3rd DRAFT RFP W91CRB-24-R-0003 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS.pdf

# Proprietary (Y/N)

Document Page Number Reference Questions/Comments/Feedback from Potential offeror Government Response

1 N DRAFT RFP W91CRB-24-C-0003 3 JAN 2024.pdf 3-8 Section B, L, and M The Government refers to CLINs 0002, 0003, 0007, 0008, and 0009 as CPFF and as CPFF Term Level of Effort under the SUPPLIES/SERVICES description of each CLIN. The Government indicates in Section L and Section M that CPFF Completion type task orders may also be issued. Will the Government please clarify whether all work is intended to be issued under those CLINs described as CPFF, and update the solicitation language to remove references to CPFF Completion?

This IDIQ contract is a hybrid, CPFF LOE and Completion Forms, Cost Reimbursable, and FFP Type contract. All CLINs in Section B will be updated to confirm the CLIN type provided in the final release of the RFP.

2 N DRAFT RFP W91CRB-24-C-0003 3 JAN 2024.pdf 17 Section G, Level of Effort - CPFF The Government indicates a contractor providing less than 90% level of effort over a period will receive a fee penalty and indicates the Government can direct a contractor to provide 110% level of effort over a period without increasing fee. This language appears to be counterintuitive to CLIN 0001 PI and CLIN 0010 EDEP Government incentives to outperform PI intervals at < 95% cost efficiency. Will the Government please confirm these upper and lower bounds of level of effort performance are not applicable to CLIN 0001 PI and CLIN 0010 EDEP incentives negotiated for each PI period?

Section G, Level of Effort applies to CLINs on orders that are CPFF, Level of Effort and not CPFF Completion CLINs. PIs will be ordered via CLIN 0001 of the base IDIQ contract, which are CPFF Completion Form. See final RFP.

3 N DRAFT RFP W91CRB-24-C-0003 3 JAN 2024.pdf 90 L.2, Volume III: Factor 3 The Volume III Cost/Price instructions require Offerors "provide a separate, additional cost/price proposal version reflecting only the costs/prices associated with the technical requirements of the TO/DO." The current cost template does not appear to accommodate TO/DO pricing. Will the Government please confirm that they will provide a unique Excel cost model attachment for TO/DO pricing evaluation? If the Government does not intend to provide a unique template, we recommend allowing Offerors to customize the current template to conform to TO/DO requirements.

The first TO/DO issued against this IDIQ contract will be the 6-Month Transition In. Additionally, the final RFP will provide DO/TO Pricing Instructions in Section G.

4 N DRAFT RFP W91CRB-24-C-0003 3 JAN 2024.pdf 100 L.2, Volume VI: Factor 5, Element 1 The instructions for Volume VI: Factor 5 - Program Management Plan state, "The Government’s estimated manpower and teaming mix to support the Government provided road map (Attachment XX) can be found in RFP Attachment XX. Offerors may choose to propose this mix but Offerors who choose to do so will still be required to explain how this teaming mix and staffing approach will be executed in performance as required in Volume VI – Oral Demonstration." Will the Government please confirm that Offerors will not be evaluated higher for bidding the Government's estimated manpower and teaming mix?

The Government is no longer providing a Government provided Roadmap for the Program Management and Cost/Price Factors. The final RFP will reflect this update. Therefore, the question, "Will the Government please confirm that Offerors will not be evaluated higher for bidding the Government's estimated manpower and teaming mix?" no longer seems valid.

5 N DRAFT Cost Model AMP_IPPS-A 03 JAN 2024.xlsx - - The detailed information required in the DRAFT Cost Model requires Offerors to detail information that is already provided as part of Forward Price Rate Proposal (FPRP) submission to DCMA/DCAA. Will the Government please consider allowing contractors to provide DCMA/DCAA supplemental attachments instead of completing tabs (h) Fringe Benefit Worksheet, (i) Fringe Worksheet, (j) Overhead Worksheet, and (k) G&A Worksheet?

No, see final RFP in Section L, Volume III.9c. which states"Forward Pricing Rate Proposal (FPRP), Approved Provisional Rates Proposal or other statement of current rates including three (3) years of Incurred Cost Submissions to DCAA detailing pools and bases (by expense accounts) information that validates the calculations or three years historical actual detailing pools and bases (by expense accounts) information that validates the calculations. Forecasted pools and bases for the current year (by expense account) shall also be submitted."

6 N DRAFT Cost Model AMP_IPPS-A 03 JAN 2024.xlsx - Tab (g) Licenses-Travel-ODC CostDtl Section B of the RFP defines CLIN 0006 as "84-Month Ordering ODCs." The PWS requires Offerors, in Section 1.6.12 Other Direct Costs (ODCs), to "acquire necessary ODC items associated with the services of the contract with written, advances, approval of the COR." The Cost Model attachment includes an ODC tab ((g) Licenses-Travel-ODC CostDtl); however, many other CLINs are listed with a total ODC cost of $12,172,363 without an itemization of services provided. Will the Government please clarify what Offerors are expected to provide for CLIN 0006 and the ODC CLIN breakout with NTE amounts in tab

(g) of the Cost Model?

Offerors are instucted to propose provided plug numers along with applicable indirect charges IAW Section L, Volume III.12: "Offeror shall include the exact Government-prescribed estimates for Licenses, Travel and Other Direct Costs (ODCs) in its cost proposal. The Government-prescribed estimates included in the cost model are the total costs for Licenses, Travel and ODCs exclusive of any Offeror’s associated indirect charges. The Offeror shall propose any applicable indirect charges on the Licenses, Travel and/or ODC estimates in accordance with its disclosed accounting practices."

