All-Source Analytical Environment (ASAE)

Added: Feb 25, 2015 2:47 pm Modified: Feb 25, 2015 3:07 pmTrack Changes

The following questions were received and answers are being provided.

Q1: Is there a missing row for ‘Unit price for 1 disconnected license' under CLINs 0003 and 0005 or is the offeror to assume that the Government is not interested in quantity one purchases and will initially purchase two (2) licenses?

A1: Correct. The Government is not interested in quantity one purchases of disconnected licenses and will initially purchase a minimum of two disconnected licenses under CLIN 0003 if/when the requirement for a disconnected license arises. *NOTE* One disconnected license will be provided under CLIN 0001 per the revised CLIN description.

Q2: Using the current matrix, how does the offeror provide a price break for more than 4 networks?

A2: The Total Evaluated Price Worksheet is setup to reflect anticipated Government requirements. Offerors shall submit pricing on the worksheet per paragraph L.2.3.1 of Attachment 6, ASAE 52.212-1 Addendum.

Q3: Using the current matrix, how does the offeror provide a price break for additional locations?

A3: The Total Evaluated Price Worksheet is setup to reflect anticipated Government requirements. Offerors shall submit pricing on the worksheet per paragraph L.2.3.1 of Attachment 6, ASAE 52.212-1 Addendum.

Q4: How can an offeror be compliant in terms of properly completing the matrix while simultaneously offering the most cost effective solution to the Government?

A4: The Government has determined that per location, per network pricing meets the requirement. Alternate pricing arrangements will not be evaluated.

Q5: Will an all-electronic submission for this RFP be accepted?

A5: Per L.1.10, hard copies of each volume will be required so an all-electronic submission will not be accepted.

Q6: Reference Attachment 6, ASAE_52.212-1_Addendum (Section L), L.1.10 Proposal Submission Requirements, Table 1. Volume Requirements and L.2.1 Volume 1 - Factor 1 - Technical: Table 1 indicates that the 20 page limit of Volume 1 does not include the Cross Reference Matrix (CRM) or any reference documentation. L.2.1 includes instructions for two written components: Subfactor 1, the Requirements CRM and Reference documentation, and Subfactor 4, the Implementation Plan. Is it the Government's intent that the Implementation Plan be submitted in this 20 pages, or will the Implementation Plan be requested only after an offeror successfully completes Subfactors 2 and 3 Demonstrations?

A6: A complete proposal to include an Implementation Plan is due at proposal submission.

Q7: Does the Government have a preference for receiving software pricing as a perpetual license or a subscription license?

A7: Preference is perpetual.

Q8: Will the Government allow modification of the Pricing template and Attachment 8 to allow the offeror to present both pricing alternatives for the Government to consider and evaluate? Should the offeror submit 2 versions of attachment 8 clearly labeled as alternate options?

A8: Offerors shall submit pricing on the worksheet per paragraph L.2.3.1 of Attachment 6, ASAE 52.212-1 Addendum. Alternate pricing arrangements will not be evaluated.

Q9: If the offeror's ASAE tool is comprised of multiple software modules, how does the Government require the breakdown of those individual module costs be shown in Attachment 8 and the SF-1449? May the offeror add more rows as needed in Attachment 8 to show the breakdown of individual software components for each unit price, or does the Government prefer a separate Bill of Materials with individual software modules be provided?

A9: No breakdown is required. The Government expects one cost for the solution per the Total Evaluated Price Worksheet.

Q10: May the offeror provide an additional descriptive information tab to Attachment 8 to provide clarifying information, such as demonstrating any discount from software list price, or assumptions, which would normally appear in a cost volume narrative?

A10: Yes.

Q11: Reference Attachment 3, Demonstration Plan, criteria for the Usability Demonstration 2: Phase 2 criteria for 2.a, 2.c, 2.e, 2.g, and 2.i seem to have a positive connotation to a high score of 5 or "strongly agree". In the same section, the criteria for 2.b, 2.d, 2.f, 2.h, and 2.j have a negative connotation to the same scoring of 5 or "strongly agree". Can the government please clarify how scores across each of the 10 questions will be aggregated such that a rating of "Strongly Disagree" or "Strongly Agree" will consistently imply either a positive or a negative rating from users?

