16-236-SOL-0001_Questions_Final_120915_2.0.pdf

16-236-SOL-0001 Questions and Answers

No.

Reference Document

Reference Paragraph

Questions

16-236-

SOL-

0001_RFP

Section B.2

The solicitation states “In consideration for successful performance of these services, the Contractor shall be reimbursed on a CPIF basis”.

Please remove the reference to CPIF as the resultant contract is anticipated to be CPAF.

1a Answer: Correct, the reference to CPIF is a clerical error, the anticipated award will be Cost Plus Award Fee.

16-236-

SOL-

0001_RFP

Page 3-5 Section B.3.2 – B.3.5

The solicitation section numbering appears to skip from B.2.1 to B.3.2.

Will the Government please correct the section numbering?

2a Answer: The numbering has been corrected, See Amendment

16-236-

SOL-

0001_RFP

Page 3-10 Section B.2.1 – B.3.5

Labor Categories 1.21 and 1.22, Program Manager Level II and Program Manager Level III, respectively, are identified as Project Manager Level II and Project Manager Level III in the Labor Category Descriptions.

Will the Government please clarify?

3a Answer: Program Manager Level II and Program Manager Level III map to Project Manager Level II and Project Manager Level III, respectively. There is only one Program Manager position.

16-236-

SOL-

0001_RFP

Page 3-10 Section B.2.1 – B.3.5

Labor Category Descriptions are not provided for labor categories 1.36 and 1.37, System Quality Assurance Senior and Software Test Engineer, respectively.

Will the Government please provide labor category descriptions for 1.36 and 1.37?

4a Answer: The 1.36 System Quality Assurance, Senior and 1.37 Software Test Engineer have been removed from the RFP. They are redundant with other labor categories. See Amended Section B.2.

16-236-

SOL-

0001_RFP

Section B.3.B

The solicitation states “The following items will be negotiated at the time of award to establish the final incentive fee”.

Please remove the reference to incentive fee as the resultant contract is anticipated to be CPAF.

5a Answer: The reference to incentive fee is a clerical error. The anticipated award is Cost Plus Award Fee.

16-236-

SOL-

0001_RFP

Section B.4

The “Total Amount” column of the NTE travel table includes incorrect values.

Will the Government please update with the correct values (i.e. $40,000 per period)?

6a Answer: For each performance period, the travel costs should be updated to include $40,000 for the base effort $10,000 for the optional effort, which equals $50,000 for the total effort.

16-236-

SOL-

0001_RFP

Section B.4

For both the NTE travel amounts and the NTE ODC amounts, do all offerors use these exact amounts, as shown, in the cost proposal to the Government?

7a. Answer:Yes

Reference Document

Reference Paragraph

Questions

16-236-

SOL-

0001_RFP

Section B.4

The solicitation states “All ODCs must be authorized by the COR and CO and shall not exceed the following” incorporated amounts.

The allowable direct costs associated with materials, supplies, equipment, laptops, servers, software and all software development equipment that can be identified specifically with a final cost objective (e.g. the RPMS Software Engineering Support Services contract) will likely exceed the not-to-exceed (NTE) amounts included in the solicitation.

Will the Government please confirm that the NTE amounts may be increased during contract performance if program requirements dictate such an increase?

8a. Answer: The amounts may increase if required during performance.

16-236-

SOL-

0001_RFP

Section C – General

The requirements indicate that the Contractor will support RPMS development, but none of the 20 specific tasks directly addresses the development required.

(a) Will the Government clarify the percentage of development and enhancement versus sustainment activity anticipated under this contract?

(b) For the purposes of estimating level of effort, will the Government provide the anticipated number of releases per application to be supported under this contract annually?

9a.

Answer: The software development (i.e. coding) task is supported by Task 5, Software Engineering.

(a) and (b) Please refer to performance standard #2 in the QASP. “The contractor shall provide one feature release each per quarter for the practice management, clinical, and infrastructure domains. The combination of releases shall cover at least 70% of the applications each quarter within the RPMS application inventory.”

16-236-

SOL-

0001_RFP

Section C1.1

If the contractor is responsible for providing all “equipment, supplies, transportation, tools, materials, supervision, and other items”….

