FINAL Questions and Answers W91CRB-23-R-5011.docx

Questions and Answers for: W91CRB-23-R-5011 (FICS)

DATE 10 JULY 2023

1. Ref: Section B, CLIN 001

Question: Delivery date for CLIN001 is not applicable due to the fact that that the award date is not known. As it is written, it currently requires delivery of all hardware 24 months from July 9, 2023. This date is inconsistent with a 5-year program requiring Follow-on Technical support (warranty) for 2 years after final acceptance. This would infer completion of hardware delivery 36 months after contract award. Inasmuch as compliance with FICS RFP requirements has now become dependent on the IMS, please change the CLIN001 date to be consistent with the RFP at 36 months after contract award. This will make that timeframe consistent with the SOW.

Response: The Government does not expect all hardware (138 CNs + 8 NMS) to be delivery 24 months after the contract is awarded. However, the SOW indicates a SSD (Small Scale Demonstration) is required 18-24 months after the contract is awarded. The SOW has been updated and CLIN 0001 has been updated to show a final delivery date of 5 years after contract award or 1,825 days.

2. Ref: SOW, Sub-Factor 4 Quality Plan

Question: C.7 states: "The contractor shall submit a Quality Program Plan with the contract proposal." CDRL F001 states "Item 12: Initial draft Quality Program Plan will be delivered 90 days after the contract is awarded." Please confirm that CDRL F001 should be submitted 90 days after contract is awarded and not with the proposal submission. If it is to be included with the proposal, please confirm that this plan can be submitted outside of the page limit.

Response: CDRL F001, Quality Assurance Management/Plan (initial draft) is to be delivered 90 days after the contract is awarded. The Sub-Factor 4, Quality Plan is not the same as the CDRL deliverable, it is a description to address the FICS quality.

3. Ref: L.1.a, Proposal Files

Question: Please confirm that the required 'Summary Abstract' in each volume can be submitted outside of the page limit.

Response: A “brief abstract of the file” should be limited to no more than two pages. The “abstract” will be counted towards the Offeror’s page limit.

4. Ref: Section L, 52232-31

Question: 52.323-31 states "(a) The financing terms proposed by the offeror shall be a factor in the evaluation of the offerors proposal."Financing is not described in Section M. Please provide how financing will be evaluated.

Response: Financing will not be evaluated and shall not be addressed in section M. FAR 52.232-31 provides the Offeror with the opportunity to request financing.

5. Ref: Section L, Small Business

Question: The Evaluation Factor identifies Appendix D as the Small Business Participation Plan, but solicitation does not include this Appendix D. Please provide and confirm this will not be counted towards the 5-page limit.

Response: The reference to Appendix D has been removed. Please see updated section M.

6. Ref: L.1.a, Proposal Files

Question: Question 4 in the Draft Q&A states that 11x17 pages are allowed for large graphics, however the RFP was not updated to state this is allowed. Please update the RFP to indicate that 11x17 pages are allowed.

Response: 11x17 has been added to Solicitation.

7. Ref: L.1.a, Proposal Submission

Question: The RFP states "All proposals shall be submitted electronically to: Michael.f.siwek.civ@army.mil" prior to the due date and time for proposals. Offerors shall not submit password protected documents." The SOW is marked CUI. Question 7 from the Draft Q&A states that proposals should be encrypted.

Is Contractor Secure File Transfer acceptable (vs DoD SAFE)?

Response: This requirement has been updated to allow for password protection. Passwords will need to be provided at the time of proposal submission.

8. Ref: Section M, Sub-Factor 4: Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) Question: M.1 states: "Sub-Factor 4: Integrated Master Schedule (IMS): This sub-factor evaluates the offerors plan to address the execution schedule, to include critical program milestones, dependency dates, production, and qualification testing to meet the SOW requirement. Evaluation will focus on the Completeness of IMS addressing all aspects/phases of effort (engineering design/development, production, testing, training, fielding, CDRLs)."

