Original_ACCENT_RFP_Q&A_1-90.pdf

ACCENT Questions Submitted USG Answers

I have read section L. Two factors will be scored. Factor 1 seems to be yes/no. 100% of scoring of technical response seems to be factor 2. Is the cutoff for award merely a technically acceptable response?

Basic Ordering Agreements (BOA) will be executed based upon meeting all requirements listed in Section M. No scoring will be compiled.

No cost criteria are explicit. This implies cost might only be considered on TOs. However that contradicts the Hub Zone instructions. Is there a notion of cost cutoff to be applied to the award of the BOA?

Price/Cost will not be evaluated for the BOA evaluation. Price will be considered at Task Order level. Small Business will also be considered for set asides as well as other SB evaluation factors when awarding

Task orders. See section H of the RFP.

Attachment 1 #10 (Teaming Agreements/Organizational Structures)

CSPs have partner program's which require a level of commitment for both parties to include certifications. Several Prime Contractors

(Including System Integrators) have fully-executed these legal agreements. Will submitting "copies" of CSP/System Integrator partner agreement(s) meet this requirement?

(Note: I reviewed the previous Q&As in the Draft RFP--it was not addressed)

The US Government (USG) is not requiring full Teaming agreement documents. Any document that outlines the team structure is sufficient information to meet this requirement. Teaming agreements are one method of providing the outline of teaming structure. An organizational chart showing how teams will interact is sufficient or just a narrative explanation. A formal teaming agreement is not required.

The proposal guidelines state to include SF-33 in Section 1. Are we supposed to include the entire 62 pages with the various check boxes filled out, or just include the first main page?

Offeror shall provide the entire RFP with boxes filled out. If boxes to be checked in the solicitation are clauses or statements included in the offeror's certifications and representations, both are to be filled out consistently.

If an offeror is Impact level V certified, can they submit a task order proposal on lesser Impact levels? For instance on Impact Level IV? If level V certified, it would seem that the offeror has more rigorous requirements in place for the Level IV requirements.

Please review the SRG document provided as Attachment 0003.

Under Paragraph 3.2 it states "Note that a higher level can process data from a lower level." Offerors certified at a higher Impact level satisfies the requirements for a lower level impact classification.

Question: We understand that the Army is asking for a range of Cloud

Services including: Transition Services, Cloud Hosting (IaaS, PaaS, SaaS), Off Premise solutions, On Premise solutions, and Mobile solutions. However evaluation criteria only calls out transition services.

How does the Army plan to evaluate services in the other areas?

The intent of the Basic Ordering Agreement (BOA) is to set a minimum baseline of capabilities. The DoD-PA certification indicates at least a minimum level of expertise in areas other than transition and modernization. Since DoD-PA certification does not assess transition and modernization, it is called out separately in the BOA evaluation for a minimum baseline capability evaluation.

At the task order level, offerors may be more intensely evaluated for all of the listed capabilities, dependent upon the specific requirement.

Given that file sizes could otherwise become very large and difficult to submit, will it be sufficient for offerors to submit the cover page and signature page of applicable Teaming Agreements in order to be compliant with the “Teaming Agreements/Organizational Structure” requirements for Section I of the proposal?

See Answer to Question #3 Posted 09/14/16

Will the Government accept Partnership or Reseller Agreements in lieu of Teaming Agreements in order to be compliant with the “Teaming

Agreements/Organizational Structure” requirements for Section I of the proposal?

See Answer to Question #3 Posted 09/14/16

“TOs shall contain a Small Business Participation Evaluation Factor …

Small Business Subcontracting Plan is required by other than small business concerns only.”

This indicates that each TO must have a measurable small business subcontracting component, which may not be practical on each TO, given that TOs can be issued by many organizations with potentially a wide range of requirements. There are no Small Business goals or the requirement for a BOA-level Small Business Subcontracting Plan; will each command be responsible to establish goals for each TOR?

Small Business goals will not be set or evaluated at the BOA level.

The Small Business evaluation will be performed at the TO level and any goals or set asides will take the specific requirements into consideration at that time.

10 Is a separate file required for each section?

No, however separate sections should be clearly marked and page counts followed regardless of the number of electronic files submitted.