A11: The scale of 1-5 does not directly correlate to Strongly Disagree - Strongly Agree for all questions. For the positively worded questions, it does. For the negatively worded questions, the scale is flipped so that 5 correlates to Strongly Disagree and 1 correlates to Strongly Agree.

Q12: Please specify the due dates for each CDRL A001-A007 relative to the contract award date, or meeting date as applicable? What is the timing for CDRL updates required upon exercise of CLINs 0004 and 0005?

A12: See block 16 on each page of Exhibit A - ASAE CDRLs.

Q13: "Requirement 5.1 in the CRM attachment specifies ‘tracking intelligence history across enterprise nodes'. Could the Government specify which enterprise nodes are required to be tracked against, and what elements of historical information are required to be tracked?"

A13: The Government is not tracking the nodes but is tracking user history from their analysis. For example, an analyst begins work and they move to another location or the system goes down and they come back online connected to a different node; the analyst's work and workspace should be persisted so they do not have to start over. Another example, an analyst creates something and a month later there is a question and the analyst needs to go back and determine how he/she arrived at that conclusion. He/she will need the user history.

Q14: Question 4d from Feb 19, 2015 9:30 am, asks "Is there a desire by the customer to have a different or additional extraction and entity resolution capability?"; The answer was "No". This answer appears to conflict with Key Performance Parameter K2 "Entity Resolution". Is it a requirement for offerors to provide Entity Resolution capability as described in KPP K2 of the FRD, or are offerors allowed to leverage the existing services identified below to meet this FRD requirement as the answers to this series of questions imply.

A14: Yes the offeror‎ can leverage existing technology to meet the entity resolution requirement.

Added: Feb 25, 2015 2:47 pm The following questions were received and answers are being provided.

Q1: Is there a missing row for ‘Unit price for 1 disconnected license' under CLINs 0003 and 0005 or is the offeror to assume that the Government is not interested in quantity one purchases and will initially purchase two (2) licenses?

A1: Correct. The Government is not interested in quantity one purchases of disconnected licenses and will initially purchase a minimum of two disconnected licenses under CLIN 0003 if/when the requirement for a disconnected license arises. *NOTE* One disconnected license will be provided under CLIN 0001 per the revised CLIN description.

Q2: Using the current matrix, how does the offeror provide a price break for more than 4 networks?

A2: The Total Evaluated Price Worksheet is setup to reflect anticipated Government requirements. Offerors shall submit pricing on the worksheet per paragraph L.2.3.1 of Attachment 6, ASAE 52.212-1 Addendum.

Q3: Using the current matrix, how does the offeror provide a price break for additional locations?

A3: The Total Evaluated Price Worksheet is setup to reflect anticipated Government requirements. Offerors shall submit pricing on the worksheet per paragraph L.2.3.1 of Attachment 6, ASAE 52.212-1 Addendum.

Q4: How can an offeror be compliant in terms of properly completing the matrix while simultaneously offering the most cost effective solution to the Government?

A4: The Government has determined that per location, per network pricing meets the requirement. Alternate pricing arrangements will not be evaluated.

Q5: Will an all-electronic submission for this RFP be accepted?

A5: Per L.1.10, hard copies of each volume will be required so an all-electronic submission will not be accepted.

Q6: Reference Attachment 6, ASAE_52.212-1_Addendum (Section L), L.1.10 Proposal Submission Requirements, Table 1. Volume Requirements and L.2.1 Volume 1 - Factor 1 - Technical: Table 1 indicates that the 20 page limit of Volume 1 does not include the Cross Reference Matrix (CRM) or any reference documentation. L.2.1 includes instructions for two written components: Subfactor 1, the Requirements CRM and Reference documentation, and Subfactor 4, the Implementation Plan. Is it the Government's intent that the Implementation Plan be submitted in this 20 pages, or will the Implementation Plan be requested only after an offeror successfully completes Subfactors 2 and 3 Demonstrations?

