel/Key Positions" are Contractor identified.

2.012 A & L 29

Page 6 of

Section A and page

2 of

Section L

Section A 16 and

L.1.2.1

Section A requires proposal submission by noon CDT on 31 May. Section L.1.2 further requires submission of the hardcopy version of Vol III to arrive by the proposal submission deadline. May 30th is a Federal holiday. With the holiday weekend and the short window of receipt on Tuesday morning, Offeror's must mail the hardcopy of Vol III by 26 May to assure delivery of the hardcopy before the deadline. Would the government consider allowing the hardcopy delivery to be postmarked by the submission delivery date and time?

Reduce risk of late delivery due to government holiday and potential flight delays due to weather with typical spring time weather conditions.

RFP Change.

The RFP submission date is extended to 15-Jun-2016

2.013 L.4 III

0020 &

21 & 22 L.4.4.2

The RFP specifies that a detailed cost proposal shall be provided for CLINs 0003, 0004, and 0006. It also requires a separate cost proposal for each Build under

CLINs 0003, 0004, and 0006, and a separate cost proposal for each proposed

Support under CLINs 0003, 0004, and 0006. Please clarify that the requirement for

"separate cost proposals" can be satisfied by submitting a workbook with a separate sheet for each Build and each Support period, for each of these three

CLINs. If this is not correct, please define what the Government means by

"separate cost proposal".

Clarification of submittal instructions

No RFP Change.

Offerors may submit a MicroSoft Excel Workbook with a separate Tab/Sheet for each Build and each Support period, for each of these three CLINs, as long as the Cost Proposal is submitted in accordance with Attch_0029 L.4.4.3 FAR Table 15-

2.

2.014 L.4 III

0020 &

21 & 22 L.4.4.2

The RFP specifies that a detailed cost proposal shall be provided for CLINs 0003, 0004, and 0006. It also requires a separate cost proposal for each proposed

Support under CLINs 0003, 0004, and 0006. However, Attachments 0020 and

0021 indicate that no Support is to be proposed under CLIN 0004. Please clarify the instructions for proposing Support under CLIN 0004.

Clarification of submittal instructions

No RFP Change.

The Government anticipates no proposed cost for CLIN 0004 under the Support Tab.

2.015 L.4.3.1.5 II 29 19 L.4.3.1.5

The FAR and other Federal regulations do not require contractors to track performance problems related to deliverables or services. Since this data is not tracked by contractors, is it acceptable to use the Government CPARS records and identified relevant contracts with marginal or unsatisfactory performance ratings in the Final CPAR to meet this requirement?

Clarification of requirement.

No RFP Change.

Contractor performance may be submitted using CPARs from the PPIRS database at the Offeror's discretion. However, recent and relevant negative performance shall be submitted IAW L.4.3.1.5

2.016 L 29 1 and 2

A.3.A, L.1.1 and

L.2.1

Sections A.3.A, L.1.1 and L.2.1 conflict in the number of days for which the proposal must be valid. Please clarify.

Clarification of requirement

RFP Change.

See revised Solicitation File and SF 33.

See Section A. paragraphs

A.3.A - ID/IQ proposal must be valid for at least 365 days.

A.3.B Offerors who wish to be considered for this additional selection must:

a. Record 730 calendar days in block 12 of the SF 33 (365 days for Source Selection plus 365 for the period of performance of TO 0001).

The Government will consider Attachment 0020 valid until the date of award of the ID/IQ.

b. Submit Attachment 0021 with pricing for a period of performance beginning twelve months after the TO 0001 Period of

Performance has begun. The non-price volumes and Attachment 0021 will be considered valid 365 days from the date of award of the ID/IQ.

See revised L.1.1 and L.1.2.1.

2.017 I 25 I-120

DFARS 252.227-7022 is applicable to A/E contracts related to construction. Since this clause is not applicable for this procurement, will the Government delete DFAR

252.227-7022? clause.

DFAR Clause

RFP Change.

See revised Section I Clause list.

I-120 DFARS 252.227-7022 was removed.