Since the evaluation of SF4 is based on completeness of an IMS, we recommend that a full IMS be required to be delivered with the proposal and is not included in the page count.

Response: Agreed. However, IMS not to exceed 5 pages.

9. Ref: L.4, Small Business

Question: L.4 states: Additional Important Note for Other Than U.S. Small Businesses ONLY. Small Business Subcontracting Plan is Required (FAR 52.219-9).

Please confirm that the required Small Business Subcontracting Plan is a separate document and not included in the 5-page limit for the Small Business Participation Plan. Please indicate how the Small Business Contracting Plan document is to be submitted.

Response: The Small Business Subcontracting Plan is a separate document from the Participation Plan and is not included in the 5-page limit.

10. Ref: Section I, Contract Clauses

Question: For thoroughness, please add DFARS 252.219-7004 -Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Test Program) to the Section I clauses.

Response: DFARS 252.219-7004 has been added.

11. Ref: Section M, Factor 4: Small Business Participation

Question: Section M in the RFP states that the Small Business Participation will be rated as Acceptable or Unacceptable. Acceptable is defined as "Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objective." While Unacceptable is defined as "Proposal does not meet small business objectives".

It is assumed that the objective SB percentages (%) identified, including those % for SB subcategories, are goals and Offerors are to provide their best effort and plan toward those goals. Please confirm that this interpretation is correct and the SB % goals identified are not absolute percentages that must be met or exceeded in order to be deemed Acceptable and eligible for award. If this interpretation is correct, the description of "Unacceptable" conflicts with the intent of the Army's evaluation. Recommend changing the language describing Unacceptable as follows: "Proposal does not indicate an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives".

Response: The Government agrees. Additional language added to section M that address this concern. “The offeror shall include a brief justification for any proposed goals that are less than five percent (5%). Goals of 5% or greater do not need additional narrative or justification.”

12. Ref: Section H, Special Contract Requirements

Question: As drafted, the reference requirements are ambiguous and appear to conflict. Whereas OT&E is expected to involve the vast majority of FICS equipment delivered under the contract, and there is no clear date for its completion of OT&E from which a 2-year warranty is to start, please clarify the contract warranty requirement in terms of a specific duration beginning with product acceptance by the Army.

Response: OT&E is a Taiwan testing event, and USG/contractor shall support this testing event. The 2-year warranty starts after the DT&E is completed, and restoral is done.

13. Ref: Section I, Contract Clauses

Question: The RFP omits FAR 52.227-1 Authorization and Consent.

We recommend this clause be included.

Response: It will not be included.

14. Ref: Section L, Small Business

Question: Based on Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFARS) Appendix DD, the requirement for Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Institutions should be removed from Sections L and M since this is not a Defense Research Program.

Response: After a review of Appendix DD Historically Black Colleges and Universities has been removed. The requirement of Historically Black Colleges and Universities has been removed from Section M.

15. Ref: W91CRB-23-R-5011

Question: Due to the volume of questions submitted below, the size and significance of the FICS effort, and the upcoming holiday, among other constraints, will the Government please provide a 30 day extension to allow Offerors to prepare comprehensive proposal documents that satisfy all the Government's needs?

Response: A 14-day extension will be granted.

16. Ref: W91CRB-23-R-5011

Question: Will the Government please clarify if 11" x 17" foldout pages count as 1 page or 2 pages towards the allowable page count in the technical volume?

Response: 1 page.

17. Ref: W91CRB-23-R-5011

Question: Per Section L "Additional Important Note for Other Than U.S. Small Businesses ONLY. Small Business Subcontracting Plan is Required (FAR 52.219-9)". Should this be included as an attachment to Volume IV Small Business Participation? If so, will the Government please confirm this attachment does not count towards the allowable page count?

Response: The Small Business Subcontracting Plan will not count towards the allowable page count.

18. Ref: Attachment 0001 SOW

Question: Requirement 1.3.3 indicates "... the FICS Network Management System site shall be communications ready in 30 minutes, with a crew of 5 personnel) (threshold)...".

