Consolidated RFP QAs v.4.pdf

Number Reference Question Answers

Attachment 0003, AESD MSP PWS

Will the Government please expand the numbering in PWS Attachment 0003 to allow for better cross referencing? The government will turn on line numbers in order to enable cross referencing of the PWS.

Attachment 0003, AESD MSP PWS

On page 5, Security Operations Management is not listed as one of the optional services, but is described in detail on page 9 and there is a tab on the pricing sheet for it. Will the Government confirm if Security Operations Management in or out of scope?

The PWS will be updated to include security operations management in the listing provided on page 5. Please note the description on page 9 indicates in scope regardless of the listing on page 5. The updated PWS will be provided via amendment.

Attachment 0003, AESD MSP PWS page 15/Section 5.4 – Q:

Based on the fact that only those that have a need to access the platform be required to obtain an IAT Level 1 Certification, we respectfully request the first sentence of the second paragraph of section 5.4 of the MSP PWS be revised to say “Contractor personnel performing on the service desk are required to obtain Information Assurance 307 Technical (IAT) Level I Certification before onboarding to AESD-W.”

The USG will change the statement as follows: "Contractor personnel accessing the service desk are required to obtain Information Assurance Technical (IAT) Level I Certification before onboarding to AESD-W. Certifications for performing in other roles shall be in accordance with DoDD 8140.01 as specified in Section 5.2."

Attachment 003

AESD MSP PWS,

Section 5.0 Staffing and 5.6 Key Personnel

The Government states “The PM should have the qualifications required in accordance with DoDD 8140.01”. This Directive is for individuals who conduct Information Assurance functions in their assigned duty position and have the associated elevated privileges that these duties would require. Since the PM would not be sitting in one of these positions, will the Government consider striking this requirement from section 5.6 for the PM position?

The language included under 5.2 indicates any personnel needing access are required to have the qualifications indicated in DODD 8140-01. If Key personnel, to include the PM, are not accessing the system, the USG would like to understand how the offeror will manage their staff and service delivery without access to the system. The offeror should explain within the proposal this management approach to assist the USG in understanding why this access isn't necessary.

The language specific to each Key personnel will be removed and the USG will rely on 5.2 and the offeror's explanation.

Attachment 0005, Small Business Participation Plan, and Section M, Factor 3, Small Business Volume 3

The substantial product component of the AESMP program, which may represent a large percentage of the overall price, constrains large business offerors to subcontract a significant amount of the resulting contract to large business, further eroding a large business prime offeror’s performance percentage of Total Contract Value. As written, small business receives an advantage of counting their own performance against the SB goals. Ref. Attachments 0005 and Section M.

QUESTION: Will the Government consider modifying the small business goals to be a function of total labor contract value instead of total contract value?

The Small Business statement regarding how small businesses are rated states: Small Business Participation. THIS REQUIREMENT APPLIES TO OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESS

OFFERORS ONLY. SMALL BUSINESS OFFERORS WILL BE GIVEN THE MAXIMUM

SCORE, CREDIT OR RATING UNDER THE SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION.

The goals will not be adjusted, please note the section M evaluation criteria: "The Government will evaluate the degree to which the Offerors Small Business Participation Plan demonstrates the Offerors commitment to maximizing opportunities for small businesses."

Attachment 0006, Price Matrix “Task Order 0001” tab

Volume Band ranges appear to be in 5K increments but are not properly displayed in the matrix. Will the Government please confirm that volume band ranges are 1-5,000; 5,001- 10,000; 10,001-15,000; 15,001-20,000; 20,000-25,000 and update Pricing Matrix accordingly? The price matrix will be updated and provided via amendment.

Attachment 0027 Use Case Buildup

Will the Government please modify Attachment 0027, Use Case Buildup, and provide data for a Service Type related Network issues for two incidents: "Commanding General's secure site network is down" and "Network not available", also for this Network service type designate Tier 1 and 2 service providers in the mock data for the Technical Challenge, Factor 1, SF3?

The data provided in a real world service call may only include what is provided within the Use Case. Therefore the offeror shall demonstrate within the technical challenge ease of use, flexibility, efficiency, operational effectiveness, and alignment with AESMF for handling incidents such as these. Offeror may include within the written portion of SF3 discussion about why the approach presented was selected.

