MOD | B | Amendment 3 to DAMT01-03-R-0034, Critical Infrastructure Protection Services (CIP)

FBO DAILY ISSUE OF FEBRUARY 15, 2003 FBO #0440
MODIFICATION

B -- Amendment 3 to DAMT01-03-R-0034, Critical Infrastructure Protection Services (CIP)

Notice Date: 2/13/2003
Notice Type: Modification
Contracting Office: Military Traffic Management Command, PARC, ATTN: MTAQ, 200 Stovall Street, Alexandra, VA 22332-5000
ZIP Code: 22332-5000
Solicitation Number: DAMT01-03-R-0034
Response Due: 2/21/2003
Archive Date: 4/22/2003
Point of Contact: Toye Latimore, 703-428-2067
E-Mail Address: Email your questions to Military Traffic Management Command, PARC
(latimoret@mtmc.army.mil)
Small Business Set-Aside: N/A
Description: NA Amendment 2, DAMT01-03-R-0034 The following changes are hereby incorporated into the Statement of Work. 1. The Period of Performance for the base period identified throughout the Statement of Work and on all CLINs is hereby changed to read: Period of Performance: Base Period: Date of Award ? 30 Sept 2003 Option Period 1-1 October 2003-30 September 2004 Option Period 2-1 October 2004-30 September 2005 2. This requirement is not a follow-on requirement. The USTRANSCOM currently has a requirement for CIP however the MTMC is currently acquiring its own contracting vehicle to implement a CIP program. This solicitation and contract once awarded will be a s eparate contract from the contract currently at USTRANSCOM. 3. Block 27a on the face of the SF 1449 is applicable to this solicitation. 4. Currently, this solicitation is being solicited on a full and open competitive basis. Therefore, the NAICS code of 541990 and the size standard of $6,000,000 are hereby deleted from the solicitation announcement in the FEDBIZOPS dated 22 January 2003. 5. The travel CLIN for the base year should read NTE $15,000.00 and a set amount to be determined in each option year. 6. The following are questions and responses received from industry. 7. The closing date for this solicitation is hereby extended until 21 February 2003 at 10:00 a.m. EST. QUESTION #1: I wanted to clarify the reference to NAICS code 541990. Unless I am mistaken, that is a small business NAICS code. I would like to confirm that this is open to all solicitations from both large and small companies. RESPONSE: This code has been deleted from the solicitation as stated in this amendment. QUESTION #2: Under the Freedom of Information Act, ASR International requests a copy of the above contract (as soon as possible) including any modifications to the contract. ASR will pay any cost incurred for the copying of this document. Please send the copy overnig ht via Federal Express utilizing our account number 1390-9637-1. We are herein requesting a two-week extension to the due date of the solicitation allowing us to review the FOIA and prepare a suitable proposal. RESPONSE: This is a solicitation for CIP. No contract has been awarded. An extension has been granted until 21 February 2003. To access the solicitation and all amendments, follow the following procedure. Go to http://www.mtmc.army.mil Click on Business Center Click on Solicitations Look to the left of your screen and Click the solicitation number DAMT01-03-R-0034 The Solicitation and the only amendment will appear You may download the solicitation and all amendments QUESTION #3: Page 5, para 5.2.1: Document references USTRANSCOM CIP methodology. When will potential bidders be able to review USTRANSCOM programs, material and methodologies to accurately forecast requirements and costs? RESPONSE: Contractors may email Ms. Toye Latimore, Contracting Officer at latimoret@mtmc.army.mil. The Contracting Officer will email the required documents to all potential contractors. The documents will be emailed to all potential bidders up to 19 February 200 3 at 2:00 P.M. EST. No fax copies or hard copies will be provided. No telephone request for copies will be emailed to potential bidders. Request the name of your company, address, telephone number and email address for each potential bidder in an emai l format. Upon receipt of this information, the documents will then be forwarded for your review. THE MTMC REQUEST THAT THESE DOCUMENTS REMAIN WITH POTENTIAL BIDDERS ONLY. THESE DOCUMENTS ARE FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY AND ARE NOT TO BE FORWARDED TO ANY OTH ER INDIVIDUAL. If the Military Traffic Management Command receives notice that other potential bidders have received copies of these documents without going through the Contracting Officer, you and the individual that received these documents will automat ically be disqualified from receiving any co nsideration for this requirement. QUESTION #4: Page 6, para 5.2.1: Document references USTRANSCOM Corporate Data Environments. What are the electronic data programs the successful bidder will to utilize and train personnel to operate? RESPONSE: See response to question #3. QUESTION #5: Page 