Cloud Service Providers like Amazon Web Services and IBM will not sign Teaming Agreements. They will allow authorized system integration partners to propose their products as part of a solution. May we instead provide Memorandums of Agreement or a similar document instead of a Teaming Agreement for our CSPs?

See Answer to Question #3 Posted 09/14/16

#8 Electronic Representations and Certifications signed by a person authorized to enter into the proposed BOA; Section K and Certifications from SAM. Section K has the formatting from the solicitation and takes

8 pages. May we provide the signed copy as an appendix at the end of the response?

Section I of the proposal does not limit the page count as long as the pages submitted are clearly part of the requested information. The

Electronic Representations and Certifications and Section K need to be submitted within the requested section.

Our SAM certifications are over 50 pages. May we provide these certifications as an appendix at the end of the response?

The Electronic Representations and Certifications need to be submitted within the requested section.

May offerors add team members for specific TOs? What will be the process to add team members?

Team members established at the BOA level are key members performing the main capabilities listed and should not change, unless a specific request to replace them is submitted and approved.

Additional team members necessary to execute the TO requirements can be added, however they may be evaluated at the TO level. See the TO evaluation for details.

If an Offeror is not intending to team with another business for this response, is it acceptable not to include teaming agreements in this section and include only the organizational structure?

Yes, however it should be clear in the submission that the offeror intends to self perform all BOA capabilities.

The RFP only sets forth a font size requirement for text.Will the

Government please permit the use of an 8 point font for graphics and tables?

All submissions must follow the requirements listed in the RFP.

Please confirm that a Small Business Subcontracting Plan is not required with our proposal and will be dealt with at the Task Order level.

Small business subcontracting plans are not requested at the BOA level.

Provide organizational Structure and offeror’s teaming agreements to document teams.

Is it OK to add teaming partners (non DoD-PA holders) at the task order level? Or do they all need to be established at the IDIQ level as part of the RFP response?

See Answer to Question # 14 posted with these questions.

For team members that are in the process of upgrading their DoD PA for a higher application impact level or obtaining a DoD PA will it be possible to update the BOA once the process is complete, or is it necessary to wait for an on-board period to update our BOA?

The USG will consider certification or team member changes during the on boarding period at a minimum, annually. However, if new TO requirements are planned to be released we may consider the request more frequently to obtain additional competition on these requirements. If your DOD-PA is upgraded, submit a request with the certifications and it will possibly be considered sooner than the next on boarding period.

RFP Page 56, Section L.3.1 Provisional Authorization Certification requires submission of at least one DoD-Provisional Authorization

Certification.

Does this restrict the bidders in their solution to just those products for which they have PAs or are offerors allowed to bid future products for which they do not have certification at this time?

Offerors will be restricted to the products for which the team has DOD-

PA certifications.

Can the offeror present future cloud solutions today that are pending a

DoD PA Certification Approval with the understanding that no task order can be issued for that offering until a DoD PA Certification is on file?

See Answer to Question # 19 posted with these questions.

We would like to confirm that a company that primarily offers FP and

FFP contracting types will still be allowed to win a prime slot on

ACCENT.

Offerors will not be required to propose on all TO requirements, therefore if a TO requires a contract type that doesn't appeal to an offeror's approach, they are not required to submit. Type of contract preferences are not a limiting factor to getting a BOA.

On page 2 of the RFP it states, "The prime contractor may be a company acting as a Systems Integrator or the Cloud Service Provider

(CSP), as the DoD-Provisional Authorization (PA) holder, itself.

Requirements identified within the PWS apply to all contractor teams. If the requirements are specific to the CSP that is hosting the data, it is the prime contractor's responsibility to ensure the CSP, and any of its team members, meet specific requirements."

Question: Does the Prime contractor need to hold the FedRAMP/DoD

PA?

It is not required that the PRIME hold the DoD-PA, only that a DoD-PA is included as a member of the BOA team.

It is our understanding that A FedRAMP JAB P-ATO Letter that covers a CSP for FedRAMP Moderate, and was signed by the DoD CIO DISA has granted reciprocity for Impact Level 2 for cloud providers that have received an ATO for FedRAMP Moderate. Can a FedRAMP moderate letter be used in replacement of a DOD PA certifying letter for Impact

Level 2?

