2._Consolidated_Q&As_W91RUS-18-R-DA04_.pdf

W91RUS-18-R-DA04

Industry Questions and Government Answers

United States Army Regional Cyber Center – Continental United States

Information Technology (IT) Support Services

Note: Questions highlighted in orange are technical and questions highlighted in green are non-technical.

1. RFP paragraph L.3.8 indicates that the offeror shall provide a Master DVD that contains all four volumes of the proposal. “Section L.3 Table two” on the same page, appears to indicate that a Master Volume ‘containing all four volumes in hard copy is also required. Would the

Government please clarify whether a separate, bound Master Volume hard copy is required in addition to the individual hard copy/DVD volume submissions specified in the remainder of

Section L.3 Table two? Additionally, would the Government further clarify whether the Master

Volume (hard copy and DVD) is to contain the sanitized or unsanitized version of Volume II, Technical Capability/Risk?

Answer: The volumes submitted will be evaluated by separate teams. Section L.3 Table two and

RFP Section L.3.8 have been updated for clarification and streamlining purposes. The requirements have changed to require two Master Hardcopy Volume version in addition to the one Master DVD Volume version. The requirement has also changed to require that the

SANITIZED cost be submitted under Volume II - Technical rather than Volume IV – Cost. The

SANITIZED cost version will be used to facilitate hours adjustments/Most Probable Cost (MPC)

Adjustments. The number of hardcopy and DVD copies requested within the separate volumes has been reduced wherever the Master Volume submission may be used in place of requiring a separate volume submission.

Each Master Volume, both hardcopy (two) and DVD (one), shall include the following.

Volume I: General

a. Contents of Proposal Transmittal Letter with appendices addressing sections (a) through (l), Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents & Certifications/ Representations.

Volume II: Technical Capability/Risk

a. Executive Summary

b. Staffing (Workforce)

c. Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) described at L.6.1.(b)

d. Staffing Plan - Description of Labor Categories described at L.6.1.(c)

e. Performance Management

f. Quality Control

g. SANITIZED Version, as described at L.6. VOLUME 2 – TECHNICAL CAPABILITY/RISK

(FACTOR 1)(a)

h. SANITIZED Cost Workbook/Excel Template and Cost Notes as described at L.8.VOLUME 4

– COST (FACTOR 3) (7)

i. UNSANITIZED Version, as described at L.6. VOLUME 2 – TECHNICAL

CAPABILITY/RISK (FACTOR 1)(a)

j. Subcontractor consent and committal letters

Volume III: Past Performance

a. Past Performance Description

b. Cure Notices or Show Cause Letters

c. Past Performance Questionnaires (separate submittal)

Volume IV – Cost/ Price

d. Cost Notes (Narrative)

e. Cost Workbook/Excel Templates

f. UNSANITIZED Cost Workbook/Excel Template and Cost Notes, as described at

L.8.VOLUME 4 – COST (FACTOR 3) (7)

Any other documents required in the RFP.

2. RFP Section L.3 Table two. May offerors place the Volume II sections that are not included in page count (i.e., WBS, staffing plan worksheets, labor category descriptions) in appendices to Volume II, so that the remainder in the volume which is subject to page limitations can be numbered consecutively to end on or before page 60?

Answer: Yes. This is what we are expecting to see.

3. RFP Section L.4.1. Would the Government please clarify whether both a Master Table of Contents and a volume-specific table of contents is required in each proposal volume, or is the

Master Table of Contents only required to be present in Volume 1?

Answer: RFP Section PROPOSAL FILES, 1. Format has been updated to clarify, “All pages of each volume need to be appropriately numbered and identified by Offeror name, date and solicitation number in the header and/or footer, redacted as necessary for the SANITIZED version (i.e. Offeror name). Create a Master Table of Contents to sequentially list the content contained in the Master Volume and a separate Table of Contents to sequentially list the content contained in each separate volume.” Because the volumes will be distributed for evaluation by separate teams and will contain different content, we require a separate table of contents for each individual volume as well as a Table of Contents for the compiled Master Volume (hardcopy and

DVD versions).

4. RFP Section L.5.i. Would the Government please clarify if PDF versions of signed documents submitted on DVDs may be digitally signed, or must they be an optical scan of the original wet signature?

Answer: PDF versions of signed documents submitted on DVDs may be digitally signed.

5. RFP Section L.5.j. Would the Government please clarify if copies of executed teaming agreements suffice in response to the requirements of the subject RFP paragraph?

Answer: Yes, but only if the executed teaming arrangement provides the information required at

FAR 9.603. Each proposal shall provide documentation evidencing the legal relationship among the joint venture/teaming parties and describe the teaming arrangement and relationships so that the Government may evaluate it to make sure that the teaming arrangement is legal. For example, to ensure that it conforms to the limitations described in FAR 9.604, which does not authorize contractor team arrangements in violation of antitrust statutes. In addition, contractor team arrangements cannot limit certain Government rights, such as the right to hold the prime contractor fully responsible for contract performance regardless of the composition of the team.

Reference FAR 9.603, which states, “The government will recognize the integrity and validity of contractor team arrangements, provided, the arrangements are identified and company relationships are fully disclosed in an offer or, for arrangements entered into after submission of an offer, before the arrangement becomes effective. The government will not normally require or encourage the dissolution of contractor team arrangements.” If the executed teaming agreement does not provide all the required information in and of itself, then an executed teaming agreement may be provided as an appendix to the narrative that identifies the arrangements and fully discloses the company relationships within the teaming arrangement.

