1._Amendment_Seven_-_Consolidated_Second_Round_QAs_07Aug.pdf

Industry Questions and Government Answers

United States Army Regional Cyber Center – Continental United States

Information Technology (IT) Support Services

Second Round Questions

TECHNICAL

1. Q&A #32 States: “PWS 33 5.3.3.4 Provide Tier III IP VTC support at Fort Gordon, Fort

Eustis, and Fort Sam Houston and on call Tier III IP VTC support 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Provide Tier I, II, and III IP internal and enterprise VTC support at Fort Huachuca 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Can Government provide clarification on whether personnel are required at alternate locations? Can Government please provide clarification on whether on call personnel will receive Overtime pay?

Answer: PWS 5.3.3.4 is no longer a requirement. See FEDBIZZOPS Solicitation W91RUS-18-

R-DA04 05-18-18. The PWS has been changed to reflect the deletion of physical support at Fort

Gordon, Fort Eustis, and Fort Sam Houston.”

First, there is no section 5.3.3.4 in the revised PWS. And IP VTC section 5.3.3 has no subsection requirements i.e 5.3.3.4

Is there supposed to be a section 5.3.3.4 somewhere? Or does the answer also speak to 5.3.2.4 which discusses VoIP support not IP VTC support.

The revised PWS removes the first sentence of 5.3.2.4 “5.3.2.4 Provide Tier III IP VoIP support at Fort Gordon, Fort Eustis, and Fort Sam Houston and on call Tier III VoIP support 24 hours a day, seven days a week.” Question 32 refers to IP VTC activities not VoIP activities at Fort

Gordon, Fort Eustis, and Fort Sam Houston.?

Answer: IP VTC physical requirements at Fort Gordon, Fort Eustis, and Fort Sam Houston were removed in the posting to FEDBIZOPPS Amendment dated 18 May 2018 in the PWS. First question on 5.3.3.4, this has been removed. 5.3.3.4 was in the 13 Apr 18 posting and removed in the 18 May 18 posting. There is no IP VTC or VOIP physical requirements at those locations.

2. Would it be correct in saying that the Government under this RCC-C Support contract, will not require any VoIP or IP VTC on-site or remote Tier III support at Fort Gordon, Fort Eustis, and Fort Sam Houston?. See sections 5.3.2 VoIP and 5.3.3 of the revised PWS.

Answer: Requirements for IP VTC on-site or remote Tier III support at Fort Gordon, Fort Eustis, and Fort Sam Houston have been removed from the PWS.

Requirements for VOIP physically on-site support at Fort Gordon, Fort Eustis, and Fort Sam

Houston have been removed from the PWS. In reference to VOIP Tier III support, review enterprise VOIP Tier III support location called out in the PWS paragraph 5.3.2.4. Provide Tier I, II, and III IP internal and enterprise VoIP support at Fort Huachuca.

3. PWS 5.2.1 APC Operations states “The Contractor shall provide support to CONUS users 24 hours a day, seven days a week”; however, Section 4.3 USARCC-C Work Hours does not list

PWS 5.2.1 as a 24x7 operation. Will the Government please clarify which is correct?

Answer: APCs does not require full time 24x7 support. The PWS 5.2.1 was changed to represent on-call support 24/7. The APC decommissioning effort is almost complete. USARCC-C still supports networking at one site, but that will be decommissioned once the last remaining Army tenant moves/decommissions their equipment. Reference 4.

3 Work Hours for NIPRNet/SIPRNet Network Management which requires contractor support

24 hours a day, seven days a week.

4. PWS 5.3.3 USARCC-C IP VTC states “Provide Tier I IP internal VTC support at Fort

Huachuca 24 hours a day, seven days a week”; however, Section 4.3 USARCC-C Work Hours does not list PWS 5.3.3 as a 24x7 operation. Will the Government please clarify which is correct?

Answer: Reference 4.3 Work Hours for core hours. The PWS has been updated to reflect:

Provide Tier I IP internal VTC support at Fort Huachuca. The Contractor shall provide on-call support 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

5. PWS 5.6 DCO Support Services states “Provide services… 24 hour per day, 7 days”;

however, Section 4.3 USARCC-C Work Hours does not list PWS 5.6 as a 24x7 operation. Will the Government please clarify which is correct?

Answer: Updated PWS 4.3 USARCC-C Work Hours to include CONUS DoDIN-A Operations, paragraph 5.6, which require contractor support 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

6. Additionally, would the Government please provide a copy of the Phase Out Plan, if it exists, for the current contract?

Answer: This will be provided to the awarded vendor during initial coordination after award.

7. The below are in reference to Amendment Four, RCC-CONUS_PWS_19_Jul_18, Section

4.2.2.5, TABLE 1. Skill Certifications for Key Technical Personnel:

a. Network Senior Subject Matter Expert - Cisco Certified Network Professional (CCNP), Juniper Networks Certified Internet Specialist or Juniper Networks Certified Internet Associate.

Is it the intent that a candidate have both Cisco and Juniper certifications or that they have one or the other?

Answer: Yes, both CCNP and Juniper. Table 1 are the requirements and list “or” for the Juniper

Specialist or Associate.

b. Active Directory Senior Subject Matter Expert - Microsoft Certified Information

Technology Professional – Enterprise Administrator (MCITP: EA) certification was retired by

Microsoft July 31, 2016. Is this certification still valid for this position? Microsoft does not list a current certification for Active Directory. Does the MCSE certification meet this requirement?