A DoD PA is required for all Impact Levels. CC SRG Section 4.3, Cloud Service Offerings and Mission Owner Risk Management, states:

Each CSO must be granted as DoD PA in order to host DoD mission systems."

Compliance with FedRAMP moderate controls is the baseline requirement to get a Level 2 DoD PA. It is a fairly easy process to get the Level 2 PA once compliance with FedRAMP is demonstrated.

A DoD PA is required for Level 2.

Are offerors allowed to add other items in the headers and footers such as the solicitation name and disclaimers?

Yes, but ensure the minimum notation required in the RFP is included as specified in the RFP.

Q&A #4 released on 2016SEP14, says that the entire RFP (i.e. all 62 pages) needs to be submitted. In order to be compliant, will the

Government clarify where sections A-J and L-M should be included?

For example, at this time, proof of SAM registration is required after section K, so would L-M go after that?

Please see Attachment 0001. This attachment lists a column labed as

"Location" for each of the requested pieces of information. The signed

RFP and Section K are both located in Section I of the proposal.

Please include the RFP as a full document and section K as a full document. Do not try to split the documents up.

Will the Government provide an updated

Attachment_0001_Section_L_and_M_Charts detailing the administrative documents outline to include all sections of the RFP?

This will allow offerors to ensure complete compliance.

Attachment 001 lists all documents in the Column labeled "item" that are necessary.

Will the government please clarify if graphics and tables can be included in the response as it is unclear in the RFP.

Tables and graphics may be used, however no font changes are allowed and no page allowances will be adjusted for graphics or tables.

May Offerors use a smaller font size in graphics/figures?

Graphics/figures aid in the understanding of complex ideas and approaches; however, 12 font point size is very restricting in graphics.

Will the Government allow Arial 9 font point size for all graphics and figures?

See the answer to question 16 posted 091616

Are the Administrative and Section I requirements limited to only what is identified in the Section L & M charts? The RFP does not clearly state the Section I requirements, and only listed Factors 1 and 2 with specific direction. Given that they are Compliance areas, will they be evaluated solely on what is written in the charts?

The administrative and section I is intended to only include the requested information. Any additional information will not be evaluated.

Given that the SBA does not provide a size standard for NAICS 518210 in the form of number of employees but rather only by dollar amounts

(Caution-http://www.sba.gov/content/table-small-business-size-standards < Caution-http://www.sba.gov/content/table-small-business-size-standards > ) (Caution-https://www.sba.gov/contracting/getting-started-contractor/make-sure-you-meet-sba-size-standards/summary-size-standards-industry-sector < Caution-https://www.sba.gov/contracting/getting-started-contractor/make-sure-you-meet-sba-size-standards/summary-size-standards-industry-sector >

What then is the foundation for the statement of Section I-146;

(Subsection D) which states, “The small business size standard for a

Contractor providing a product which it does not manufacture itself, for a contract other than a construction or service contract, is 500 employees”?

The clause that is referenced is a standard clause that covers multiple scenarios.

Paragraph (d) does not apply to construction or service contracts.

Section C of the RFP states that 'Service Requirements can be found in

Attachment 0001 Performance Work Statement.' but Section L, Factor

2: Section III: Transition and Modernization Technical Approach list a more generalized list of requirements. Which set of requirements should be followed when writing Section III?

Please note that Section C of the RFP includes a typo. It will be amended to state: "Service Requirements can be found in Attachment

0002 Performance Work Statement."

Section J also includes the same Typo and will be amended to state:

"Attachment 0002 Performance Work Statement APPENDIX A:

Referenced Requirements Documents will be listed as R1 through

R24."

The evaluation will focus upon the requirements listed in Section L.

Attachment 0002 Performance Work Statement was provided as a broader scope of requirements and is not the llist of evaluated requirements.

Offerors should ensure they cover everything in section L.3.2 in the response to Section III.

Pertaining to the SF-33. Is it acceptable to embed the signed pdf of all

62 pages directly into the proposal MS Word document as a link, or do you prefer each page to be added to the proposal?

Including the file separately will limit technical difficulties. Embedding files will not save page counts.

To clarify the submission procedure, I would like to confirm that you are accepting electronic submission through FedBizOpps?