(a) What workstation software will the offeror be expected to obtain beyond the basic Microsoft Office suite of applications in order to work with existing RPMS investment artifacts and deliverables? (VPN bridge, Adobe, etc.)

(b) Will the offeror have access to a direct network connection to IHS systems or will all contract activities take place on the offerors network/systems with only final deliverables sent to RPMS?

10a. Answer: Please refer in Amendment 003 Section B.

Reference Document

Reference Paragraph

Questions

(a) The answer depends on the vendor’s approach to software development. However, legacy teams have used MS Project and MS Visio on a regular basis.

(b) IHS will establish a Network interconnection with the service provider. However, some support activities, including RPMS troubleshooting will by necessity also require IHS VPN access.

16-236-

SOL-

0001_RFP

Section C.1.3

6th bullet - Transition disparate GUIs into a common interface framework compliant with accessibility and usability best practices in a platform-independent context (i.e. support for Web, mobile, machine, and other ancillary interfaces

Will the cost of end-user licenses (i.e., MS Project Server for end-users entering time) be covered by the allotted ODC’s on page 13 Section B.4??

11a.

Answer: Incidental special software licenses may on a case-by-case basis be purchased as Other Direct Costs (ODCs) with prior approval by IHS. However, enterprise class and server software used to support IHS processes must be purchased by IHS through the regular government procurement channels. It is expected that legacy tools will be used until a tools assessment can be completed by the vendor and accepted by IHS. The legacy tools currently in place include UNANET for time and accounting and Serena Business Manager for SDLC workflow.

16-236-

SOL-

0001_RFP

Section C.1.3

Objectives - “Align IHS Software life cycle programs and processes with current best practices in application architecture, design, and management.”

What processes will the Government implement to ensure that other contributing resources to the RPMS investment, such as Federal development staff or contractors, that are not a part of the Offeror’s contract comply with the processes and procedures required as part of the offerors contract performance?

12a.

Answer: The vendor’s technical proposal should address how the work of federal staff (in particular federal informaticists), other developers, and other stakeholders will be incorporated into the software development lifecycle.

The vendor will be responsible for implementing a technical proposal that accounts for uncertainty and change in the development lifecycle. However, the vendor will not exercise supervisory responsibility for federal and other contractor staff and will not be penalized for their actions or inaction, assuming the vendor effectively designed and planned the project(s) or support processes within the contractor’s scope of work and sought to remediate knowns issues and risks, working with the Government.

Continuous re-baselining of plans and/or reprioritizing the backlog will be important to the vendor’s success.

16-236-

SOL-

0001_RFP

Section C1.4

Scope - “…do all things necessary for or incident to the performance of the work for the following:……16. Software development life cycle (SDLC) tools selection, implementation, maintenance, and support.”

(a) Will the offeror be expected to purchase the equipment and software required to support selected SDLC tools and support them on Contractor-owned and managed systems?

Reference Document

Reference Paragraph

Questions

(b) If so, how will the offeror integrate SDLC/project/portfolio management activities with those of other OIT investments?

13a.

Answer:

(a) No. A tools assessment is one of the deliverables. The acquisition of new tools will be managed by IHS, if IHS follows the vendor’s recommendations.

Such tools will be hosted by IHS.

(b) Some manual coordination will still be required, since not all investments use the same tools for project management.

16-236-

SOL-

0001_RFP

Section C.1.4

Optional Task Areas 19 and 20 are not included in this list.

Will the Government please update this list to include these Optional Task Areas?

14a.

Answer: Optional Tasks 19 and 20 are considered in scope and should be added to this paragraph. This is an editorial change only.

16-236-

SOL-

0001_RFP

Section C.2.1, Task 1 – Basic Services

The Task 2 requirements are stated very broadly and seem to have substantial overlap with other tasks. For example, the last paragraph states “This includes a full range of life cycle software development, architecture, and operations support services assessments, interfaces, including software installation onto RPMS systems, configuration and customization for specific site needs, deployment, training, and troubleshooting.” This scope seems to overlap Task 2 IT architecture, Task 9 Implementation Support, and others. In addition, both of the main paragraphs in this section state that the “contractor shall provide fully qualified staff to support…”

(a) Please clarify the intent and scope of the “Task 1 - Basic Services” requirement.