8 Attachment 0027 Use

Will the Government please modify Attachment 0027, Use Case Buildup, and provide data for a Service Type related to the "Active Directory Account not registered" Incident, perhaps an IdAM service type with designated Tier 1 and 2 service providers in the mock data for the Technical Challenge, Factor 1, SF3?

The data provided in a real world service call may only include what is provided within the Use Case. Therefore the offeror shall demonstrate within the technical challenge ease of use, flexibility, efficiency, operational effectiveness, and alignment with AESMF for handling incidents such as these. Offeror may include within the written portion of SF3 discussion about why the approach presented was selected.

9 Attachment 0027 Use

Will the Government please modify Attachment 0027, Use Case Buildup, and provide data for a Service Type related to the "URL Blocked" Incident, perhaps Web Proxy service type with designated Tier 1 and 2 service providers in the mock data for the Technical Challenge, Factor

1, SF3?

The data provided in a real world service call may only include what is provided within the Use Case. Therefore the offeror shall demonstrate within the technical challenge ease of use, flexibility, efficiency, operational effectiveness, and alignment with AESMF for handling incidents such as these. Offeror may include within the written portion of SF3 discussion about why the approach presented was selected.

10 Attachment 0027 Use

Will the Government please modify Attachment 0027, Use Case Buildup, and provide data for a Service Type related to the "VPN won't work" Incident, perhaps VPN service type with designated Tier 1 and 2 service providers in the mock data for the Technical Challenge, Factor

1, SF3?

The data provided in a real world service call may only include what is provided within the Use Case. Therefore the offeror shall demonstrate within the technical challenge ease of use, flexibility, efficiency, operational effectiveness, and alignment with AESMF for handling incidents such as these. Offeror may include within the written portion of SF3 discussion about why the approach presented was selected.

RFP Solicitation, field 8

Is submission time Central or Eastern time zone? The submission is due Central time. (Local to the contracting office)

RFP Section B.2

Will the Government please confirm that any COLA, housing, DoD Schools, deployment and other related costs associated with performing work overseas are to be included in the MSP price in CLIN 0002?

The USG confirms all costs necessary to perform, to include any OCONUS specific costs shall be included in the prices requested. Only Travel and unknown incidental costs to operate shall be separated into CLIN 0003

RFP Section B.2 CLIN 0003 is described as FFP, but includes travel, which is to be reimbursed at actual cost.

Will the Government please confirm that within CLIN 0003, Travel and other similar incidental costs will be cost reimbursable?

31.205-46 Travel costs does not require that travel is reimbursed via actual costs only that costs are reasonable. Therefore the clause written in section H will be revised to remove the reference to "actual costs". The Travel shall be FFP, negotiated at time of travel.

14 RFP, Contract Clauses

The FAR Clause “52.222-41 SERVICE CONTRACT LABOR STANDARDS” is included, however, no Wage Determination (WD) schedules were included in the RFP.

QUESTIONs:

• Has the Government determined that the Professional Services (29 C.F.R. § 4.134) exemption, or any other exemption, is applicable to the AESMP RFP, and therefore Service Contract Act (SCA) does not apply?

• If not, and the Government determine SCA does apply, will the Government provide the applicable Department of Labor (DoL) Wage Determination (WD) schedules for, at a minimum, the Government sites listed in the RFP?

• If SCA is determined applicable, will the Government stipulate EVEN or ODD numbered Wage Determinations should be used?

The USG agrees that some positions may rise to a professional exemption, however the Agents do not. The lack of wage determinations (WD)is an oversite and the solicitation will be amended to include the SCA applicable WD. Even WDs are applicable.

RFP Section L, Proposal

Organization and Page Count

Does the file name for Vol 1 require a slash in between Technical and Management? No, the USG inserted a slash only to ensure clear communication. Most systems will not allow a slash to be included when within the document name. Therefore no slash is required.