No submissions through FedBizOpps: See Section L.1.4 Page 55 of the RFP.

"The proposal submittal methods authorized for this solicitation are either via email with attachments or submission of compact disc (CD). The offeror shall submit its proposal directly to the ACC-RI

Contracting Office via email with attachment or submission of compact disc at mailto:joselyn.t.gillespie.civ@mail.mil with copy to mailto:Mary.M.Robacker.civ@mail.mil or via postal address at 3055

Rodman Ave, Building 62, Rock Island Arsenal, Rock Island, IL 61299

Attention Joselyn Gillespie."

The USG Answer to ACCENT Question #4 stated "Offeror shall provide the entire RFP with boxes filled out". Please confirm the Government requires offerors to return the entire 62 pages of the full RFP in Section

I of the proposal, including Sections of the RFP that do not have boxes to be filled out. The Section L Proposal Submission Chart requires the signed SF 33 and all amendments, the Section K, and Certifications from SAM to be included in Section I of the proposal.

Yes please provide all pages of the RFP and any amendments.

The Section L Proposal Submission Chart, Item #8 requires "Electronic

Representations and Certifications signed by a person authorized to enter into the proposed BOA". Please confirm Representations and

Certifications completed in System for Award Management (SAM) by an authorized company official are considered "signed" by that authorized company official.

Yes that meets the requirement.

As a result of an answer you provided earlier regarding the requirement to use 12 pt arial font, even in figures and graphics, may we use an

11x17 inch page in our technical narrative?

No only use 8 1/2" by 11" only

The RFP states that we are allowed "additional pages" for Evidence of

Agent authority, yet the Section L Proposal Submission Chart allows "1 page to document evidence of authority." Our evidence of authority document is in excess of 1 page in length. Which of the two stated requirements is correct?

The Attachment 0001 Section L & M Chart will be amended to allow multiple pages for evidence of authority to match section L. However as stated, the additional pages are limited to the requested information and any additional information included will be removed and not considered. The intent is to ensure signatories are authorized to sign and no other information should be included.

The RFP states that in the Administrative Section we are allowed "up to

2 pages for cover letter or title page of proposal, yet the Section L

Proposal Submission Chart suggests 2 pages per each of the administrative categories. Which of the two stated requirements is correct?

Section L chart is not intended to be cumulative. The administration section as a whole is intended to be 2 pages. (with exception for evidence of authority)

May we include a Table of Contents outside the page count restrictions?

No, this proposal submission is very small. Offerors may include blank pages as dividers between sections, electronic tabs on the first page of each section, or any other type of blank divider, to identify sections.

Would Government kindly permit a no smaller than 9 point Arial font for headers and footers?

Also, would the Government permit no smaller than 10 point Arial font for Tables and Graphics.

No changes to fonts are authorized

Please provide direction on what the Government considers "evidence of that agent's authority,".

Evidence of authority is intended to be the organizations method of providing binding signature authorization to contracts managers or others in the company that are other than officers of the organization.

Typically this is provided as a letter from one of the officers of the organization including stating any limits to the authority

Will the government be issuing an amendment to the solicitation incorporating the revised instructions IAW the Q&A’s provided?

Yes, if any of the instructions change the instructions provided.

Amendment 001 is pending making small administrative changes noted in these Q&A's.

Will the Government please clarify where the Offeror is to sign the

Section K - electronic reps and certs document? Is it sufficient that they are incorporated into our proposal submission and that the cover page is signed by an authorized representative?

Section K is part of the Solicitation itself. If the front page of the solicitation is signed then the section K is signed.

The Certifications and Representations online are a separate submission that includes clauses and signature online. A copy of this document is required.

Are Offerors required to have DCAA-approved Accounting, Purchasing

& Billing Systems?

This is not a requirement of eligibility for a BOA.

There are a number of Cloud Service Offerings going through the DoD

RMF process that Army may want to leverage under ACCENT. Would you consider a Quarterly, or at least semi-annual, update of DoD-PA certifications.

The intent is at least annually, however if there are pending requirements all submitted requests for BOA review or change of

Certifications will be considered.

Items 1-6 Are these items to be addressed in a proposal transmittal letter or as separate paragraphs in the Administrative Section of the proposal?