(b) Additionally, the Government is requesting that costs be provided by Task. There is significant overlap among the Tasks contained in the PWS. Can the Government provide guidance on how to allocate costs among Tasks that overlap and/or ask for similar support as noted above? Suggest removing the requirement to provide costs by Task if the boundaries cannot be clearly defined.

15a.

Answer:

(a) Given that this is a performance work statement, Task 1 covers any effort required to meet the performance targets that are considered in scope of the PWS but not otherwise specified in other task areas.

(b) If there are overlapping task areas, it isn’t clear what they are. To remove any ambiguity, the vendor should document any assumptions made in the technical proposal.

16-236-

SOL-

0001_RFP

Section C.2.1, Task 1 – Basic Services

The requirement states, “The contractor shall provide fully qualified staff to support ongoing software development and user support for existing RPMS

Reference Document

Reference Paragraph

Questions applications…” There are other contracts in place that provide similar development support for RPMS applications.

Will all RPMS development and sustainment ultimately be performed under this contract as those contracts are completed?

16a.

Answer: The scope of development and the list of supported legacy applications was articulated in the performance work statement. It addresses all applications in the distributed RPMS system. Centrally managed systems (PHR, Direct, HIE, MPI, eRx, and Terminology Services) are not in scope for development and support.

RFP16-

236-SOL-

Section C2.2 Task 2

(a) Ties in with 4, 6 and 19 – same question about IHS’ willingness to invest into a new integration tool/solution.

(b) The requirement states that the Contractor must produce ‘at any point’ a current work plan and WBS – does this mean Contractor PMs have to maintain schedules at a current-state on a daily rather than monthly basis?

(c) Some Federal PMs currently manage their own schedules for work supported/performed by Contract resources. What is the expectation for the ESS contractor when Federal PMs maintain and provide the schedules/work plans/WBS’s? Will this become the responsibility of the ESS contractor?

17a.

Answer:

(a) Not enough information provided to answer this question.

(b) The vendor must produce the baselined deliverables at any time. It is expected that deliverables will be re-baselined as part of change management, not just once per month.

(c) The vendor will manage all schedules and other project management deliverables for supported projects.

16-236-

SOL-

0001_RFP

Section C.2.3, Task 3– Application Level Security Engineering and Compliance

Is IHS looking for centralized Directory service that is inclusive of D1 users and non-D1 Tribal and Urban users? Or two separate (1 for IHS users and 2nd for Tribal and Urban users)?

18a.

Answer: IHS is currently investing in setting up an external Active Directory instance for Tribal and Urban stakeholders to support simplified authentication and eventually single sign-on for non-federal users. There is also a future requirement to provide for a Provider Directory in support of the Federal Health IT Strategy and the National 10-Year Interoperability Roadmap. However, the architecture and capabilities of this Provider Directory have not yet been determined.

16-236-

SOL-

0001_RFP

Section C.2.3, Task 3, Subtask 2.3.1 Identity and Access Management (IAM)

(a) The requirement implies that an existing IAM capability/solution is in place. Can the Government provide additional information on the existing IAM capability, any known issues or planned upgrades/enhancements?

(b) Is there an existing IAM strategy that the Contractor will be required to review and update, or is there no currently documented IAM strategy?

Reference Document

Reference Paragraph

Questions

19a.

Answer:

(a) There is not a single IAM solution in place. Rather, there are a set of tools that are the basis of an incomplete IAM strategy, including Active Directory, an IHS custom-developed solution called the IHS Information Technology Access Control (ITAC) system for tracking account authorizations, the current HSS IAM@HHS solution. IHS is also currently investing in a second, external-facing active directory solution.

(b) There is no current IHS IAM Strategy. It is listed as an IHS/OIT strategic priority. The application security resource will be one stakeholder providing input on this strategy, in particular from the health IT perspective.