Answer: Microsoft Certified Solutions Expert (MCSE) meets this requirement. The PWS will be updated to meet the “or” to account for contractors that may already have MCITP: EA.

c. Unified Capabilities (UC) Senior Subject Matter Expert is listed in Table 1 as a key position. Shouldn’t this position have been removed?

Answer: No. Table 1 are the requirements that support the PWS 5.3 Unified Capabilities.

d. Computer Network Defense Senior Subject Matter Expert - Global Information

Assurance Certification (GIAC) – Information Security Fundamentals or equivalent is listed as a requirement for this position. However, this position is listed in TABLE 2 as IAM-II. GISF does not meet this requirement. Would the higher CISSP certification be acceptable for this position?

Answer: Yes. The CISSP is acceptable. The GIAC GISF certification was removed from the approved list on 25 January 2013. Individuals who were in the position previously, were allowed to remain qualified once that certification had expired or the individual changed positions.

Updated the PWS Table 1 to refer to Table 2 for certification requirements for this position.

e. Forensics / Malware Analyst (DCO) – lists both GIAC Certified Forensic Analyst

(GCFA) and GIAC Certified Incident Handler (GCIH). Is it the intent that a candidate have both

GCFA and GCIH certifications or that they have one or the other?

Answer: Yes. As identified in the PWS Table 1.

f. Application Developer (DCO) - Systems Security Certified Practitioner (SSCP) is the only certification listed for this position. Would the higher CISSP certification also meet this requirement?

Answer: Per Change 4 of DOD 8570.01-Manual, C11.2.4.1 and the approved IA baseline certifications table on the DISA IASE website (https://iase.disa.mil/iawip/pages/iabaseline.aspx) the answer would be no.

Though higher level IAT certifications satisfy lower level requirements, in this case, the CISSP from IAT-III would satisfy the lower level IAT-II required for this position, it is not acceptable for the CSSP (CND-SP) certification requirements. Higher level CSSP certifications do not satisfy lower level requirements.

Updated the PWS Table 1 to refer to Table 2 for certification requirements for this position.

8. Questions 32 and 44 seems to conflict with the revised PWS at 5.3.2.4. Proposed question:

Would the government clarify its responses to Questions 32 and 44? In particular, The Q&A states that PWS 5.3.2.4 is no longer required, yet the PWS retains the 24x7 VOIP VTC requirement at Ft Huachuca. Is PWS 5.3.2.4 required or not?

Answer: Clarification - PWS 5.3.2.4 was edited to remove “Provide Tier III IP VoIP support at

Fort Gordon, Fort Eustis, and Fort Sam Houston”. Enterprise VoIP support will be provided at

Fort Huachuca.

9. The Government’s response to Question 45 states, “PWS 5.3.4.1 Enterprise IM and collaborative services systems is no longer a requirement. See FEDBIZZOPS Solicitation

W91RUS-18-R-DA04 05-18-18.” We reviewed the original and Track changes versions of the amended PWS. There was never a PWS paragraph 5.3.4.1. The enterprise IM and collaborative services is listed at para 5.3.4 and it remains in the track changes version of the amended PWS.

Please confirm that this is no longer a requirement by removing it from the PWS.

Answer: Clarification – PWS paragraph 5.3.4.1 was deleted and 5.3.4 was updated. PWS 5.3.4 included information from the deleted 5.3.4.1.

10. The Governments’ answer to Question 157 states, “Typo. PWS Section 4.3 was revised from:

NIPRNet/SIPRNet Network Management, paragraph 5.4.2.4 To add: NIPRNet/SIPRNet

Network Management, paragraph 5.1.1, Enterprise Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP), paragraph 5.3.2.4.” Paragraph 4.3 of the track changes amended PWS has been changed to reflect the Government’s answer. However, there still appears to be ambiguity between the definition of “except core hours” in the two paragraphs. Paragraph 5.1.1 states, “The Contractor shall provide on-call support 24 hours a day, seven days a week.” Paragraph 5.3.2.4 states, “Provide Tier I, II, and III IP internal and enterprise VoIP support at Fort Huachuca 24 hours a day, seven days a week.” Can the Government confirm that it requires all of para 5.1.1 to be supported “7.x 24 on call” and only 5.3.2.4 of the 5.3.2 paragraph is to be supported 24 hours a day, 7 days a week as the remainder of paragraph 5.3.2 has a requirement that states “The

Contractor shall provide “on-call support: for VOIP 24 hours a day, seven days a week.”

Answer: Clarification: Change to the PWS to reflect 4.3 Work Hours - 5.1.1.4

NIPRNet/SIPRNet Network Management as a 24/7 requirement. Deletion of 5.3.2.4 Enterprise

Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP) as a 24/7 requirement.

PWS 5.3.2.4 addresses Tier I, II, and III IP internal and enterprise VoIP support 24/7.

Deleted PWS 5.3.2.4 requirement for 24/7 as 5.3.2 covers on-call support for VOIP 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Note: Under 5.1.1 NIPRNet/SIPRNet Network Management addresses on-call support 24/7.

PWS 5.1.1.4 USARCC-C Network Operations Facility address a 24/7 requirement.

The PWS has been updated to reflect changes and deletions.

11. Reference PWS Section 4 Table 1.

Question: Skill Certifications for Key Technical Personnel on page 7 of 67 of the revised PWS lists the certifications required for those positions listed in the table. The solicitation does not specifically define if these positions are government-required Key Personnel positions. Can the government provide a definitive list of minimum Key Personnel positions required by the government to be submitted within the proposal or clarify that Key Personnel positions are those that the Offeror considers essential to effective performance of the proposed approach, as specified in the answer to Question 376? Can the government update the RFP to reflect the answer to this question to ensure it is the official government direction?