6. RFP Section L.6.a: Given that prior RFP Section L.4.1 states that “all pages of each volume need to be appropriately numbered and identified by Offeror name, date and solicitation number in the header and/or footer,” would the Government please clarify the mechanism by which offerors are to accomplish sanitization on the Technical proposal? Should identifying information be redacted (i.e., “blacked out”), deleted completely (leaving blank spaces where offeror names would otherwise appear and potentially affecting pagination), or should offerors utilize a non-identifying pseudonym like “Company XYZ” in lieu of their actual name (again, potentially affecting pagination)?

Answer: RFP Section L.6 “SANITIZED” Technical proposals shall exclude all company names and employee names, specific contracts worked or any other identifying information.

The end result of any sanitization effort will be the removal of company identifying information and employee names, both in the technical and the cost versions. The process used to accomplish that end is entirely up to you. Examples also include where the company uses words like “our” instead of the company name and where the company inserts the word [Redacted] wherever identifying information was removed.

7. RFP Section L.6.e.1. Reference the sentence which states, “Staffing worksheets that illustrate the proposed staffing methodology shall be provided and will not be counted as part of the mission support page count.” Is it the Government’s intent that the sanitized versions of the

WBS (and potentially BOE) worksheets in Attachment J.4 are to be replicated here in proposal

Volume 2, or may offeror’s simply out-reference the WBS in the sanitized Excel cost workbook to meet this requirement?

Answer: It is the Government’s intent that the sanitized versions of the WBS (and potentially

BOE) worksheets in Attachment J.4 are to be provided in the Volume II. Section L.3 Table Two has been revised to require the SANITIZED cost workbook, including the BOE and BOE, be submitted under Volume II - Technical rather than Volume IV – Cost.

8. RFP Section L.6.e.1. Would the Government please clarify or otherwise correct use of the term “mission support page count” in the sentence, “Staffing worksheets that illustrate the proposed staffing methodology shall be provided and will not be counted as part of the mission support page count?”

Answer: Mission support was changed to Technical Capability/Risk.

9. RFP Section L.6.e.1 states “Lines of authority must be clear in the delineation of staffing.” Inasmuch as Sub-Factor 2 Performance Management calls for an organizational chart, may offers forward-reference the org chart in Sub-Factor 2 to satisfy this requirement, or is additional information/detail required in Sub-Factor 1?

Answer: Yes, you may forward-reference the org chart in Sub-Factor 2. No additional information/detail is required in Sub-Factor 1.

10. RFP Section L.7.1.c. Would the Government please confirm that subcontractor consent to use past performance, and letters of commitment/teaming agreements are not included in the

25-page limit for the Past Performance volume?

Answer: Yes, those are excluded from the page count and they may be submitted as an Appendix in Adobe Acrobat (.pdf).

11. RFP Section L.7.1.c states, “The Offeror shall submit the written consent of its major subcontractors to allow the disclosure of its subcontractor's past performance information to the

Offeror. In addition, letters of commitment shall be included for all major subcontractors in order for their past performance to be considered.”, Since the Final solicitation no longer defines the term “major subcontractor,” would the Government please clarify those subcontractors for which letters of commitment must be included?

Answer: The distinction between major subcontractor and any proposed subcontractor has been removed from the RFP. The requirement was revised to state, “(c) The Offeror shall submit the written consent for all subcontractors to allow the disclosure of its subcontractor’s past performance information to the Offeror. In addition, in order for their past performance to be considered, letters of commitment shall be included for all subcontractors intended to perform aspects of the effort the Offeror considers critical to the overall success of the program.”

12. RFP Section L.7.1.c. Would the Government accept copies of subcontractor Teaming

Agreements in lieu of Letters of Commitment in order for their past performance to be considered?

Answer: Yes.

13. RFP L.7.1.d. May offerors include a 1-2 page overview/summary of past performance

(within page count) at the start of Volume 3, if desired?

14. RFP Section L.7.4 entitled “Section 3 – Subcontracts.” This section appears to address the assignment of subcontractor teammates to work intended to be performed under the current solicitation and does not appear germane to Past Performance. Would the Government please clarify whether this information belongs in a different proposal section? This section also makes reference to “major subcontractors,” however the Final solicitation does not provide a definition of this term.

Answer: The distinction of “major” subcontractor has been removed. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the PWS. The more relevant the past performance history, the more valuable the past performance information. We want to know how the proposed past performance history relates to the current approach to performance so that the Government has some context to measure whether the Offeror will successfully satisfy the current requirements.

15. RFP Section L.7.8. Would the Government please clarify whether Small Business

Participation Past Performance must be submitted for the 3-5 citations provided in the Past

Performance section, or is the Government’s desire that offerors provide substantiation of SB participation across a wider spectrum of current work having SB participation requirements? Is this section required for all offerors, or only large businesses?

Answer: This section is required for all Offerors. Evaluation of small business past performance is not limited to evaluation of performance of other-than-small businesses only; it includes the evaluation of small businesses’ past performance of utilizing fellow small businesses as well.