7 N DRAFT RFP W91CRB-24-C-0003 3 JAN 2024.pdf 10 Section F Section F describes the delivery date for CLIN 0002 (84-Month Ordering Program Mngmt), 0004 (84- Month Ordering Licenses ODC), 0005 (84-Month Ordering Travel ODC), and 0006 (84-Month Ordering ODCs) as "POP 19-APR-2024 TO 18-APR-2025." Will the Government please confirm that CLINs 0002, 0004, 0005, and 0006 may be issued during the 84-month period of performance (POP) and are not limited to a POP between 4/19/2024 and 04/18/2025?

Section F, CLINs will reflect 84 month ordering periods in the final RFP.

8 N DRAFT RFP W91CRB-24-C-0003 3 JAN 2024.pdf 89 L.2, Volume III: Factor 3 The Volume III Cost/Price instructions define the period of performance (POP) for transition-in as six months; however, Section F defines the delivery dates for CLIN 0008 (84-Month Ordering Transition - In) as "12 wks. ADC." Will the Government please confirm that the POP for CLIN 0008 Transition-In will be six months?

Projected delivery dates in Section F will be updated in the final RFP.

9 N DRAFT RFP W91CRB-24-C-0003 3 JAN 2024.pdf 89 L.2, Volume III: Factor 3 The Volume III Cost/Price instructions define the period of performance (POP) for transition-out as "four-month (120 days);" however, Section F defines the delivery dates for CLIN 0009 (84-Month Ordering Transition - Out) as "84 mths. ADC." Will the Government please confirm that the POP for CLIN 0009 Transition-Out will be four months (120 days)?

Projected delivery dates in Section F will be updated in the final RFP.

10 N DRAFT RFP W91CRB-24-C-0003 3 JAN 2024.pdf 97, 100 L.2, Volume V: Factor 4 The instructions for Volume V: Factor 4 - Oral Demonstration limit Offerors "to no more than six (6) personnel in attendance at the Oral Demonstration." Page 100 of the same section, however, states, "The maximum number of Offeror presenters for Phase 2 is limited to seven (7) individuals." Will the Government please confirm that Offerors may have seven individual presenters for the Phase 2 Oral Demonstration?

This contradictory information will be revised in the final RFP.

11 N IPPS-A Army Military Payroll PWS - DRAFT - 3 JAN 2024.pdf 21 1.6.8.1 The Government changed PWS Program Manager requirement 1.6.8.1.h to be inclusive of commercial and state experience but did not do the same for 1.6.8.1.i. We recommend the Government please change 1.6.8.1.i to "IT experience in either commercial, Federal, DoD, Army, IC, or State programs" for the sake of consistency and to prevent the exclusion of otherwise qualified and experienced candidates.

PWS 1.6.8.1.i will be updated to match 1.8.8.1.h as requested.

Request for Information - Questions/Comments/Feedback on DRAFT RFP

DISCLAIMER: The final released RFP supercedes any answers or information provided in this Q&A.

12 N DRAFT RFP W91CRB-24-C-0003 3 JAN 2024.pdf 100 L.2, Volume VI: Factor 5, Element 1 Administrative: The CLIN instructions state, "For CLINs 0001 and 0002, 0005, 0006, 0010: The Offeror shall propose the labor categories and hours necessary to support Transition-In activities (Base IDIQ CLIN 0001), Program Management activities (Base IDIQ CLIN 0002), Production Operations Transition (Base IDIQ CLIN 0005), Training Delivery (Base IDIQ CLIN 0006) and Transition – Out (Base IDIQ CLIN 0010)." Will the Government please confirm that this instruction should instead refer to CLINS Transition-In 0008, Production Operations Transition 0007, Training Delivery 0003, and Transition-Out 0009?

Prior Factor 5 - Program Management Plan has been revised in the final RFP to Factor 4. Associated CLINs to Factor 4 have been revised accordingly in the final RFP.

13 N DRAFT RFP W91CRB-24-C-0003 3 JAN 2024.pdf 100 L.2, Volume VI: Factor 5, Element 1 Administrative: The instructions for Volume VI: Factor 5 - Program Management Plan, as part of the Element 1: Staffing Plan, require the inclusion of resumes and letters of intent for each of the corresponding key personnel (five + one Alternate Program Manager). This section is limited to six pages.

Will the Government please confirm that each resume (not to exceed two pages) and letter of intent (not to exceed one page) are excluded from the six-page limit for this Element?

Confirmed. Each resume (not to exceed two pages) and letter of intent (not to exceed one page) are excluded from the six-page limit for the noted Element.

14 N DRAFT RFP W91CRB-24-C-0003 3 JAN 2024.pdf 100 L.2, Volume VI: Factor 5, Element 1 Administrative: The instructions for Volume VI: Factor 5 - Program Management Plan, as part of the Element 1: Staffing Plan, require Offerors to provide a resume and letter of intent "for each Key Personnel outlined in PWS Section 1.7.8." The latest version of the PWS does not include Section 1.7.8. Will the Government please confirm Offerors' resumes and letters of intent should align to each Key Personnel requirement outlined in PWS Section 1.6.8?

Yes. Should state PWS Section 1.6.8. This will be updated in the final

RFP.

15 N DRAFT RFP W91CRB-24-C-0003 3 JAN 2024.pdf 106 M.C, Factor 3 Administrative: The evaluation criteria for Factor 3 Cost/Price states, "The Government will evaluate to ensure that all proposed costs are fair, reasonable, realistic and for unbalanced pricing." Will the Government please confirm that this should state, "The Government will evaluate to ensure all proposed costs are fair, reasonable, realistic, and balanced"?