Requirement 2.2.11 indicates "The FICS Network Management System (NMS) shall be capable of being established and “ready to communicate” in 30 minutes, with a crew of five (5). (Objective)".

It appears that the threshold and objective requirements are the same. Will the Government please clarify if the 30 minute requirement is a threshold or objective requirement?

Response: Para. 1.3.3 stated ". A FICS Communications Node site shall be communications ready in 15 minutes (objective). (Key Performance Parameter) The FICS node site shall be staffed by a crew of 4 personnel (objective). (Key Performance Parameter). Additionally, the FICS Network Management System site shall be communications ready in 30 minutes, with a crew of 5 personnel) (threshold). Para. 2.2.11 will revise to "...NMS shall be capable of being established and "ready to communicate" in 15 minutes, with a crew of five (5) (Objective).

19. Ref: Attachment 0001 SOW

Question: Requirement 1.3.3 indicates "... The FICS node site shall be staffed by a crew of 4 personnel (objective). (Key Performance Parameter) ...". Please clarify the intent of this requirement, since the number of crew members is not within the contractor's control. Was this requirement included purely as a parameter for achieving the threshold and objective set up time requirements?

Response: This is a Key Performance Parament directed by Taiwan MND. It is based on the setup requirement on the dated MSE/IMSE system. The threshold and even the objective setup time requirement can be achieved with the up-to-date FICS system and proper training.

20. Ref: Attachment 0001 SOW

Question: Paragraph 7.0 states: "The contractor shall submit a Quality Program Plan with the contract proposal...". Is it the expectation of the Government that this is a standalone document outside of the Technical Proposal, or is it expected to be included within the Technical Proposal and subject to the 60-page limit? If it should be a standalone document, please provide format requirements and page limitations.

Response: Para. 7.0, Requirement for Quality Assurance Management, Quality Program Plan is a CDRL deliverable and is required after the contract is awarded. The Quality Program Plan under 7.0 should not be provided as part of the Offeror’s proposal.

21. Ref: W91CRB-23-R-5011

Question: Will the Government please clarify that it is acceptable to include the TFE list in the offeror’s price proposal?

Response: TFE is “Taiwan Furnished Equipment” and will be provided to the awardee at the time of award. This is not contractor furnished equipment and should not be priced.

22. Ref: Attachment 0001 SOW

Question: Will the Government please confirm contractor format is acceptable for Technical Manuals?

Response: Per CDRL H001 “Initial deliver of the draft technical manuals will be determined after the Post Award Conference. USG requires 30 days for review and comment.”

23. Ref: Attachment 0001 SOW

Question: The Ethernet encryption device to protect Wide Area Network (WAN) transmissions in the CN shelter creates 2 information domains: encrypted and unencrypted. Does the Government intend for a single NMS functionality across both domains?

Response: The FICS encryptor is provided by Taiwan. A single NMS functionality across both domains not at the same time. Please clarify the question?

24. Ref: W91CRB-23-R-5011

Question: Given that the SOW is now marked CUI with the Government please provide the required CUI Control Block information that offerors must include in CUI responses to the RFP. In addition, will the Government please identify which specific sections of the SOW should be considered CUI?

Response: All sections of the SOW should be considered CUI.

CUI Control Block Information:

Controlled by: Communications-Electronic Command (CECOM) Controlled by: Security Assistance Management Directorate (SAMD) CUI Category(ies): OPSEC Limited Dissemination Control: FEDCON, CUI//REL TO USA, TWN POC: Jason A. Acosta, 443-861-2918

25. Ref: W91CRB-23-R-5011

Question: Will the Government please clarify where SOW requirements 9.0, 12.0, 16.0, 17.0, 18.0, 19.0 and 20.0 should be accounted for within the specified CLIN structure?

Response: CLIN 0001- SOW Para 18.0 and 19.0 CLIN 0002 - SOW Para 20.0 CLIN 0003 -SOW Para 12.0 CLIN 0004 - SOW Para 9.0 CLIN 0005 – SOW Para 17.0 Para. 16.0 is NOT under any CLIN. It is a Taiwan MND mandated requirement.