Small Business Past Performance (compliance with FAR 52.219-8 & 9) is required to be evaluated when past performance is required to be evaluated in accordance with DFARS

215.305(a)(2).

16. RPF Section L.8.10.c.11 states, “Bid codes (applicable codes used to identify a labor category in the Offerors accounting system), employee names and/or other documentation (such as assigned letter of commitment for key personnel not currently employed by the Offeror) to support the rates proposed shall be provided. Letters of commitment shall clearly identify the prospective employees’ agreed-to salary/hourly rate and other pertinent conditions of employment.” The remainder of the RFP does not appear to call for resumes or other employee-identifying information at the time of proposal submission. Furthermore, Section L.6 instructs, “The proposal shall not provide the names of proposed personnel.” Would the Government please clarify the required contingent hire salary documentation when specific employees are not to be referenced by name?

Answer: The information shall be provided by labor category/position title rather than employee name.

L.6 has been revised to specify that the SANITIZED version of the proposal shall not provide the names of proposed personnel. On the other hand, employee identifying information shall be provided in the UNSANITIZED proposal in order to facilitate MPC adjustments. Letters of commitment for key personnel are required as a means for the Government to incorporate that quality level into the contract in case the proposed individual leaves prior to award or during contract performance. Over the life of the contract, this information may be used to facilitate the pricing of change orders.

17. RFP L.9 FAR 252.215-7009 Would the Government please clarify in which volume the completed Proposal Adequacy Checklist is to appear, if at all?

Answer: Questions 17, 24, 64, 109, 238 and 375 all concern the Proposal Adequacy Checklist.

Submit in Volume I – General. The Proposal Adequacy Checklist is required in accordance with

52.215-20 REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFIED COST OR PRICING DATA OR

INFORMATION OTHER THAN CERTIFIED COST OR PRICING DATA (OCT 2010)—

ALTERNATE Certified cost and pricing (OCT 2010)

(a) Submission of certified cost or pricing data is not required.

(b) Provide data described below: In order to ensure the Contracting Office has sufficient Data

Other than Certified Cost or Pricing Data, Offerors are required to complete the DFARS clause

252.215-7009 Proposal Adequacy Checklist. The offeror shall complete the checklist, providing location of requested information, or an explanation of why the requested information is not provided. In preparation of the offeror’s checklist, offerors may elect to have their prospective subcontractors use the same or similar checklist as appropriate.

18. Attachment _J.1_PWS, Page 4, Section 2.2 Sub-Paragraph 2.2.1. In the center of the paragraph, the sentence "During the life of this contract, the USARCC-C may assume control of devices within the installation LAN and Black Core Routers which are in support of Operation

Guardian Enable." Question: Is the OGE Device Network Management support supposed to be part of the estimated work in this PWS Base Year and Both Option Years or will this be considered "Optional Work" to be priced at later time? Or is the OGE support and requirements going to be defined at a later time once the Government identifies the actual work and issues a mod later in the contract?

Answer: “During the life of this contract” means the requirements are not clearly defined, and have the ability to further define in scope of this contract during the life of this contract. This is in the PWS to support the directions Major Commands want to go in the future of this contract.

This is not considered “Optional Work” as it will be more of the same work already in the PWS.

19. Attachment _J.1_Appendix_A_Services_and_Assets. Does the Services and Assets spreadsheet include the OGE requirements noted in section two of the PWS? If not, can the

Government identify the additional requirements i.e. quantities of servers, routers, operating systems, etc.?

Answer: Appendix A Services and Assets are a reflection of the USARCC-C mission support at the time of submission and information to gage workload and scale of the mission. Appendix A

Services and Assets is broken out by Hardware, Software, and Virtual footprint for service areas for management. Appendix A Services and Assets will fluctuate during the life of the contract based on the ebb and flow of the network considering Lifecycle Management and mission requirements. Refer to the PWS 4.7.2 Supplies and Services for Government Furnished Property

(GFP).

20. Request for reference documents:

Additional technical design and policy reference information governing the SIPRNET can be accessed atCaution-http://iase.disa.mil/policy-guidance/index.html#trustedproductsand

Caution-http://iase.disa.mil/stigs/iadocs.html < Caution-http://iase.disa.mil/stigs/iadocs.html

Answer: DISA Information Assurance Support Environment (IASE) is located at -https://iase.disa.mil/Pages/index.aspx

- DoD Approved Products List - https://aplits.disa.mil/processAPList

- Security Technical Implementation Guides (STIGS) -https://iase.disa.mil/stigs/Pages/index.aspx

The PWS at Section 9.0 REFERENCES has been updated accordingly.

9.1.4 NETCOM Regulation 25-70, Web Content Administration, Policies, and Procedures, is available from the NETCOM Intranet atCaution-https://west.esps.disa.mil/netcom/pages/Caution-home.aspx.

Answer: NETCOM Publications, Forms, Regulations are not for public access. Access to be provided by the Government requiring activity during performance of the contract. The PWS at Section 9.1.4 has been revised to state that the NETCOM Regulation 25-70, Web Content

Administration, Policies, and Procedures is available from the NETCOM Intranet at https://army.deps.mil/NETCOM/sites/g6/PubsForms/Pages/PubsFormsNew.aspx. Access will be provided by the Government requiring activity during performance of the contract.

