Attachment_A_-_Questions_and_Answers-RFQ_140G0226Q0038_0001.pdf

Attachment A

Questions and Answers

RFQ 140G0226Q0038

LABVIEW SOFTWARE BRAND NAME OR EQUAL

DEVELOPMENT/TRAINING SERVICES for the

USGS, Denver Argon Geochronology Lab

(DAGL), Denver, CO.

1. Question #1:

“….we notice place of performance is the USGS Denver Argon Geochronology Lab, Denver FederalCenter, Building 95. ….most of our software development projects are performed remotely, with travel as needed for implementation and training. Please confirm the expected onsite presence for the lead developer throughout the Period of

Performance and whether any portion of development activities may be performed offsite when not directly interacting with Government systems.”

USGS’s Response: The lead developer is expected to be onsite throughout the development of the product. The computer system connected to the instrumentation is not accessible remotely.

2. Question #2:

“Regarding Factor B – Technical Personnel, the solicitation states that the lead developer must be “recognized as a LabVIEW (or equivalent) champion.” Given that this designation is a limited vendor-managed recognition rather than a broadly available certification, could the Government clarify what documentation will be accepted to demonstrate compliance with this requirement? Specifically, would a lead developer holding LabVIEW Certified Architect (CLA) certification, with extensive scientific instrument automation experience and demonstrated performance in federal laboratory environments, be considered acceptable for evaluation?”

USGS’s Response: Please submit a complete technical quotation package in accordance with Evaluation Factors stated on page 62, and Quotation Instructions to Vendors stated on page 63.

3. Question #3:

“The ACR requirement (Section E, item m) requires an ACR report. Starting on page 18 of the solicitation, the ICT Accessibility Requirements are stated. Based on my understanding so far, the LabVIEW software developed under this contract would be considered ICT, and thus the contract is requiring that the developed software be accessible as per the ICT Accessibility Standards. Several of these standards (302.1

Without Vision in particular) cannot be met using the software development tools and techniques that I (or probably nearly any) LabVIEW programmer have available. Is it possible for this project to obtain an exception to the ICT Accessibility requirements?

Alternatively, is there any likelihood that a quote that explicitly states that it will not comply with certain ICT standards would be accepted?”

USGS’s Response: The modules developed under this contract must adhere to

Accessibility Requirements to the extent possible. The vendor must submit a

VPAT after development is complete to document the extent to which they complied with Accessibility requirements.

4. Question #4:

“Line item 0010 requires a monthly firm-fixed-price, extending over the full one year of the award. However, the scope of the project makes it obvious that the bulk of the work could be finished inthe first few months. It is likely that the scientists would WANT the bulk of the project executed assoon as possible. Executing most of the hours in the first few months, but being forced to invoice for them evenly over the entire year would be unacceptable to the contractor, delaying somepayments for 9 or 10 months. Would a firm-fixed-price for the complete project, to be completed within the 1 year time-frame, but at varying levels during different months, be acceptable? Could the contract be amended to make clear that a quote with this type of invoicing would be acceptable?”

USGS’s Response: Line Item 00010 and 00020 has been revised

From:

Vendors shall provide a firm-fixed monthly price for this line item.

To:

Vendors shall provide a firm-fixed price for this line item. Invoices shall be billed as services have been rendered.

5. Question #5:

“We are currently reviewing opportunities #140G0226Q0021 and #140G0226Q0038 for

LabVIEW software (brand name or equal development). Upon closer review, we noticed that both solicitations appear to be very similar in terms of line items and period of performance.

Could you please clarify whether these are separate requirements? If so, should we plan to submit responses for both solicitations?”

USGS’s Response: RFQ 140G0226Q0021 is cancelled in its entirety. Please use

140G0226Q0038.

6. Question #5 Combined:

I have a question regarding Factor B in Sol_140G0226Q0021.pdf part of RFQ

140G0226Q0038 in SAM. The following is stated on page 62 "All software must be developed onsite at the Denver Federal Center with participation from laboratory scientists." Is this a strict requirement? We would like to quote this work, which involves developing software at our Utah office, delivering regular remote code reviews with laboratory personnel, and providing in-person training and testingin CO. However, all development work will not occur onsite at the Denver Federal Center.”

USGS’s Response: RFQ 140G0226Q0021 is cancelled in its entirety. Please use

140G0226Q0038.

USGS’s Response: The lead developer is expected to be onsite throughout the development of the product. The computer system connected to the instrumentation is not accessible remotely.