2.018 I 24 I-103

The solicitation includes , DFAR 252.204-7015 regarding litigation support contractors. This clause is applicable to Commercial Items contract for litigation support services. We do not see any requirement in the PWS to provide litigation support services.

Please identify the litigation support that Offeror's will be required to support. If it is not requirement, will the Government delete the clause?

DFAR Clause

RFP Change.

See revised Section I Clause list.

I-103 DFARS 252.204-7015 was removed.

Page 4 of 31 Attch_0031_ACWS_RFP_Industry_QA_2016_05_06

RFP

SECTION

RFP

Vol #

RFP

Attch # PG: PARA: COMMENT / QUESTION: SUMMARY / RATIONALE: ACWS PMO APPROVED ANSWER / CHANGE

2.019 B 7 4

The Government states that the incentives for CPIF CLINs will be mutually negotiated. However, the last sentence in this paragraph states the Government may unilaterally include any or all incentives. Wil the incentives be negotiated between the parties and when will this occur?

CPIF

No RFP Change.

Yes, the incentives will be negotiated between the parties and this negotiation will occur after contract award.

2.020 H 21 H.9(e)

Pursuant to the requirements of H.9(e), Offeror's need to submit NDAs with the support contractors identified in H.4.(b). Please provide contact information to include name, email address and phone number for the points of contracts of the six support contractors

NDAs No RFP Change.

See Amendment 0002 to the RFP.

2.021 L&M 29 L.4.4.7

If DCMA/DCAA has provide approval of Offeror's indirect rates for billing and bidding purposes, does the offeror need to provide the detail request in L.4.4.6.2, L.4.4.7 L.4.4.8, L.4.4.9?

Cost & Price Info

No RFP Change.

Yes, the offeror needs to provide the detail request in L.4.4.6.2, L.4.4.7, L.4.4.8, L.4.4.9, even if DCMA/DCAA has provided approval of Offeror's indirect rates for billing and bidding purposes.

2.022 L&M 29 & 24

Does Attachment 0024 Column G fulfill the assertion requirements DFAR 252.227-

7017 or do offerors need to also provide a separate fle with the Assertion of Rights iaw DFAR 252-227-7017? If the later, what volume is the Assertion of Rights to be included in?

DFAR Clause

No RFP Change.

Yes, the Government intends that Attch_0024 fulfills the assertion requirements. However it remains the Offeror responsibility to assure that the Attch_0024 fulfills the assertion requirements DFAR 252.227-7017 for their proposed ACWS

Solution.

2.023 I 23 -52

The RFP did not include invoicing provisions for the fixed price CLINs. Is it correct the contractors may invoice monthly under the fixed price CLINs?

INVOICING

No RFP Change.

Invoicing provisions will be detailed at the CLIN level when the contract is awarded.

2.024 L 11 L.3.3.2 Would the government consider allowing font size 8 on graphics?

Supports development of large, complex graphics.needed to convey the CWS solution.

Draft Response:

No RFP Change. The Government will not allow font size 8 on graphics or in text. See "L.3.3.2 Tables, Charts, Graphs, and

Figures. For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the text shall be no smaller than 10 point font size."

2.025 H 8

Is it correct to interpret section H paragraph 8 that for the ACWS awardee, and subcontracted teammates, ALL Army contracts these companies may desire to pursue, either individually or as teammates, during the 10 year ACWS contract period of performance will require for each contract an OCI mitigation plan whose acceptance is subject to Army contracting officer’s adjudication, and for which acceptable mitigation criteria has not been specified by Army?

Clarification/OCI

No RFP Change.

Yes, Section H, paragraph "8. LIMITATION ON FUTURE CONTRACTING

(a) Limitation. The Contractor and any of its affiliates, shall be ineligible to perform as a prime, subcontractor, joint venture, or team member for any other Army requirement for a period of time from contract award through final task order completion unless a Government-approved mitigation plan exists." -- this covers the entire planned 10 year Ordering Period and any

Period of Performance on Task Order(s) that may extend past that timeline.

