Government_Responses_to_Questions_16JUN16.docx

Document Name/ Number/ Revision No.: Attachment 13 CDRL Distribution Matrix

Document Date: Released 05/16/2016

Reference Section/ Paragraph: CDRL’s A00D and A00F

Question/ Comment:

CDRL’s A00D and A00F are mapped to SOW section 3.2.2.4 which does not exist. Will the Government please clarify/ verify if these CDRLs should be mapped to SOW section 3.2.2.3?

Response:

Yes, CDRL’s A00D and A00F should be mapped to SOW section 3.2.2.3. The CDRL Distribution Matrix has been updated.

Document Name/ Number /Revision No.: Attachment 13 CDRL Distribution Matrix

Reference Section/ Paragraph: CDRL A001

Question/ Comment:

CDRL A001 is mapped to SOW section 3.2.2.2 which does not reference this CDRL. Will the Government please clarify/ verify if this CDRL should be mapped to SOW section 3.2.2.1?

Yes, CDRL A001 should be mapped to SOW section 3.2.2.1. The CDRL Distribution Matrix has been updated.

Document Date: Released 5/16/2016

Reference Section/ Paragraph: CDRL C005

Question/ Comment:

CDRL C005 is mapped to SOW section 3.2.2.1 which does not reference this CDRL. Will the Government please clarify/ verify if this CDRL should be mapped to SOW section 3.2.2?

Yes, CDRL C005 should be mapped to SOW section 3.2.2. The CDRL Distribution Matrix has been updated.

Reference Section/ Paragraph: CDRL’s A003, A004, A008, and A009

Question/ Comment:

CDRL’s A003, A004, A008, and A009 are mapped to SOW section 3.2.2.3 which does not reference these CDRL’s. Will the Government please clarify/ verify if these CDRLs should be mapped to SOW section 3.2.2.2?

Yes, CDRLs A003, A004, A008, and A009 should be mapped to SOW section 3.2.2.2. The CDRL Distribution Matrix has been updated.

Document Name/ Number/ Revision No.: Attachment 1 SOW.pdf, Version 1.2

Document Date: 28 March, 2016

Reference Section/ Paragraph: 3.2.4.1.3 CLOUD / DATA CENTER

Question/ Comment: SOW states, “The Contractor shall demonstrate in an operational test environment that the MI training capabilities are cloud enabled within 12 months of start of contract and cloud optimized within 24 months after contract start.”

The Justification & Approval (J&A) prepared 17 February 2016 (para.3.h.), states that the current contractor will be required to migrate the HCC to the Cloud during the bridge contract period (01 July 2015 – 31 December 2016). The Technical Data Package (TDP) provided by the Government does not contain technical information (e.g., SDD, SSDD, accreditation information) describing the Cloud-related efforts currently being performed under the referenced bridge contract. Can it be assumed that the incumbent contractor will successfully migrate the HCC to the cloud during the bridge contract’s period of performance? If so, request that this requirement be deleted from the SOW to reduce cost and eliminate duplicative efforts. If the Government has determined that risk exists regarding the successful completion of the requirement and as a result, desires to keep the requirement in the SOW, we request that the Government provide technical information related to current and end-state (at end of bridge contract) Cloud architecture and updated software design documentation related to its Cloud implementation.

IEWTPT as a whole, including the TCC and HCC will have to be cloud enabled and optimized by the winning offeror. The requirement shall remain in the SOW as is. The current state of HCC cloud based capabilities is that it is currently being tested in a cloud environment. The end-state (at award of the new contract) is that the HCC will be operating to some initial level of prototyped cloud operation that will not have been formally tested or released. Additional HCC cloud migration work will be required to mature and formally test and release an HCC cloud based capability. All updated, relevant HCC cloud based developed capabilities as of the date of contract award will be transferred to the winning offeror.

