Questions_and_Answers_(22_June_2017).pdf

Solicitation W91CRB-17-R-0019 Question and Answers

On behalf of the Office of the Director, Assistant Secretary of the Army – Procurement (O DASA-P), ACC‐APG thanks you for your questions.

Q&A’s included in this document are not considered part of the Solicitation. Offerors shall abide by the instructions and terms of the Solicitation. This document does not alter the terms of the Solicitation.

All answers to prior Q&A’s are superseded.

1) PWS Section 1.0, page 14, references “Army Business Intelligence BiXtractor’’ as one of the technologies. Could the Government please clarify if this is a custom Army technology or a JPMO supported solution? Please provide more details on this tool and how it is used in the current SPS-A architecture.

The BiExtractor is a custom Army technology that extracts data from the contract writing systems into the Army Contracting Business Intelligence System (ACBIS) and is migrating to the Virtual Contracting Environment (VCE). It is not part of the SPS-A architecture or supported by the Army Response Team. It will be managed by VCE as is ACBIS is being decommissioned this year.

2) PWS Section 2.3.2 indicates that Operational Support activities for SPS-A are documented in the

SPS-A Operations and Maintenance SOP. Would the Government please provide offerors a copy of this SOP to provide bidders with a clearer expectation of performance and workload requirements?

Yes the SPS-A Operations and Maintenance SOP will be provided as attachment 7.

3) PWS Section 2.3.2 states that “The contractor shall provide initial response to end-user requests for assistance within one hour.” Would the government clarify one hours from ticket creation or Tier 1 escalation to Tier 2, if this is for all Tier 2 tickets or just priority tickets, and whether this is during normal business hours or extended hours?

Initial response to the end-user requests is one hour after the ticket is assigned to Tier 2. This responsiveness is during work hours (0800-1700) for all Tier 2 tickets and is during after hours support for Severity 1/Priority 1/Critical issues after hours. See change to PWS paragraph 2.4.2.

4) PWS 2.3.5 requires the ongoing support of the POA&M and overall RMF process for SPS-A.

Would the Government please share the current RMF certification status for SPS-A?

SPS-A has a current Authority to Operate (ATO) for three years which expires April 25, 2019. We have recently completed our annual review.

5) The PWS makes several references throughout to Severity Levels 1 and 2 for SPS-A tickets.

However, the metrics report included as Attachment 5 to this solicitation do not provide a definition or historic ticket count of either Severity Level. Would the Government please provide this information so offerors can more accurately predict future workload?

The following charts provide the SPS-A Tier 2 ticket count for 2016 and Jan-May 2017 across the time of day and criticality.

The following chart shows the amount of SPS-A Tier 2 tickets during these same time periods across the day of the week:

6) PWS paragraph 2.4.3.1 requires offerors to establish a dedicated phone number for users to call during the End of Fiscal Year. Would the Government clarify how this phone line should be coordinated with AESD as preferred single point of contact for the field?

The AESD process does not change, tickets are still assigned in accordance with the policy. The field users will still call the AESD for their service need and are not given the dedicated phone number. For clarification, the users referenced in the PWS under 2.4.3.1 would be ODASA(P) staff who manage the program and other Tier 2 agents on other platforms (e.g., VCE), and if needed the AESD Customer Service Manager. Few calls are made to this number.

7) Can Government please provide information on any ongoing or planned technology (software or hardware) updates that need to be considered?

The Government has no plans to upgrade hardware updates in the near term however many be considering a NetScaler replacement if required due to end of life support by the vendor, and various software pieces will be upgraded in the near future, including but not limited to JAVA and the newer approved versions of SPS. As SPS is sun setting, the cost benefit of any upgrade must be carefully examined in accordance with cost, schedule and performance. It is the

Government’s requirement to have the vendor track the environment and provide the necessary analysis and recommendations to maintain it throughout this contract’s period of performance.

