ATTACHMENT_17_MISTE_SOLICITATION-QUESTIONS-COMMENTS_FORM_FINAL_ANSWERS_AMEND_0002_06-03-2019.pdf

RFP DOCUMENT

REFERENCED

LOCATION OF

VERBIAGE

REFERENCED

INDUSTRY QUESTION(S)/COMMENTS INDUSTRY CONCERN(S) INDUSTRY

RECOMMENDATION(S)

Government response

Clearly list the name of the Draft RFP specific document: (Example:

MISTE Base SOW)

List the page, paragraph (Example:

Pg 45, Section L.2.5)

Briefly describe your question or clarification for comment. what is your concern? Which statements or clarifications would you like the Government to provide, if any?

RFP Sec L.1.2.4 (Page 120)

Sec M.1.2.4 (Page 138)

These sections and the Government answers to questions are still vague regarding the submittal of an actual Contractor Data Management Plan

L.1.2.4 requires a "Contract Data Requirement List (CDRL) per DI-MGMT-82228 (Contractor's Data Management Plan (CDMP)"

M.1.2.4 states the Government will evaluate

We believe the Government wants an actual CDMP submitted with the proposal.

Please verify we have made a correct YES, the Government wants the CDMP submitted with the Prospsal. RFP updated

RFP Sec L. A.1.c (page 114)

This section states the CDRLs identified under L.1.2.4 is excluded from page count

While the language of Section L refers to a CDRL, we believe it is the Government's intention that the language is referring to the actual CDMP, and not merely a CDRL

We believe the Government wants an actual CDMP submitted with the proposal, and that it is to be excluded from the Section B page count

Please verify we have made a correct interpretation

YES, CDMP is to be submitted with proposal as stated:

CDPM per (DI-MGMT-82228) excluded from the page count and will be evaluated per M.1.2.4.

RFP Sec L.3.2 (Page 125)

Sec M.3.1.g (Page 144)

Amendment 001 to the RFP deleted the yearly tables

However, Section M still states the Government is going to evaluate small business participate on a yearly basis

Since the yearly tables have been eliminated from Section L, there is no way to provide annual projections

Please delete the yearly evaluation language from Section M.3.1.g

Although , yearly tables removed, the yearly requirement remains per L.3.1 and M.3.1. g

General/Overall Are the times noted absolute, or can the contractor propose earlier deliveries for each phase?

These revisions seem that the government does not want deliveries earlier than the end of the CLIN/CDRL times. This would extend many of the achievable times significantly and since this is a CPFF DO, would dramatically increase the proposed cost.

N/A Offerors may propose early deliveries; however, offerors should outline any task order impact to cost, schedule, and/or performance if the Government is not able to accept early delivery. For the Cost/Price Volume, the proposed cost shall be reflective of the required Delivery Dates within the RFP.

Attachment_00_Final_RFP_

W900KK-19-R-0006

Page 40 under Section I- Contract Claused Clauses Incorporated by Reference Page 71,80 (duplicate) under Section I-Contract Clauses, Clauses incorporated in full text Page 120 L.1.2.4, L.1.3.4 and page 121 L.1.4.5 under Section L- Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders

During our Data Rights evaluation it came to our attention that Clause 252.227-7013 was omitted from page 40 under the Clauses Incorporated By Reference and was duplicated on both page 71 and 80 of the RFP attachment. In our evaluation we would like clarification on whether 252.227-7014 was intentionally omitted under the Section I Clauses Incorporated In Full Text or was it supposed to be inserted in place of the duplication of 252.227-7013?

Our concern is that there is an omission in the Instructions to collect the Data Assertions against the Computer SW DFARS Clause 252.227-7014.

In addition, DFARS Clause 252.227-7013 was ommitted from the Section I Clauses incorporated by Reference on page 40.

Do you want Data Assertions provided for Computer SW per DFARS Clause 252.227-7014 to be included in the proposal submission?

RFP updated to include 252.227.7014 by full text. Duplicate clauses deleted. L&M revised to reflect this update.

Sheet1