A6: A complete proposal to include an Implementation Plan is due at proposal submission.

Q7: Does the Government have a preference for receiving software pricing as a perpetual license or a subscription license?

A7: Preference is perpetual.

Q8: Will the Government allow modification of the Pricing template and Attachment 8 to allow the offeror to present both pricing alternatives for the Government to consider and evaluate? Should the offeror submit 2 versions of attachment 8 clearly labeled as alternate options?

A8: Offerors shall submit pricing on the worksheet per paragraph L.2.3.1 of Attachment 6, ASAE 52.212-1 Addendum. Alternate pricing arrangements will not be evaluated.

Q9: If the offeror's ASAE tool is comprised of multiple software modules, how does the Government require the breakdown of those individual module costs be shown in Attachment 8 and the SF-1449? May the offeror add more rows as needed in Attachment 8 to show the breakdown of individual software components for each unit price, or does the Government prefer a separate Bill of Materials with individual software modules be provided?

A9: No breakdown is required. The Government expects one cost for the solution per the Total Evaluated Price Worksheet.

Q10: May the offeror provide an additional descriptive information tab to Attachment 8 to provide clarifying information, such as demonstrating any discount from software list price, or assumptions, which would normally appear in a cost volume narrative?

A10: Yes.

Q11: Reference Attachment 3, Demonstration Plan, criteria for the Usability Demonstration 2: Phase 2 criteria for 2.a, 2.c, 2.e, 2.g, and 2.i seem to have a positive connotation to a high score of 5 or "strongly agree". In the same section, the criteria for 2.b, 2.d, 2.f, 2.h, and 2.j have a negative connotation to the same scoring of 5 or "strongly agree". Can the government please clarify how scores across each of the 10 questions will be aggregated such that a rating of "Strongly Disagree" or "Strongly Agree" will consistently imply either a positive or a negative rating from users?

A11: The scale of 1-5 does not directly correlate to Strongly Disagree - Strongly Agree for all questions. For the positively worded questions, it does. For the negatively worded questions, the scale is flipped so that 5 correlates to Strongly Disagree and 1 correlates to Strongly Agree.

Q12: Please specify the due dates for each CDRL A001-A007 relative to the contract award date, or meeting date as applicable? What is the timing for CDRL updates required upon exercise of CLINs 0004 and 0005?

A12: See block 16 on each page of Exhibit A - ASAE CDRLs.

Q13: "Requirement 5.1 in the CRM attachment specifies ‘tracking intelligence history across enterprise nodes'. Could the Government specify which enterprise nodes are required to be tracked against, and what elements of historical information are required to be tracked?"

A13: The Government is not tracking the nodes but is tracking user history from their analysis. For example, an analyst begins work and they move to another location or the system goes down and they come back online connected to a different node; the analyst's work and workspace should be persisted so they do not have to start over. Another example, an analyst creates something and a month later there is a question and the analyst needs to go back and determine how he/she arrived at that conclusion. He/she will need the user history.

Added: Feb 19, 2015 9:30 am The following questions were received and answers are being provided.

Q1: Will CLIN 0003 be purchased without purchasing CLIN 0002?

A1: If a contract is awarded, the Government intends to issue a delivery order against CLIN 0002 in the first year.

Q2: In section 6.2 of the SOW it mentions SIPR net and SIPR net is a production network. The SOW in section 3.2 ask for 2 enterprise-wide licenses for test and integration. Can the offeror assume that the licenses provided will not get installed on a production network?

A2: Correct. The licenses will be installed on development networks.

Q3: Can you please clarify the definition of unit price as it applies to CLINs 0003 and 0005? More specifically, if the unit cost provided is $1,000 does that mean the Government will get up to 50 licenses for $1,000 or that the Government will pay $50,000 for 50 licenses?