This sentence will be updated in the final RFP.

16 N DRAFT RFP W91CRB-24-C-0003 3 JAN 2024 Page 86 of 109 Corporate Experience For part k, please clarifiy "of the COR/COTR if the COR/COTR." This sentence will be updated in the final RFP.

17 N DRAFT RFP W91CRB-24-C-0003 3 JAN 2024 Page 17 of 109 Section G Please change "Monthly average charged direct labor rates shall be no more than 5% of proposed/negotiated rates" to "Monthly average charged direct labor rates shall be no more than 5% higher than proposed/negotiated rates."

This sentence will be updated in the final RFP.

18 N DRAFT RFP W91CRB-24-C-0003 3 JAN 2024 Page 100 of 109 Element 1: Staffing Plan The RFP states that "the Offeror shall propose its own teaming mix to support execution of the Government Provided Notional Planning Interval (PI) Roadmap (not Offeror Proposed Roadmap as required for Volume IV – Oral Demonstration)." However, offerors are also responsible for proposing a roadmap in Volume V. Should offerors proposed staffing align to our proposed roadmap rather than the notional roadmap?

Please review the final RFP, which allows for offerors to propose their own unique estimates for the labor requirements associated with the Performance Work Statement within the Cost Model, Solicitation Attachment 2.

19 N DRAFT RFP W91CRB-24-C-0003 3 JAN 2024 Page 90 of 109 Factor 3, #2 The RFP States that "Offerors shall propose their own unique estimates for the labor requirements associated with the Performance Work Statement within the Cost Model, Attachment TBD." However, instructions for Factor 5 state that "The Government’s estimated manpower and teaming mix to support the Government provided road map (Attachment XX) can be found in RFP Attachment XX. Offerors may choose to propose this mix but Offerors who choose to do so will still be required to explain how this teaming mix and staffing approach will be executed in performance as required in Volume VI – Oral Demonstration."

The first statement indicates that unique staffing solutions are encouraged while the second statement encourages using a Government-provided labor mix. Will the Government clarify which statement is correct?

Please review the final RFP, which allows for offerors to propose their own unique estimates for the labor requirements associated with the Performance Work Statement within the Cost Model, Solicitation Attachment 2. The draft Government notional road map is removed. The required Offeror roadmap for submission shall be applicable to Factors 3, 4 and 5 and the intent for the offeror submitted roadmap is to remain the same proposed roadmap across all factors.

20 N DRAFT RFP W91CRB-24-C-0003 3 JAN 2024 Page 90 of 109 Factor 3, #2 The RFP states "Work under the Planning Interval (PI) CLINs shall be proposed in terms of each offeror’s estimate for standardized Small, Medium, and Large Agile Development teams, and each offeror shall include their estimate for the number of sprint iterations each team size will execute in each contract year for each Planning Interval as required by the Government-provided notional Planning Interval (PI) roadmap (PWS Reference)." Will the Government clarify what constitutes a small, medium, and large team?

It is the Offeror's responsibility to determine / define their agile team sizes (small, medium and large) and the corresponding labor mix/composition based on the offerors proposed agile software methodology approach.

21 N DRAFT RFP W91CRB-24-C-0003 3 JAN 2024 Page 106 of 109 Factor 3 - Cost/Price This section states "This evaluation criteria shall apply to each offerors’ base IDIQ contract proposal as well as the first TO/DO proposal as required by the solicitation." There does not appear to be a separate IDIQ and TO/DO PWS. Please confirm only an IDIQ proposal is required.

See answer to question 3 above.

22 N DRAFT RFP W91CRB-24-C-0003 3 JAN 2024 Page 106 of 109 Factor 3 - Cost/Price This section states "This evaluation criteria shall apply to each offerors’ base IDIQ contract proposal as well as the first TO/DO proposal as required by the solicitation." How many task orders are expected to be issued under this IDIQ?

The quantity of delivery orders issued has not been determined, however, at this time, the Government is contemplating issuing delivery orders on a yearly basis after completion of an initial delivery order for transition in.

23 N DRAFT Cost Model AMP_IPPS-A 03 JAN 2024 N/A Tab (a) There is currently no place to input Material Handling rates in the indirect rate table. Will the Government consider adding a column for this indirect element?

As stated in the cost model's embedded instructions, offerors may revise the number of rows, columns, and/or formulas to reflect nuances in the offeror's accounting and estimating systems, or to accurately address all areas of the PWS requirements. However, it is requested that the general format and formulas be maintained and carried forward into any added fields/columns/rows as appropriate for cost/price analysis and contract administration purposes.

24 N DRAFT Cost Model AMP_IPPS-A 03 JAN 2024 N/A Tab (a) There is currently no place to differentiate between potential Overhead rates based on place of performance. Will the Government consider adding a column for this indirect element?

As stated in the cost model's embedded instructions, offerors may revise the number of rows, columns, and/or formulas to reflect nuances in the offeror's accounting and estimating systems, or to accurately address all areas of the PWS requirements. However, it is requested that the general format and formulas be maintained and carried forward into any added fields/columns/rows as appropriate for cost/price analysis and contract administration purposes.

25 N DRAFT Cost Model AMP_IPPS-A 03 JAN 2024 N/A Tabs (b) and (c) Will the Government consider consolidating these two tabs into one (1) Direct Labor Rate schedule for the entire proposal?

Tabs (b) and (c) will remain separate.

26 N DRAFT Cost Model AMP_IPPS-A 03 JAN 2024 N/A Tabs (d) and (e) There is currently no place to calculate Material Handling rates in the labor detail tabs. Will the Government consider adding a column for this indirect element?