RFP Section L, Proposal

Organization and Page Count

Will the Government please confirm that the total page allocation for Volume 1 SF1 and SF2 is 130 pages and that the total page allocation for Volume 1, SF3 is up to 50 pages? The government is confirming that the maximum page limit is 130 for Technical/Management SF

1 & 2 and 50 for the Technical Challenge (SF3).

RFP Section L, Proposal

Organization and Page Count

Is Volume 1 split into two submission files? One file for SF1 and SF2 and one file for SF3?

Yes one file for SF1 & SF2 130 pages and one for the SF3 50 pages.

RFP Section L, Proposal Preparation

Instruction

Is the “working electronic Table of Contents/Index” included in the page count? Is any other front matter, for example, Compliance Matrix or Glossary, included in the front matter?

All items not specifically indicated as exempt from the page count shall be included in the page count. Please note the USG did not specifically request a Glossary or Compliance matrix, however if included to explain the proposal these are included in the page count.

RFP Section L, Proposal Preparation

Instruction Will the Government allow Arial Narrow 10 point font in graphics? No, please follow the provided instructions to use Arial 10 in tables, charts, graphs, illustrations and figures

RFP Section L, SF1 (Elements 1.3 & 1.4) and SF2 (Elements

2.2 & 2.3)

In both SF1 (Elements 1.3 & 1.4) and SF2 (Elements 2.2 & 2.3), the Government uses the terms Technical Process and Support Process . Will the Government please provide definitions and/or differences in a technical and support process as they apply under the AESMP solicitation?

The header provided is indicative of the defined grouping. The sub bullets for technical processes and support processes are detailed for what the AESMP understanding is for those two terms. If the offeror addresses each bullet listed they will have covered the section appropriately.

RFP Section L, SF3:

Technical Challenge Response

Will the Government confirm that a compliant demonstration consists of a web-accessible, self-guided demonstration environment built around Attachment 0027 Use Case data packages influenced by Attachment 0030, Attachment 0032, and Attachment 0033, and that no additional video, audio-visual or other presentation media are required beyond the 50-pages (or less) of written text to meet SF3 requirements?

The Government confirms that a compliant demonstration consists of a web-accessible, self-guided demonstration environment built around Attachment 0027 Use Case data packages influenced by Attachment 0030, Attachment 0032, and Attachment 0033, and no other additional video, audio-visual or other presentation media is required.

B08 Attachment 0006 Price Matrix

Task Order 0001 has no “Transition In” separate CLIN. Will the government allocate a Transition In CLIN to Task Order 1 to allow the contractor to correctly associate the SaaS startup costs with the SaaS Task Order?

No. The contractor shall include any service initiation cost in the range pricing. With the requirement of a DOD-PA no significant transition costs are expected under TO 0001.

B08 Attachment 0006 Price Matrix

The ITBM Option has no “Transition In” separate CLIN. Will the government allocate a Transition In CLIN to the ITBM Option to allow the contractor to correctly associate the startup & configuration costs with the option? This allows the reduction of the ongoing service costs to the Government by segregating startup and setup costs from the operation of the service.

No. The contractor shall include any service initiation cost in the range pricing. No significant service initiation costs are expected for the optional capabilities. Include any service initiation costs within the applicable task order's range pricing.

B08 Attachment 0006 Price Matrix

The SW Mgt Option has no “Transition In” separate CLIN. Will the government allocate a Transition In CLIN to the SW Mgt Option to allow the contractor to correctly associate the startup & configuration costs with the option? This allows the reduction of the ongoing service costs to the Government by segregating startup and setup costs from the operation of the service.

No. The contractor shall include any service initiation cost in the range pricing. No significant service initiation costs are expected for the optional capabilities. Include any service initiation costs within the applicable task order's range pricing.

B08 Attachment 0006 Price Matrix

The Field Svc Mgt Option has no “Transition In” separate CLIN. Can the government allocate a Transition In CLIN to the Field Svc Mgt Option to allow the contractor to correctly associate the startup & configuration costs with the option? This allows the reduction of the ongoing service costs to the Government by segregating startup and setup costs from the operation of the service.

No. The contractor shall include any service initiation cost in the range pricing. No significant service initiation costs are expected for the optional capabilities. Include any service initiation costs within the applicable task order's range pricing.