A3: The Government will pay the unit price x quantity for CLINs 0003 and 0005. If the unit price is $1,000.00 and the quantity required is 50, a delivery order would be issued for $50,000.00.

Q4a: Is NetOwl available for use by ASAE respondents? If so, which version and which of the following products:

Text Analytics:
NetOwl Extractor
NetOwl DocMatcher
NetOwl TextMiner

Entity Analytics:
NetOwl NameMatcher
NetOwl EntityMatcher

A4a: NetOwl is used on the backend for Text and Entity Analytics. The data presented to the ASAE solution will be pre-tagged by NetOwl and stored in XML.

Q4b: Are licenses needed?

A4b: No.

Q4c: Has enrichment already been done to the content?

A4c: Yes.

Q4d: Is there a desire by the customer to have a different or additional extraction and entity resolution capability?

A4d: No.

Q5: Once the Government purchases the first enterprise-wide license, for the first location, it includes software assurance, ad hoc training, ad hoc integration, and version updates/patch sets. For costing purposes, does the Government expect the offeror to include those costs in the licenses for the additional locations in years 2 & 3?

If not, how could the offerors cost out years 2 and 3 if they are not certain whether or not the Government will purchase CLIN 2 in the first year.

A5: If a contract is awarded, the Government intends to issue a delivery order against CLIN 0002 in the first year.

Added: Feb 18, 2015 9:46 am The following questions were received and answers are being provided.

Q1: Has the government considered funding the demo phases for the selected vendors?

A1: The Government considered this option but elected not to fund the demo phases.

Q2: Will the government supply the DCGS-SOF Data Layer Design Document and the DCGS-SOF UI API?

A2: DCGS-SOF Data Layer consists of MarkLogic (Index and database), NetOwl (Entity Extraction), and MetaCarta (Geo-location). DCGS-SOF UI API is available upon request per the directions posted on FBO.

Q3: The phrase "will" is not allowed in the response - can an offeror state its roadmap for future capabilities that are natural expansions of the delivered capabilities?

A3: The offeror is expected to have a solution to integrate. If the offeror wants to propose future expansions/enhancements, that is acceptable.

Q4: What are the parameters of the demonstration environment (machine power, processing, storage, memory, etc...)?

A4: The Government will provide a separate commercially-hosted, virtual cloud environment for each vendor. During the demonstration phase if it is deemed necessary to increase any of the parameters of the cloud instance, it is strongly recommended that the offeror immediately notify the Government of the requested change(s).

Q5: The previous Q&A stated that geospatial requirements would be deleted from the final RFP -- the demonstration plan still has geospatial requirements.

A5: See revised Attachment 2, FRD and Attachment 3, Demonstration Plan posted in Amendment 0002: revised Req. # 3.16 and removed section 3.g. (renumbered subsequent sections accordingly) and sample scenario to delete inadvertent geospatial requirement artifacts.

Q6: Can you provide the context (Provide support for various Replication Topologies such as, but not limited to; hub-spoke & peer-peer)?

A6: The backend architecture automatically provides for data replication to various locations. The ASAE solution must have the ability to store/save analytical view and associated data in the database to allow for replication and retrieval by other users.

Q7: Can you define what is meant by - "Provide behavioral analysis capability" and what is the expectation as it relates to the demonstration scenario?

A7: The observable relationship of behavior to the environment. In the Demonstration Plan, a sample scenario was provided. During the Usability Demonstration, analysts will be provided a different scenario to determine if they can identify insurgent activity using the proposed ASAE software tool.

Q8: Please define - "Provide Multi-iterative analysis capability".

A8: A general class of iterative methods introduced for solving positive definite linear systems. These methods use two or more different iterative techniques and each of them reduces the error by a constant factor in a different subspace.

Q9: Please define - "Provide persistent and metadata searches".

A9: Persistent search is a method of searching where the query is given first and the information for the results is then acquired vice acquiring the results and then executing the query. Metadata search is the ability to discover relevant information based on the metadata of a document.