2.026 H 8(b)

Will the prime contractor be required to submit subcontracts prior to their release to the government for a conflict of interest (COI) adjudication? The purpose is to determine whether the subcontract includes task(s) which results in an organizational COI. This would result in the subcontractor being ineligible to perform as a prime, subcontractor, joint venture, or team member for any other

Army requirement for a period of time from contract award through final task order completion unless a Government-approved mitigation plan exists.

Clarification No RFP Change.

Yes, Submission of Subcontracting Plan is required prior to release of Government Conflict Of Interest adjudication.

2.027 H & L H.8 // L.4.6.3

Paragraph 8 states subcontractors for whom the prime contractor determines a conflict of interest exists will be limited in its future opportunities to only those instances where the government approves its OCI plan. Given this requirement request advise if proposal OCI plan requirements contained in paragraph L.4.6.3 should be expanded to include OCI plans from both the prime and all subcontracted teammates.

Clarification/OCI

RFP Change.

L.4.6.3 changed to state, "The Offeror and any subcontractor who furnishes advice, information, direction, or assistance to an offeror or any other contractor in support of the preparation or submission of an offer for a Government contract by that offeror..."

2.028 A 5 of 64 12.c(ii)

Will Army provide, and/or increase scope of program to develop, service virtualization services for all interfaces that could result in the ACWS contractor and subcontracted teammates, having unequal access to non-public information?

Service Virtualization Services in addition to preventing OCI during risk mitigation and construction phases will facilitate automatic and continuous testing throughout the development period and provide means to replicate issues identified during operations and sustainment without impacting the operational system

No RFP Change.

The Solicitation represents the Government's requirements. The Government does not anticipate any changes in Scope.

The proposal and any proposed solution must be compliant with the OCI instructions, please refer to Section A Paragraph

12.1 and 12.2 , along with Section H Paragraph 5.

2.029 A 5 of 64 12.1 Will the Army remove the post-award OCI re-evaluation language?

Once the OCI mitigation plan has been approved and accepted under this solicitation, that OCI mitigation plan should be valid throughout the life of the contract; therefore, there would not be a need to re-evaluate unless the Statement of Work materially changes.

No RFP Change.

The Government will not remove Post-Award OCI re-evaluation language.

2.030

Attachment

0029 Sections

L.1.1 and

L.1.2.1

Attachme nt 0029 1 and 2 1 and 2

The Government states in section L.1.1 that "All offerors must allow their proposals to be valid for at least 365 days." The Government also states in section L.1.2.1 that the "Offeror agrees to hold firm the prices in its offer for 180 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of offers."

Can the Government confirm that the offeror's price is not expected to be valid after 180 days?

Clarification

RFP Change.

The 180 days was and error. See revised L.1.1 and L.1.2.1, for valid for 365 days or 730 days.

Page 5 of 31 Attch_0031_ACWS_RFP_Industry_QA_2016_05_06

RFP

SECTION

RFP

Vol #

RFP

Attch # PG: PARA: COMMENT / QUESTION: SUMMARY / RATIONALE: ACWS PMO APPROVED ANSWER / CHANGE

2.031

Attachment

0029 Section

L.4.4.2

Attachme nt 0029 22 1

The Government states in section L.4.4.2 "In response to the solicitation, the

Offeror shall provide a detailed cost proposal for each of the cost CLINs (0003, 0004, and 0006) with the exception of CLINs 0012 and 0013 which will have surrogate (Government provided number) amounts. Each proposed Build identified on tab “Individual Builds” in Attachment 0020, Price Matrix, under CLINs 0003, 0004, and 0006 requires a separate cost proposal. Each proposed Support identified on Tab Support under CLINs 0003, 0004, and 0006 requires a separate cost proposal."

Can the Government confirm that for CLINS 0003, 0004 and 0006 the individual 15-

2's are not to be built in separate excel files than Attachment 0020 or 0021 and that it only wants the files listed in Section 3.1 Proposal Organization under Volume III

Cost/Price?

Clarification

No RFP Change.

