Government Response to Draft RFP. August 1, 2024.pdf

NOAA, OSC -- Presentation Layer Request for Proposal (RFP), Soli. # 1305M424R0047

Government Responses to the Offerors' Questions/Comments August 1, 2024

SN

RFP,

PWS

Section Paragraph Offeror's Question/Comment Government's Response

1 NA NA NA

Is this a new or a follow-on effort? If so, can you provide the contractor's name and contract number?

This is a new procurement/effort.

RFP

(pg 1)

Price Schedule

N/A What is the projected overall budget per year and across the total 5 years?

The Government declines disclosure of the budgetary constraints.

RFP

(pg 15)

Instructions Phase II

Factor 2 Do you want to see a demonstration of all three listed projects?

In Phase II, Factor 2, the Offeror presents technical capabilities (oral presentation and product demonstration), specifically focusing on Area 1, 2 and 3 (Reference Solicitation pg 15-17).

RFP

(pg 17)

Area 3 Bullet #4 Will OSC help facilitate the process towards ATO? What is the timeline requirement for ATO?

Yes. OSC will facilitate the process towards ATO. The timeline will be approximately 6-9 months.

RFP

(pg 16)

Area 2 Bullet #3 What different SSA data formats are required? What about various formats should be selectable?

The RFP refers to different formats of displays, visualizations, and tabulations; not data formats.

Updated in final Solicitation Instructions Phase II Area 2

RFP

(pg 16)

Area 2 Bullet #4 Should the multiple tools be configurable on a user-to-user basis (i.e. customizable dashboard)?

Table A of Area 1 describes the levels of configurability for each type of display scenario. (Reference Solicitation pg 15-16)

RFP

(pg 17)

Area 2 Bullet #10

What does it mean by data entries should not be rigidly formatted? Is this to say that users should have an easy time providing information? Or would it be that the backend needs to be able to store freely formatted information?

Users should have an easy time providing information such as common data entries (ie. dates, phone numbers).

RFP

(pg 17)

Area 2 Bullet #11

Regarding common functions having multiple modalities, is it that, for example, the application components can be interacted via keyboard shortcuts AND mouse?

Common functions should have multiple modalities to perform (i.e., adjusting or availability based on different user roles)."

RFP

(pg 17)

Area 2 Bullet #14 Should the multiple tools be configurable on a user-to-user basis (i.e. customizable dashboard)?

Table A of Area 1 describes the levels of configurability for each type of display scenario. (Reference Solicitation pg 15-16)

RFP

(pg 15-17)

Instructions Phase II

Area 1, 2, and 3

Regarding Phase II and describing how we meet each requirement within the 3 areas for the Oral Presentation, can those requirements be met across various products/solutions or is it expected a single product/solution meets every requirement?

The requirements can be met across various products/solutions;

however, the various products must be able to integrate with each other and with the System Integrator (as described in the PWS) for one Presentation Layer system.

11 NA NA NA

With regard to information required from proposal submitters for CLINs 1002, 1003, 1004, 4002, 4003, and 4004, specifically concerning development costs for Option Periods.

Could you please confirm if the Contractor should anticipate a minimum amount of development work if those Option Periods are exercised, or if an NTE (Not To Exceed) amount should be provided?

The Offeror’s price/budget for both base and option periods shall be a not to exceed amount.

PWS

(pg 12)

2.0

2.1.9.1 / 2.1.9.2

We understand this effort may require a combination of new capability development, and existing product integration. Given this dynamic, to what extent is the TraCSS team open to modifying the Pre-RFP requirements to facilitate expedited and cost-effective onboarding?

The Government is not modifying the “pre-RFP” requirements (PWS, section 2.1.9.1 and 2.1.9.2).

PWS

(pg 12)

2.0

2.1.9.1 / 2.1.9.2

Given the answer to the previous question, what is the expected relationship between system integrator and presentation layer vendors (prime, sub, independent, etc.)?

Independent

PWS

(pg 12)

2.0 2.1.10 Does/will the presentation layer have its own cache capability?

The Presentation Layer could have its own cache capability if such is needed to support minimal latency requirements across all displays and user scenarios.

PWS

(pg 10)

2.0 2.1.2.5

This requirement lends to Message Publication capabilities which was not a highlighted box on figure 3, page 6. Is this intended to be Message Publication?

The Contractor shall include the capability within the Presentation Layer to set user-defined conditions for receiving messages from the Message Publication service. The Presentation Layer will interact with the Message Publication back-end services that are developed by the System Integrator.

PWS

(pg 13)

2.0 2.2.2 Are there specific requirements for latency for the user interface?

Latency for displays shall be minimized, in coordination with the System Integrator. Best practices and industry standards for usability, user centered design, UI/UX, and human factors (PWS 2.1.2.1) shall also be followed

PWS

(pg 13)

2.0 2.2.4 Is there a plan to host the system on separate physical or virtual sites for the COOP?

The system will be located in the cloud via multiple regions.

PWS

(pg 14)

2.0 2.2.6

Is there a metric available for the amount of expected concurrent users for the TraCSS system, or existing concurrent users on Space-Trac.org now

Estimates for current number of space-track.org users are described in Appendix E of the PWS.

PWS

(pg 4&29)

1.2 & Appendix D

5 & 10

If the system is intended to remain unclassified with highest level as CUI, why would a Classified Data Spill Mitigation Plan be required?

Addressed in PWS Section 6.5

PWS

(sever al)

2 Several

Could you please provide more details on the nature of the data involved in this project, specifically regarding its format, volume, and any specific requirements for data shaping or transformation? If the data is high volume high stream, are considerations being made to how to optimize the data for delivery both to the back end and the GUI'd user front-end?

Space situational awareness data types are described across PWS Appendix A, PWS Appendix E, and Solicitation Instructions for Phase I Area 3. Updated in final Solicitation Instructions Phase I Area 3.

Per PWS 2.2.2, the Contractor shall work with the System Integrator to optimize latency.

PWS

(pg 8)

1.5 1,2,3

What specific requirements or considerations should be taken into account for global access and identity management, particularly in terms of supporting diverse user groups and ensuring secure access across different regions?

Per PWS Section 6.2, the Contractor shall check the Data Policy/Rule Engine (which is developed by the System Integrator) before fulfilling user requests for data.

PWS

(pg 11)

2.1.3

What are your requirements for ongoing API security reporting and tracking? Could you provide details on the expected frequency of reports, specific metrics to be tracked, and any preferred methods for continuous monitoring and alerting?

As described in PWS Section 6.1, Contractor shall comply with all government and NOAA and Department of Commerce security requirements (FedRAMP, FISMA, Risk Management Framework, DOC Enterprise Security Policy and NOAA IT Security Manual) deployed and defined by the System Integrator.

PWS

(pg 13)

2.2.1 1

Could you elaborate on the expectations for GUI acceleration and how it should adapt to varying user locations? Are there any specific performance benchmarks or user experience metrics that should be met?

Users from around the globe will need to be able to interact with TraCSS via the Presentation Layer, whether via the public TraCSS.gov website or as a registered user.

Best practices and industry standards for user experience should be met, as described in PWS

2.1.2.1. The Presentation Layer

must also be section 508 compliant, per PWS 8.10.