Q10: Please elaborate on the meaning of "Provide pattern matching and analysis capability".

A10: See revised Attachment 2, FRD posted in Amendment 0002: corrected Req. # 3.5 to read "Provide pattern recognition and analysis capability", which is defined as the ability to recognize patterns and regularities in the data and the analysis of the data.

Q11: Who is responsible for the "metadata tagging of products created"? Isn't the SDL already doing this?

A11: When an analyst creates a product, in this case from the ASAE solution, there are metadata fields that only the analyst will know the answer to. The analyst should be prompted to enter the information when saving. This metadata should be saved with the product.

Q12: Does the Government expect the DCGS-SOF ASAE Software Tool to meet every requirement listed in the FRD once the integration is completed and ready to go into production?

A12: As outlined in the RFP, the Government requires all of the KPP's, all of the requirements in the Advanced Analytics category, and at least 90 of the remaining 100 requirements in the FRD to be met initially. The Government is acceptable to receiving a Plan of Action & Milestone for the requirements that aren't met initially. This can be discussed at the contract kickoff meeting.

Q13: It is possible to have a concept of operations that allows for the sharing of repositories without any loss of security, data pedigree, etc. The KPP 4 language is restrictive. Will the Government consider a re-wording like "local copies of information can be maintained for performance, but master data will remain in the SOF Data Layer"?

A13: No. The ASAE solution is expected to be integrated into the existing architecture and User Interface, not spawn off into its own environment. The User Interface physically resides on the SDL database server so there are no performance issues. The Government does not wish nor anticipate having additional databases or data stores to meet this KPP. The vendor has full access to the underlying database.

Q14: Will the Government consider flexibility on KPP 6?

A14: No. The disconnected technology that DCGS-SOF uses has been proven for a couple of years in several exercises around the world on multiple networks.

Q15: Can the offeror assume that in any given year that the Government will only purchase either CLIN 0002 & 0003 or CLIN 0004 & 0005? So, at most the Government will purchase CLIN 0001, one Enterprise-wide license, and four renewal Enterprise-wide licenses, is this correct?

A15: Offerors can assume that in year 1, only CLIN 0001 (initial integration) and CLIN 0002 or CLIN 0003 (enterprise-wide license or disconnected server license) would be ordered. In years 2 through 5, any combination of CLINs 0002 - 0005 could be ordered depending on when the ASAE software is required for the first time at new locations or disconnected servers and when the initial licenses purchased under CLINs 0002 or 0003 come up for renewal.

Q16: When filling out either CLIN 0002 or 0004 on the Total Evaluated Price Worksheet, can the offeror assume that the Government has already purchased one network license and the values for 2-5 networks and 5+ networks is the difference between a single network cost and the additional cost required to support additional networks?

Or, will the Government simply take the number in the 2-5 networks/5+networks and multiply it by the number of networks that the Government desires to purchase as described in Attachment 9 (Section M) paragraph M.2.3.1?

A16: See Revised Attachment 8, Total Evaluated Price Worksheet posted in Amendment 0002. The Government will evaluate the unit prices provided for CLINs 0002 and 0004 and will take the unit prices provided for CLINs 0003 and 0005 and multiply them by the pre-selected quantity of licenses for evaluation purposes. Upon contract award and depending on networks required, a delivery order against CLIN 0002 would be made for quantity 1 at the 2, 3, or 4 network unit price. If 8 networks were required, the delivery order against CLIN 0002 would be made for quantity 2 at the 4 network unit price, etc. Depending on disconnected licenses required, a delivery order against CLIN 0003 would be made for the required quantity. *NOTE* The ASAE ad hoc training will already be covered under CLIN 0002 so it is not required under CLIN 0003. When it comes time to renew the licenses ordered under CLIN 0002 or CLIN 0003, a delivery order(s) against CLINs 0004 and 0005 would be made at the appropriate quantities. Again, the ASAE ad hoc training will already be covered under CLIN 0004 so it is not required under CLIN 0005.