26. Ref: W91CRB-23-R-5011

Question: Bearing in mind the RFP's inclusion of Clause 52.229-6, are there any relevant exemptions for this project for any Taiwanese taxes, duties, or fees (e.g. Taiwan VAT, import duties, stamp duties, etc.)? If so, what specifically do the exemption(s) cover?

Response: Relevant exemptions can be found in the last note of the solicitation SOW IAW with FAR 52.229-6 clause.

27. Ref: W91CRB-23-R-5011

Question: Will the Government confirm that they (the US Government) will act as the importer of record into Taiwan?

Response: The vendor will be acting as the importer of record.

28. Ref: W91CRB-23-R-5011

Question: Section L states, "Offerors shall submit a Program Plan" and "Evaluation will focus on the Completeness of IMS addressing all aspects/phases". Is it the expectation of the Government that this is a standalone document outside of the Technical Proposal, or is it expected to be included within the Technical Proposal and subject to the 60-page limit? If it should be a standalone document, please provide format requirements and page limitations.

Response: Program Plan is not a standalone document and should be included as part of the Technical Proposal. The Program Plan is included in the 60-page limit.

29. Ref: W91CRB-23-R-5011

Question: Section L states "Offerors shall submit a MFP". Is it the expectation of the Government that this is a standalone document outside of the Technical Proposal, or is it expected to be included within the Technical Proposal and subject to the 60-page limit? If it should be a standalone document, please provide format requirements and page limitations.

Response: The MFP is not a standalone document and should be included as part of the Technical Proposal. The Program Plan is included in the 60-page limit.

30. Ref: W91CRB-23-R-5011

Question: The paragraph numbering in the Attachment 0001 SOW Word document differs from the paragraph numbering in the Description/Specifications/Work Statement portion of the W91CRB-23-R-5011 pdf document (e.g., paragraph 1.3.3 in the former document is numbered 1.2.3 in the latter document). Will the Government please confirm offerors should be utilizing the numbering in the Attachment 0001 SOW Word document in their proposal responses?

Response: ATTACHMENT 0001 if for refence only. Offerors should comply with Section C of the Solicitation.

31. Ref: W91CRB-23-R-5011

Question: Section L.1.a states that all proposals shall be submitted electronically via email. However, due to the requirement to encrypt proposal submittals due to the nature of CUI content, will the Government provide a DoD SAFE link for this submission?

Response: The Government will not be providing a DOD Safe link. All proposal submittals shall be sent by email.

32. Ref: SOW 2.3.6; 19, Rigid Walled Shelters

Question: SOW 2.3.6 states: The contractor shall provide the Field Information Communications System (FICS) Security Sub-System (SSS) eight (8) rigid walled shelter (RWS). SOW 19 states: The contractor shall be responsible for the acquisition and delivery of all Field Information Communications System (FICS) Rigid Walled Shelter (S-788 Type-III).

A total of 154 (138 CN, 8 NMS, and 8 shelters to Taiwan). 2.3.6 implies that the transit cases will be stored in these 8 rigid walled shelters, which we do not believe is the Governments intent.Please revise the SOW to remove section 2.3.6 since the 8 rigid walled shelters are included in section 19.

Response: SOW Para. 2.3.6 stated, “the contractor shall provide eight (8) rigid walled shelter (RWS) (S-788 Type III) for the FICS Security Sub-System (SSS). It didn’t imply the contractor is required to provide transit cases for the SSS. Para. 2.3.6 mainly describes the SSS’s configuration.

33. Ref: SF 1449, L.1, Content Requirements

Question: SF1449, Boxes 23 and 24 which are to be completed by Offerors, are Offerors' prices. L.1 Content Requirements states: Technical submissions shall not contain any pricing information.

SF 1449 will be provided in Volume V Solicitation, Offer & Award Documents and Certifications/Representations. Please confirm that prices (blocks 23 and 24 of the SF 1449) can be included in Volume V.