Yes, Offerors may submit an MS Excel workbook with a separate sheet for each Build and each Support period, for each of these three CLINs, as long as the cost proposal is in accordance with Attch_0029 L.4.4.3 FAR Table 15-2.

2.032

Attachment

0029 Section

L.4.4.2

Attachme nt 0029 22 1

The Government states in section L.4.4.2 "In response to the solicitation, the

Offeror shall provide a detailed cost proposal for each of the cost CLINs (0003, 0004, and 0006) with the exception of CLINs 0012 and 0013 which will have surrogate (Government provided number) amounts. Each proposed Build identified on tab “Individual Builds” in Attachment 0020, Price Matrix, under CLINs 0003, 0004, and 0006 requires a separate cost proposal. Each proposed Support identified on Tab Support under CLINs 0003, 0004, and 0006 requires a separate cost proposal."

Per the request for Separate Cost Proposals for CLINs 0003, 0004 and 0006, would the Government accept a single file for each of the Support CLINs 0003, 0004, and 0006 with a single tab for each year of Support?

A separate file per per CLIN per year of Support would lead to a substantial number of files when they could be combined for ease of review

No RFP Change.

Yes Offerors may submit a workbook with a separate sheet for each Build and each Support period, for each of these three

CLINs, as long as the cost proposal is in accordance with Attch_0029 L.4.4.3 FAR Table 15-2.

2.033

Attachment

0029 Section

L.4.4.1.1

Attachme nt 0029 28 1

The Government states in section L.4.4.11 “Failure in the submission of all required supporting documentation for the Offeror and/or its proposed Subcontractors may render the Offeror’s proposal non-compliant. The proposal may not be further evaluated and may not be considered for award."

Can the Government confirm that subcontractors are not required to submit sealed bids if they are bid as T&M to the prime contractor on CLINS 0003, 0004 or 0006?

To determine if only CPFF

Subcontractors are to provide supporting documentation directly to the Government

No RFP Change.

The Government confirms we do not require Subcontractors to submit sealed bids if they are bid as T&M to the prime contractor on CLINS 0003, 0004 or 0006. However, the Prime contractor remains responsible for a detailed Cost Proposal for CLINS 0003, 0004 or 0006. This may require the Subcontractor to submit directly to the Government and this process is detailed in the ASSIST Instruction L.1.2.4

2.034

Attachment

0020 and 0021

Cost/Price

Matrix

Volume

III

Attachme nt 0020 and

Attachme nt 0021

N/A N/A

CLINs 0005 and 0006 are flipped in the individual build and support tabs in

Attachment 20 and 21.

Will the Government provide updated CLIN tables that match the Price Evaluation

Summary?

Clarification RFP Change.

Attch_0020 and Attch_0021 spreadsheet have been corrected.

2.035

Attachment

0020 and 0021

Cost/Price

Matrix

Volume

III

Attachme nt 0020 and

Attachme nt 0021, SOO

Section

6.11

N/A N/A

Within the Task Order 0001 SOO, there is a clear objective that CLIN 0011 should be “activated” for the objectives specified in SOO Task Order 0001 Section 6.11.

However, on Page 4 the CLIN graphic shows it is not available for Task Order 0001

Risk Reduction.

Should CLIN 0011 be activated for Task Order 0001 in Attachments 20 and 21?

Clarification

RFP Change.

RFP Attch_0002, Figure 2 correctly shows CLIN 11 as active. Attch_0020 and Attch_0021 spreadsheet have been corrected.

2.036 Section H Can the Government provide POCs for the support contractors listed in Section H?

OCI/ Clarification, since NDAs must be executed prior to submission

No RFP Change.

See Amendment 0003 to the RFP.

2.037

Attachment

0029 Section

L.4.5.4.1 c.

and d.

Attachme nt 0029

Pursuant to I-168: FAR 52.219-9, the offeror, upon request by the Contracting

Officer, shall submit and negotiate a subcontracting plan... Are offerors required to submit a subcontracting plan with their proposal submission?

Clarification RFP Change.