Answer: Reference the PWS 4.2.2 Key Personnel and subsequent paragraphs for more details.

PWS 4.2.2.5 The USARCC-C services in Table 1 below, as a minimum, require additional technical oversight from IT-certified key personnel. Key Technical Personnel are a requirement.

Table 1 is the minimum Key Technical Personnel.

12. The Government’s answer to questions 279 and 280 state, “There currently is nothing left in the APCs that the USARCC manages that would need to be transitioned to an alternate centralized datacenter. There is network equipment still supporting the APC, but that will be decommissioned upon the last tenant moving their equipment from the site.” If there is nothing left in the APCs that the USARCC contractor is responsible to manage and maintain, we request the Government remove paragraph 5.2.1 in its entirety from the PWS as currently the PWS states

APC support is required on a 7x24x365 basis. Unless this requirement is removed from the

PWS, offerors are required to include it in their BOE and staffing table. Otherwise, if support is still required as is in implied in the response to question 334, please clarify exactly what APC support the offeror is required to include in our BOE, staffing table, and pricing volume and amend 5.2.1 to reflect only the remaining support the Government requires for APC.

Answer: The APC decommissioning effort is almost complete. USARCC-C still supports networking at one site, but that will be decommissioned once the last remaining Army tenant moves/decommissions their equipment. Reference 4.

3 Work Hours for NIPRNet/SIPRNet Network Management which requires contractor support

24 hours a day, seven days a week.

5.2.1 Area Processing Center (APC) Operations is still a requirement for the USARCC-C and will remain in the PWS until it is no longer required.

Answer: The APC is not expected to be a requirement when this contract is in place as the decommissioning effort is almost complete. APC requirement have been removed from the

PWS.

13. Reference Amendment Four, Consolidated Q&A #110. Question #110 references back to a draft RFP Sections L and M and questions the government’s “intention” for removing the requirement for a Phase-In approach as well as requests the government to “describe why you made this determination”. The answer provided was: “Previous Phase-in language was deleted as this will not be separately evaluated and the Requiring Activity and Contractor will establish and implement the phase-in responsibilities as directed by the Government upon award. The

Phase-in period shall be addressed in the technical and cost volumes so the Government has a complete understanding of the Offerors proposed staffing and associated costs for this performance period.” The Offeror is questioning this response based upon the statement above that it was “deleted” and that the Requiring Activity and Contractor will “establish” and” implement” phase-in responsibilities as “directed by the Government upon award”. Can the government confirm whether a phase-in approach is required in Volume II, Technical?

Reference Amendment Four, Consolidated Q&A, last question on page 66 (the question did not have a number associated to it). The question was: “PWS 4.1.1 The requirement for a phase-in approach was removed from RFP Sections L and M. Given the risk associated with phase-in, it is in the Government’s best interest for offerors to provide an approach and schedule for continuing operations while minimizing risk to mission critical operations. Will the Government include a requirement for addressing the PWS phase-in requirements as part of Technical Volume Sub-

Factor 2?" The governments answer was: “Yes. Offerors are expected to provide an approach and schedule for continuing operations during phase-in while minimizing risk to mission critical operations. Reference question 110.” The reference to previous Sections L and M is understood, however, Amendment Four was not updated to reflect a requirement for a Phase-In approach within the Technical Volume nor within Sub-Factor 2. Can the government please clarify if the

Phase-In approach is required? If it is part of a “sub-factor” then evaluation criteria and instructions need to be provided within the solicitation for the current Sections L and M and not refer back to a DRAFT Section L and M.

Would the Government please provide a copy of the Phase Out Plan, if it exists, for the current contract?

Answer: Phase in the PWS 4.1. is 30 days prior to the performance and considering that there are too many unknowns for the Offerors to propose to and for the Technical Evaluation board to evaluate, Offerors are not required to address phase-in in Volume II- Technical nor price this performance period in Volume IV-Cost.

The incumbent has a contractual requirement for Phase-Out for 60 days prior to contract completion. The awardee will be provided phase out information to utilize during the phase-in period to transition towards full performance.

Reference the RFP at Section A. Executive Summary. The RFP has been revised throughout to make it clear that the phase-in performance period will not be proposed, evaluated, nor priced in the Offerors proposal. The extent of personnel and correlated costs required to perform phase-in requirements will be coordinated with the Government, then proposed, evaluated, priced, and negotiated, if necessary, before being incorporated on the contract as a supplemental agreement after contract award.

14. (Reference: Responses to questions 196 and 197) The Government's answers to Questions

196 and 197 states that changes were made to Appendix_C_ITIL_Key

Performance_Indicators_and Metrics, which was not provided in the Amendment 0004 files.

Does the Government intend to release a revised Appendix_C?

Answer: Attachment provided with Amendment seven.

15. If the incumbent Unified Capabilities (UC) Senior Subject Matter Expert with a strong performance record has CCNA-Voice certification, will the Government please consider revising the CCNP-Voice certification to CCNA-Voice?

Answer: Cisco Certified Network Professional (CCNP) Voice is the requirement for the Unified

Capabilities (UC) Senior Subject Matter Expert as indicated in the PWS Table 1.

GENERAL QUESTIONS -

15. Reference: The Consolidated Q&A question #117 asks: “Does the Government want

Offerors who have entered into a standard Prime/Sub teaming relationship to describe this relationship response to Section L.5.1(d) or is this only for Joint Ventures?” The Government’s answer was simply “No.”