8) Section 3.0 of the PWS provides personnel requirements for key and non-key personnel. Many of the non-key personnel descriptions include statements indicating that “More than one” or “At least three” must meet certain skill set, experience, or knowledge requirements. Would the government please clarify if there are minimum levels of effort (LOE) required on this FFP contract. If the Government intends to evaluate the proposed LOE, would they please indicate which Section M criteria will be used?

a) Volume 6 (1)(a) states The labor categories and hours provided in the cost Model are the minimum allowed. Adding more labor categories and/or hours is allowed.

b) The Government intends to evaluate the criteria stipulated in Section L.

c) The hours proposed will be set as the minimum hours required to perform.

9) The description for Senior Technical Subject Matter Expert positions includes the requirement that more than half the team must possess a “complete understanding of the DoD implementation of the NIST Risk Management Framework (RMF) as it applies to obtaining and maintain the SPS platform’s Authority to Operate (ATO) on DoD networks.” Will the Government please define the specific experiences, skills, or certifications that are necessary to demonstrate a “complete understanding?”

At a minimum, the proposed resource should show a depth in understanding the RMF, highlight project experience leading technical teams through the process of achieving an ATO, experience working with Security Control Assessment Validation (SCA-V) assessors, a deep understanding of the controls and how to address them, how to assess a system, conduct annual reviews, etc.

10) The Government states in Section L, paragraph 4 that they may “waive informalities and minor irregularities in the offers received.” Would the Government please define what constitutes “informalities and minor irregularities.” This language would allow for the Government to apply unequal review and implementation of the numerous compliance requirements provided in Section L.

This language has been removed

11) The Section L instructions for Volume 2 – Technical Approach require offerors to provide their technical approach for 16 (a-p) different requirements. Would the government please specify the PWS reference applicable to each of the 16 requirements?

The requirements and submission for evaluation should be evident in section L and may not directly relate to a particular section of the PWS.

12) Requirements H, K, and L, within the Section L instructions for Volume 2 are primarily requirements that the offeror have an understanding of various technologies or Army prescribed processes. Would the Government clarify these requirements to indicate that the offeror must proscribe an approach to manage and implement these technologies within the SPS-A environment?

The Government is looking for the proposed technical approach in managing and implementing the technologies in the program. See additional language in managing the introductory sentence to Volume 2 (letter a).

13) Paragraph “E” of the Section L instructions for Volume 3 – Program Management specifies that

Key Personnel resumes must include their Company/Service/Organization affiliation. Paragraph F of the same section requires a Labor Compliance matrix stating whether proposed personnel are incumbent employees, new hires, or subcontractor personnel. Would the Government please indicate the Section M evaluation criteria that will be used to assess this information to determine “Acceptable” vs “Unacceptable” ratings.

Page 83. Acceptable means all 8 items (a through h) from Section L, Factor II are discussed in sufficient detail; the proposal meets the requirements and indicates an acceptable approach and understanding of the requirements.

The table at the bottom of page 83 for the “Acceptable” definition has been revised to be Factor II, and not Factor I.

14) Paragraph “F” of the Section L instructions for Volume 3 – Program Management requires offerors to submit a Labor Compliance matrix. Would the Government please clarify that this requirement applies only to Key Personnel? Alternately, would the Government please indicate provide a more detailed explanation in Section M of how this will be evaluated for “Acceptable” and “Unacceptable” rating?

The matrix is required for Key and Non-key personnel. The Government will utilize the matrix to assist in the evaluation of the key personnel proposed to ensure they meet the minimum criteria outlined in the PWS.

15) Would the Government please combine requirements E and F within the Section L instructions for Volume 3 – Program Management. These appear to be requesting the same information.

Yes these are now combined.

16) Paragraph 1(a) of the Section L instructions for Volume 6 – Price Proposal state that minimum hours are included in Attachment 6 - Cost Model. However, the model provided does not include any government provided hours. Would the Government please release a revised and updated Attachment 6?