B08 Attachment 0006 Price Matrix

The SecOps Mgt Option has no “Transition In” separate CLIN. Can the government allocate a Transition In CLIN to the SecOps Mgt Option to allow the contractor to correctly associate the startup & configuration costs with the option? This allows the reduction of the ongoing service costs to the Government by segregating startup and setup costs from the operation of the service.

No. The contractor shall include any service initiation cost in the range pricing. No significant service initiation costs are expected for the optional capabilities. Include any service initiation costs within the applicable task order's range pricing.

B08 Attachment 0003

AESD MSP PWS 14

Sep 2021 v.3 Pg 23

Under Exceptions for an inbound call, outbound call, web chat and web form, an exception is listed for each as: “A ticket already exists for the incident, problem, service request or other inquiry”

Please confirm that “already exists” includes “for the specific user”. E.g. if two users call for a related issue, two separate tickets may be created, one for each user to a) allow full tracking of the extent of the issue to the Army user community and b) to allow follow up to the specific user(s) who reported and issue to ensure the incident is resolved for each user as per standard service desk customer relations protocols. Can the Government reword the requirement to: “A ticket already exists for the incident, problem, service request, or other inquiry for the same user?” The PWS will be amended to specifically include "for the specific user" to ensure clarity.

B08 Attachment 0003

AESD MSP PWS 14

Sep 2021 v.3

In order for the contractor to appropriately price our services to meet the Government SLAs, can the Government please provide the respective number or percentage of tickets expected for local NEC services and 311th NEC services out of the total # of tickets historically, separated by NIPR and SIPR?

See attachment 0030 current system and service profile. The tickets indicated as C4IM are considered local NEC tickets. The 311th tickets are broken down by PAC and Korea subtotals.

B08 Attachment 0003

AESD MSP PWS 14

Sep 2021 v.3

Contractor personnel performing on this task order are required to obtain Information Assurance Technical (IAT) Level I Certification before beginning support of AESD. The following certifications meet this requirement per DoD 8140.01:

A+ Continuing Education (CE) Cisco Certified Network Associate (CCNA)-Security Network+ CE Systems Security Certified Practitioner (SSCP)

Section 5.4 Industry Training refers to all Contractor personnel. The Program Manager does not perform in a cyberspace work role capacity. Can the Government confirm this does not apply to the Program Manager? The requirements for the Program Manager do not specifically reference 8140.01.

The language included under 5.2 indicates any personnel needing access is required to have the qualifications indicated in DODD 8140-01. If Key personnel, to include the PM, are not accessing the system, the USG would like to understand how the offeror will manage their staff and service delivery without access to the system. The offeror should explain within the proposal this management approach to assist the USG in understanding why this access isn't necessary.

The language specific to each Key personnel will be removed and the USG will rely on 5.2 and the offeror's explanation.

B08 Attachment 0030 Current System and Service Profile 31 Aug 21

The information contained in this attachment is at least a year old, including calendar year 2019 ticket counts, sizing information as of September 2020. Can the Government update the information to reflect 2020/2021 information? Attachment 0030 will be updated to include 2020 data.

B08 Attachment 0006 Price Matrix

Can the Government confirm the quantity ranges for Task Order 1 are intended to be as per below and release an updated pricing matrix sheet?

1-5,000 5,001-10,000 10,001-15,000 15,001-20,000 20,001-25,000 The ranges will be updated. See answer to question 6.

B08 Attachment 0003

AESD MSP PWS 14

Sep 2021 v.3

2nd Paragraph under Optional Capability for Security Operations Management

Can the Government clarify what is meant by “and its stakeholders”? Can the Contractor assume the IA support is limited to the systems provided by the contractor to the government under AESMP IDIQ?

The support indicated means systems provided by the contractor under AESMP as well as all capabilities and desktops under AESD. The PWS will be modified to remove the word "stakeholder" and replaced with "support AESD and AESMP".

B08 Attachment 0003

AESD MSP PWS 14

Sep 2021 v.3 Pg 23

3rd Paragraph under Optional Capability for Security Operations Management

Can the Government clarify what is meant by “and its stakeholders”? Can the Contractor assume the server administration support is limited to the systems provided by the contractor to the government under AESMP IDIQ?