Question: Please clarify which part of the either/or question the Government’s answer applies

to. Does L.5.1(d) apply to a standard Prime/Sub teaming relationship?

Reference: The Consolidated Q&A question #118 asks: “Does the Government want Offerors who have entered into a standard Prime/Sub teaming relationship to describe this relationship response to Section L.5.1(j) or is this only for Joint Ventures?” The Government’s answer was simply “No.”

Question: Please clarify which part of the either/or question the Government’s answer applies

to. Does L.5.1(j) apply to a standard Prime/Sub teaming relationship?

Answer: 1. The complete answer to the Consolidated Q&A question #117 and #118 referenced the answer to question 476. The answer to question 476 is as follows:

Subcontracting limitations still apply. This information shall be captured in the Cost Workbook, Summary tab:

Amount of Work Subcontracted Amount

Total Contract Value

Amount Subcontracted (in Dollars)

Amount Subcontracted (in Percentage)

2. The Consolidated Q&A question #5 best answers the above questions.

3. RFP requirements for teaming arrangement descriptions at Section L.5.1(d) and L.5.1 (j) have been revised and merged under Section L.5.1(i) and provide the Code of Federal Regulations that govern this requirement at CFR 13, PART 125 and, for your ease of reference, to provide the

Electronic Code of Federal Regulations website at https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/ECFR?page=browse.

16. Reference: Amendment 4 Consolidated Q&A #17 which states: “Submit in Volume I –

General. The Proposal Adequacy Checklist is required in accordance with 52.215-20.”

RFP Amendment 4 Section L.8 (VOLUME 4 – COST) addresses the Proposal Adequacy

Checklist but does not specify where in Volume 4 it should be provided.

RFP Amendment 4 Section L.5 (VOLUME 1- GENERAL) does not address the Proposal

Adequacy Checklist.

Question: Can the government update the appropriate sections of the RFP to specify where the

Proposal Adequacy Checklist should be provided in the proposal (which Volume and where within the volume.)?

Answer: The RFP at L.5(d) has been repurposed to require submission of the Proposal Adequacy

Checklist to be submitted as an Appendix to Volume I-General. The RFP at Clause 52.215-20 has also been cross referenced to require submission of the in Volume I-General. RFP Section

L.8 has also been cross-referenced to require submission in Volume I-General.

17. (Reference: Response to question 134 and Section L.8.22) Would the Government confirm which of the two dates provided, 01 December 2018 (response to question 134) or 01 February

2019 as corrected in RFP Section L.8.22, which date should the offeror use in its response?

Answer: The answer to question 134 in the first round of questions is hereby replaced with the information stated in the PRF Section L.8.22 that states, “The amended RFP or proposal evaluation purposes, the anticipated date for initiation of Phase-In is 01 February 2019 with full contract performance responsibility (Contract Start Date) beginning on 01 March 2019.”

18. Ref Questions and Answers posted 24 July 2018. Question 18,72,74,75. Since the government indicates "may" and that some requirements are indeterminate, an assumption must be made to correctly price - should the assumption be that if undetermined work is required it will be offset by reduction in other work and should not be separately accounted for or priced in https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/ECFR?page=browse https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/ECFR?page=browse this submission? If not, request confirmation that the government will allow fee on this “may” or indeterminate work should it be required? This is particularly relevant given the government's guidance that no additional fee is allowed if the contractor must provide more effort than proposed to accomplish work within scope.

Ref Questions and Answers posted 24 July 2018. The government responds to numerous questions with the phrase “Future growth requirements are expected to be addressed during the life of the awarded contract.” Request the government confirm that these future growth requirements will allow the contractor to apply a fee for work performed?

Answer:

Note: An Offeror is an entity that is competing for award of a Government contract. A

Contractor is an entity that has been awarded a contract and becomes a member of the Integrated

Performance Team to complete performance.

Reference RFP Section B.1 Overview, first paragraph that states, “Changes to baseline requirements are expected to occur during the life of the contract; some full time support may diminish while other areas may increase. The Contractor is expected to shift baseline resources as needed to accommodate the RCC-C mission as it evolves over time.”

The Offeror is required to propose on the current requirements as stated in the solicitation and applicable requirements documents. The Offeror is free to disclose any assumption(s) necessary for the Government to understand the Contractor’s proposed approach/staffing solution and related costs.

The answer to the question concerning additional Fee requires an understanding of how a Cost

Plus Fixed Fee type contract works.

The Contractor will be responsible to manage performance costs not to exceed the ceiling cost of the contract. The Contractor will be responsible for executing the contract requirements at the estimated cost, regardless of how the requirements may change over time. Should the contract experience on overrun, the Contractor will be required to justify why the original estimated cost, as proposed, was insufficient to complete performance. The clause at FAR 52.232-22 Limitation of Funds will be incorporated into the contract requiring the Contractor to provide written notice

60 days prior to reaching 75% of the estimated cost in the Schedule. Upon reaching 75% of the estimated cost, the Government will decide to either stop performance once the total estimated cost is reached, or provide additional Cost with no additional Fee to complete performance under the contract.

The proposed Fee, usually a percentage of cost when proposed, becomes a “fixed” dollar amount at time of award that does not change, regardless of whether the amount of effort to perform the requirements increases or decreases over time. If less effort is required, the contractor still gets the full amount of the Fixed Fee. If the level of effort to perform the requirements increases, the

Contractor may get additional cost to complete performance, but is still only entitled to the same amount of Fixed Fee on the contract. This is what is meant by the term “Fixed Fee.”