As stated in the cost model's embedded instructions, offerors may revise the number of rows, columns, and/or formulas to reflect nuances in the offeror's accounting and estimating systems, or to accurately address all areas of the PWS requirements. However, it is requested that the general format and formulas be maintained and carried forward into any added fields/columns/rows as appropriate for cost/price analysis and contract administration purposes.

27 N DRAFT Cost Model AMP_IPPS-A 03 JAN 2024 N/A Tabs (d) and (e) There is currently no place to differentiate between potential Overhead rates based on place of performance. Will the Government consider adding this functionality to the labor detail tabs?

As stated in the cost model's embedded instructions, offerors may revise the number of rows, columns, and/or formulas to reflect nuances in the offeror's accounting and estimating systems, or to accurately address all areas of the PWS requirements. However, it is requested that the general format and formulas be maintained and carried forward into any added fields/columns/rows as appropriate for cost/price analysis and contract administration purposes.

28 N DRAFT Cost Model AMP_IPPS-A 03 JAN 2024 N/A Tab (f) This tab does not allow offerors to propose our own unique estimates for the labor requirements associated with the Performance Work Statement within the Cost Model. Will the Government consider removing this tab to allow the offerors the ability to propose a labor mix we feel is best suited to accomplish the goals outlined in the Solicitation?

The composition of Tab (f) flows from Tab (b) which allows for customization to each offerors unique estimates for labor requirements.

29 N DRAFT Cost Model AMP_IPPS-A 03 JAN 2024 N/A Tabs (i), (j), and (k) Are these tabs required if offeror's have DCAA-approved Provisional Billing Rates? Yes. See also RFP in Section L, Volume III.9c. which states, "Forward Pricing Rate Proposal (FPRP), Approved Provisional Rates Proposal or other statement of current rates including three (3) years of Incurred Cost Submissions to DCAA detailing pools and bases (by expense accounts) information that validates the calculations or three years historical actual detailing pools and bases (by expense accounts) information that validates the calculations. Forecasted pools and bases for the current year (by expense account) shall also be submitted."

30 N AMP_IPPSA_2nd_Draft_RFP_Question_and_Answer_8_JAN_2024.xlsx N/A Row 52 / Question 50 Recommend the Government focus less on CONUS versus OCONUS by making a distinction between cleared contractor personnel living in the 50 US states versus cleared contractor personnel living in US territories or foreign countries.

The Government is unclear of the question being asked.

31 N DRAFT RFP W91CRB-24-C-0003 3 JAN 2024 Page 27; Page 40, 5th paragraph

L.2 Volume III Factor 3 Cost Price; item 7 submission of supporting documents for direct labor rates; Section M Factor 3 Cost/Price

In the context of the government solicitation, which mandates the submission of supporting documents for direct labor rates, if the Offeror's proposal includes a lower-tier subcontractor who exclusively operates on a fixed-price commercial basis and does not traditionally provide cost build-up information, please specify what type of supporting information would be acceptable for/from a commercial entity providing services on a fixed-price basis to comply with the solicitation requirements.

See Section L.2. Volume III Factor 3 Cost/Price paragraphs 5 - 7.

32 N DRAFT RFP W91CRB-24-C-0003 3 JAN 2024 98 Section L, Volume V: Factor 4 - Oral Demonstration

Would the Government please clarify what is meant by the term "equivalent" in the context of the following requirement "Font size for text on slides shall be no smaller than 12pt Arial or equivalent"?

Oral Demonstration Factor will be updated in the final RFP. "Equivalent" will be replaced with "Times New Roman".

33 N DRAFT RFP W91CRB-24-C-0003 3 JAN 2024 98 Section L, Volume V: Factor 4 - Oral Demonstration

Would the Government consider reducing the minimum font size for Text to 10pt Arial (from 12pt Arial) and the minimum font size for Graphics/Tables to 8pt Arial to provide Offeror's with more room to sufficiently describe their proposed solutions?

Please see revisions in the final RFP.

34 N DRAFT RFP W91CRB-24-C-0003 3 JAN 2024 98 Section L, Volume V: Factor 4 - Oral Demonstration

Will the Government please clarify whether the font size for Tables should follow the guidelines for graphics (i.e. no smaller than 10pt Arial) for Oral Demonstrations?

Yes. For the Oral Demonstration factor tables should follow the same font size. This will be updated in the final RFP.

35 N DRAFT RFP W91CRB-24-C-0003 3 JAN 2024 98 Section L, Volume V: Factor 4 - Oral Demonstration

Will the Government please clarify whether Screenshots are excluded from Oral Demonstration font size restrictions?

They are not excluded.

36 N DRAFT RFP W91CRB-24-C-0003 3 JAN 2024 98 Section L, Volume V: Factor 4 - Oral Demonstration

Will the Government please confirm Company logos are excluded from Oral Demonstration font size restrictions?

Company logos are excluded.

37 N DRAFT RFP W91CRB-24-C-0003 3 JAN 2024 98 Section L, Volume V: Factor 4 - Oral Demonstration - Element 2

Will the Government permit Offeror's to demonstrate their end-to-end Agile processes within the Offeror's proposed Agile/CI/CD tools for the purposes of presenting their process workflow, metrics, dashboards, progress tracking, dependency tracking and backlog management (to include the interconnectivity across tools) for the across the Orals Demonstration including Elements 1-3?

Yes. Note, Offerors are cautioned to be aware of time permitted for briefing slots of elements.

38 N DRAFT RFP W91CRB-24-C-0003 3 JAN 2024 98 Section L, Volume V: Factor 4 - Oral Demonstration - Element 3

Are Offeror's permitted to insert short videos into briefing slides to demonstrate proposed approaches for specific requirements?