See answer to question 32. The PWS will be updated as indicated under answer 32 for this section as well.

B08 Exhibit D AESD MSP TO 2 Contract Data Report List.082421

As the Government is ordering the service desk as a service, with SLAs for measuring the service, it seems the government should not require the staffing and scheduling required to meet the demand as a report from the contractor. Can the government re-word this to: “Report the utilization requirements for any Government resources needed by the contractor?”

The USG intent by obtaining this information is not to manage contractor staffing and scheduling but to provide a methodology to inform the USG planning process for utilization of its resources necessary to support the service desk. E.g. CAC's, system access, desktops.

B08 Exhibit D AESD MSP TO 2 Contract Data Report List.082421

As the government is ordering the software as a service under the FFP TO, the contractor should monitor and report upon costs consumed by the government, projecting costs based upon ticket volumes, for example, but not report separately subsets of the costs of the service.

Will the government update this requirement to align to an FFP SaaS requirement? This requirement is necessary IAW AFARs HH and EXORD 009-20.

Attachment 0002 AESMP ITSM SaaS

PWS 28 JUN 2021

v.1

Does the Army require the ability to display contextual based KB articles, chat, incidents requests/status on other Army web pages and digital apps outside of the AESD support portal to help its users via self-service and ultimately deflect tickets? No, the government does not require this ability.

Attachment 0002 AESMP ITSM SaaS

PWS 28 JUN 2021

v.1

Does the Army require the ability to have individuals who are not ITIL fulfillers/Resolvers have access to site/region specific dashboards which display the status and health of their specific organization hierarchy/region? E.g. allow RCC key personnel to monitor theater service requests without requiring a “Resolver” license? Yes.

B08 Attachment 0003

AESD MSP PWS 14

Sep 2021 v.3

To better reflect the metrics provided to the Government under a service-based contract, can the government remove the requirements for hours and training required to achieve the standards to achieve the SLAs? Can the government rewrite the requirement as follows:

“The Contractor shall accumulate metrics and report upon: (1) the total call type, call volume, ticket type, and ticket volume, broken down by user community; and (2) net resolution time to service each call type and ticket type by user community;”

The listed information on pg 22 of Attachment 003 MSP PWS is provided so the offeror understands the types of data necessary to support via the dashboards. The USG did not request "hours and training required to achieve the standards to achieve the SLAs". The information requested is required as part of Dashboard and will be used to analyze service desk trends and forecasting. The SLA and KPIs will be measured as indicated in the SLA/KPI formulas.

39 W52P1J21R0003

Both planned Task Orders are Firm Fixed Price (FFP). Per FAR 16.202-1 FFP contracts “provides for a price that is not subject to any adjustment on the basis of the contractor’s cost experience in performing the contract. This contract type places upon the contractor maximum risk and full responsibility for all costs and resulting profit or loss.”

Reporting on contractor labor hours does not align to the contract type provided. Will the Government please remove this requirement?

The USG intent by obtaining this information is not to manage contractor staffing and scheduling but to provide a methodology to inform the USG planning process for utilization of its resources necessary to support the service desk. E.g. CAC's, system access, desktops.

W52P1J21R0003 PG

AESMP is an IDIQ with TOs that vary in award/start date. Additionally, some planned TOs included extensive transition time before installation work is required. Will the Government modify the requirement “within 30 days after the contract start” to “within 30 days of personnel start on the contract”?

The language will not be changed, however it is understood that if an employee is not hired 30 days prior to contract start that they will be trained prior to accessing the installation IAW the clause.

41 W52P1J21R0003 Would the Government allow Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) reports as an alternative to the Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ)?

No. The USG may review CPARs in addition to the questionaries' as part of additional information, however questionaries' are up to date and CPARs may be a year old.

W52P1J-21-R-0003

RFP

B08 Attachment 0003

AESD MSP PWS

The Government provides third-level numbering under Section 4.0 starting at 4.13.1; however, there is no second-level numbering for the previous paragraphs. In order to facilitate the Government’s evaluation process, would the Government please provide consistent second and third level numbering under Section 4.0?