16-236-

SOL-

0001_RFP

Section C.2.3, Task 3– Application Level Security Engineering and Compliance

What are other IAM requirements, such as cloud access manager, single sign-on capabilities, role-based access control, event management system to scan policy violation and send reports, etc.

20a.

Answer: The purpose of this PWS is not to specify each of these requirements nor to specify a technical architecture but rather to provide the expertise to help formulate and implement such a strategy based on current strategic priorities and gaps in capabilities, in particular within the health IT domain.

16-236-

SOL-

0001_RFP

Section C.2.3, Task 3– Application Level Security Engineering and Compliance

What policy and security limitations that can be enforced on the Tribal and Urban users? Or, does it not apply when its matter of access to IHS systems?

21a.

Answer: The limitations are dependent on the system. RPMS, the distributed health IT system, supports federal users in federal facilities and tribal users in tribal and urban facilities. IHS has a lot of control over the former but less so over the later at the application level.

16-236-

SOL-

0001_RFP

Section C.2.4, Task 4– Program Management Support

Agile Portfolio Management:

Does IHS plan to procure new tools in support of Agile Portfolio Management?

22a. Answer: To be determined based on the vendor’s tool assessment.

RFP16-

236-SOL-

Section C.2.5, Task 5 – Software Engineering

“…robust, high quality software…to construct secure, reliable, and user-friendly systems…” What are the objective, measurable success criteria against which Contractor’s performance will be measured?

23a. Answer: See Section H.18. Performance Metrics.

Reference Document

Reference Paragraph

Questions

16-236-

SOL-

0001_RFP

Section C.2.6 Task 6, Subtask 2.6.2 Release and Iteration Planning and Management

The requirement states (at the top of page 21), “However, the Contractor will also be required to integrate modules from the open source community, development teams, and other stakeholders. Iteration and release plans must take these dependencies into account.”

(a) Will the Government please clarify “development teams, and other stakeholders”? Do the other development teams consist of contractors, Federal employees, or both? Please specify who these other teams consist of and how many there are.

(b) What measures will the Government employ to ensure that the other development teams and other stakeholders work collaboratively, share information, and contribute modules and related artifacts in a manner that enables successful integration and incorporation into comprehensive iteration and release plans?

24a.

Answer:

(a) There is one team of federal developers, one vendor supporting the RPMS Network (PHR, Direct, HIE, MPI, eRX, and terminology services), developers within the Department of Veterans Affairs, and a plethora of open source vendors, commonly known as the VistA community.

(b) The Government expects interested vendors to identify in their technical proposal how they will integrate the work of other developers into their work stream from a configuration management perspective. Vendors should consider that some developers are within IHS’s organizational scope of control (federal developers and RPMS Network developers) and some are not (VA developers and the open source community). The winning vendor will be the owner of the configuration management process for IHS and will also need to work with the Quality Assurance vendor to maintain a “Gold” copy of the configuration baseline for distribution to the open source community under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

16-236-

SOL-

0001_RFP

Section C.2.7. Task 7, Subtask 2.7.3 Coding Standards

The requirement states (middle of page 22), “The final deliverable for any software development task (including maintenance tasks) shall include:”

Please define “task” within the terms of the contract for which deliverables will be required?

25a.

Answer: For a description of the software engineering task, see Section 2.5, Task 5 – Software Engineering.

16-236-

SOL-

0001_RFP

Section C.2.7. Task 7, Subtask 2.7.4 Trade Study Support

Please clarify “user-centered research and design”.

26a.

Answer: For a definition of these terms, see ISO 9241-210:2010, usability.gov or W3.org. These are common industry terms. The vendor must propose its methodology for incorporating users and user feedback into the selected methodology to meet the contract’s performance objectives.

Reference Document

Reference Paragraph

Questions

16-236-

SOL-

0001_RFP

Section C.2.8. Task 8, Testing

The requirement states, “The Contractor shall work collaboratively with other Contractors to support integration testing, alpha testing, and beta testing.

The Contractor shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with the published integration, alpha, and beta testing schedules. The Contractor shall also coordinate with the respective product owners during all testing activities. The Contractor shall ensure that program, project, and executive leaders always have a situational awareness of the user acceptance level of their respective products.