9.1.5 Policies, Plans, Instructions, and Tactics, Techniques and Procedures (TTPs) are available from Caution-https://www.7sigcmd.army.mil.

Answer: These are no longer hosted by 7th Signal Command and are internal documents to the USARCC-C. The PWS at Section 9.1.5 has been revised to state that the USARCC-C

Policies, Plans, Instructions, and Tactics, Techniques and Procedures (TTPs) are provided by the Government requiring activity during performance of the contract.

9.1.6 The following publications are available on SIPRNet Web sites. The COR will provide applicable links.

*Army Cyber Command and Second Army Operational Orders, Warning Orders, Communications Tasking Orders, Operational Directive Messages, and DOD IAVMs

Army NETOPS Operational Order 05-01

Answer: The SIPRNet Web sites are for internal operations of the USARCC-C and are not provided to the public for access.

The PWS at Section: 9.1.6 has been revised to state that the publications are available on

SIPRNet Web sites and will be provided by the Government requiring activity during performance of the contract.

9.1.9 Other References. The PWS at Section 9.1.9 Other References has been revised concerning the following references.

https://iase.disa.mil/Pages/index.aspx https://aplits.disa.mil/processAPList https://iase.disa.mil/stigs/Pages/index.aspx https://army.deps.mil/NETCOM/sites/g6/PubsForms/Pages/PubsFormsNew.aspx

Army CIO/G6 Best Business Practice 05-PR-M-0002, Information Assurance (IA Training and Certification) (available at Caution-https://informationassurance.us.army.mil/bbp/index.php

Answer: Government certificates required.

https://www.milsuite.mil/wiki/Portal:Army_Cybersecurity/Best_Business_Practices

Committee on National Security Systems Instructions (CNSSI) 4009, National Information

Assurance Glossary (available at http://www.cnss.gov/full-index.html)

Answer: https://www.cnss.gov/CNSS/issuances/Instructions.cfm

Deputy Under Secretary of Defense memorandum, 1 Apr 2005, subject: Facilitating

Classified Visits within the Department of Defense

Answer: Available from the Government requiring activity during performance of the contract. Caveat - (available from the Government requiring activity during performance of the contract)

Department of the Army G2 memorandum, 29 May 2007, subject: Classified Visit Request

Process

Operation Order (OPORD) 0910-300, 9thSignal Command (Army), 14 Aug 09, DAR

Deployment

US Army Cyber Command and Second Army Security Classification Guide for Cyberspace

Operations and Security, 19 May 2016 (FOUO, available from the Government requiring activity).

21. RFP 63-65 L.3. Section L.3 Table two and L.4.2(a). Section L.3 Table two indicates the only formats allowed are MS Word and MS Excel. Para L.4.2(a) states the electronic https://www.milsuite.mil/wiki/Portal:Army_Cybersecurity/Best_Business_Practices https://www.cnss.gov/CNSS/issuances/Instructions.cfm versions can be in Adobe Acrobat (.pdf). Please confirm offerors are allowed to include Word documents that have been converted into .pdf on the DVDs.

Answer: L.4.2(a) states, “Complete electronic volumes are to be submitted in Microsoft Office format; readable by Microsoft (MS) Word, MS Excel, MS Power Point, and/or Adobe Acrobat

(.pdf).” Due to the large amount of documentation and image files required in Volume I-

General, the Government will allow this volume to be submitted in PDF format. Section L.3

Table two and Section L.4 Proposal Files have been updated accordingly. All other documents shall be submitted in MS Word.

22. RFP 63-64 L.3. Section L.3 Table two and L.4.2(a) The current instructions indicate we are to include 28 DVDs with our Proposal, as follows: 1 of all 4 Volumes; 1 of

Volume I; 4 of each the sanitized and the unsanitzed of Volume II; 3 of Volume III; 4 of the sanitized version of Volume IV; and 3 of the unsanitized version of Volume IV. If this is not a correct interpretation, please clarify.

Answer: 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.

23. RFP 64 L.4.1 The directions state offerors are to include a normal Table of

Contents, for that Volume, with each Volume. However, they also currently state we are to include a Master Table of Contents (a Table of Contents of all Volumes) in each Volume. Is the intent to include a Master Table of Contents in each Volume? If not, in which Volume should offerors place the Master Table of Contents?

Answer: Reference question 3.

24. RFP 81-86 252.215-7009 In which Volume should offeror place the Proposal

Adequacy Checklist?

Answer: Reference question 17.

25. PWS 41 5.6.3.1.2 Will the Government provide this tool based on PWS: b)

Conducting on-site scans with an anomaly detection tool to determine width of incident

Answer: Yes. Tools to perform this contract are provided by the Government.

26. PWS 6 4.2.2.3 Will the Government provide any funding for this training? All key personnel shall be ITIL Foundations certified within three months of contract start date or hiring date.

Answer: The Government will not provide the funding for ITIL Foundations Certification. The contractor is responsible for all Contractor employees meeting the training in the PWS requirements. For more information see the PWS 4.2.3 Training. All Contractor personnel shall be trained and have the required certification to provide the support as defined in this PWS.

27. PWS 3 1 The current PWS doesn't provide clarification on what work is done at the alternate locations such as Ft Sam Houston? Can the Government provide clarification on the role at the other locations listed? The primary place of contract performance is Fort Huachuca, Arizona with limited contract support at Fort Sam Houston, TX, Fort Gordon, GA and Fort

Eustis, VA.