Yes, these are to be addressed all in one section. Many of the items addressed are normally addressed in a transmittal letter. If a transmittal letter is the format chosen to address the items, that is acceptable as long as page count is followed.

47 What qualifies as demonstration of ability?

Section M states:

"The USG will evaluate the offerors demonstrated ability to perform transition and modernization for an impact level 2 application migrating to a commercial cloud environment.

Proposals will be evaluated on whether a thorough and detailed narrative was provided which clearly demonstrates an understanding of the requirements and an ability to execute the requirements in accordance with Section L requirements."

Will discussion of any experience be allowed if relevant or will only discussion of Impact Level 2 experience be accepted?

The USG is not evaluating experience. No discussion of experience is requested.

Item 3 requests the signature of the person authorized to sign the proposal. Is this section/requirement the proposal transmittal letter or the signed SF33 or just the signature shown in a table in this paragraph of the proposal?

Actual signatures are not always legible. A printed name, address, telephone, and electronic address is requested within the administrative section of the proposal. This can be done via transmittal letter, with evidence of authority, or merely included within the administrative section of the proposal (with evidence of authority)

The solicitation and PWS states this is a procurement for commercial cloud solutions. The contract provisions included in Section I does not include FAR 52.212 provisions for Commercial Items. Will the

Government incorporate FAR 52.212 provisions identified on page 10 in

Section I?

Please see page 10 of the RFP. This section lists the commercial clauses that may be added for Task Order competitions.

Will offerors be considered compliant if they propose clarifications and/or additional T&Cs to those included in the solicitation?

Clarifications should be resolved prior to submitting a proposal.

Adding Terms and conditions to the proposal submission may make the proposal non-compliant. The BOA award is intended to start all offerors on the same agreement. This initial step (Award of BOA) should not be the place to negotiate additional terms and conditions as there is nothing actually being awarded here.

The solicitation includes FAR 52.204-7 , 52.204-8 that state the offeror may use its representations and certifications in SAM in lieu of completing the individual representations and certifications in Section K of the solicitation. Since the offerors are not proposing a specific solution and no cost or pricing data is provided at this time, is it correct that for purpose of the BOA proposal, the offeror may claim paragraph

(2)(i) of FAR 52.204-7 and use it SAM representations and certifications and that this approach will be considered compliant? If not, please clarify what is required.

There is not a FAR PART 52.204-7(2)(i). However, the USG believes the question is "is it considered compliant to just reference the Certs in

Reps are completed in the proposal?"

No, please provide an electronic version of the Certifications and

Representations in your proposal submission. If section K in the RFP is completely filled in by the clauses addressed in the Certs and Reps submitted, it may not be necessary to fill in section K. (It may be redundant)

However please submit a FULL signed solicitation AND a FULL electronic version of the Certifications and Representations. Both are available as a .PDF file for submission in proposals.

Does the government want a printed copy of the offeror's representations and certifications in SAM or only acknowledgement in

52.204-7 (b)(2) (i) that paragraph (d) applies? If paragraph (d) applies, is it correct the other provisions in Section K are not be completed by the offeror?

If the offeror ensures all Section K clauses are addressed in

Certifications and Representations, it may not be necessary to fill in

Section K, however, a full version of BOTH documents is necessary.

The Evaluation factor for the Administrative Section, items 2 through 6, is "compliance". Please clarify how each Item is determined to be compliant.

Page 61 of the RFP defines compliance as " Compliance is defined as providing all information as requested in a usable format."

What proof of registration in SAM is required to be considered compliant? Are offerors to provide only the cage number associated with SAM registration?

Attachment 0001 L&M Charts under "M 9" states: "Use of CAGE indicates registration in SAM"

CAGE code is sufficient.

The application and mission owner might not know what combination of cloud transition support services and cloud hosting is required until the initial application assessment is complete. Will the BOA allow the offeror to bid on any cloud transition support services (to include initial application assessment) even though they might not have a DoD-PA for a specific cloud hosting service?

In order to bid on any of the ACCENT requirements, a DOD PA will be required. We do not anticipate there being any opportunities where transition is separate from the Cloud services being procured.

Will the offeror be able to receive all TORs even though their DoD-PA might not be the solution that the service owner is anticipating?