These outline numbers will allow offerors to clearly delineate which proposal section(s) respond to the second and third level numbering, reducing confusion and cross-checking on the Government’s end. The numbering error will be corrected in the solicitation amendment.

Attachment 003

AESD MSP PWS

Will the Government please confirm that the referenced text is part of the “The migration shall include” bulleted list and requirement? The government confirms that the list is included as part of the migration. PWS will be updated

Attachment 003

AESD MSP PWS

The Government does not provide a new section header for the referenced paragraph (4.0).

Can the Government please update the PWS with appropriate headers?

The offeror cannot delineate if the referenced text and following information is included under the requirement for the Operational Capability for Security Operations Management. The government will update the paragraphs to ensure clarity.

Attachment 003

AESD MSP PWS

The referenced text first instructs that “The Contractor shall provide account administration and training of the Government-provided BOMGAR technology for use by AESD agents.” The paragraph then speaks to SA services and responsibilities.

Can the Government confirm that the BOMGAR requirement is a separate requirement from the SA requirement?

Would the Government separate these two requirements into distinct paragraphs in the PWS?

The SA requirement includes BOMGAR, the PWS will move the BOMGAR sentence to the end of the paragraph so this is more clear.

Attachment 003

AESD MSP PWS

Will the Government please clarify “within the security boundary for which the Contractor has access and privilege”? Does this mean the AESMP contractor has SA requirements over the systems in the AESMP boundary? Yes the AESMP contractor has SA requirements over the systems in the AESMP boundary.

47 W52P1J21R0003

The Government announced on July 16, 2021 on sam.gov that it intended to bundle/consolidate three contracts under AESMP. Can the Government please confirm that the entirety of those contracts will be performed under the AESMP IDIQ?

Are the scope of those services under the current TO1 and TO2 or are additional TOs planned to consume those requirements?

This Q&A is intended to cover questions regarding the AESMP RFP. This question is outside the scope of the RFP and will not be answered.

Attachment 003

AESD MSP PWS

This open-ended requirement is not consistent with FFP TO standards. Will the Government remove this requirement and plan on issuing change-orders or additional IDIQ TOs to support?

The government does not agree this is an open ended requirement. The systems approach in the PWS requires the offeror's system to migrate operations and any necessary data within 6 months for NIPR Enterprise services. The offeror shall assume responsibility for AESD at 6 months. During the period between 6 months and 1 year, the offeror shall enter tickets into the USG's C4IM (ESMS) and SIPR systems until the offerors proposed system covers all required systems. Change orders may be necessary if additional USG provided systems become necessary.

Attachment 003

AESD MSP PWS

Both planned Task Orders are Firm Fixed Price (FFP). Per FAR 16.202-1 FFP contracts “provides for a price that is not subject to any adjustment on the basis of the contractor’s cost experience in performing the contract. This contract type places upon the contractor maximum risk and full responsibility for all costs and resulting profit or loss.”

Will the Government remove this requirement, specifically the “providing automated cost accounting linking individual agent labor”? Under an FFP model, the contractor should be held to SLA standards, not individual labor hours and costs.

The purpose for the individual agent labor tracking is not due to cost accounting contract type.

(The reference to cost accounting will be removed to aid in the clarification.) The request to track labor is due to Army cloud requirements and has nothing to do with contract type or specific Army management of labor.

Attachment 003

AESD MSP PWS

As the AESD MSP TO is FFP, will the Government remove this requirement?

Under an FFP construct, the contractor should be accountable for meeting required performance requirements. The ability to meet performance requirements is a function of the contractor’s entire solution vs. FTE count.

The government did not require FTEs, per se. A request for number of trained agents is requested. This is per Army Cloud requirements and is not related to contract management.

See answer to question 39

Attachment 003

AESD MSP PWS

As the AESD MSP TO is FFP, will the Government remove this requirement?

In an FFP contract, the Government should require the contractor to meet performance objectives – SLA/KPI. Meeting performance objectives is the result of the Contractor’s entire solution vs. individual labor hours. See answer to question 39.

52 W52P1J21R0003

The Government has asked for one technical/management volume including one technical challenge response for two distinct PWSs. To be compliant, does the Government intend for Offerors to reply to all PWS requirements across both TOs in Volume 1, Technical/Management? If yes, will the Government please update both PWSs with outline/numbers for complete cross-reference?