Document Name/ Number/ Revision No.: IEWTPT J&A, PEO STRI 15-008

Document Date: 17 February 2015

Reference Section/ Paragraph: 3

Question/Comment:

What work items listed in section 3 of the IEWTPT Justification & Approval document have been completed? Are scheduled to be completed prior to contract awarding?

Response:

The following work descriptions from section 3 of the J&A are complete: Firm fixed price Technical Control Cell (TCC) fieldings to Ft. Stewart, Ga. and Joint Base San Antonio, Tx; Aerial sensors (question eight).

Work anticipated to be complete prior to contract award includes Prophet receiver emulation to GAFB and Biometrics database integration into the baseline.

The following work is incomplete and will remain relevant for the awardee: Distributed Common Ground System – Army task analysis and system integration, Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) tools migration into the Intelligence Low Overhead Driver (ILOD) tool, Geospatial Intelligence (GEOINT) tools migration into ILoD to include Dismount Moving Target Indicator (DMTI), Near Time Notional Gateway (NTNG) - National Security Agency (NSA) tools emulation supporting SIGINT analysis, Human Intelligence Control Cell (HCC) cloud migration prototype, Information Assurance (IA), now migrating to Risk Management Framework (RMF) will remain an ongoing requirement for the life of the program, aerial layer sensor emulation, and multi – intelligence scenario updates.

Document Name/ Number/ Revision No.: Attachment 1 SOW.pdf, Version 1.2

Document Date: 28 March 2016

Reference Section/ Paragraph: 3.8

Question/ Comment:

Paragraph 3.8 of the SOW states, "The Contractor shall provide the Government non-proprietary products." Section 5.c.4 of the IEWTPT Justification and Approval document states that ‘GDC4S has developed techniques, company tools and procedures to quickly develop additional scenarios’.

If these tools are proprietary and the Government awards the new contract to the current prime contractor, will they be required to develop non-proprietary versions of these tools? If proprietary and the Government awards to a new contractor, will the current contractor be required to provide non-proprietary versions to the incoming awardee?

These tools are not proprietary. All source code for all developed tools will be provided to the incoming awardee. All software required to develop scenarios will have their licenses transferred to the awardee.

Document Name/Number/Revision No.: Attachment 1 SOW.pdf

Document Date: Reference Section/ Paragraph: Para. 3.1.10.5

Question/Comment:

There appears to be a discrepancy between two documented elements. Attachment 1 SOW.pdf – Para. 3.1.10.5 identifies the RMF classification as “Moderate, Low, Low”. The A007 IAPP TCC V5 Rev1.pdf – Para. 5 Audit Requirements identifies the RMF Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability (CIA) as “High, Low, Low”. Since the A007 IAPP TCC V5 Rev1.pdf is an accreditation document, can it be assumed that its CIA classification of “High, Low, Low” is accurate?

The references are two separate accreditation formats. The SOW refers to future RMF requirements and the IAPP refer to the current Director of Central Intelligence Directive 6/3 accreditation standards.

Document Name/Number/Revision No.: N/A

Document Date:

Reference Section/Paragraph: N/A

Question/Comment:

Does the IEWTPT have an existing NIPRNET accreditation?

No. IEWTPT has no components with a specific NIPRNET accreditation.

Document Name/ Number/ Revision No.: Attachment 14 GFI and GFP Lists.pdf

Document Date: N/A

Reference Section/ Paragraph: N/A

Question/ Comment:

What will be delivered/ accomplished of the current development effort at the beginning of the contract? Is it anticipated that the provided GFE/ GFI lists will be changed between RFP release and contract award and if so in what major areas?

The TDP reflects the most recent development accomplishments. The provided GFE/ GFI lists will be updated to reflect any changes between RFP release and contract award. No major changes anticipated.