Absent a change in the scope of the contract to add work, the contractor is not entitled to an adjustment in Fee simply because it expended more hours in completing the original work. It may receive additional funds for the additional hours expended in completing the original work, but not additional Fee. To do so would violate the prohibition against the cost-plus-percentage-of-cost (CPCC) system of contracting.

The Government does not anticipate any out of scope changes to the contract that would involve additional Fee.

19. Question 226. The Government’s response focuses on the question’s inclusion of the word fee but the response does not address the core of the question. During execution will the proposed labor rates be used to constrain the rate allowed for individuals performing in an LCAT or does the contractor have the flexibility to manage within the proposed total value to address changes in the labor market and differentiated skills and experience.

Consolidated Q&As Question 226 states, “226. Section B.1, p. 4; Section H.16, p. 36; and

Section I 52.217-8 Since a Cost reimbursable contract is anticipated, fixed price labor rates are not established. Can the Government confirm that the Cost Plus Fixed Fee rates which were evaluated and accepted at the time of award will be used solely as the basis for price and fee when awarding funding for additional tasks, incorporating Optional Work, and exercising the Option to Extend Services?”

Answer: Yes, the contractor will have the flexibility to manage within the proposed total value to address changes in the labor market and differentiated skills and experience.

In direct answer to your question, notwithstanding the above, the Offeror is expected to manage costs up to the ceiling estimated cost of the contract. The Contractor will not be required to hire at the exact rates proposed because fluctuations in labor markets based on required skill sets available at any given time may vary from the projected/proposed costs;

however, the proposed costs, labor categories and labor rates shall be proposed based on objective data, such as market survey data or its equivalent, that establishes that the proposed rates are realistic at the time of award. To the extent that Offerors does not propose a realistic cost, they run of risk of having their proposal determined to be unacceptable.

Funding for additional tasks and incorporating optional work. The Government expects that the Contractor will be able to accommodate the natural shifting of work requirements using existing personnel. Any unforeseen significant changes to the contract requirements will be addressed using the changes clause.

Reference M.6 Option to Extend Services (FAR 52.217-8). The cost of this option is set at the cost already on contract at the time this option is exercised.

In cases where the guidance and instructions differ between the Government’s answers to questions and the conformed RFP provided with Amendment 4, please confirm that the offeror is to follow the guidance and instructions in the conformed RFP.

Answer: The Offeror is required to follow the instruction in the RFP.

20. Question: Would the Government please consider increasing page count for Volume II to 80 pages in order to properly answer all Government requirements?

Answer: The Government considered your request and decided not to increase the page count for

Volume II. A significant portion of the Technical Volume is not subject to the page count and the

Government believes that 60 pages is sufficient.

21. Is the Equal Employment Opportunity Compliance Certification required for all prime and subcontractors? And which volume is this to be provided in? Requires additional time for clarification and to obtain necessary documents if needed.

Answer: FAR 52.222-24 clause states that the Prime contractor and any subcontractors with anticipated subcontract costs of $10 Million or more shall be subject to a preaward compliance evaluation by the Office of Federal Contract Complaisance Program (OFCCP). If you have a certificate of compliance, please submit as part of Volume I-General. The RFP at Section

L.5.1(i) VOLUME 1 – GENERAL has been revised to include submission of the Equal

Employment Opportunity Compliance Certification(s).

22. Section states:“In accordance with FAR Subpart 15.404-4/DFARS Subpart 215.404-4, Offerors shall present the details of proposed Fee amounts in the weighted guidelines format. In accordance with FAR 15.404-4(c) (4) (C), the Fee for Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee contracts shall not exceed 10%. A sample Weighted Guidelines Form 1547 has been provided as an attachment at

Section J.”

a. Question: Does the Government expect all primes to present the details of proposed fee amounts on Form 1547 or can a summary of the information be presented in a table format with applicable rationale supporting the table.

Answer: Yes. The Government will accept a summary of the information to be presented in a table format with applicable rationale supporting the table.

b. Question 2: If the Form 1547 is required, are subcontractors required to submit Form

1547 to detail their proposed fee amounts. It seems the prime should be responsible for determining the fee they are willing to accept.

Answer: The Government is required to perform a full cost analysis evaluation on all proposed

CPFF subcontracts. If a Subcontractor is proposing a CPFF type contract, then they are responsible for providing supporting rationale for their proposed Fee in accordance with Form

1547 or in the form of a summary of the information be presented in a table format with applicable rationale supporting the table, as accommodated above.

23. Reference Amendment Four, Consolidated Q&A #132. Q&A #132 states that each Offeror shall provide a screenshot from the ISFD system verifying the Offeror’s Facility Clearance Level and safeguarding capability of the NISP contractor. Can the government please confirm that subcontractors are not required to provide a screenshot from the ISFD system?

Answer: The DD 254 statess at 13. Security Guidance, “1. Ref 1a: Contractor requires at least a final TOP SECRET facility clearance at time of contract award.”

If the Prime’s security clearance does not cover all personnel, the Subcontractor’s facility clearances should be provided to substantiate that all personnel meet the security requirements.

This contract requires access to proscribed information. Proscribed information is defined in

DoD 5220.22-M (National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual) (NISPOM) as Top

Secret, Restricted Data (RD), Communications Security (COMSEC), Sensitive Compartmented

Information (SCI), or Special Access Program (SAP) information. Subcontracting any work effort that requires access to proscribed information requires written approval of the

Contracting Officer.