Yes, A Subcontracting Plan is required as part of proposal submission. See revised Section L.3.1. and L.4.5.4

2.038 Sec. H N/A N/A H.4.(c)

RFP Section H.4.(c) requires the offeror to execute and submit, as part of its proposal, proprietary information agreements with six (6) individual organizations.

Will the Government provide the names and contact information for the cognizant individual with each organization responsible for these agreements.

OCI/Clarification No RFP Change.

See Amendment 0003 to the RFP.

2.039 H N/A N/A

19, 20, H.5(a), H.6(b)(5, 6), (h), H.7(b)(1), H.9(c, e)

Section H includes several inaccurate or confusing internal references. Please clarify the following provisions:

• In Section H.5 (a), there is a reference to “paragraph (d) of this instruction”, however, there is no paragraph (d).

• In Section H.6 (b)(5), there is a reference to subsection “(b)(2) (i) through (iv) of this clause”, however, there are no subsections (i) through (iv).

• In Section H.6 (b)(6), there is a reference to “any violation of the requirements of

(i) through (vi) of this paragraph”, however there are no subsections (i) through (vi).

• In Section H.6 (h), there is reference to “this paragraph (f)”. Should this reference be to “paragraph (h)?

• In Section H.7 (b)(1), there is a reference to “paragraph (c) (2) of this clause”, however there is no paragraph (c) (2). Should this reference be to paragraph

(b)(2)?

• In Section H.9 (c), there is a reference to “as required in paragraph (c) (2) of this instruction”, however there is not paragraph (c) (2). Should the reference be to paragraph (b)(2)?

• In Section H.9 (e) (Page 21), there is a reference to “the agreement referenced in

4. (b).” Should this be a reference to Section H.4 (c)?

Clarification RFP Change.

See revised Section H. All inaccuracies have been corrected.

Page 6 of 31 Attch_0031_ACWS_RFP_Industry_QA_2016_05_06

RFP

SECTION

RFP

Vol #

RFP

Attch # PG: PARA: COMMENT / QUESTION: SUMMARY / RATIONALE: ACWS PMO APPROVED ANSWER / CHANGE

2.040 Volume

III

0017 N/A

Contract

Participation Matrix

On the sheet labeled “Contract Participation Matrix,” Line 41 says: “Note: This figure shall equal cell A9 in Cost Price Matrix.” Attachment 0005 Cost/Price Matrix does not exist in the RFP. Please update the file name and cell reference for this new RFP.

Clarification RFP Change.

Spreadsheet has been corrected. See revised Attch_0017

2.041 Volume

III

0020 &

N/A N/A Does the government require separate sealed packages for Attachment 21? Clarification

No RFP Change.

The offeror may submit one sealed package for Attch_0020 and 0021.

2.042 I-168(c)

Solicitatio n 40 (c)

"(c) The offeror, upon request by the Contracting Officer , shall submit and negotiate a subcontracting plan, where applicable, that separately addresses subcontracting with small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business, and women-owned small business concerns. If the offeror is submitting an individual contract plan, the plan must separately address subcontracting with small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and women-owned small business concerns, with a separate part for the basic contract and separate parts for each option (if any). The plan shall be included in and made a part of the resultant contract. The subcontracting plan shall be negotiated within the time specified by the Contracting

Officer. Failure to submit and negotiate the subcontracting plan shall make the offeror ineligible for award of a contract. "

Can the Government confirm whether or not a Small Business Subcontracting Plan is required in Volume IV of the proposal response?

Section L and RFP Section I are unclear with respect to submittal of a Small Business

Subcontracting Plan.

RFP Change.

Yes, Submission of Subcontracting Plan is required prior to release of Government Conflict Of Interest adjudication. See revised Section L.3.1. and L.4.5.4.

2.043 Section L L.1.2.4 29 3 & 4 N/A

Please confirm that contractors should add subcontractors to the Assist tool after

Government sets up Contractors account in the ASSIST and ASSIST2 Tool.

Need instructions for adding team members/subcontractors to

ASSIST and ASSIST 2 Tools.

No RFP Change.

The Government will not send Evaluation Notices (ENs) directly to any Subcontractor, unless the Prime directs that communication.