Document Name/ Number/Rev. No.: DRFP Re-compete CDRL Report 4 April 16.pdf

Document Date: Released 05/3/2016

Reference Section/ Paragraph: All

Question/ Comment:

Would the Government consider standardizing “working days” vs “days” for the short time frame delivery or response periods specified in each CDRL? Some CDRLs specify time in “working days” while others specify time in “days”. Potential conflicts arise when a delivery or response due “day” falls on a weekend or holiday.

The term “days” will be replaced with “calendar days”. When CDRL due dates land on weekends or holidays, the first business day immediately following will be the due date. All CDRLs reflect this change.

Document Name/ Number/ Rev. No.: DRF Re-compete CDRL Report 4 April 16.pdf

Reference Section/ Paragraph: CDRL A002

Question/Comment:

CDRL A002 Block 16 item 6 specifies “The Government will have 30 working days for review and acceptance or rejection of each submission”. Block 16 item 7 specifies “The contractor shall have 15 days to incorporate Government comments”. Will the Government consider standardizing on “working days” for Block 16 item 7?

15 days remains unchanged. The term “days” will be replaced with “calendar days”. All CDRLs reflect this change.

Document Name/ Number/ Rev. No.: DRFP Re-compete CDRL Report 4 April 16.pdf

Reference Section/ Paragraph: CDRL B004

Question/ Comment:

CDRL B004 Block 10 specifies “MONTHLY” while Block 16 item 2 specifies “quarterly”. Will the Government please clarify if CDRL B004 is due monthly or quarterly?

B004 has been updated and shall be due Quarterly.

Document Name/ Number/ Rev. No.: W900KK-16-R-005_Conformed_per_Amnd_0001

Document Date: 27 May 2016

Reference Section/ Paragraph: L.6.1.1 Sub-Factor 1.1 – Technical Approach

Question/ Comment: Para. L.6.1.1 of the RFP provides SOW references at the end of each Sub-factor 1.1 requirement. Similar references are provided in Section “M” (M.3.1.1). Some of these references seem to be more easily mapped to the same paragraph of the SSS. As an example, the Sub-factor 1.1 requirement related to interoperability refers to SOW 3.4.1 (Integration Events), but appears to align better to paragraph 3.4.1 of the SSS, which provides specific IEWTPT system interoperability requirements. Can the Government please confirm/ validate the SOW references located in L.6.1.1 and M.3.1.1 of the RFP?

Response:

The SOW references located in L.6.1.1 and M.3.1.1 are correct.

The SSS provides additional details for the overall system. Due to the limited distribution restrictions of the SSS, SSS sections are not referenced in Sections L or M but the SSS will have sections that provide details on and pertain to evaluation factors and subfactors.

Document Name/Number/Revision No.: Solicitation

Document Date: 16 May 2016 Reference Section/Paragraph: L.5

Question/Comment:

Section L.5, Table 2 states that up to 8 11x17 foldouts can be used to portray schedule. However, in the Government answer to questions on the Draft RFP the Government stated that foldouts in Vol II were not limited to portraying schedule and that “Table 2 will be updated to allow the use of fold out pages for schedule, diagrams, or spreadsheets.”

Request that Table 2 be updated to reflect that the Management Volume “may include up to eight (8) 11x17 inch fold out pages for schedule, diagrams or spreadsheets.”

Table 2 has been corrected.

Document Name/Number/Revision No.: Attachment_5_Evaluated_Price_12May16

Document Date: 12 May 2016 Reference Section/Paragraph: Worksheet 5b

Tab 5b of Attachment 5 is for Labor Rates by labor category "fully burdened.” Is "fully burdened" through G&A and FCCOM with or without FEE?

Fully burdened includes G&A and FCCOM but does not include Fee.

Document Name/Number/Revision No.: Attachment_5_Evaluated_Price_12May16

Document Date: 12 May 2016 Reference Section/Paragraph: Worksheet 5b

Based on RFP Award date of March 2017, is Tab 5b and 5c of Attachment 5 for Labor Rates by contractor/calendar year (Jan - Dec), Government Fiscal Year (Oct - Sept) or by CLIN Year (March - Feb)?