Reference RFP Section L.5.1.(e) DOD Security Clearance. Include a statement certifying that all personnel employed to perform under the resultant contract meet the qualifications (to include the requisite security clearances, and National Agency Checks) in the DD Form 254 - Contract

Security Classification Specification at Section J, as of the performance start date. Along with this statement please provide the following for both the Prime and Subcontractor(s):

(1) Cage Code

(2) DUNS Number

(3) Legal Company Name (identify all “aka” or “dba” names used also)

(4) Complete physical address of cleared facility (of facility which will have primary security responsibility)

(5) Facility Clearance Level

24. RFP Section L.8.6 states that “For evaluation purposes, use the following Government provided amounts. These amounts are non-adjustable. All ODCs should be proposed without

Fee,” but L.8.c.(3) Other Direct Costs (ODCs) states that “The Offeror shall completely list, define, and provide pricing rationale for all proposed ODCs. All ODCs shall be proposed without

Fee.” Please confirm that the Government only wishes offerors to completely list, define, and provide pricing rationale for any additional ODC’s proposed above and beyond the Government

Plug number and that no detailed backup is required for the Government mandated ODC plug amounts.

Answer: RFP Section L.8.6 has been revised to make clear that the Government only wishes offerors to completely list, define, and provide pricing rationale for any additional ODC’s proposed above and beyond the Government Plug number and that no detailed backup is required for the Government mandated ODC plug amounts.

25. Ref Questions and Answers posted 24 July 2018. Question 70. Please confirm that the government does not have a preconceived notion/standard for the organization of performance or management of this effort for evaluation purposes?

Ref Questions and Answers posted 24 July 2018. Question 80, 81, 217 and many others. Please confirm that the government does not anticipate any future workload reductions to which the incumbent or other select parties would have access to and others would not? If there are anticipated reductions, request they be provided?

Ref Questions and Answers posted 24 July 2018. Question 78. Please confirm that the government does not expect the same level of staffing for requirements that are in existing contract and required in this solicitation and does not have a staffing LOE expectation that is being used for evaluation purposes?

Answer: The Government confirms that is does not have a preconceived notion/standard for the organization of performance or management of this effort for evaluation purposes. Evaluations will utilize a trade-off process that recognizes that there is more than one solution to meet performance requirements. The Government will evaluate proposals and determine the proposal that represents the best value to the Government relying on the merits of each offer. The merits of each offer will be determined on the basis of the evaluation criteria set forth in the solicitation, which are:

1. The quality of the technical proposal based on the rating of each proposal against all evaluation criteria.

2. Past Performance

3. The proposed cost (determined realistic for the work to be performed).

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS QUESTIONS –

26. Solicitation Amendment 4 Section L.1 (2) page 62/ L.3.8 page 63/ L.4.2 page 67

What is the correct electronic submissions of this proposal E-Mail, CD-R/DVD, or both?

Section L.1.2 -2 versions of the proposal shall be submitted- hardcopy and electronically.

Section L.1.2a- the electronic version is to be emailed.

Section L.3.8- the electronic version is to be on a DVDs/CD-Rs as a copy.

Section L.4.2- says again the electronic version is CD-R or DVD

27. Conformed RFP section L.3 number 8 and Table 2 provide instructions for providing the master volume. L.3 number 8 states, “The Master Volume submission consists of the hard copy versions and one CD-R or DVD version of all four volumes combined, including the sanitized and unsanitized versions for both the technical and cost volumes.” Can the Government clarify what is meant by ‘combined’ for the purposes of the Master Volume CD-R or DVD? i.e., Is it: 1)

Combine all four volumes including the sanitized and unsanitized versions for both the technical and cost volumes into a single very large file? or 2) just placing each volume file onto one single

Master Volume CD-R or DVD, which would then contain all proposal files on one disk?

28. Reference: Amendment 4 Consolidated Q&A #1 states: “The requirements have changed to require two Master Hardcopy Volume versions…” and “Each Master Volume, both hardcopy

(two) and DVD (one)…”

Revised RFP Section L.3.8 states: “The hardcopy and the DC-R or DVD of the Master Volume is to be designated “Original Copy”.

Revised RFP Section L.3 Table Two (page 20) states that 1 copy of the Master Volume is required.

29. Question: How many hardcopies of the Master Volume are required? If the answer is that two (2) copies are required IAW the answer to Question 1, please revised the affected sections of the RFP.

30. Question 1, page 1: The Government responds to the number of hard copies/electronic copies with:

a. “The requirements have changed to require two Master Hardcopy Volume version in addition to the one master DVD volume version.”

b. Yet, in the RFP (Amendment Four, Table Two) it states:

i. “1 hard copy and 1 electronic for master volume”

c. Also, later on in Question 22 the Government responds to the question on number of hard/soft copies:

i. “Section L.3 Table Two has been revised to require the least amount of hardcopy/DVD copies. The Master Volume will be utilized wherever “included in the Master Volume” is identified.”

Q: Can the government please confirm the correct number of hard copies that are required to be submitted?

31. Reference: L.3 table two shows that Volume II should consist of 4 hard copies and 4

CD/DVD copies of:

a. Executive Summary

b. SF 1 Staffing (including Technical Approach/Narrative Requirements, WBS, and

Staffing Worksheet)

c. SF 2 Performance Management

d. SF 3 Quality Control

L.3 table two also shows that Volume II should include:

e. SANITIZED Volume 2

f. SANITIZED Cost Workbook/Excel Template and Cost Notes

g. UNSANITIZED Volume 2

32. Question A: Should the 4 hard copies and 4 CD/DVD copies of items A – D be

SANITIZED?