TORs will be provided to the offeror's with the capabilities necessary to the requirement. Unless an exception applies all requirements will be announced on CHESS (originally thought to be FedBizOps) prior to issuing the TOR. https://chess.army.mil/

Fixed Price Redetermination – Prospective contracts are only appropriate for use when the conditions for use of a firm-fixed-price contract are not present (see FAR 16.205-3 Limitations). Given commercial cloud solutions are commercial based, and price competition within the pool of BOA holders allows for establishment of fair and reasonable prices at the outset, use of the Fix Price

Redetermination Prospective type structure is not appropriate for such services. Recommend deletion of this clause from the BOA.

This clause is included since there may be conditions where it is not possible to Firm Fix price the whole period of performance. It remains necessary.

The following list of Attachments cover R1 through R21. Are there 24 or

21 attachments?

There are only 21 attachments, a couple were removed prior to posting. The statement on Page 46 will be amended to read 21.

Will the Government please allow offerors to use a smaller font for tables, figures, and graphics as long as the font is readable?

No, please use the font/size listed in the RFP.

Please confirm that a screen print of the SAM website, reflecting the offeror’s Entity Registration Summary, will be adequate to meet this requirement.

See answers above to Questions 53 and 55 above.

Will the Government please clarify if contractor CSO's may need to support SRG Impact Levels 2-6, FedRAMP Moderate only can support

Impact Levels 2?

FEDRAMP does NOT meet the requirements for this solicitation. The

TOR requirements may cover SRG Impact levels 2-6. The BOA proposal only covers Impact level 2.

Is modernization scope limited to re-factoring and/or consolidation? Is the government open to other types of modernization efforts like re-engineering of the application, or replacing it with Commercial/

Government Off the Shelf products like SAP, Sales Force?

Ultimately the type of approach used for Modernization will be evaluated by the Organization's TOR folks. However the BOA requests the offeror "identify approaches to modernize…". Provide the recommended approach for the established criteria.

During the TOR proposal process, will the offeror be able to add a CSO with DoD-PA to their BOA to support the specific TOR?

If there are changes to a BOA holders PA levels; a request to add them should be submitted for addition to the contract matrix.

At a briefing last month on the Basic Safeguarding of Contract

Information Systems FAR clause (i.e., FAR 52.204-21), contractors were informed that they should, at the request for proposal (RFP) stage, ask agencies for an explanation of their interpretation of FAR 52.204-

21. We noted that FAR 52.204-21 has been incorporated into the RFP, and we respectfully request that the agency provide its interpretation of the requirements of the clause as it applies to the current RFP

(Solicitation No. W52P1J-16-R-0194).

FAR PART 4.1903 States: "The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.204-21, Basic Safeguarding of Covered Contractor

Information Systems, in solicitations and contracts when the contractor or a subcontractor at any tier may have Federal contract information residing in or transiting through its information system."

This is likely under the TORs. There aren't any requirements being awarded under the BOA. When the Specific TOR requirements are provided, this should be requested then, if not clearly identified within the TOR Scope.

Regarding the government’s response to question #23.

As required in the Department of Defense, Cloud Computing Security

Requirements Guide and a recent briefing (see below) Assessment

Applicability. The government Impact Level 2 – DoD PA assessment is no long required if the Cloud Service Offering (CSO) has a Fed RAMP

JAB PA or Agency ATO.

Therefore, please confirm the response should be that FedRAMP JAB

P-ATO automatically grants DOD PA Level 2 based on reciprocity. A letter from Fed Ramp JAB should be sufficient.

Here is a copy from a DoD/DISA briefing slide from 2015. Impact Level

2 – DoD PA assessment is no long required if the Cloud Service

Offering (CSO) has a FedRAMP JAB PA or Agency ATO.

The ARMY's Requirement is that a DOD -PA is required to receive an

ACCENT BOA. In coordination with DISA, It's virtually an automatic process to get a Level 2 DoD PA once FedRAMP JAB PA is granted.

The answer to Question 23 was coordinated with the author of the

SRG and the lead for DoD PAs.

Section H: Step 2: b(i): The Product Lead Enterprise Computing (PL

EC) Army Application Migration Business Office (AAMBO) serves as the requiring activity focal point for all ACCENT requirements. Will the

TORs be issued by AAMBO or by mission/application owners at individual Army commands?