Answer: The PWS has been changed to reflect the deletion of physical support at Fort Gordon, Fort Eustis, and Fort Sam Houston.

28. RFP 62 L.3.2 "Optional Work specified in the PWS is subject to the Changes

Clause and shall not be priced. The Contractor shall support any optional work incorporated into the contract with the same labor categories and at the same labor rates that were proposed, evaluated and accepted at the time of award. The Contractor shall provide a justification to explain the circumstances that require proposing a different labor category and different labor rate that shall be subject to Contracting Officer approval. Is all the optional work at Ft.

Huachuca? Rates in TX, VA may require different rate to staff.”

Answer: Questions 28, 30, 69, 209, 470, and 497 all concern Optional Work.

Answer: Optional Work for location see the PWS 1.1 and 1.2. Optional Work in PWS 2.2.1.1 and 5.1.5 Army Public key Infrastructure for Equipment (PKI0E) support is at Fort Huachuca.

The word “baseline” has been removed from the PWS at 1.2 and in the RFP at B.1 Overview.

The RFP at B.1 Overview has been revised to highlight that the Contractor is expected to shift baseline resources as needed to accommodate the RCC-C mission as it evolves over time (by placing this paragraph first).

For clarification, the Army Public key Infrastructure for Equipment (PKI0E) support identified as “Optional Work” is assistive to Government personnel in nature and is not expected to require additional resources. However, if, or when, the Army Public key Infrastructure for Equipment

(PKI0E) support becomes a fully developed requirement, that work will be communicated and priced by the Contractor; negotiated, if necessary; and incorporated into the contract using the

Changes clause. The Contractor will determine if existing resources on contract may fulfill the requirement or if additional resources need to be proposed. Additional resources shall be proposed with rationale and any new labor categories and rates will be identified so that the

Government may determine them fair and reasonable.

The Offeror shall not discuss the level of effort required for Optional Work in the technical volume or price it as part of your proposal.

29. PWS 3 1.1 Alternate places of performance include Fort Sam Houston, Texas...in a temporary duty (TDY) status. Can the Government provide additional clarification on the type of work that will be performed at these locations?

Answer: At the start of the contract, 5.3.2 Enterprise Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP) is the limited contract support requirement physically at Fort Sam Houston, TX. Other than the contractor support perform physically at Fort Sam Houston is considered in a temporary duty

(TDY) status to Fort Sam Houston. If 1.1 (Optional Work) is exercised and Fort Sam Houston becomes an Alternate place of performance, other than the contractor support performed physically at Fort Sam Houston is considered in a temporary duty (TDY) status to Fort Sam

Houston.

30. PWS 3 1.2 Performance includes baseline requirements identified. The

Government reserves the right to negotiate these requirements at a future date…. Optional Work shall not be priced as part of the contract award. If this is a baseline how can optional work not be included in the WBS? Can the Government provide clarification on this statement?

Answer: Reference question 28.

31. PWS 32 5.3.2.4 "Not Optional so must be priced in baseline: The Contractor shall manage, monitor, secure, and sustain the CONUS enterprise theater VOIP Edge/Session Border

Controllers etc.... Ref 1.1 states optional. Provide Tier III IP VoIP support at Fort Gordon, Fort

Eustis, and Fort Sam Houston. Can Government provide clarification on whether this work is optional? Can Government provide clarification on whether this contract will have personnel at additional locations?

Answer: PWS 5.3.2.4 is baseline work. Please re-read PWS 1.0. PWS 1.1 refers to Optional

Work and does not refer specifically to 5.3.2.4 but as identified in PWS 5.0 Technical requirements. If this Optional Work is exercised, refer to PWS 1.2. The PWS has been changed to reflect the deletion of physical support at Fort Gordon, Fort Eustis, and Fort Sam Houston.

32. 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.

33. Attachment J.4 WBS Columns F-J appear to duplicate column A, row 13, 18, 23, 28, and 33. What is the relevance of the example showing hours assigned to subtask

5.1.1.1 appearing in column G task 5.1.2, Column H task 5.1.3, Column I task 5.14 and column J task 5.1.5.

Answer: The WBS has been revised to remove the duplicate columns.

34. Attachment J.4 WBS Column E Should column E reflect the total hours for labor cat (e.g. row 14, 15, 16, etc) for the specific period of performance e.g. phase in - 1 month, base - 11 months, etc.?

Answer: The WBS has been revised to remove the duplicate columns and include formulas to illustrate the hours that are to be rolled up at each level.

35. Attachment J.4 WBS Row 18 Task 5.1.2 is an optional task. The instructions state that optional tasks are not to be priced. Are we required to show the lcats and hours assigned to the task but not include the cost for those in the Summary, Schedule B-CLINS and Cost Build tabs?

Answer: The Cost Workbook/ WBS tab has been updated to clarify that the optional work shall not be included in the proposal, neither the technical nor the cost volume.

36. Attachment J.4 Summary Is a summary tab required for each period of performance (phase in, base, OP1, Op2) or for the total contract period of performance?

Answer: The Summary tab has been renamed to clarify that this tab accumulates the proposed cost for the entire program (Phase-in, Base and Two Options) by cost element.