(a) Please clarify how many and what specific other contractors the Offeror/Contractor will be required to work with to support the various types of testing? Will the Offeror/Contractor be responsible for maintaining an overall testing environment for all of these products to be integrated and tested together?

(b) Is the Offeror/Contractor required to provide situational awareness on all products or only “their” (the Offer’s delivered products) products?

27a.

Answer:

(a) See response to question 24 above. Yes, the contractor will be responsible for overall program and project schedules. However, the coordination of alpha and beta testing activities will lie with the Quality Assurance and Customer Support contractor.

(b) All, since the contractor provides the program management office (PMO) support function and the project management support function.

RFP16-

236-SOL-

Section C2.9 Task 9

– Implementation and Deployment Support

What support is expected for ‘open source community coordination’? And does it entail any level of deployment support or post-deployment support?

28a.

Answer: IHS tends to be more of a consumer of open source community developed products. However, when there is benefit to the organization and mission, the contractor will be asked to coordinate with the open source community or with developers funded by tribal organizations. Many current RPMS developers are active participants in the community of VistA developers.

16-236-

SOL-

0001_RFP

Section C.2.10.

Task 10, Subtask 2.10.1, Training and User Documentation Services

The requirement identifies “Release Notes” as “a text file distributed by SQA in a standard format defined by IHS”.

Please clarify the reference to “SQA”. Is this a different organization or contractor responsible for performing IV&V?

29a.

Answer: Yes, the Quality Assurance support function will be provided by a contractor under 16-236-SOL-0002. However, the contractor under this PWS also has QA responsibilities as specified elsewhere in the solicitation.

Reference Document

Reference Paragraph

Questions

16-236-

SOL-

0001_RFP

2.11 Task 11 – User

Support

Is there plan to mandate use of HEAT by every Area to ensure tracking and assignment of tickets to Tier 1, Tier 2.

30a.

Answer: There is not. However, there is a strategic priority to bring all federal IT staff into a single customer relationship management (CRM) system to improve customer support. However, a timeline for this change has not yet been determined.

RFP16-

236-SOL-

2.11 Task 11 – User

Support

(a) Does user support require use of the existing HEAT ticketing system and if so, what are the SLAs on HEAT system enhancements or bug issues/fixes if required by the Contractor to successfully support the field?

(b) Does the ‘transition from application versions’ only entail IHS-proprietary software versions and not COTS/Third Party/Site-custom software versions?

(c) Does ‘organizational planning and preparation for implementation only apply at the Nationwide level or also Area and Site levels?

(d) Does IHS provide/pay for solutions/tools and metered usage of said tools for providing remote nationwide support?

(e) ‘RPMS software installation and configuration’ especially with CQM there are a lot of custom workflows that could potentially lead to a large number of custom configurations – to what extent does the Contractor support this configuration at the site level, or do they only work in support of Area staff providing the configuration?

31a.

Answer:

(a) Yes until such time that it may be replaced. However, the vendor should strive to achieve the stated customer support performance objectives irrespective of the CRM platform.

(b) It includes any applications in the supported OIT product portfolio, which is a combination of open source, GOTS, and COTS technologies.

(c) Resources for detailed deployment planning will fall within the scope of a separate solicitation 16-236-SOL-0002. However, that plan must be integrated into the overall program plan, product roadmap, and release management plan managed by the contractor.

(d) Yes, IHS has its own remote access technology in place to support remote trouble-shooting. Typically this entails the use of a remote screen share solution with the contractor directing the work of the onsite facility staff.

(e) The level of site level customization should be determined on a project-by-project basis and planned for at the project level. In general RPMS does allow for a significant level of site customization of templates.

IHS RPMS

SW ESS

2.11 Task 11 – User

Support

Will the User Support services task include maintenance and administration of a help desk system? What Help Desk system is the Government providing?

32a.

Answer: No, the contractor will provide user support as the software engineering provider / application service provider. The goal of this task is to integrate the work of the development team into the Help Desk support structure and to provide higher tiers of user support. IHS uses the HEAT system for Help Desk management. The primary customer-facing RPMS user support work is being provided under 16-236-SOL-0002.