Yes.

39 N DRAFT RFP W91CRB-24-C-0003 3 JAN 2024 99 Section L, Volume V: Factor 4 - Oral Demonstration - Element 3

Will the Government please clarify expectations with respect to what Offeror's will present for Element 3 (Roadmap Pivot Challenge)? Are Offeror's expected to develop briefing slides during the caucus period in preparation for presenting to the Government, or alternatively is the expectation that the Offeror speaks to previously submitted slides for this section? Will Offeror's be able to demonstrate the Roadmap Pivot Challenge within their proposed Agile tools using the provided Wi-Fi connectivity?

Details regarding Roadmap Pivot Challenge will be provided to offerors upon invitation to Oral Presenations.

40 N DRAFT RFP W91CRB-24-C-0003 3 JAN 2024 97, 100 Section L, Volume V: Factor 4 - Oral Demonstration

Can the Government please confirm whether the maximum number of Offeror presenters is 7 (seven)?

RFP Page 100 states that "The maximum number of Offeror presenters for Phase 2 is limited to seven (7) individuals.", however RFP Page 97 references that "Offerors are limited to no more than six (6) personnel in attendance at the Oral Demonstration." Can the Government please clarify the requirement?

See answer to question 10 above.

41 N DRAFT RFP W91CRB-24-C-0003 3 JAN 2024 100 Section L, Volume V: Factor 4 - Oral Demonstration

Will the Offeror be allowed to include the "reach back" employees identified in the Orals Element 3 Challenge to join the TEAMS dial-in for the entire Orals Demonstration? Or will the MS Teams call be limited to only recording and Government purposes.

Limited to only recording.

42 N DRAFT RFP W91CRB-24-C-0003 3 JAN 2024 98 Section L, Volume V: Factor 4 - Oral Demonstration

Will the Government please confirm that the Program Roadmap is not subject to the Graphic related font size requirements (10pt Arial) specified on RFP Page 98 due to the size (11X17) requested?

This Section will be updated to allow 8pt for tables and graphics.

43 N DRAFT RFP W91CRB-24-C-0003 3 JAN 2024 98 Section L, Volume V: Factor 4 - Oral Demonstration

Would the Government consider allowing Offeror's to provide both a slide version, 11x17 handout version and a poster size version of the Program Roadmap to improve legibility thereby allowing Offeror's to point to specific elements of the Program Roadmap while discussing their approach to Element 1?

Offerors may bring to the Oral Demonstration a poster size (not larger than 2’x3’) version of the Program Roadmap for the presentation.

44 N DRAFT RFP W91CRB-24-C-0003 3 JAN 2024 92 Section L, Volume III: Factor 3 - Cost/Price - #10

Will the Government please clarify the intent of CLIN 0010 - "Expedited Delivery and Enhanced Performance (EDEP)"? What are the Government's expectations with respect to how this CLIN will be used and priced?

Please review PWS Sections 1.5.1 and Volume III.9 in the final RFP.

45 N Draft PWS Draft 3 17 1.6.8 Key Personnel: 1.6.8.1 - Program Manager (PM)

Can the Gov provide examples of "Agile Project Manger Certifications" for the Key Personnel Program Manager position? Would a PMI-PMP taken after 2021 suffice as an Agile Project Manager Certification as ~60% of the new PMP exam is agile-based/focused?

PWS paragraph 1.6.8.1 has been updated to state:

j. Project Management Professional (PMP) Certification (e.g., Program Management Institute (PMI)-PMP) required

k. Leading SAFe Certification required

l. Agile Project Manager Certification desired (e.g., PMI Agile Certified Practitioner (ACP),

m. Agile Product Owner Certification desired

46 N DRAFT RFP W91CRB-24-C-0003 3 JAN 2024 85 and 88 p. 85 L.2 Proposal Contents, p. 88

VOLUME II: FACTOR 2 – SMALL

BUSINESS PARTICIPATION (5

PAGES)

Draft RFP Page 85 Section L.2 says Volume II will include the SBPCD and the Subcontracting Plan Page 88 says the page limit for Volume II is 5 pages but “All supporting documentation is excluded from the page count.”

Please clarify, is the Subcontracting Plan subject to the 5 page limit?

The Small Business Subcontracting Plan is not included is the page limit, but the SBPCD is subject to page limit.

47 N DRAFT RFP W91CRB-24-C-0003 3 JAN 2024 85 and 88 p. 85 L.2 Proposal Contents, p. 88

VOLUME II: FACTOR 2 – SMALL

BUSINESS PARTICIPATION (5

PAGES)

Draft RFP Page 85 Section L.2 says Volume II will include the SBPCD and the Subcontracting Plan Page 88 says the page limit for Volume II is 5 pages but “All supporting documentation is excluded from the page count.”

Please clarify, is the Attachment 000X – SBPCD subject to the 5 page limit?

The SBPCD is subject to the page limit.

48 N DRAFT RFP W91CRB-24-C-0003 3 JAN 2024 85 and 88 p. 85 L.2 Proposal Contents, p. 88

VOLUME II: FACTOR 2 – SMALL

BUSINESS PARTICIPATION (5

PAGES)

Draft RFP Page 88 says "The Offeror shall provide explanation and documentation to support small business participation percentages." Please clarify, if a Teaming Agreement does not specify a minimum workshare, will the completed Attachment 000X – SBPCD suffice as "documentation to support small business participation percentages?"

Yes, a fully completed SBPCD will suffice as documentation, but the Government is requesting partnerships such as letter of commitments, teaming agreements be supplied to document the business relationship. The final RFP is updated to include this.