As stated in L.1.2.4, it remains of PRIME Contractors responsibility to establish accounts for their SUBCONTRACTORS to respond to Government ENs.

2.044 SOO 6.1 (i) Vol I 1 17 6.1 (i) Please confirm that EVM is not a requirement at this time SOO paragraph says EVM waiver was granted

RFP Change.

EVM is not applicable for this Solicitation.

See revised Attch_0001 ID/IQ SOO and Attch_0002 Task Order SOO and Exhibit A for the removal of the Task and CDRLs

Risk Reduction Task Order.

2.045 I-163 V

W52P1J1

6R0058_4

.4.16

35 I-163 Please identify the contract reference where the Aircraft Public and Passenger

Liability and Vessel Collision is applicable to this effort.

These insurance liability coverages do not seem to be applicable

No RFP Change.

Required per FAR 28.307-2 for contract where employees will be traveling by air.

2.046 L-20 V

W52P1J1

6R0058_4

.4.16

63 1 Would the government please update the date for L-20 252.204-7008 from October

2015 to December 2015?

On December 30, 2015, the DoD issued a second interim rule that updated this clause to provide a grace period for implementation of the NIST 800-171 security requirements. Per, The Defense

Procurement and Acquisition

Policy (DPAP) website, the

DFARS interim rule 2013-D018, effective December 30, 2015 supersedes the rule on 8 October

2015.”

RFP Change, The Government has updated clause.

2.047 License

Template 24 9 5.4

This provision states that the Government will get title to Derivative Works created from the COTS software. Please clarify.

This term appears to conflict with the DFARS clauses listed on page 25 of 64 of the RFP in which the Government receives rights, not ownership, to

Derivative Works.

RFP Change.

See revised Attch_0024 instructions and revised ACWS Master License Agreement Template.

2.048 L 12 L.4.2

Please confirm that the Introductory Overview for Volume I is not included in the

Volume I page count. Volume II has 2 extra pages allocated to the introduction.

Clarification of page count

RFP Change.

See revised reference L.3.1. Proposal Organization, the response for Volume I, Technical/Risk:

"Factor - 1 Technical/Risk introductory overview and Subfactor 1 Technical Capabilities:" "Limit of 35 Pages", Thus, the introduction is included in the first section of Vol I and it is included in the "Overall Page Limit for the Entire

Technical/Risk Volume" and specially, "Overall 50 pages, divided as noted by Subfactor 1 & 2."

2.049

Will the government use the new Department of Defense Source Selection

Procedures (SSP) released by OUSD on April 1, 2016 or continue with the procedures issued on March 4, 2011?

To determine the technique the government will use for best value tradeoffs.

No Change.

IAW with the DPAP implementing policy, ACWS Source Selection Plan was already approved and it follows the AFARS -

Appendix AA, Army Source Selection Supplement (AS3) to the Department of Defense Source Procedures, dated December

21, 2012.

Page 7 of 31 Attch_0031_ACWS_RFP_Industry_QA_2016_05_06

RFP

SECTION

RFP

Vol #

RFP

Attch # PG: PARA: COMMENT / QUESTION: SUMMARY / RATIONALE: ACWS PMO APPROVED ANSWER / CHANGE

2.050 H 8

Reference is made to the provision in Section H, paragraph 8, Limitation on Future

Contracting. Since contractor personnel supporting the development, implementation and maintenance of the Army Contract Writing System (ACWS) are not involved in developing contract requirements, writing solicitations or evaluating proposals, the only potential organizational conflict of interest (OCI) that we believe could arise from performance on the ACWS contract is an unequal access to nonpublic information OCI and not an impaired objectivity or biased ground rules

OCI. Would the Army please confirm this assessment and/or provide additional information on its OCI concerns relative to performance on the ACWS contract? If confirmed, would the Army accept an OCI mitigation approach relying solely on the use of individual non-disclosure agreements to be executed by all personnel directly supporting the ACWS contract that have access to actual Army contract data as an effective and compliant mitigation approach?