TORs may be issued by ARMY Contracting Centers.

Section C: PWS: III.b.2 and III.c: Cloud Hosting On-premise and Cloud

Hosting in Mobile Data Centers. Are all BOA holders expected to have the capability to build/ provide on-premise and/or mobile cloud hosting/computing centers?

BOA holders are expected to have the minimum requirements listed in section L and M. The entire scope of potential TORs includes

Mobil Data Centers. If this requirement is necessary under a TOR, it will be separately evaluated by the TOR process.

69 Does on-premise cloud hosting refer to DISA Milcloud?

No, On-premise cloud hosting refers to a commercial cloud service provider instantiating their cloud service offering on a DoD site. If an application owner/AAMBO decides to move an application/system to milCloud it will not be competed through an ACCENT TO.

How will Cloud Hosting On-premise and Cloud Hosting in Mobile Data

Centers capability be evaluated? There is no evaluation factor or criteria defined to demonstrate capability to provision, maintain, operate and support data centers, to perform data center management tasks etc.

See answer to number 69.

How are offers to demonstrate FedRamp and DoD PA for on-premise cloud computing capabilities where infrastructure (fixed or mobile) has not yet been built?

A DoD PA is not granted for on-premise or off-premise. A PA is granted for Impact level and deployment model(public, private, hybrid, community)

Please confirm only the prime offeror who is authorized to enter into the

BOA agreement is required to submit representations and certifications and additional data from SAM, and not proposed subcontractors.

Confirmed

Please advise if offerors are to include a printout of the representations and certifications from SAM. Furthermore, if offerors are to include a printout from SAM, can the Government please clarify which printout offerors are to include (i.e. FARS, FARS and DFARS, Reps and Certs, or Entity Record)?

Everything included in Certifications and representations to include

Offeror's CAGE CODE

Please confirm Small Businesses are not required to complete the

Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

Confirmed

Answers to questions indicate that offerors are required to include a copy of the entire 62 page RFP in Section I as part of the proposal. The inclusion of the 62 page RFP, with the required header and footer, will substantially increase the electronic file size of the submission. Will the

Government please consider requiring offerors to only include the SF-

33 Signature page and the completed Section K from the solicitation in the Section I proposal response?

The entire solicitation is required. The electronic size was not a limitation of the proposal. Only page counts.

Please confirm that customized MECS plans, if applicable, will be submitted with Task Order proposals, and that a MECS plan is not required at the BOA level.

A MEC is not requested as part of the BOA submission

Do both the Covers and Table of Contents count toward page limitations?

Yes, Table of Contents are not requested. Cover letters should include the Attachment 0001 section L - 1-6 administrative information if included.

The PWS includes 14 subtasks to address and only 13 pages are permitted for Section III. As the Government is requiring Arial 12pt font for all text in the proposal, will the Government please consider increasing the page limitation for Section III to 15 pages to permit a sufficiently detailed discussion of the offeror's approach?

The page count for section III remains 13

This vendor has continued to move forward on responding to the Army's

ACCENT RFP and its Attachments, and the Q&As to date. There are many business and technical requirements therein, including a range of

FAR/DFARS clauses. This requires a series of consultations with our counsel toward getting corporate approvals-which would take time.

Therefore, we respectfully ask the Army to extend the proposal submission deadline by 2 weeks, i.e., to 1:00 pm CDT, Friday, October

21, 2016.

The due date remains October 7th, 2016

Question 90 Completes the listing of questions received. The cut off for Question submssions was 10 days prior to proposal due date. No further questions will be answered. Please contact the PCO if you believe your question was overlooked.

ACCENT Questions Submitted USG Answers

The Government’s answer to Question #32 states “Including the file separately will limit technical difficulties. Embedding files will not save page counts.” Does this mean that the offeror can submit the completed

RFP (sections A-M) as a separate file to the proposal response?

The entire proposal is required electronically. It doesn't matter if one file is submitted with all content included or multiple files are submitted. The RFP is considered one required submission and should not be broke up into sections. ALL RFP pages should be submitted together within Section I of the proposal. Ensure that the

RFP and all Amendments are signed on the cover page if combined or embedded.