49 N DRAFT RFP W91CRB-24-C-0003 3 JAN 2024 99 Section L, Volume V: Factor 4 - Oral Demonstration - Element 2

Would the Government consider updating the Orals Demonstration Element 2 - Agile Methodology Demonstration Staffing Plan bullets to be a continuation of the existing bullets (e.g. a-k instead of a-g + a-

d) to ensure correct slide mappings to the RFP.

No.

50 N Draft PWS Draft 3 38 Line 1494 of the draft PWS mentions use of the IPPS-A baseline Audit tool. Will the government please clarify which tool or capability this is referencing? Is this tool or capability in use today?”

AuditVault, SYSAUDIT, and DDDAUDIT are the tools currently in use today. In addition, the IPPS-A Audit team has a tool that they built and it will be provided to the AMP Contractor.

Oracle eGRC is being procured for the IPPS-A baseline and will be available to the AMP Contractor.

51 N DRAFT RFP W91CRB-24-C-0003 3 JAN 2024 86 Volume I Factor 1 Agile Corporate Experience

Can offerors include a brief intro 1 page intro given the new requirement for Volume I where the Government states " Offerors shall submit three (3) examples of contracts or task orders to demonstrate experience with executing requirements of a similar scope and complexity to those required in the PWS, to include Agile methodologies. The below areas (items 1-5) shall be demonstrated across the three (3) examples and are not required to be demonstrated in each of the three (3) examples" ?

Offerors may use the total page limit for Volume I - Agile Corporate Experience in whatever manner they feel best will support their proposed corporate experience.

52 N DRFP Section M 103 of 110 A. Basis for Award The Government states that an offer will be selected based on a comparative analysis between Factor 3 - Cost/Price and Factor 4 - Oral Demonstrations. Can the Government confirm that scores from Phase 1 will not be used during Phase 2 evaluations?

The evaluation results from Phase 1 will be used to make down select determination on which offerors will participate in Phase 2 only and will not be used to make award determination.

53 N DRFP Section L 90 of 110 VOLUME III: FACTOR 3 –

COST/PRICE

For proposal evaluation purposes, recommend the Government provide the number of Small, Medium and Large Agile development teams. This will allow the Government to evaluate proposals on a comparative basis since offerors' quantity estimates will have significant variation.

Vendors should propose the number of teams for each period of performance and PI necessary to support the Government notional roadmap in Section L, Vol III.2.

54 N DRAFT RFP W91CRB-24-C-0003 3 JAN 2024 100 Volume VI: Factor 5 - Program Management Plan (12 Pages) - Element 1:

Staffing Plan (6 Pages)

The Government states, "Offerors shall provide a resume (not to exceed 2 pages) and a letters of intent (not to exceed 1 page) for each Key Personnel outlined in PWS Section 1.7.8 demonstrating how each Key Personnel meets the requirements of the PWS.", however the Key Personnel requirements in Section 1.6.8 of the PWS consist of between 1.5 to 2 full pages describing the required experience, qualifications, and key responsibilities. Will the government consider allowing 3 pages per Key Personnel Resume to allow offers space to adequately demonstrate how each key personnel meets or exceeds the requirements of the

PWS?

No.

55 N DRAFT RFP W91CRB-24-C-0003 3 JAN 2024 100 Volume VI: Factor 5 - Program Management Plan (12 Pages) - Element 1:

Staffing Plan (6 Pages)

Under Volume VI: Factor 5 - Program Management Plan (12 Pages) the Element 1: Staffing Plan is constrained to 6 Pages but is required to include a variety of information on teaming mix, team sizes, proposed labor hours, etc. as well as 5 Key Personnel Resumes (up to 2 pages each). Since Key personnel Resumes alone could take up to 10 pages, would the Government confirm that the Key Personnel Resumes are not included in the Staffing Plan page count of 6 pages or increase the page count of the staffing plan (and subsequently the Program management Plan) to accommodate Key Personnel Resumes?

See revisions to the final RFP.

56 N IPPS-A AMP QASP - DRAFT, December 20, 2023 10 Table 2. Performance Requirements Summary (Surveillance Matrix) -

Throughput Types

The following Rating Areas within the Throughput type, Story Point Completion Rate (Predictability), Story Point Velocity, and Story Completion Rate, are all significantly impacted by changes in priority or blockers that occur within a given iteration (Sprint of PI) after commitment that are outside the offerors control or influence. Would the government consider adding language to these measures such as "absent changes in priority/blockers after commitment" or words to that effect so as to only measure performance within the offerors control?

No. The language in the QASP will not be updated as stated. Metrics for each Delivery Order (DO) will be identified at the time the order is issued.

At that time, if clarification is needed, it will be documented in the DO.

57 N IPPS-A AMP QASP - DRAFT, December 20, 2023 11 Table 2. Performance Requirements Summary (Surveillance Matrix) - Software Quality Types

The Number of Blockers rating area within the Software Quality type will likely include blockers which by definition (anything that impedes completion of a story, activity, or work item) that are outside the offerors control or influence. Would the government consider adding language to this measures such as "created or identified by the offeror after commitment" or words to that effect so as to only measure performance within the offerors control?

No. The language in the QASP will not be updated as stated. Metrics for each Delivery Order (DO) will be identified at the time the order is issued.

At that time, if clarification is needed, it will be documented in the DO.