Added: Oct 31, 2014 11:00 am Modified: Feb 18, 2015 9:10 amTrack Changes This is a formal Request for Proposal (RFP) for the All-Source Analytical Environment (ASAE) software tool contract. USSOCOM is seeking proposals from sources that can provide the ASAE software tool, enterprise-wide licenses for multiple networks, disconnected server licenses for multiple laptops, training for third party maintainers to provide Tier 1 and Tier 2 maintenance support, training for new equipment training vendor on the user functionality of the ASAE software tool, version upgrades, annual software maintenance/assurance, and ad hoc training and integration support. The RFP and incorporated provisions and clauses are those in effect through Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-79. The NAICS code is 511210 and the small business size standard is $25 million. The five-year ordering period includes CLINs 0001-0005.

This is solicited and will be awarded on a Full and Open Competition basis with no exclusions/set-asides. This RFP may result in a single award of a commercial, five-year Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract issuing Firm Fixed Price (FFP) delivery orders for the ASAE software tool integration, enterprise-wide licenses, disconnected server licenses, and annual software maintenance/assurance (see CLIN structure in ASAE RFP (1449) for more details). Offerors are required to submit proposals in accordance with the instructions outlined in the RFP Attachment 6, Addendum to 52.212-1.

Attached to this Announcement are the Final RFP and Solicitation Attachments. The following documents are available for reference but are not posted as they contain sensitive material. To gain access to the reference documentation, Explicit Access Request including offeror Cage Code must be made via email to the Contracting Officer.
    API Details
    DCGS-SOF Ontology
    DCGS-SOF OV-1
    DCGS-SOF SV-1
    DCGS-SOF User Interface Build Guide
    Use Case - Modern Web App Development DCGS-SOF_final_Redacted

Vendor's registration in SAM and Top Secret Facility Clearance will be verified before Explicit Access is granted to the above reference documentation. Please be advised, this verification can take up to 24 hours. Explicit Access Requests received on a Friday after 3:00 pm Tampa, FL time, may not begin verification until the following Monday.

Questions regarding this RFP must be emailed (in writing) and submitted to the Contracting Officer at michael.hawkins4@socom.mil. Oral requests (e.g. phone call) for information will be re-directed to provide email correspondence, for documentation purposes.

Added: Feb 12, 2015 10:35 am The following questions were received and answers are being provided.

Q1: Can an offeror install additional infrastructure components and/or reference additional Virtual Machines in the virtual sandbox?

A1: Potential offerors are directed to KPP K4, which states in part ‘All data (accessed, modified, derived, manipulated, etc.) shall remain stored in the SOF data layer only.' The Government understands that some minor additions to the API could be made in order for the proposed ASAE software tool to function correctly. If an offeror chooses to add something, then that will be evaluated. If an offeror chooses to propose a capability based on their business model and if it does not meet any KPP or too many other requirements in the FRD as described in the solicitation attachments, they will receive a score accordingly.

Q2: Will the Ad Hoc training support (Train a third party maintainer...) take place at more than one location or at a single location? If it is more than one location, are they in more than one geographical location? Will the training of the new equipment vendor (computer-based training) be concurrent with the third-party maintainer's training or will it require a separate trip?

A2: The ad hoc training support will take place at a single location, MacDill AFB in Tampa, Florida. The training of the new equipment vendor and the training of the third-party maintainer will be two separate training events as the trainings are different and the new equipment vendor and third-party maintainer are two different companies. The number of trips taken to complete the two trainings is up to each offeror.

Q3: As part of the integration into the DCGS-SOF environment the contractor is required to comply with all DISA STIG and SOF Group Policy requirements and it appears that the software will be installed on more than one network, will both networks be using the same set of STIGs? Can an offeror assume that once the software goes through the DCGS-SOF Development Test Environment and the Staging Environment it can get installed on any other DCGS-SOF networks?

A3: Yes, the same set of STIGs are used for each network. Yes, once the software goes through the DCGS-SOF Development Test Environment and the Staging Environment, it can get installed on any other network.