37. RFP 71 L.7.1(a) PP is currently limited to 25 pages. In previous similar efforts, with the same PP requirements, the page limit only applied to Sections 1 and 2, and allowed for an additional 5 pages for each major sub. Here, the page limit currently applies to the entire volume, with the exception of front matter and the questionnaires. The remainder of the volume subject to the page limitation includes Section 3, Section 4, the Small Business

Participation Past Performance, and the two letters from each Major sub. We request that the page limit here be applied to only PP Sections 1 and 2.

Answer: The page count has been revised not to exceed eight pages total for each past performance reference. Total maximum page count with five past performance references is 40 pages.

38. RFP 78 L.8(c-22) The anticipated date for initiation of Phase-in is 1 June

2018 with performance beginning on 1 July 2018. We assume the Government will adjust these dates as needed since proposals are not due until 3 June 2018? The winning company will need a minimum of 15 days to get resources in place.

Answer: Questions 38, 52, 61, 91, 92, 96, 104, 129, 134, 220, 223, 224, 261, 265, 270, 271, 305, 319, 362, 363, 366, and 448 are essentially the same question concerning performance dates.

Reference revised period of performance dates on page 3, revised proposal due date at Section

L.1 and revised anticipated start date of phase-in at Section L.8.22.

39. RFP 34 H.7 (b) "There is conflicting guidance on resumes between the solicitation and the PWS. In the solicitation it states: Within ten days of notification of contract award, the contractor shall provide the names, and redacted resumes of all designated Key Personnel to the

COR. Can the Government provide clarification on whether resumes are part of the proposal? "

Answer: Resumes are not required to be submitted as part of the Offeror’s proposal. The

Contractor is responsible for compliance with PWS requirements and for ensuring that its employees meet the qualifications set forth in the contract. The Government will verify that the hired personnel have the requisite requirements prior to starting performance on the contract.

40. RFP 70 L.6.1.(e).2 what is the government looking for in regards to describing the qualifications of the workforce when no specific support surge requirements are identified in the PWS?

Answer: Surge requirements addressing more of the same work. Surge requirements exist in ebb and flow within Life Cycle and migration which are identified throughout the PWS. Also in 3.0

Scope included in the paragraph “Work shall include current and new systems at various lifecycle stages, and any future applications/systems not currently identified”.

41. PWS 34 5.3.1.13 Section mentions an "Availability Process Plan". Is that plan available for review?

Answer: Reference PWS 5.8 Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL) and subsequent paragraphs. Availability Process Plan, TTPs and SOPs are for internal operations of the USARCC-C and are not provided to the public for access. Policies, Plans, Instructions, and

Tactics, Techniques and Procedures (TTPs) are provided by the Government requiring activity during performance of the contract.

42. PWS 35 5.3.3 "Paragraph states: ""It is expected of the contract that since VTC calls SPAN the Globe, the contractor will also have to support OCONUS video operations to a feasible extent.""

Answer: PWS 5.3.3. has changed to USARCC-C internal Internet Protocol Video

Teleconference (IP VTC) NIPRNET and SIPRNET. See FEDBIZZOPS Solicitation W91RUS-

18-R-DA04 05-18-18.

43. Can number of OCONUS support locations/users be further characterized? How will the term ""feasible extent"" be quantified measured?"

Answer: Not at this time. The term “feasible extent” does not appear in the PWS. PWS 1.0 includes: During the life of this contract, temporary duty may be required Outside the

Continental United States (OCONUS). PWS 2.1.3 includes: During the life of this contract, the

USARCC-C may support Army Network Enterprise management of Outside the Continental

United States (OCONUS) Theaters. Outside Continental United States (OCONUS) Travel is addressed in the PWS 4.2.5.2. and 4.8 with OCONUS locations in subsequent paragraphs.

OCONUS support would be for other RCCs, which include Europe (Wiesbaden), Korea, Southwest Asia (Kuwait), and Pacific (Hawaii).

44. PWS 35 5.3.3.4 Section states: "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. Provide Tier I, II, and III IP internal and enterprise VoIP support at Fort Huachuca 24 hours a day, seven days a week." Are there other installations that should share this focus?

Answer: You have 5.3.2.4 “Provide Tier III IP VoIP” confused with 5.3.3.4 “Provide Tier III IP

VTC support”. 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.

45. PWS 5.3.4.1 Section States: "Enterprise IM and collaborative services systems that do not currently exist at the Army Enterprise level. Therefore the contractor should be prepared to support an eventual Enterprise IM and Collaboration Tool systems to be determined at a later date. These systems may also be integrated with the existing Enterprise

VoIP and VTC Enterprise solutions for seamless call and communication routing." Are any candidate applications/systems/packages identified for this projected integration? Do performance requirements exist? Are they available for review?

Answer: 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.

46. On page 64 of the solicitation, Section L.3 Table two: Proposal Volumes, Page

Limitations, Format, and Copies, Section IV: Cost/Price, it states the Cost Notes (Narrative) should be submitted in MS Excel 2010 format. However, on page 75 of the solicitation, in paragraph 9, it states, “The Cost Notes shall be submitted in Microsoft Word.” Which format should we use (MS Word or Excel)?

Answer: Section L.3 Table two has been updated to require Cost Notes (Narrative) be submitted in MS Word rather than MS Excel.