. Question B: Is item E in addition to the 4 hard copies and 4 CD/DVD copies of items A – D? If so, how many hard copies and CD/DVD copies of item E are required?

. Question C: How many hard copies and CD/DVD copies of item F are required?

. Question D: Is item G (to be included in the Master Volumes only) in addition to the 4 hard copies and 4 CD/DVD copies of items A – D?

. Question E: Is the WBS to be submitted in 6 separate sections of the proposal?

1) as part of Volume 2 item B

2) as part of Volume 2 item E (SANITIZED)

3) as part of Volume 2 item F (SANITIZED)

4) as part of Volume 2 item G (UNSANITIZED)

5) as part of Volume 4 Cost Workbook/Excel Templates

6) as part of Volume 4 UNSANITIZED Cost Workbook/Excel Template

33. Reference: L.3 paragraph 3 states: “Submit proposals in four separate volumes and all four volumes combined into a “Master Volume” as shown in Table Two.” However, L.3 table two shows that Volume 1, Volume 3, and Volume 4 should only be included in the Master Volume.

Question: Please clarify if Volume 1, Volume 3, and Volume 4 should be submitted separately in addition to the Master Volume. If so, how many hard copies and CD/DVD copies are required for each volume?

34. Reference section L.3 Proposal Submission Requirements paragraph 8, and Table Two:

Proposal Volumes, Page Limitations, Format, and Copies.

Our question is regarding the delivery of hard copies. Is our interpretation correct that the government requires only 1 Hard copy of the Master Volume that contains a copy of all volumes, plus 4 hard copies of Volume II Technical Capability less the un-sanitized version that is included in the Master Volume?

35. Section L.1.2.a states we are to submit the electronic version of our proposal via email to Mr.

Burroughs, and Ms. Alexander. However, section L.4.2.a states that proposals submitted via email will not be evaluated. Will the Government please clarify which is correct?

35. Reference Amendment Four, Section L.1 Introduction, 1.b. states “The hardcopy version shall be mailed/shipped by the proposal submission date specified above in line item one of this section. The Government will consider mailed/shipped packages timely if they are received no later than seven calendar days after the due date specified in line item one above.” The Offeror’s interpretation of the above is that the Offeror is required to ship/mail their hard copy submission on August 8, 2018 and ensure it is received within seven (7) days of submission due date. If the

Offeror’s interpretation is correct, the government has only given the Offerors fourteen (14) days to make changes to their response based upon Amendment 0004 which contained revised solicitation instructions, revised PWS, revised Cost Workbook, and over 500 Q&As, which was released July 25 (almost 7 weeks after questions were originally submitted). Will the government consider changing that requirement to remove the hard copy submission is due August 8 but rather must be received by August 15. Email submission is due August 8.

37. Table 2 in Section L.3 of the conformed RFP provided with Amendment 4 requires offerors to include a separate Table of Contents for each Volume I-IV and separate Table of Contents for

Master Volume in each volume submission, individual and master. However, Table 2 also indicates that all volumes with the exception of the sanitized version of Volume II are now to be submitted only as inclusions within the Master Volume and not submitted separately. Please confirm this understanding.

37. Reference Amendment Four, Section L.3, Table Two and Consolidated Q&A #1, #22, #98, #266. The instructions in Section L and within Table Two as well as several Q&As noted, have discrepancies as to what the Offeror is to submit electronically (email) as well as hard copy/CD-

R. Basically, some instructions say two (2) Master Volumes, some say one (1) Master Volume, some say one (1) Master Volume, and one (1) hard copy of each Volume (eluding to stand-alone), and Table Two directs the Offeror to submit all UNSANITIZED volumes in the one (1)

Master Volume and four (4) of Technical and Cost together as SANITIZED. Please confirm the below is the correct “interpretation” of submission requirements:

g. One (1) hard copy and CD-R of the Master Volume, which contains all four (4) volumes

UNSANTIZED, and a Master Table of Contents. Correct?

h. Four (4) hard copies and four (4) CD-Rs of Volume II Technical SANITIZED. Correct?

i. The four (4) hard copies and four (4) CD-Rs of Volume II Technical SANITIZED (as noted above in b.) will also include the SANITIZED Cost Workbook (in Excel) and the Cost

Notes (in Word). Correct?

j. Each Volume (Volumes I – IV) whether SANITIZED or UNSANITIZED will contain their own Table of Contents. Correct?

k. For email submission, the Offeror is to submit: one (1) electronic version of the Master

Volume (UNSANITIZED) as noted above in a., one (1) electronic version of Volume II, Technical (SANITIZED), and one (1) electronic version of the Cost Workbook in Excel

(SANITIZED), and one (1) electronic version of the Cost Notes in Word (SANITIZED).

Correct?

39. (Reference: Response to question 1 and Section L.3.12, Table Two) Would the Government confirm that the revised RFP supersedes Q&A responses and according to RFP Section L.3.12, Table Two, the required number of hard copies of the Master Volume remains as one (1), despite the response to Question 1 stating that, “The requirements have changed to require two Master

Hardcopy Volume…?”

40. Section L.1, paragraph 2(a) of the conformed RFP provided with Amendment 4 instructs offerors to also submit proposals electronically via email to the Contracting Officer and Contract

Specialist. What file size limitations do those inboxes have?