Q4: For pricing purposes, does each of the networks have its own test and staging environment or is that a one-time process and then just install the software on the other networks?

A4: The test and staging process will occur once and then the software can be installed on the other networks.

Added: Feb 06, 2015 8:59 am The following questions were received and answers are being provided.

Q1: In Attachment 7 - Requirements Cross Reference Matrix document, in reference to Req# K4 - In reference to the statement "The ASAE software tool shall integrate...utilizing appropriate APIs" - Can the contractor assume DCGS-SOF is or will use ML Version 7.03as this version supports SPARQL interfaces? If not, please specify which version the contractor should use.

A1: DCGS-SOF is using MarkLogic version 7-0.4-3 with SPARQL.

Q2: In Attachment 7 - Requirements Cross Reference Matrix document, in reference to Req# 1.11 - Can the Govt. provide the OWL files behind the Ontology documentation?

A2: DCGS-SOF uses NetOwl for entity extraction and NetOwl does not use OWL files. OWL files are used to describe the Ontology in a markup language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Ontology_Language).

Added: Feb 05, 2015 10:03 am The following question was received and answer is being provided.

Q: In order to support the version upgrades and patch sets will the contractor use the same test bed throughout the support period then once the patch set or upgrade is complete the contractor will need to go to the secure lab for final integration?

A: That is correct. The steps described is how the process flows.

Added: Feb 05, 2015 8:27 am The following question was received and answer is being provided.

Q: When you say 99% of the work will be done at MacDill does that mean that the software integration and version upgrade development needs to be there or can that be done remotely from the contractor's facility not located in Tampa?

A:
1. Initial integration via contractor facility using a VPN capability into the unclassified test bed in St Petersburg. Travel not required.
2. Upon completion of step 1; the contractor will transition the code to continue integration on the operational network at MacDill AFB in a secure lab. This is where 99% of the final integration and testing will be conducted. This is why we requested 2 SCI cleared personnel.
3. Once approved for the operational network the code will need to be moved to the secondary location. Most likely Ft. Bragg, NC.

Added: Jan 29, 2015 9:47 am The following question was received and answer is being provided.

Q: On the Total Evaluated Price Worksheet (CLIN 0002) we are required to cost out installing and testing of software and software upgrades on several networks. Are all of the networks in the same city or several different geographical locations?

A: Costing would be for 2 locations. 99% of the work will be at MacDill AFB in Tampa, FL and just the install at another CONUS location.

Added: Oct 31, 2014 11:00 am Modified: Jan 22, 2015 1:50 pmTrack Changes This is a formal Request for Proposal (RFP) for the All-Source Analytical Environment (ASAE) software tool contract. USSOCOM is seeking proposals from sources that can provide the ASAE software tool, enterprise-wide licenses for multiple networks, disconnected server licenses for multiple laptops, training for third party maintainers to provide Tier 1 and Tier 2 maintenance support, training for new equipment training vendor on the user functionality of the ASAE software tool, version upgrades, annual software maintenance/assurance, and ad hoc training and integration support. The RFP and incorporated provisions and clauses are those in effect through Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-79. The NAICS code is 511210 and the small business size standard is $25 million. The five-year ordering period includes CLINs 0001-0005.

This is solicited and will be awarded on a Full and Open Competition basis with no exclusions/set-asides. This RFP may result in a single award of a commercial, five-year Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract issuing Firm Fixed Price (FFP) delivery orders for the ASAE software tool integration, enterprise-wide licenses, disconnected server licenses, and annual software maintenance/assurance (see CLIN structure in ASAE RFP (1449) for more details). Offerors are required to submit proposals in accordance with the instructions outlined in the RFP Attachment 6, Addendum to 52.212-1.