6, para 5.2.1: Document references DTS Enterprise Architecture. Who can bidders contact to learn more about the system requirements? RESPONSE: See response to question number 3. QUESTION #6: Page 7, para 5.2.3: Document references support to USTRANSCOM CIP program team or agency in support of assessments. Does the MTMC CIP PM know what CIP specialists will be required? Both physical and cyber expertise? Or a generalist familiar with MTMC a ssets and procedures? RESPONSE: See response to question #3. QUESTION #7: Page 7, para 7: Place of performance is the MTMC operations center. Will the successful bidder be required to provide 24/7 support if directed by the MTMC CIP PM? Will there be normal duty hours established that the contractor will be required to be pre sent at the operations center? RESPONSE: Presently, the place of performance is MTMC Operations Center. If additional task are required of the successful offeror, the MTMC PM will contact the Contracting Officer who will in-turn contact the successful offeror. QUESTION #8: Page 8, para 5.2.4: Document references the creation of a MTMC input for the USTRANSCOM DISAP update. Will bidders be able to review the document to determine support requirements under this task? RESPONSE: See Response to Question #3. QUESTION #9: Page 8, para 5.2.6: Will the successful bidder be required to provide any other additional exercise support besides exercise inputs? RESPONSE: All taskings are stated in the Statement of Work. QUESTION #10: Page 10, para 9: Document states classification work will normally be at the Secret level. One exception is stated where TS/SCI access may be required. When will it be determined when contractor personnel will be required to apply for the higher access levels? RESPONSE: Potential offerors should possess the proper clearance prior to submission of proposals. QUESTION # 11: Page 10, para 9: Will the government provide secure storage for classified material? Will the successful bidder be required to provide a security manager or will the MTMC CIP PM provide security management functions? RESPONSE: See Statement of Work QUESTION #12: Page 10, para 10: Will consumable office supplies be provided by the government or supplied by the contractor? RESPONSE: Yes. QUESTION #13: Has a budget been established for this program? Is so what is the range established to support this program for the first year and the contract extensions? RESPONSE: The government is not at liberty to discuss their Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE). QUESTION #14: Are the submission requirements explained, and if so what page? RESPONSE: The submission requirements are outlined in Amendment 1 to this solicitation, which was posted on January 27, 2003 on the MTMC homepage. QUESTION #15: We are in receipt of the subject solicitation, Critical Infrastructure Protection Program, and respectfully request an extension to 10 March 2003 in order to be able to fully respond to the solicitation requirements. RESPONSE: See this amendment for extension information. QUESTION#16: In addition, please indicate any format requirements for the Technical and Price proposals. RESPONSE: There is no specific format for the Technical and Price proposals. However, there is a page limit for the entire proposal, which can be located in Amendment 1, which is posted to the MTMC homepage. QUESTION #17: As you can see from my title below I am with CH2M HILL a national (12,000 people) design and consulting firm. Unde rstand I may be a little late regarding subject requirement but we have done similar studies for the Federal Highway Administration and various State DOTs and would possible like to pursue this or find out more about your program. A couple of basic questi ons please. Has there been any preliminary work done on this project? If so by whom? Have some preliminary products been developed? Are there other similar contracts already awarded? Can you tell me who the Project Manager is if that would be appropriate ? RESPONSE: Currently, there is no contract in place for this requirement at the MTMC. However, USTRANSCOM does have a contracting vehicle in place for this requirement. This is not a follow-on procurement. No preliminary work has been completed on this project. A t the present time, the government cannot release the name of the Project Manager. Any and all inquiries regarding this procurement should be sent in writing directly to the Contract Specialist and/or the Contracting Officer. QUESTION #18: Endeavor Systems is a small woman owned company in Northern Virginia Specializing in network security. After reviewing the solicitation DAMT01-03-R-0034, Endeavor is too small of a company to respond to such an RFP. Endeavor is capable of doing portions o f this work. Is there are small business set aside for this contract, or a list of bidders that Endeavor can solicit to in an attempt team as a subcontractor? RESPONSE: The