58 N IPPS-A AMP QASP - DRAFT, December 20, 2023 11 Table 2. Performance Requirements Summary (Surveillance Matrix) - Software Quality Types

The Number of Blockers rating area within the Software Quality states, " Number of Blockers = Number of blockers currently open that prohibit the completion of a story, activity or work item in a sprint or PI". Since the number of stories, activities, or work items and thus the total number of blockers would be vastly different depending on what level is being evaluated (Sprint or PI) would the government specify which level of iteration (sprint or PI) this measure will be applied to and at what point in time (any single point in time, or cumulative at the end of each Sprint/PI)?

No. The language in the QASP will not be updated as stated. Metrics for each Delivery Order (DO) will be identified at the time the order is issued.

At that time, if clarification is needed, it will be documented in the DO.

59 N IPPS-A AMP QASP - DRAFT, December 20, 2023 19 Table 3. Non-Conformance Metrics and Tolerance Ranges

Notes 1 and 2 on Table 3 indicate that Story Point Velocity and Delivered Features excludes items "not completed because of government roadblocks" but does not account for changes in priority after Sprint/PI commitments. Would the government consider adding language to these notes such as "...or changes in priority/blockers after commitment" or words to that effect so as to only measure performance within the offerors control?.

No. The language in the QASP will not be updated as stated. Metrics for each Delivery Order (DO) will be identified at the time the order is issued.

At that time, if clarification is needed, it will be documented in the DO.

60 N IPPS-A AMP Performance Work Statement (PWS) - January 2024 37 5.2 Task 2: Solution Configuration, Development, and Test - Integration, Test and Evaluation (1439-1441)

The PWS States that the contractor shall, "Perform performance and load testing to validate that additional functionality did not impact the performance of the application with concurrent users utilizing the application". Will the government confirm that performance and load testing capability currently exists within Product Operations and is available to utilize or whether the AMP contractor is expected to deploy and configure tooling for this requirement and other related ones?

The Government confirms that performance and load testing capability currently exists within Product Operations and will be available to the AMP Contractor to utilize.

61 N IPPS-A AMP QASP - DRAFT, December 20, 2023 10, 11, 12 Table 2. Performance Requirements Summary (Surveillance 365 Matrix)

Would the Government consider consolidating some of the Agile AQLs based on the following best practice recommendations that are intended to simplify the management and tracking of performance against AQLs?

- AQL #1 - Planned vs. Completed Variance, RA: Predictability - measure this an Average Variance Sprint by Sprint, based on Sprint planning commitments in Story Points vs what was Done in a Sprint in Story Points. Satisfactory: 21% or greater achieved ratio, Very Good: 11–20% variance, Exceptional:

10% or less variance. This one AQL would replace the current QASP AQLs 'Story Point Completion Rate', 'Story Point Velocity', 'Story Point Completion Rate', 'Release Burnup' and 'Delivered Features (or Capabilities)' as it will satisfy the intent of getting Predictable-Quality Sprints for the IPPS-A AMP Solution. This incentivizes the contractor to be better at estimating and planning and awards the Government with a predictable flow of value.

- AQL #2 - Escaped Defects Reduction, RA: Quality - number of Defects that escape a Sprint and the Definition of Done. Defects being defined by anything that a Story introduces that does not meet the Definition of Done and the Story's Acceptance Criteria after the team demoed the complete product at the end of the Sprint. For example: A story creates a new feature in AMP, and introduces a bug found in later testing or even production, this would be an Escaped Defect. This AQL would be measured by counting the # of escaped defects within the team’s backlog over a specific baseline period (e.g. OY1-OY2). Each Option Year, the offeror would be evaluated to see if the backlog Escaped Defect count has been reduced by a certain percentage. Satisfactory: 1% or less burn-down of escaped defects, Very Good: 2-4% burn-down of escaped defects, Exceptional: 5% or more of burn-down of escaped defects. This one AQL would replace the existing QASP AQLs 'Recidivism', 'Defect Density', 'Escaped Defect Density', 'Recurring Defects', 'Defect Closure Rate' and 'First-time Pass Rate', as it will satisfy the intent of continuously improving AMP software quality delivery. This incentivizes the contractor to build-in quality from the start and shift quality to the left and awards the Government with higher quality software at the Sprint level. This AQL also ensures that the AMP contractor is continuously reducing the number of system issues based on assigned priorities.

No.

62 N IPPS-A AMP QASP - DRAFT, December 20, 2023 10, 11, 12 Table 2. Performance Requirements Summary (Surveillance 365 Matrix)

Would the Government consider removing the Number of Blockers AQL, as a blocker or impediment may be outside of the team/ARTs control? Having this as an AQL may disincentivize total transparency and promote the wrong Culture.

No.

63 N IPPS-A AMP QASP - DRAFT, December 20, 2023 10, 11, 12 Table 2. Performance Requirements Summary (Surveillance 365 Matrix)

Would the Government consider removing the Story Point Velocity AQL, as velocity is relative to the team and velocity is more of a measurement of predictability and estimation rather than performance?

Velocity accounts for many different factors including vacation, sick leave, capacity, priorities, Holidays, Trouble Tickets, Releases, Automation, etc. which vary Sprint to Sprint. A higher velocity does not indicate a higher performance or quality.

No.

64 N IPPS-A AMP QASP - DRAFT, December 20, 2023 10, 11, 12 Table 2. Performance Requirements Summary (Surveillance 365 Matrix)

Could the Government clarify the Delivered Value AQL? Based on the description, this would be the same "Points" the Story Point Completion Rate AQL . Based on the SAFe metric, Delivered value would this be based on FMD/PMOs evaluation of Business Value vs Actual Value at the beginning of a PI vs at the end of a PI, based on a 1-10 scoring system for each PI objective of the ART and not Story Points delivered.

Delivered Value is the business value assigned to a Story by the functionals versus Story Points which is a value assigned to a Story by the Sprint Team.