The Cost model includes government provided hours. Please see the “Labor – Cost Detail” Tab has hours. Specifically 34,160 per year in column K.

17) The Section M evaluation criteria for “Price Factor – V” indicates that “The basis for determining the lowest priced offer will be the cumulative sum of all CLINs from Section B of the Solicitation, except the Transition In CLIN and any Not Separately Priced CLINs, for the Base Year and Option

Years.” Would the Government please clarify how the Lowest Price Offer determination is used in the Trade-Off analysis? Also, would the Government clarify if Transition-In costs are calculated as part of the Total Evaluated Price?

The reference to the lowest price offer has been removed. The Government is utilizing trade-off as a basis for award. The section has been revised to read, The total evaluated price will be the cumulative sum of all CLINs from Section B…”

Transition-In costs are not part of the Total Evaluated Price.

18) Section M states that offers will be “judged by an overall assessment of the evaluation criteria and other considerations specified in the Request for Proposal.” Would the Government please clarify what other considerations will be evaluated other than those clearly articulated in Section M?

This language has been removed.

19) Would the Government please amend the Description of “Acceptable” in the Program

Management section? As written, it appears to apply to the Technical Volume and the specification of “10 items” does no match either Technical or Program Management instructions in Section L.

The description for Acceptable and Unacceptable for Program Management and Corporate Experience has been revised on the amended solicitation.

20) Section M states that “The Government’s evaluation of offerors’ proposal will be limited to information provided within proposals submitted, with the exception of Price and Past Performance, where data extrinsic to the offerors’ proposals may be considered.” Would the Government please clarify what “extrinsic” data will be used to evaluate the Price volume?

Extrinsic data will not be utilized to evaluated price. This reference to price has been removed.

21) The Government’s presolicitation notice on 06 March 2017 indicated that the incumbent contractor is Suntiva, LLC, operating under contract number W91CRB-14-C-0017. It appears that this solicitation also includes requirements from Booz Allen Hamilton’s incumbent support, operating under contract number W91QUZ-06-D-0019-0010. Would the Government please identify any other current contracts that are being consolidated as part of this solicitation?

This is accurate, and there are no other consolidated contracts that are a part of this solicitation.

22) Volume 1 - Executive Summary – Can the Government please confirm that the Section K Reps and Certs are not part of the 15-page count?

Section K is not part of the page count for volume 1.

23) Volume 3 - Program Management – Item “b” asks for the offeror to submit an organizational structure and management plan that demonstrates its ability to perform the requirements of the PWS, QASP and QCP. However, item “h” asks for the offeror to submit an organizational and management plant to demonstrate successful performance on the contract. We respectfully request the Government to clarify what is expected for items “b” and “h” respectively.

Letter h) requirement has been removed.

24) Volume 3 - Program Management – The Government has indicated that there will be a 30-day transition-In period, however it does not speak to Transition-Out. Is there a transition-out requirement for the incumbent contractors?

There a transition-out requirement for the incumbent contractors.

25) Volume 5 – Past Performance – The proposal page count table on page 75 of 85 indicates that

Past Performance should be a Maximum of 5 citations (limited to two pages per citation).

However, on page 80 of 85, it says “The offeror shall provide narrative descriptions of three (3) of “Recent” and “Relevant” contracts, and these shall be the same three (3) contracts used for Corporate Experience.” Can the Army please clarify if the Past Performance Volume should contain 3 or 5 citations?

The table on page 75 is revised to remove maximum of 5 citations the requirement is 3 citations.

26) Volume 5 – Past Performance – The instructions say “A “Relevant” contract is defined as a

Department of Defense contract having similar dollar value, duration, scope/requirement, and technical complexity to the proposed requirement of the PWS. They also say, “The past performance cited does not have to be related to Army but should reflect experience with similar Department of Defense activities”. Can the Government please clarify if a relevant past performance is one that is a DOD contract or a contract that is “similar”?