47. (Reference L.5.1.i.4-5) The RFP states that “4. Section K. Representations, Certifications and Other Statements of Offerors (FAR) representations, certifications and other statements of Offerors shall be submitted 5. On-line in accordance with solicitation provision 52.204-8.

DFARS representations, certifications and other statements of Offerors shall be included with the solicitation documents submitted in this section.)”

a. The numbering appears to be incorrect, splitting the requirement mid-sentence. Please confirm that this should all fall under Number 4, rather than being split into

Numbers 4 and 5.

b. The requirement says that the documentation should be “submitted On-line.” However, it goes on to state that “certifications and other statements of Offerors shall be included…in this section,” which suggests that the items should be included within the volume rather than, or in addition to, being completed online. Please clarify this requirement – which of these items, if any, should be included within the volume?

Answer: Numbering corrected. Any representation and certification provision or clause that requires the offeror to provide information shall be provided in Volume I – General.

48. (Reference L.7.4) Volume III, Past Performance, requires inclusion of the written consent of all major subcontractors as well as letters of commitment for all major subcontractors. The volume is limited to 25 pages. Even for a relatively small team with, for example, five subcontractors, these documents alone would take up 10 of the 25 allowed pages. For larger teams, the page count issue would be even worse. The volume also requires copies of other documents if applicable (such as Show Cause Letters). Will the Government exempt the subcontractor consent and commitment letters, as well as other required documentation, from the Volume III page limit?

Answer: Yes. See revised Section L.3 Table two.

49. (Reference L.6.1) Repeated references are made to “staffing worksheets,” but it is unclear what these worksheets are to include, or whether they are meant to be in a format provided by the Government. Please clarify – are these the same thing as the Staffing Plan spreadsheet?

Answer: Yes. All the requirements specified at L.6 VOLUME 2 – TECHNICAL

CAPABILITY/RISK (FACTOR 1), 1 SUB-FACTOR 1 – STAFFING, including staffing structure, methodology and worksheets, etc., comprise the offerors Staffing Plan.

The staffing worksheets provide the overview of the proposed workforce and consist of the outlined content on page 70, under RFP Section1. SUB-FACTOR 1 – STAFFING, (c)

Staffing Plan - Description of Labor Categories, 1.

As a minimum, the following information shall be included in the staffing spreadsheet(s).

a. The Company’s internal job title and position description associated with each proposed labor category. The position description should reflect the qualifications (education, experience and job duties) that will be advertised to fill the position.

b. Specific Job Title (e.g., Help Desk Specialist I, II, III, IV)

c. Part Time/Full Time position

d. Total Hours per week

e. Work Days (e.g., Mon-Fri, Tue-Sat.)

f. Employee Duty Hours (e.g., 0830 – 1630.)

g. Job duties/functions/ key responsibilities

h. Supervisory functions, if any

i. Key Position (Yes/No)

j. Certifications to meet technical and functional requirements (PWS Section 4.0, Table 1 and

Table 2).

k. Training required

l. Education level

m. Years of experience

n. Security Clearance.

o. Exempt or Non-Exempt.

This information may be compiled and submitted in either MS Word or MS Excel.

50. (Reference L.6.1.c) Given the amount of information required for the Staffing Plan spreadsheet, and given that this is not a page counted section, will the Government allow

11x17 foldout pages to accommodate the required columns?

51. (Reference L.7.8) Given that this RFP is a small-business set-aside contract, does L.7.8 apply? Many small businesses will not have the type of supporting documentation discussed here.

Answer: This section is required for all Offerors. Evaluation of small business past performance is not limited to evaluation of performance of other-than-small businesses only;

it includes the evaluation of small businesses’ past performance of utilizing fellow small businesses as well. Small Business Past Performance (compliance with FAR 52.219-8 & 9) is required to be evaluated when past performance is required to be evaluated in accordance with DFARS 215.305(a)(2).

52. (Reference file Solicitation_W91RUS-18-R-DA04_05-18-18.pdf) The customer has indicated that the last period of performance is a Six Month Option to Extend but the corresponding dates indicate that this is 1 full year of performance. We request clarification from the customer.

Answer: Reference question 38.

53. (Reference File Attachment_J.4_Cost_Workbook, PWS 5.6.9)

Attachment_J.4_Cost_Workbook indicates that there is a requirement titled Theater

Defensive Cyberspace Operations Intelligence Support (DCOIS) but Attachment_J.1_PWS does not include this requirement. Could the customer please clarify?

Answer: The Cost Workbook has been revised in accordance with the revised PWS.

54. (Reference File Attachment_J.4_Cost_Workbook), Attachment_J.4_Cost_Workbook

PWS 5.2.4 states that the requirement is in support of (Option) HBSS but

Attachment_J.1_PWS states that 5.2.4 is actually Global Network Enterprise (GNE) Tools

Support. Is PWS Section 2 (Enterprise Services) missing HBSS requirements?

Answer: The Cost Workbook has been revised in accordance with the revised PWS.

55. PWS page 25 Section 5.2.3.8

The PWS states that on-boarding of an additional theater will begin in "September, 2014" and that contractors will be responsible for "developing any necessary application features and monitoring the impact to the current system and mission. Upon successful completion of this on-boarding, additional theaters will be on-boarded to the current NIPRNet Authorized Management

System incrementally adding one at a time until all theaters are on-boarded to AMS." Has this onboarding already occurred during the existing contract? How many have completed on-boarding? How many more theaters will the contractor be expected to onboard?