The rates are to be provided by Government Fiscal Year. Tabs 5b and 5c have been updated to separate rates out from FY17-FY22, as this five year effort will span six fiscal years should options be exercised.

Reference Section/Paragraph: L.6.4.6(c)

Solicitation states “The offeror shall also e-mail the Contracting Officer a POC list of their (6) identified contracts by 12:00 p.m. (1200 hours) EDT on July 11, 2016.”

Believe this should state 5 Contracts, not 6 to match the number of Past Performance contracts. Please correct to state "(5) identified contracts…"

L.6.4.6 has been corrected to state 5 contracts.

Reference Section/Paragraph: L.6.6.1.1

This section states “The awardee must address ANSI/EIA-748 EVMS compliance in their proposal in Volume IV - Cost. The Government reserves the right to require a validated EVMS upon award based the evaluation of the awardees’ proposal.”

L.6.6.1.1 should state " The awardee must address ANSI/EIA-748 EVMS compliance in their proposal in Volume V - Cost.

L.6.6.1.1. has been corrected to state Volume V – Cost/Price.

Reference Section/Paragraph: L.6.3

For evaluation purposes, is the 20% small business participation based on the priced CLINs in the TEP or does it include all the NTE CLINs as well. Since bidders arent providing pricing for the NTE CLINs (except for fee), how would the Government evaluate SB participation on the NTE CLINs? By adding the fee of the NTE CLINs to the TE, will this affect the small business calculation for the TEP?

Section L.6.3 will be updated to state the plan must clearly demonstrate a viable plan for meeting or exceeding a goal of no less than 20% of the total evaluated price, excluding NTE CLINs. Section M will be updated accordingly as well.

Note that the awardee’s goal will apply to the overall work under the contract including the customer option CLINs, as the work of these CLINs is similar in type of work to the core IEWTPT CLINs and the related options.

Reference Section/Paragraph: Section J

Exhibits A-C and Annexes to Exhibits A-C were not provided with the Final RFP. Will the Government provide these attachments per Section J?

The exhibits and annexes have been provided with Amendment 0002.

Document Name/Number/Revision No.:

DRFP Recompete_CDRL_Report_4_April_16.pdf

Document Date: Released 5/3/2016

Reference Section/Paragraph: All

Will the Government release a final CDRLs document to replace the Recompete_CDRL_Report_4_April.pdf document released with the May 03, 2016 DRFP?

Updated CDRLs have been posted with Amendment 0002.

Document Name/Number/Revision No.: FINAL RFP W900KK-16-0005

Reference Section/Paragraph: L.6.4.1 AND L.6.4.6

Please confirm the number of Past Performance Risk Assessment references requested as five (5). Per L.6.4.1, “Offerors shall submit a list of the five Government contracts…”; however, L.6.4.6 states “(c) The offeror shall also e-mail the Contracting Officer a POC list of their (6) identified contracts…”

5 is correct, L.6.4.6 has been corrected to state 5 contracts.

Reference Section/Paragraph: L.6.6.4 Volume VI Submission Format

Section 6 is duplicated for the Pre-award Survey of Prospective Contractor Accounting System Checklist (Attachment 7) and DCMA and DCAA POC Information, with Section 7 listed as containing the Certification of Non-Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence. Should the numbering be updated to reflect Section 7 as the DCMA and DCAA POC Information; and Section 8 for the Certification of Non-Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence?

The section numbering in L.6.6.4 has been corrected.

Reference Section/Paragraph: Section L.5, Table 2, Volume II

Table 2, Volume 2, Management Volume Size Limits specifies that offerors, “May include up to (8) 11 x 17 inch fold out pages for schedule.” Will the Government allow 11x17 fold outs for drawings, diagrams, or large tables, in addition to a schedule in Volume II?

Table 2 has been updated to allow schedule, diagrams or spreadsheets.