If not, will the Government edit Section L instructions to state that it is acceptable and compliant for Offerors to address the Section L requirements only?

The PWS will be provided with Line numbers included to allow offerors to reference specific lines of the PWS within their proposal. Reference Section L definition of "PWS Set" The Technical / Management section requires the PWS Set that is addressed. This includes ALL requirements included in Attachment 0002 and 0003.

B08 Attachment 0006 Price Matrix

As the Government removed the licenses from the option years of the SaaS offering, the costs for managing the SaaS offering become relatively fixed across the option years, largely disconnected from the user based licensing reflected in the pricing matrix. The relatively fixed activities include server/system maintenance, upgrades, testing, monitoring, integration support. These activities are not tightly aligned with the number of users, without the license costs included the Fixed Unit Price. Can the Government add a line item for annual costs associated with managing the SaaS, that allows the contractor to reduce risk and provide the best pricing to the Government?

No an additional line item will not be included. Relatively fixed activities can still be allocated across users and can expand or contract based upon the number of users. E.g. facility costs are fixed however expected as part of the range prices with or without licensing costs. Whatever is determined to be included in year one would likely be included in year two just less the licensing costs.

B08 Attachment 0006 Price Matrix

Will the Government please confirm, that for planning purposes, as of Option Year 1 and beyond, the contractor does not need to include any ITSM platform, options, or other costs associated with the platform and options?

Will the Government please confirm that these costs will be the responsibility of the Government after the base period?

The government confirms only the license cost will be removed from the subscription price from option year 1 through 9. The Government confirms that these license costs will be the responsibility of the Government after the base period. The offeror is still responsible for the operation and maintenance of the AESMP when the license is provided GFE for the approach proposed by the contractor.

55 W52P1J-21-R-0003

For tables, charts, graphs, illustrations and figures, will the Government confirm it is acceptable to use fonts in the Arial family (e.g., Narrow) no smaller than ten (10) points to adequately and clearly present required information? See answer to question 19

56 Does the Army plan to have a single software instance with multi-tenancy for AESMP?

Army cloud guidance requires a single software instance. The Army does not have a pre-determined approach regarding tenancy. The only software architecture requirement is for a DOD-PA. The offeror shall propose their best technical solution to meet the Army's requirements. Should the offeror's proposed approach deviate from the cloud service offering described in the DOD-PA, the offeror should include explanation for how and by when the cloud service offering will be configured or modified to meet the Army's technical, functional, and security requirements to support an ATO.

Has the Army considered the benefits of multiple ITSM platforms to ensure enterprise-wide data compatibility and efficiencies, as well as to ensure that previous investments in enterprise solutions, training, experience, and human capitol are not discarded with no benefit to the Warfighter? If this has not been considered, is this something the Army would favorably entertain in a proposal as a means to accelerate AESMP support to Warfighters?

The Army took multiple years to determine the strategy and considered multiple forms of Market Research. The Army has not pre-determined the ITSM approach. The offeror shall propose their best technical solution to meet the Army's requirements and it will be evaluated via the evaluation criteria in the RFP.

Have G-6 Army leaders and ARCYBER leaders personally met with (virtual or in-person) industry ITSM solution and cloud service providers in advance of the RFP release to ensure that the Army is fully aware of the latest developments and capabilities available from industry?

If so, can the Army please provide specifics of who, at a General Officer or SES level, met with whom, and when?

This Q&A is intended to cover questions regarding the AESMP RFP. This question is outside the scope of the RFP and will not be answered.

If the Army receives proposals all with a single-thread ITSM and/or cloud solution and is therefore unable to evaluate the full range of commercially available options, how will this still be considered a full and open competition?

Full and Open competition is how the procurement is structured for responses, not whether all facets of all possible responses are represented when proposed. However we believe this question is more about enhancing competition from multiple approaches. In order to enhance the number of approaches presented, the Army is willing to extend the closing date by 30 days from today to allow vendors time to evaluate the commercially available options to solidify their approach and submit viable solutions that meet the Army's requirement and evaluation criteria.

Sheet1