41. Reference: The Consolidated Q&A answer #266 states: “The intent [of the Master Volume] is to have one binder which contains all four (4) volumes along with individual binders for each of the volumes.” However, L.3 table two only requests individual binders for Volume 2.

Question: Are individual binders required for each of the volumes? If so, how many binders per volume must be submitted?

42. Reference: L.3 table two shows that Volume 3 should have 0/0 copies.

Question: Is that different from how Volume 1 and Volume 4 should be submitted as part of the

Master Volume?

43. Amendment 4; Solicitation, Section L.3, Table 2, Volume II, SF 3 Quality Control It states under SF 3 Quality Control, that a santized version of Technical Capability/Risk and it also states Santized Cost Worksheet, to be included under SF 3 Quality Control. Is this correct?

44. Table 2 in Section L.3 of the conformed RFP provided with Amendment 4 requires offerors

Master Volume in each volume submission, individual and master. However, Table 2 also indicates that all volumes with the exception of the sanitized version of Volume II are now to be

45. Table 2 in Section L.3 of the conformed RFP provided with Amendment 4 requires offerors

Master Volume in each volume submission, individual and master. However, Table 2 also indicates that all volumes with the exception of the sanitized version of Volume II are now to be

Answer: This answer addresses the above questions 26 through 45.

Reference the changes to RFP sections L.1 through L.4 that have been made to make clear the volumes that are required to be submitted in hard copy and soft copy.

46. Reference Amendment Four, Section L.3, #11, which states " 11. Printing should be single spaced and be double-sided. ...” When printing double-sided is required, the Offeror will have to insert blank pages (i.e., not all sections will end on an even page to facilitate double-sided printing). Are blank pages to be page numbered?

Answer: No, blank pages should not be numbered and do not count toward the page count.

47. Reference Amendment Four, Section L.4, 3. Content Requirement, item (d), which states

“(d) Title pages, tables of contents, cross-reference matrices, glossaries, acronym lists, page tabs, and section dividers that do not contain material that can be construed as proposal information will not be counted as part of the page limitations. However, these pages shall be numbered with lower case Roman numerals (i, ii, iii, etc.) or marked as tabs as appropriate to provide ease of reference for the Government.” Based upon this requirement, are blank pages, which are required in order to facilitate “section dividers” or “page tabs” to be numbered lower case Roman numeral? To avoid page numbering confusion in regards to page limits established for Volume II and III, can the Offeror NOT provide section dividers or page tabs in their proposal response?

Answer: Yes. There is no requirement for Offerors to use section dividers or page tabs in their proposal response. The above is allowing them to be used and not count toward the page count.

48. The first is a procedural question regarding the proposal submission by our teaming partners. Section L uses the word “Offeror” interchangeably so there is some ambiguity. Can the Government please confirm the following:

a. The prime contractor submits all four volumes (General, Technical, Past Performance, and Cost) and the cost workbook in both sanitized and unsanitized versions.

b. The teaming partners submit only the General and Cost Volumes as unsanitized volumes only delivered directly to the government. Sanitized version are not required by Teaming

Partners.

__. If this is not correct can the government provide the submission standard for prime offerors versus team members?

__. Section L5. Paragraph 1.c. page 69 of 101 of the revised solicitation states: “The above requirements to provide DCMA/DCAA points of contact and to provide a Provisional Billing

Rate Proposal (BRP) if one hasn’t already been established apply to the Prime and all

Subcontractors.” Provisional billing rates are proprietary to each subcontractor and should not be provided in Volume 1 by the prime bidder unless Volume I provides for sealed packages from subcontractors. Can the government verify that subcontractor provisional billing rates should only be submitted by the subcontractor to the government via their sealed bid? Can the

Government specify where specifically this subcontractor proprietary data should be provided within Volume I or Volume 4?

__. Reference: L.3 table two shows that Volume IV should include:

h. Cost Notes (Narrative)

i. Cost Workbook/Excel Templates

j. UNSANITIZED Cost Workbook/Excel Template and Cost Notes

Question: Is item C in addition to items A – B? If so, how is it different?

__. Reference Amendment Four, Sections L.8.7, L.3, and L.8.9. Section L.8.7 states that

“sanitized cost proposals shall exclude all company proprietary or sensitive data, including cost and price information”. However, Section L.3 (Volume II) requires a sanitized Cost Notes file be submitted in Volume II. Furthermore, RFP Section L.8.9 states that “Cost Notes should serve to explain to the Government how your proposed cost supports your proposed approach in meeting the requirements of the solicitation”. An Offeror’s description of its proposed approach is sensitive, proprietary, and essentially made up only cost and price information. Given these constraints, would the Government please clarify what information it wants Offerors to include in the sanitized Cost Notes?

__. Reference Amendment Four, Consolidated Q&A #138. If a subcontractor considers its

DCAA audit reports and DCMA Forward Pricing Rate Agreement, Forward Pricing Rate

Recommendation, and/or Provisional Rate Agreement to be proprietary, can the subcontractor submit these documents directly to the government?

__. We have a subcontractor who has disclosed their proprietary information to us in detail. We plan to include this information in our Cost Workbook. That said, the headers of the Cost Build

Tab only allow for 1 set of indirect rates to be used to build up cost. On page 74 of the RFP it states “The format of the workbook and the worksheets contained therein shall not be modified unless instructed to do so within the Cost Workbook instructions.”

In order to provide the information for the prime as well as this subcontractor on the same sheet as instructed, a modification would be necessary by either adding additional indirect percentages above the already available cells and labeling each appropriately or using the heading in another section of the same page to…