Response: Nothing should be provided in SF1449, Boxes 23 and 24. All prices shall be placed in the Schedule as noted.

34. Ref: W91CRB-23-R-5011

Question: Section L Section II indicates offerors "shall submit a list of no more than three (3) Government contracts". "Relevant efforts" as defined in Section L Section 2.d however includes "similar system installations in an operational commercial or Government controlled network". Will the Government please confirm past performance is not strictly limited to contracts awarded by the US Government?

Response: It is not restricted to Government only.

35. Ref: CDRL FICS B001 INTEGRATED LOGISTIC SUPPORT PLAN

Question: Will the Government please confirm that DID 80095 (published in 1985) referenced in CDRL B001 Integrated Logistics Support Plan is the most current?

Response: DI-ILSS-80095 is the most suitable for the FICS integrated logistics support plan (ILSP), and it has not been superseded by other DID

36. Ref: W91CRB-23-R-5011

Question: The solicitation indicates "The offerors proposed prices and financing terms shall be evaluated to determine the cost to the United States of the proposal using the interest rate and delivery schedule specified elsewhere in this solicitation". Will the Government please provide the applicable interest rate and any other relevant information regarding how the Government will compute these costs?

Response: The rate is not included elsewhere in the Solicitation. The rate will only be evaluated if the Offeror proposes Financing Terms in accordance with the FAR.

37. Ref: W91CRB-23-R-5011

Question: The pass/fail nature of the Small Business Participation plan may be interpreted as though any participation percentage below the identified targets for any Small Business subcategory will render an offeror’s proposal unacceptable overall; please confirm whether this is the Government’s intent? The narrative for Factor 4 indicates “The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror meets or exceeds the goals,” seemingly a computation-based assessment, but the color-coded evaluation criteria define ‘Acceptable’ or Green as “…indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the objectives,” a more qualitative assessment. For example, in a hypothetical $100 proposal, if an offeror proposes $25 of overall small business subcontracting, $6 of which is for WOSB, $1 for SDVOSB, $5 for SDB, and $0 for HUBZONE, will evaluation Factor 4 be evaluated ‘Unacceptable,’ or Red, due to the offeror not meeting or exceeding the goal for certain subcategories? Would this render the offeror's overall proposal unacceptable?

Response: The Offeror would be considered as “Unacceptable” because they do not meet the 5% for each Socioeconomical category. The Offerors proposal would then be rendered “Unacceptable”.

38. Ref: W91CRB-23-R-5011

Question: SOW section 2.1.6.1.1.1 indicates "The IP-PBX Switch shall support the Session Initiation Protocol (support both TCP/UDP SIP trunk standards), H.323 protocol, Media Control Protocol (MGCP), and Signal Connection Control Protocol (SCCP) standards for audio-visual sessions on the packet network". Will the Government please clarify if SCCP is a layer protocol? Or is this meant to refer to SCCP (Skinny Communications Control Protocol)?

Response: SCCP is Skinny Client Control Protocol in IP-PBX switch. SOW Para. 2.1.6.1.1.1 will be revised to reflect the correct description.

39. Ref: W91CRB-23-R-5011

Question: SOW section 2.1.6.1.1.1 indicates "The IP-PBX Switch shall support the Session Initiation Protocol (support both TCP/UDP SIP trunk standards), H.323 protocol, Media Control Protocol (MGCP), and Signal Connection Control Protocol (SCCP) standards for audio-visual sessions on the packet network". MCGP and SCCP are older protocols and drive offerors to a more complex IP-PBX solution (higher initial cost and lifecycle cost) and a single Vendor (vendor lock). It is strongly recommended that the SOW be reverted to the original wording "The IP-PBX Switch shall support the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and H.323 protocol standards for audio-visual sessions on the packet network" which allows offerors the ability to propose more cost competitive options that are still fully capable of supporting interoperability through SIP.

Response: The Media Control Protocol (MGCP) and Skinny Client Control Protocol (SCCP) are specifically required by customer and will not be removed.