government is seeking a firm from industry that can accomplish all the required task outlined in the Statement of Work. At this time, the government cannot award a contract for portions of the task. However, the government does encourage teaming arr angements and/or subcontracting possibilities. This requirement is not set-aside for small business nor does the government retain a bidders mailing list. All requirements are synopsized on the Federal Business Opportunities (FEDBIZOPS) web page. QUESTION 19: I received the above referenced solicitation today and noted that it is listed as a full & open competition. My question -- Does the customer have a preference on a contract vehicle type or have one in mind? RESPONSE: In accordance with the solicitation, the contracting vehicle will be Firm Fixed Price (FFP). QUESTION #20: The solicitation calls for some portion of the tasking to be accomplished by an MTMC-based contractor team. Can you clarify how much and what type of work must be performed onsite and how much can be performed at contractor facilities? Burns & McDonnell is currently performing very similar work for the Joint Program Office for Special Technology Countermeasures in support of the Infrastructure Assurance Program. However, 80% of our analysis and database development efforts are performed in our facility. RESPONSE: At the present time, the MTMC does not have this information. QUESTION#21: Is this solicitation for a new effort or is it for the continuation of an ongoing effort already being provided by contractors? RESPONSE: This is a new requirement for the Military Traffic Management Command (MTMC). QUESTION #22: The length of time between provision of the solicitation (1/22/03) and the closing date (2/5/03) is a very short time period in which to Respond. Can you provide clarification on the requirement for such a short response period? RESPONSE: In accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), all commercial items over $25K must be synopsized on the Federal Business Opportunities Website. All commercial solicitations must be synopsized up to 15 business days. It is up to the Contract ing Officer if the solicitation will be closed prior to the 15- day window or if the solicitation closing date will be extended. However, in this case, this solicitation will be synopsized for the entire 15-day window. QUESTION #23: Will opportunity be provided for oral presentation of proposals? RESPO NSE: At the present time, the government is not entertaining oral presentations, however, the solicitation may be amended to include oral presentations and their relative weighting factors. QUESTION #24: In reading the major tasks in paragraph 3. OBJECTIVES, page 3 of the solicitation I understand those tasks to be referencing the Critical Infrastructure Protection of the actual physical transportation infrastructure itself such as road, rail, and waterbor ne resources; and not the information systems in support of those Critical Infrastructure Protection systems. Is that a correct assumption? RESPONSE: No. QUESTION #25: Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), McLean, VA is interested in submitting a proposal for this solicitation. I called your office this morning and left a voice message in reference to the subject Request For Proposal (RFP). Trying to t rack down a copy of the statement of work (SOW) for this RFP. I understand that this solicitation has been posted for reviewing under MTMC's homepage under Business Center, Solicitations and locate the number. Unfortunately, I've tried and was unable to retrieve or review it. I understand there's a closing date of 10:00am EST on 5 Feb03 and would like to get a copy of the SOW so that we can submit our proposal. Additionally, do you have any information on another MTMC proposal for Cooperative Threat Red uction SOW (264)? Any assistance in this matter will be greatly appreciated. RESPONSE: The Contracting Officer did return the telephone call. The MTMC web page has this solicitation listed and can be downloaded. If you are still experiencing difficulties with downloading this solicitation, please contact Ms. Nora Cherry, Contract Specialis t at (703) 428-2013 or Ms. Toye Latimore, Contracting Officer at (703) 428-2067 and one of us will walk you through downloading this solicitation from our web page. QUESTION #26: Is there an incumbent currently satisfying this opportunity or is this a new opportunity. RESPONSE: No QUESTION #27: Is price evaluated at all? The evaluation criteria indicate the price factor is not rated. RESPONSE: This is correct; price is not evaluated with an adjectival rating. QUESTION #28: If price is not evaluated, do you have a price range or anticipated level of effort? RESPONSE: The Government has an Independent Government Cost Estimate that cannot be released to industry. QUESTION #29: Will there be an evaluation preference for 8A and/or Hub zone firms? RESPONSE: No. QUESTION #30. Can a short (i.e. 5 day) extension of the proposal due date be granted to permit for response/adjustments after receipt of questions and answers? RESPONSE: See this amendment for the revised extension date. QUESTION #31: Please provide direction as to the proposal submission instructions for this RFP, type of submission, hardcopy only, or will an electronic file be required via CD, or other means? If electronic, what software/version? RESPONSE: The proposal submission was addressed in amendment 1. The MTMC request that all offerors submit 2 original signed hard copies of their proposal and 1 CD version of their cost and technical proposal, in word format. The cost proposal should be in excel fo rmat and also submitted on a CD. QUESTION #32: On page 14, CLIN 1002, should there also be a NTE $15,000 for travel? RESPONSE: See item 6 above. QUESTION #33: DFI International is a small research and analysis firm located in Washington, DC with both government and corporate consulting practices. Is there an incumbent? Is there a bidders list and would it be possible to obtain a copy? Is it a small business se t aside? RESPONSE: There is no incumbent for this requirement. The government does not maintain a bidders mailing list. This is not a small business set-aside requirement. QUESTION #34: Can the fill-in clauses be reduced in content to those sections 52.212-3 (Offeror Representations and Certi fications) and 52.223-13 (Certification of Toxic Chemical Release Reporting for which the offeror is to provide the appropriate information)? RESPONSE: Yes, QUESTION #35: Are the cost proposal and BOE pages to be considered within the 100-page limit? RESPONSE: Yes. QUESTION #36: In order to accurately determine the scope and complexity of the tasks in this solicitation, can you provide a summary, additional information, point of contact or the following program guidance as referenced in your solicitation: A) The Presidential and SECDEF guidance MTMC is using to implement the CIP program as referenced in the Background Paragraph 2 of the SOW. B) Information on the USTRANSCOM mapping of critical surface transportation assets and USTRANSCOM?s development of the DoD Transportation da tabase referenced in the Objectives paragraph 3 to the SOW. C) Information on the DoD CIP Integrated Staff (CHIPS), the USTRANSCOM CIP Program guidance, and DoD Directives 8320.1-M-1 required supporting Task 5.2 and subtasks 5.2.1 through 5.2.4. D) Infor mation including number, frequency and duration of the exercises such as USTRANSCOM?s annual command post exercise referenced in Task 5.2.6. Subtask 6. RESPONSE: A) Presidential is PDD 63; SECDEF guidance? is DOD CIP Plan. B) USTC mapping refers basically to the focused 5678 spreadsheet DOD transportation database is a USTRANSCOM contractor task, with minimal MTMC effort. C) Information on the CIPIS is in the DOD CIP Plan; USTRANSCOM?s CIP program guidance essentially is our DISAP (extract attached); DODD 8320.1 can be found at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/dir2.html D) USTRANSCOM CPXs: Normally one or two per year at USTRANSCOM ? minimal if any MTMC contractor support required. QUESTION #37: Currently the SOW does not provide any scooping of FTE for tasks and subtask that appear to be level of effort such as in paragraph 5.2.1 Subtask 1 ?The contractor will continue to identify critical surface transportation assets as stipulated Tier-I nodes? and in Paragraph 5.2.2 Subtask 2 As directed by the MTMC CIP PM, the contractor will provide support under subtask 3? Could level of effort anticipated for each of the subtasks be defined to enable an accurate FFP submission to meet your needs? RESPONSE: No. QUESTION #38: Paragraph 8.1 and 8.2 Option years: It is not clear whether the customer foresees a change in scope or content of effort for each option year. It would be useful if the SOW would provide some definitization of FTEs anticipated and skill required. RESPONSE: At the present time, the MTMC does not foresee a change in scope or content of effort for each option year. QUESTION #39: In light of this request so contractors can accurately scope this solicitation and provide the best services for the fairest price to MTMC, request an extension to the current submission date of February 5, 2003 to February 12, 2003 to incorporate answers to questions in our proposal. RESPONSE: Granted to 21 February 2003. See this amendment for time submittal of all proposals.
Place of Performance: Address: Military Traffic Management Command, PARC ATTN: MTAQ, 200 Stovall Street Alexandra VA; Zip Code: 22332-5000; Country: US
Record: SN00259106-W 20030215/030213213648 (fbodaily.com)
Source: FedBizOpps.gov Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)

| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |

Loren Data's SAM Daily™

B -- Amendment 3 to DAMT01-03-R-0034, Critical Infrastructure Protection Services (CIP)