Attached to this Announcement are the Final RFP and Solicitation Attachments. The following documents are available for reference but are not posted as they contain sensitive material. To gain access to the reference documentation, Explicit Access Request including offeror Cage Code must be made via email to the Contracting Officer.
    API Details
    DCGS-SOF Ontology
    DCGS-SOF OV-1
    DCGS-SOF SV-1
    DCGS-SOF User Interface Build Guide
    Use Case - Modern Web App Development DCGS-SOF_final_Redacted

Vendor's registration in SAM, Top Secret Facility Clearance, and Secret Safeguarding capability will be verified before Explicit Access is granted to the above reference documentation. Please be advised, this verification can take up to 24 hours. Explicit Access Requests received on a Friday after 3:00 pm Tampa, FL time, may not begin verification until the following Monday.

Under no circumstances will interested Prime Contractor Offerors be able to utilize a potential Sub-Contractor's Storage and/or Safeguarding capability as proof of Storage and/or Safeguarding capability.

Questions regarding this RFP must be emailed (in writing) and submitted to the Contracting Officer at michael.hawkins4@socom.mil. Oral requests (e.g. phone call) for information will be re-directed to provide email correspondence, for documentation purposes.

Added: Nov 03, 2014 8:51 am Modified: Jan 22, 2015 1:50 pmTrack Changes

Added: Nov 21, 2014 3:31 pm Modified: Jan 22, 2015 1:50 pmTrack Changes

Added: Dec 18, 2014 10:24 am The answers to the draft RFP questions have been posted. Document title is "Answers to Draft RFP Questions (FINAL)".

Added: Nov 21, 2014 3:31 pm

The following question/answer is being provided now as it could affect potential feedback on this draft RFP. The rest of the questions/answers will be answered/addressed in a single document as stated earlier.

Question: Do we need to provide feedback on the Draft RFP in order to be able to respond to the final RFP later?

Answer: No, you do not have to provide feedback on the draft RFP in order to be able to respond to the final RFP later.

Added: Nov 03, 2014 8:51 am Please provide your questions and/or comments by 2:00 pm Eastern Time on Monday, 24 Nov 2014 to Mike Hawkins at michael.hawkins4@socom.mil. All questions/comments received will be answered/addressed in a single document that will be posted as an amendment to this posting. The Government does not intend to directly reply to any questions/comments received.

Added: Oct 31, 2014 11:00 am The U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) has a requirement for a commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) All-Source Analytical Environment (ASAE) software tool to be integrated into the existing Distributed Common Ground/Surface System - Special Operations Forces (DCGS-SOF) system architecture. The requirement includes enterprise-wide licenses for multiple networks, disconnected server licenses for multiple laptops, training for third party maintainers to provide Tier 1 and Tier 2 maintenance support, training for new equipment training vendor on the user functionality of the ASAE software tool, version upgrades, annual software maintenance/assurance, and ad hoc training and integration support. This is a draft Request for Proposal (RFP). The draft RFP and incorporated provisions and clauses are those in effect through Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-77. The NAICS code is 511210 and the small business size standard is $25 million. The five-year ordering period includes CLINs 0001-0005. The guaranteed contract minimum is $2,500.00 and the contract maximum is $20,000,000.00. This announcement does not constitute a solicitation and proposals are not being requested at this time. However, the Government is soliciting comments and questions on the draft RFP and its attachments.

After receipt of the comments and questions, the Government may issue an official solicitation for this requirement. In that case, the solicitation number H92222-15-R-0004 will be issued as an RFP using full and open competition with no exclusions/set-asides. If/when issued, the solicitation may result in a single award of a commercial, five-year Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract issuing Firm Fixed Price (FFP) delivery orders for the ASAE software tool integration, enterprise-wide licenses, disconnected server licenses, and annual software maintenance/assurance (see CLIN structure in Schedule B for more details). The required data, CLIN 0006 (CDRLS A001-A007), shall be Not Separately Priced (NSP). If/when the RFP is issued, offerors will be required to submit proposals in accordance with the instructions outlined in the RFP Attachment 6, Addendum to 52.212-1. Again, proposals are not being requested at this time.

*NOTE* The FBO website will be unavailable from Thursday evening 11/20/14 through Monday morning 11/24/14 due to routine maintenance.