65 N DRAFT RFP W91CRB-24-C-0003 3 JAN 2024 22-Jan Section H - Telework What are the telework requirements? Unclear whether telework is approved; not approved. Do we submit the telework plan as part of our bid and is that considered in scoring? Is there a value derived from telework.

The Section H Telework requirement is removed; however PWS Section

1.6.4 will be revised in the final RFP to include telework language. A telework plan will not be required.

66 N DRAFT RFP W91CRB-24-C-0003 3 JAN 2024 6-Apr Element 5: data rights It is the Contractors expectation that the Government will procure any required SW / licenses that are discussed as part of the Contractors solution - please confirm that this will be GFE.

Any required SW licenses will be provided as GFE, unless otherwise determined.

67 N DRAFT RFP W91CRB-24-C-0003 3 JAN 2024 6-Apr Element 5: data rights Are you expecting contractor to quote an agile tool and/or automated CI/CD Pipeline as part of their solution? And/or any other tools?

As stated in the PWS, the Contractor is required to use the tools provided by the Government environments, but can recommend additional software tools compatible with the Government environments for approval. Thus, if the Contractor is proposing recommending additional tools for Government consideration and approval, associated data should be provided.

68 N IPPS-A AMP Performance Work Statement (PWS) - January 2024 LINE 259 Is it the Government's expectation that the ART for AMP align to the same cadence as the ART for Capability Support? Is the 1-week retrospective/I&A week part of the PI CLIN?

The Government does not expect the Contractor to use the same cadence;

however, the AMP roadmap and Capability Support roadmap must be synchronized to coordinate releases.

Per PWS Figure 3 (Notional 12 week PI) the Government has included Retrospective and I&A activities within the 12 week PI. Duration for each of these activities is not noted.

69 N DRAFT RFP W91CRB-24-C-0003 3 JAN 2024 7-Jan ITEM 0010

LINE 317-322 - PWS

Is the FFP ITEM 0010 intended for SURGE labor? No, it is a FFP for Expedited Delivery and Enhanced Performance during execution of PIs based on the contractor meeting quality standards specified when PIs are ordered.

70 N DRAFT RFP W91CRB-24-C-0003 3 JAN 2024 7-Jan ITEM 0010

LINE 317-322 - PWS

Is the FFP ITEM 0010 intended for Contractor incentive to reward accelerated performance with no associated labor tied to the CLIN?

It is a FFP for Expedited Delivery and Enhanced Performance during execution of PIs based on the contractor meeting quality standards specified when PIs are ordered.

71 N DRAFT Cost Model AMP_IPPS-A 03 JAN 2024.xlsx and Word Document tab f and page 1 tab f Planning Intervals Could the Government clarify the instructions for the Cost Model .xlsx tab (f) Planning Intervals and the Cost Model Word document to indicate whether the Government is looking for the number of Iterations/Sprints per PI in the green shaded areas for each team size OR the number of Teams per PI in the green shaded area? The Word Document indicates 12-week Iterations whereas the excel sheet requests Number of Iterations per Team.

The number of iterations per team size per PI is the required input in the green fields in tab (f). As stated in the cost model embedded instructions word document, "Please enter the number of 12-week iterations in the green shaded areas for each team size that the offeror is proposing to fulfill the objectives associated with each numbered PI/PI CLIN as outlined in the notional PI planning roadmap/objectives identified in the solicitation." To provide further explanation, each PI field within tab (f) includes areas to enter the number of Iterations for all contract years to allow for a modular spreadsheet design and to account for situations where a PI iteration may cross calendar years and require different rates for different portions of the

PI.

72 N DRAFT Cost Model AMP_IPPS-A 03 JAN 2024.xlsx and Gov.

Provided Notional PI Roadmap tab f tab f Planning Intervals Can the Government clarify the total number of PIs in the Government-provided notional Planning Interval (PI) roadmap for the Period of Performance? In the Cost Model spreadsheet tab (f) there are 33 PIs as opposed to the notional PI Roadmap provided that shows 25 PIs. Our assumption is that the overall contract of (7) years and will include a 6-month transition-in and four-month (120 days) transition-out period which equals ~25 PIs.

Please review the final RFP, which allows for offerors to propose their own unique estimates for the labor requirements associated with the Performance Work Statement within the Cost Model, Solicitation Attachment 2.

73 N DRAFT Cost Model AMP_IPPS-A 03 JAN 2024.xlsx and Gov tab f tab f Planning Intervals Since each PI will only be active for 12 weeks, should Offerors set the team quantities to "0" for contract years where individual PIs are not active? If so, we recommend the Govt gray-out or lock the cells for years where a PI is not active, in alignment with the Govt-provided notional PI planning roadmap.

Please review the final RFP, which allows for offerors to propose their own unique estimates for the labor requirements associated with the Performance Work Statement within the Cost Model, Solicitation Attachment 2.

74 N DRAFT Cost Model AMP_IPPS-A 03 JAN 2024.xlsx Tabs a, d, e Tabs a, d, e Please confirm offerors are allowed to modify formulas in accordance with their Disclosure Statement. In the submission spreadsheet, many formulas in their current configuration do not allow for variations in cost type. For instance, the government template applies fringe, overhead, and G&A to subcontractor labor, which is not correct if only M&SH is should be applied.

Same response as question 23, As stated in the cost model's embedded instructions, offerors may revise the number of rows, columns, and/or formulas to reflect nuances in the offeror's accounting and estimating systems, or to accurately address all areas of the PWS requirements.

However, it is requested that the general format and formulas be maintained and carried forward into any added fields/columns/rows as appropriate for cost/price analysis and contract administration purposes.