Answer: The Pacific Theater has been on boarded and is currently in use. The other theaters are planned to be on boarded. PWS page 33, Section 5.4.1.2

56. PWS page 33, Section 5.4.1.2

Can the Government confirm McAfee Global manager is the SIM tool currently used to provide the support detailed in this paragraph?

Answer: The current SEIM tool (SIM is old term) is ArcSight. Generic term would just be

SEIM. The PWS at Section 5.4.1.2 was updated to read “Security Event and Incident

Management (SEIM)”.

57. Solicitation page 73, Section L7

Will the Government consider accepting Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System

(CPARS) evaluations in lieu of PPQs?

Answer: No. In accordance with the DoD Source Selection Procedures, dated 31 March 2016, page 28, “The past performance evaluation conducted in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the Offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts.” The PPQ is in addition to what is available in CPARS.

58. Attachment J4 Cost worksheet, Tab WBS, Column I – Row 38 & A57

The PWS removed the HBSS requirement and renumbered the WBS Sections. Will the government update the workbook tabs to match changes in the Final PWS tasks shown in the

Cost workbook?

Answer: The Cost Workbook has been revised in accordance with the revised PWS and in response to Industry’s questions.

59. Attachment J4 Cost worksheet, Tab WBS.

Duplication of the WBS tasks is unclear to us, will the government provide the rationale for duplicating the WBS task shown in Column 8 and repeated in Columns F-J?

Answer: The WBS has been revised to remove the duplicate columns.

60. Attachment J4 Cost Worksheet, Tab WBS

Given the construct of the worksheet, how should a row/cell be inserted to add additional labor categories in a specific task area should there be more than 4 provided?

Answer: Add additional rows under the applicable task/subtask. The language within the WBS worksheet at the top (A1) has been changed from, “Adjustments to the format should be made only as required by the Offeror’s specific technical approach and content” to “Sight adjustments to the format may be made as required by the Offeror’s specific technical approach and content.”

For example, Offerors may need to incorporate additional PWS sections if performance and associate costs align with those PWS sections and are not captured under Section 5.0.

61. Solicitation W91RUS-18-R-DA04, page 3, Period of Performance

Bottom of page 3 references a phase-in of December 2018 however on page 78 reference number

22 states "for proposal evaluation purposes, the anticipated date of initiation of Phase-In is 01

June 2018". Can the Government please confirm if the timeline on page 3 is the correct one.

62. Solicitation W91RUS-18-R-DA04, page 26, G3 Manning Changes

"The Government states ""All manning changes resulting from other than a change in the PWS requirements shall be considered cost growth and shall be non-fee bearing for all cost reimbursement, fee bearing CLINS/SLINS.""

Does this mean that any additions to staffing not done because of a PWS change will be at cost with no fee or profit? "

Answer: Yes. 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.

63. Solicitation W91RUS-18-R-DA04, page 73, #6 Past Performance Questionnaire

If past performances referenced in this proposal are listed in the Past Performance Information

Retrieval System (PPIRS) or CPAR system would the government consider allowing that take the place of a formal questionnaire? Some clients will not fill formal questionnaires out.

Answer: Reference question 57.

64. Solicitation W91RUS-18-R-DA04, page 81, 252.215-7009, Proposal Adequacy Checklist

We are unclear if the Government is requesting that this checklist be used as a guide for proposal development or if it's required for submission. If this is required for submission where would the

Government like this inserted, within reps & certs possibly?

Answer: Reference question 17.

65. Solicitation W91RUS-18-R-DA04, page 94, Factor 3 – Cost Factor

"The Government states ""In determining the evaluated cost, the Government’s determined probable cost will be added to the Offerors’ proposed cost to obtain the total evaluated cost.""

Can the Government please define what elements will be reviewed and possibly altered to offerors costs? We ask because using FAR 15.404-1 probable cost seems to contradict the language on the following page under Realism whereas the Government states ""The burden of proof for cost realism rests with the offeror""."

Answer: Cost analysis is the review and evaluation of any of the separate cost elements and profit or fee in an offeror’s or contractor’s proposal as needed to determine a fair and reasonable price or to determine cost realism. Similar to FAR 31.201-3(a) Determining reasonableness, which states “No presumption of reasonableness shall be attached to the incurrence of costs by a contractor. If an initial review of the facts results in a challenge of a specific cost by the contracting officer or the contracting officer’s representative, the burden of proof shall be upon the contractor to establish that such cost is reasonable.” The Offeror shall provide all necessary information that a prudent person would need to determine that a cost is realistic for the work that will be performance.

All hours adjustments will be associated with a weakness and at the appropriate level of weakness for the required adjustment. An example of an MPC adjustment would be if the

Offeror failed to propose the full DOL fringe benefits rate, then the proposal would be adjusted up to reflect that minimum rate required by law.

66. Attachment J.1 PWS 5.1, page 20, Section 5.1 Network Services

How many users are being serviced at the NOC (user base)?

Answer: USARCC The Term NOC is no longer used. Refer to 5.1 Network Services and subsequent paragraphs. The work associated with this is based on numbers of devices and changes; this estimated workload data has been provided in the PWS in sections 5.1.1,…