Per the solicitation, a “Relevant” contract is defined as a Department of Defense contract having similar dollar value, duration, scope/requirement, and technical complexity to the proposed requirement of the PWS.”

27) The referenced section of the PWS states that the IMS Deliverable shall be delivered on the 1st business day of each month, however Section 5.0 CDRL List (CDRL 001) states that the IMS shall be delivered on the 10th of each month or prior business day if the 10th falls on a weekend of Holiday. Please reconcile the delivery dates for consistency (suggest the 10th of each month to coincide with other monthly deliverables). PWS, Section 2.1.1 Schedule Management and Section 5.0 CDRL List, page 17, page 37

Concur with the 10th of the month. Revised Section 2.1.1 of the PWS.

28) In the Minimum Education and Years of Experience section pertaining to the Senior and Mid- Level Functional Subject Matter Expert personnel requirements, there does not seem to be a delineation of experience requirements between the Senior and Mid-Level SME requirements.

Would the Government consider changing the experience requirement to 5+ years’ experience for Senior-Level SMEs, and 2+ years’ experience for Mid-Level SMEs, to align with the work requirements set forth in the PWS? PWS, Section 3.0 Personnel, page 31

Concur with 5 and 2 years respectively and revised Section 3.0 of the solicitation

29) The RFP states Senior and Mid-Level Functional Subject Matter Experts must have a Bachelor’s Degree in Business, Computer Science or a related field. Will the Government consider, in place of the stated education requirement, a candidate with a Bachelor’s Degree in different field than outlined with extensive SPS experience? Section 3.0 Personnel, page 32

The degree field has been removed, and changed to no specified degree

30) In the Minimum Education and Years of Experience section pertaining to the Senior Technical Subject Matter Expert personnel requirements, would the Government consider changing the experience requirements to Minimum 3+ years’ experience overseeing of SPS enterprise implementations or its underlying technology components (e.g., SAP Sybase Adaptive Server Enterprise, webMethods Integration and Broker Server technologies), to more closely align with the work requirements set forth in the PWS? PWS, Section 3.0 Personnel, pages 32-33

Concur and updated Section 3.0 in the PWS.

31) The first line/Deliverable listed within CDRL 010 seems to be a duplicate of CDRL 004. Please consider removal of this duplicate item for clarity. PWS, Section 5.0 CDRL List, pages 37-39

The Government has reviewed the section and the items will not be removed the CDRLs are not duplicates.

32) Volume 1 – Executive Summary has a 15 page limit for the volume. Request that the Item (8) Organizational Conflict of Interest Identification Plan, Item (12) Completed Section K Representations and Certifications, and the responses required for Subcontractors/Team Members/Affiliates be excluded from the Volume 1 page count. Section L, Proposal Volumes Table, Volume 1 – Executive Summary, page 75

The items will be excluded and the page count for the executive summary volume has been reduced. Please see solicitation for revisions.

33) This table entry shows Offerors are permitted to have a maximum of 5 contract citations.

However, Volume 4 – Corporate Experience (page 79 of 85) and Volume 5 – Past Performance (page 80 of 85) both clearly refer to “up to three (3)” contracts. Please confirm that only three

(3) contract citations are to be provided in both Volumes 4 and 5. Section L, Proposal Volumes table, Volume 5, Factor IV – Past Performance, page 75

See answer for question 25.

34) There is a conflict between paragraph 8 on page 75 and Block 9 of the SF 33. Block 9 of the SF 33 directs that the Offeror submit 1 original and 1 copies to the depository located at the address in Block 9 at ACC-APG. However, Section L requires that Offerors submit all six (6) volumes of their proposals electronically using the FedBizOps website. Please confirm that proposals are to be submitted only electronically. Section L, 8., page 75 and SF 33, Block 9

Per section L of the solicitation proposal shall be submitted electronically to FedBizOps.

