B08.02 W9132T21R0008 Q&A. #3.docx

Questions regarding PWS W9132T21R0008 “Utility Monitoring and Control System (UMCS) Retrofit Implementation Plan”

1. The schedule in some places does not allow sufficient time for contractor response. For example, the Draft Recommended Proprietary Control System Report is due 1 month after award, and the Final Recommended Proprietary Control System Report 2 months after award – leaving 30 days between the Draft and Final. But there is a 3 week govt. review period, leaving the contractor 10 days to respond to comments, schedule and execute a comment resolution meeting, and prepare a Final version. That seems unreasonable – particularly if the comments are presumed to be so extensive as to require a 3 week government review period. This 3 week review within a 1 month turn-around is repeated in multiple locations.

In reviewing the deliverable schedule, the cited example is indeed an issue and there should have been 2 months between these deliverables, not one. (Note that other deliverables are already 2 months apart, so the cited example appears to be the only one with this issue.) However, see W9132T21R0008 amendment 1 that was added 8/19/2021. The Technical volume submission instructions and evaluation criteria have been revised and we believe that those revisions should address and resolve your concerns. Offerors are now able to propose an alternate interim milestone schedule to complete the effort in full within 12 months.

2. Similarly, there is a requirement to update the UMCS Retrofit Implementation Guide based on the results of the site visit. But the Draft Update is due concurrently with the Draft Assessment Report (both 8.5 months after award). If the Assessment Report is to feed into the Updated UMCS Retrofit Implementation Guide, how can these documents be developed concurrently? Why would the government wish to review two documents with similar content; wouldn’t it make more sense for the government to comment on the Draft Assessment Report, then the contractor be allowed time to incorporate those comments both into the Final Assessment Report and the Draft Updated UMCS Retrofit Implementation Guide? We suggest that the Updated UMCS Retrofit Implementation Guide lag 1 month behind the Assessment Report, so that lessons learned in the Assessment Report can be properly incorporated into the Updated UMCS Retrofit Implementation Guide.

We also feel that the revisions in W9132T21R0008 amendment 1 should address and resolve the concerns here.

The expectation is that there will not be a large number of redundant comments. The assessment report is intended to document what was done and conclusions/lessons learned. The redline of the Implementation Plan is to make changes to address those lessons. While related, these are different goals and reviewing both at the same time was viewed as beneficial. However should the contractor disagree they should address in their revised schedule.

3. Will govt. provide CAC to contractor personnel for access to Army sites and systems? Where contract requirement call for access to Army enterprise data systems or control systems, will govt. provide timely access (sponsor user accounts, etc.) to these systems? Will contractors be required to obtain any IA certifications or training above and beyond what is currently in the PWS in order to obtain this access to systems?

Related requirements are found in Section C.5 and C.9 of the solicitation, and we have confirmed that these are accurate. There is no CAC requirement; the Government will assist contractor in arranging for access to sites. Direct network/computer access by the contractor; the Government will facilitate when access to software is required. IS certification or training beyond those indicated are not required.

4. To what extent will the selected control systems have reasonable documentations (up to date as-built drawings, etc.)?

Unknown, and the expectation should be what contractor experience indicates is typical at Army installations. The effort is intended to test a “real-world” solution, so documentation of what info is/is not available (and documentation of resulting restrictions on implementation due to missing information etc.) is an expected part of the assessment report. The contractor is not expected to generate all missing information, but rather to document when information is not available (at all, or not available with a reasonable amount of effort).

5. Condition assessment of existing control systems is best conducted from a user interface. To what extent will the selected control systems be accessible from an existing front end? Will systems lacking a front end have local display panels? If there is no user interface into the existing system, how can the contractor properly evaluate its functionality and ability to be integrated into a basewide UMCS? Is the contractor expected to provide the necessary vendor-specific engineering tools to query the system?

Again, the expectation should be what contractor experience indicates is typical at army installations, and the contractor is not expected to add system functionality (interfaces) just to obtain information or to make vendor-specific tools. We expect that some level of user interface – a local display panel, a GUI or a configuration tool on a laptop – will be available for most systems. Government will facilitate access to GUIs and tools by providing Government personnel to log in and navigate the system.

6. Does “offeror” mean “prime contractor” in the context of the Contractor Qualifications and Experience Volume evaluation criteria, and the “All offerors” section directly below the Contractor Qualifications and Experience Volume evaluation criteria on pg. 47 of 48 of the RFP? Does the prime contractor have to demonstrate capabilities in all five areas listed?

The experience and qualifications can come from any member of the offeror’s proposed team