The Government stated in the September 14 Q&A responses that

"Price/Cost will not be evaluated for the BOA evaluation," but Section L-

17 refers to labor categories and rates. Understanding it is not being evaluated, is it the Government’s intent for the bidders to provide labor categories and rates when responding to task orders?

For this evaluation, no contracts will be awarded. We are establishing a "Basic Ordering Agreement". As such, an Agreement only lays out some terms and conditions as a starting place to have a head start on the actual contract awards. We are not establishing any type of pricing, labor category, or guaranteeing any awards under the BOA.

The intent is to establish those that have a BOA can meet minimum requirements, have some processes agreed to and agree to some fundamental terms and conditions. The specific clause indicated is provided as a clause that may be used under the TOR awards.

Understanding that the bidder is not required to have a formal teaming agreement with the holder of the DoD PA, was it the intent of the

Government to indicate that approval from the holder of the PA to include the PA as part of the response is no longer required?

A formal agreement is not required, however some type of working arrangement is assumed even if not formal. (if completely self performed, see Q&A #15) Formal approval from the PA holder was never requested, however some discussion or documentation explaining the relationship is required.

Are offerors allowed to add other items in the headers and footers such as the solicitation name and disclaimers?

The header information will be evaluated for compliance. If it is included, it will not affect compliance if additional information is also included.

Question 90 Completes the listing of questions received. The cut off for Question submssions was 10 days prior to proposal due date. No further questions will be answered. Please

ACCENT Questions Submitted USG Answers

Q&A #4 released on 2016SEP14, says that the entire RFP (i.e. all 62 pages) needs to be submitted. In order to be compliant, will the

Government clarify where sections A-J and L-M should be included?

For example, at this time, proof of SAM registration is required after section K, so would L-M go after that?

See answer to Question # 80.

Proof of SAM registration must be included electronically. The RFP must be included electronically.. There is not a requirement for the

SAM submission to break up the RFP file.

It appears that Attachment 0001, Section L, line 8 may be causing confusion since it lists section K and SAM together. This was due to the recognition of the overlap of clauses that may be included in both section K of the RFP and SAM and not intended to insert SAM into the

RFP.

Section K is part of the RFP file submission, SAM should be it's own submission. Please do not mix these pages. A revised Attachment

0001 will be provided to eliminate section K and SAM listing appearing together under line 8.

Will the Government provide an updated

Attachment_0001_Section_L_and_M_Charts detailing the administrative documents outline to include all sections of the RFP?

This will allow offerors to ensure complete compliance.

See answer to Question 84.

The intent of Attachment 0001 Section L was to list each submission necessary. The administrative section may be one submission (only 2 pages) that includes all of the information indicated for the administrative section.

Will our proposal response be incorporated in the contract award? Will answers/responses to questions be incorporated in the contract award?

There will not be a contract award as a result of this solicitation. A

Basic Ordering agreement (BOA) will be executed. Proposals may be incorporated in resulting TOR contracts on a case by case basis.

Can the offer propose a CSO with DoD Advanced Conditional

Provisional Authorization (DoD ACPA) instead of DoD Provisional

Authorization?

No

How would the Government handle expiration of DoD PA prior to contract award?

If a valid DoD PA is not presented, offeror is not eligible to receive a

BOA. Once re-established, the on boarding process can be utilized.

Question 90 Completes the listing of questions received. The cut off for Question submssions was 10 days prior to proposal due date. No further questions will be answered. Please

ACCENT Questions Submitted USG Answers

If the DoD PA is currently active, but expiring prior to scheduled contract award, should the offeror resubmit the DoD PA certification once renewed or will the verification be handled at TO level?

If the PA is currently active, offeror is eligible to receive a BOA. It must also be active at time of BOA execution. Offeror should submit revised certification once renewed in order to maintain eligibility during the evaluation process.

Attachment 1 #10 (Teaming Agreements/Organizational Structures)

CSPs have partner program's which require a level of commitment for both parties to include certifications. Several Prime Contractors

(Including System Integrators) have fully-executed these legal agreements. Will submitting "copies" of CSP/System Integrator partner agreement(s) meet this requirement?

Formal teaming agreements between the Prime and any team members executing the minimum requirements meet the requirement