35) Is there a file size limit for the electronically submitted volumes? Section L, 8, page 75.

I do not know of a file limitation for uploading to FedBizOps. There is a helpdesk number to call if you have any difficulties.

36) Is electronic submission in PDF or WORD.doc format? Section L.8, page 75

Either is fine. No scanned pdf file. The Cost Model must remain in excel format unlocked.

37) Should the Government provided forms (attachments) be re-formatted to the TNR 12 point?

Section L.9, page 75

No, any Government provided form should not be re-formatted.

38) Is it permitted for graphics and tables to use at 8 point, ARIAL NARROW? Section L.9, page 75

Per instruction on page 75, “Each paragraph shall be separated by at least one blank line. Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size no less than 8-point and may be landscape.”

39) Will the Government consider modifying the definition of “Recent” (pertaining to offerors’ experience) to “…one that is performed for at least two (2) years, and was an active contract at any point during the past five (5) years…” Section L, Volumes 4 (Corporate Experience) and 5 (Past Performance), pages 79-80

Yes. The criteria has been reduced to at least 2 years.

40) Section 2.d is blank. Suggest the Government supply any missing text or remove the heading.

Section L. Volumes Description, Volume 4 – Corporate Experience, page 80

2.d will be deleted

41) This lead-in section requires the submission of an OCI Risk Mitigation Plan. Please confirm this is the same plan required under the Volume 1 requirement for an Organizational Conflict of Interest Identification Plan. Section M, B. BASIS FOR AWARD – (Section M), page 82

Yes this is the same plan.

42) In the table defining “Unacceptable” Rating, the statement “or is not awardable” does not seem to make sense in the context of evaluating this factor. Also, the last statement “Offeror does not demonstrate a clear understanding of the PWS” does not seem to apply to this factor either given that a clear understanding of the PWS requirements is to be demonstrated in Volumes 1 and 2 (Factors I and II). Please clarify. Section- M, Corporate Experience Factor III (Acceptable or Unacceptable), page 84

See answer to question 19.

43) The RFP states “Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable”. ”This could be interpreted that an offeror who does not have any past performance could be evaluated favorably.

Did the Government intend that in the context of Acceptability/Unacceptability, “unknown “shall be considered “unacceptable”? Section M, Past Performance Factor – IV (Acceptable or Unacceptable), page 84

The language at the bottom of page 84 pertaining to Past Performance will not be changed, and is consistent with DoD procedures.

44) The Government intends to evaluate Transition In pricing separately for “fair and reasonableness”. Will the Government consider evaluating the Transition price as part of the Price Factor? Section M, Price Factor – V, page 85

No, the Government will not consider evaluating the Transition price as part of the Price Factor The Government intends to evaluate Transition In pricing separately for “fair and reasonableness”.

45) The RFP requires a Past Performance POC Matrix to be included in the volume. However, page

75 states the volume includes a maximum of 5 citations at 2 pages per citation. Is the required Past Performance POC Matrix not included in the page count? Or should each citation have its own POC Matrix within the 2 page limit for the citation?

Page 75 will be revised to remove the maximum of 5 specification. The POC Matrix shall be included with Volume 5 Past Performance.

46) Does the Government require a list of acronyms and abbreviations? If so, will this list be per volume and outside any page count limitations? Section L, page 74

A list of acronyms and abbreviations is not required. They should be defined within the document submitted.

47) The stated quantity and unit of measure are “12” and “months”, respectively, and the minimum number of hours listed in the Pricing Volume Spreadsheet indicates that this CLIN should be priced to assume 12 months. However, cell A22 of the Pricing Volume Spreadsheet states “Base Year (Months 2-12)”. Is this an error in cell A22? If the Government’s intention was for the transition period (CLIN 0006) to be one month, and CLIN 0001 to be 12 months, please consider revising block A22 of the Pricing Volume to reflect “Months 1-12”. RFP CLINs 0001, 0006; Pricing Volume Spreadsheet, “Labor – Cost Detail” Tab, Lines 22-34

There is not an error in cell A22, CLIN 0001 is revised from 12 months to 11 months and CLIN 0006 is for a Transition-In of 1 month.