Document Name/Number/Revision No.: W900KK-16-R-0005_Conformed_per_Amnd_0001.docx

Document Date: Released 5/27/2016

Reference Section/Paragraph: L.6.6.3 Offerors shall certify whether they are or are not foreign owned, foreign controlled, or foreign influenced.

Please clarify whether the foreign ownership certification is required for only the prime contractor.

L.6.6.3 has been updated to include all proposed subcontractors as well, due to the nature of the work.

Document Name/Number/Revision No.: W900KK-16-R-0005_Conformed_per_Amnd_0001

Document Date: May 27, 2016 Reference Section/Paragraph: Section L.5, Table 2, page 122 of 155

Question/Comment: RFP states the Technical Volume “may include up to (8) 11 x 17 inch fold out pages for drawings, diagrams, or spreadsheets.” Considering the highly technical requirements for systems architectures, approaches to MI domain collective training, and technical processes, will the Government consider increasing this limitation from eight (8) to ten (10) 11 x 17 inch fold out pages?

The limitation has been increased to 10 fold out pages.

Document Name/Number/Revision No.: W900KK-16-R-0005_Conformed_per_Amnd_0001

Document Date: May 27, 2016 Reference Section/Paragraph: L.6.4.1

Question/Comment: RFP states, “Offerors shall submit a list of the five Government contracts (prime and major subcontractors), in performance and/or completed during the past five years, which are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation.” This requirement is unclear. We recommend amending language to either require a total of five citations for the entire team or require no more than two (2) citations for each prime and each of its major subcontractors. Additionally, note that Para. L.6.4.6.(c) of the RFP states, “The offeror shall also e-mail the Contracting Officer a POC list of their (6) identified contracts by 12:00 p.m. (1200 hours) EDT on July 11, 2016.”

L.6.4.1 updated for clarity, five contracts total are required. L.6.4.6 has been corrected to read 5 contracts.

Document Name/Number/Revision No.: Attachment 5 Total Evaluated Price Workbook

Document Date:

Reference Section/Paragraph:

There is an issue with the Attachment 5 Total Evaluated Price Worksheet:

· Cells B14 – 16 are formatted as text and therefore not totaling into D14 – D16 and cell D20

· Cells C14 – 16 are formatted as text and therefore not totaling into D14 – D16 and cell D20

· Cells C49 – C57 are formatted as text and therefore not totaling into Cell C58

· Cells C52 – C57 are not included in the formula that total Column C (Cell 58 total does not include cells C52 – C57)

Request the Government fix these issues since it could affect the Total Evaluated Price calculations if the cell formats are not corrected.

Attachment 5 has been updated with corrections for these issues.

Document Date: 16 may 2016 Reference Section/Paragraph: L.6.3

Section L.6.3, third paragraph, states “. . . . the Small Business Participation Plan needs to clearly demonstrate a viable plan for meeting or exceeding the Small Business Participation goal of no less than 20% of their proposed total contract price in Attachment 5, Total Evaluated Price Excel Workbook.” Attachment 5 does not calculate Total Contract Price, it calculates Total Evaluated Price. Sections L.6.3.b, L.6.3.c and the table in L.6.3.d requests that the calculations be based off of TOTAL CONTRACT PRICE.

Request the Government revise Section L throughout changing the term “Total Contract Price” to “Total Evaluated Price, excluding the fixed fee on NTE CLINs.”

L.6.3 has been updated to state that the 20% goal will be evaluated against the Total Evaluated Price, excluding the options CLINs with NTEs provided.

Document Name/Number/Revision No.: Solicitation W900KK-16-R-0005

Reference Section/Paragraph: L.4.2, L.5, Table 2

Question/Comment:

Do the page count limits shown in Table 2 include the front matter for the volume (Cover page, Table of Contents, List of Figures, etc)?

Yes, the page count limitations include the cover page, table of contents, and lists of figures.