48) In accordance with Note 3, vendors will add a column for Overhead. Should this column be inserted after Column G, “Total Compensation”?

No. It should be inserted BEFORE “Total Compensation.” Overhead will be calculated by multiplying the overhead rate by the Hourly Base Pay Rate (column e). Total Compensation will be the sum of Hourly Base Pay Rate (column e), Fringe (column f), and Overhead (which will be column g). Total Compensation will become column h.

49) Does Note 4 refer to Column H, “Fully Burdened Labor Rate Before the Application of Prime’s Profit”? If so, should vendor add a column for G&A between Column H and Column I, “Profit”, or should Column H include G&A without the insertion of a new column? Pricing Volume Spreadsheet, “Labor – Cost Detail” Tab, Notes and Inserting Columns

Yes, Note 4 does refer to Column H, “Fully Burdened Labor Rate Before the Application of Prime’s Profit.”?

Offeror can insert a G&A column before Profit.

50) Completed Performance Risk Assessment Questionnaires are currently due to the Contracting Office on 19-June-2017. As of 9-Jun-2017, answers to questions regarding this solicitation have not been posted to FedBizOpp, nor is there a deadline for questions. We respectfully request that the due date for Performance Risk Assessment Questionnaires be extended, as answers to questions may impact the contracts for which past performance responses are required.

The deadline for submitting the completed Performance Risk Assessment Questionnaires on 19- June-2017 will not be changed at this time.

51) Background: If an offeror has a two year and a half year contract that ended in September of 2014 and the follow-on, re-competed contract is a five-year contract for the same customer, then the offeror would have 4.25 years of performance on the same work for the same customer but would not meet the 3 year performance requirement as written in the solicitation since the two contracts are technically separate. Will the Government please clarify the meaning of performance. Does this mean an offeror must have three years of performance completed at the time of proposal submission, or that the contract length must be 36 months or greater?

The time criteria for Past Performance and Corporate Experience has been revised please see amended solicitation.

52) In the case of a Government re-compete of the work for the same customer/organization, may an offeror reference both contracts as one citation to make meet the three years of performance relevancy criteria?

The time criteria for Past Performance and Corporate Experience has been to (2) two years.

Citations can not be combined.

53) The tabe in Section L.7 of the solicitation indicates that Factor IV – Past Performance has a maximum of 5 past performance citations. However, the instructions for Volume 4 – Corporate Experience and Volume 5 – Past Performance state that offerors shall provide three (3) recent and relevant contracts. Would the government please clarify by amending the Instructions for Volume 4 to read “Offerors shall submit a narrative description of at least three (3) and a maximum of five (5) contracts…“ and Volume 5 to read “The offeror shall provide narrative descriptions of at least three (3) and a maximum of five (5) of “Recent” and “Relevant” contracts...”? Making this adjustment removes contradictory instructions, does not impose an additional burden on offerors, and provides the government with additional data to assess risk and make a more informed determination of whether offerors can perform as required.

See answer to question 25.

54) Section L of the solicitation defines “relevant” contracts, in part, “as one that is performed for at least (3) three years.” We respectfully request that the Government either remove the requirement for a three year duration or change it to be “at least one (1) year.” We recommend that a duration of one year is sufficient to adequately assess the contractor’s performance, inclusive of phase-in and operational support capabilities. Additionally, the three year requirement is highly prejudicial for this small business set-aside and unfairly restricts capable small businesses from submitting compliant offers. Specifically, market research indicates that Suntiva’s incumbent contract identified in the solicitation (W91CRB14C0017) is the only SPS-A related contract held by a small business that meets both the “recent” and “relevant” requirements.

See answer to question 28.