Reference Document

Reference Paragraph

Questions

16-236-

SOL-

0001_RFP

Section C.2.14.

Task 14, Quality Assurance

Regarding the reference to the requirement for “supporting independent verification and validation (IV&V)”, please clarify if this is referencing support for IV&V activity that is being performed by a different contractor.

33a.

Answer: That is correct. The IV&V work will be supported under the 16-236- SOL-0002 solicitation and provided by the Quality Assurance function. For this task, the contractor provides a supporting role (eg. providing evidence of appropriately functioning processes and practices).

IHS RPMS

SW ESS

2.15 Task 15 –

Project Documentation Support

(a) Are there any existing project documentation tools the contractor will be required to use in support of this task?

(b) Will the contractor have the ability to implement changes to existing tools?

34a.

Answer:

(a) Primarily via MS-Office products, Adobe Acrobat, and SharePoint and

IHS FTP site as a document repository.

(b) The contractor can propose changes based on the tools assessment task. However, IHS will make the final determination on the implementation of new tools.

35 RFP

2.15 Task 15 –

Project Documentation Support

Will the project documentation be required to meet Government records management requirements?

35a.

Answer: Yes. For the current IHS records disposition schedule, see:

http://www.ihs.gov/DRA/recordsmanagement/dispositionschedule/

IHS RPMS

SW ESS

2.16 Task 2.16 –

Software Development Lifecycle Tools

Will the contractor be responsible for the acquisition, installation, and maintenance of the selected tool(s) on their own network in support of this task?

If so, are the costs of tool acquisition and maintenance expected to be covered by the allotted ODC’s on page 13 Section B.4?

36a.

Answer: Yes for acquisition support, installation support, and maintenance of the tools. However, the actual acquisition will be managed by a warranted IHS contracting officer. No, the cost of any new tools will be outside of the scope of the ODCs.

16-236-

SOL-

0001_RFP

Section C.2.16, Task 16 – Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC) Tools

(a) Will the Government provide insight into tools that are currently in use and the extent to which these tools are standardized across projects within

IHS?

(b) Upon selection of tools and approval by IHS, will other ongoing projects supported by other Contractors be required to transition to standard approved tool suites?

(c) Will the Government procure the selected/approved tools, or will the Contractor be responsible for purchasing tools as ODCs?

http://www.ihs.gov/DRA/recordsmanagement/dispositionschedule/

Reference Document

Reference Paragraph

Questions

37a.

Answer:

(a) Serena requirements manager, Serena business manager, UNANET, MS Project and SharePoint. Legacy contractors have historically used these tools inconsistently. This issue will be remediated with this

PWS.

(b) Yes, other contractors under the scope and control of the RPMS program will need to come into compliance with the IHS-selected toolset.

(c) The Government.

IHS RPMS

SW ESS

2.18 Task 18 –

Contractor Management Reporting Subtask 18.1 Planning and Scheduling

Will the contractor be responsible for tracking the hours and cost in each work plan that is provided by a federal resource or a resource employed by a separate contract (non-subcontractor) resource?

If so, how will the contractor be expected to obtain that information?

38a. Answer: Yes, currently this information is tracked via IHS’s UNANET system.

39 RFP

F.2. Deliverable schedule and deliverables

In the deliverable section, they refer to “OMB 300 Updates”, for clarification, are they referring to the OMB Information Technology Portfolio Summary (ITPS) and the Major Information Technology Business Case (MITBC)?

39a. Answer: Yes

RFP16-

236-SOL-

F.2. Deliverable schedule and deliverables

For the User Research Findings Report, what is the Contractor’s responsibility and scope of conducting user research, and how granular/what level of effort should be invested into this?

40a.

Answer: The contractor should propose a technical proposal that meets the contract performance objectives, including the user acceptance and usability performance objectives.

16-236-

SOL-

0001_RFP

Section F.2

Configuration Baseline report.

Will the Government clarify if this is software only?

41a.

Answer: Yes, all applicable product and project documents and software work products and other associated configuration items (e.g. operating system, data files, supported infrastructure configuration, supported standards, etc.).

16-236-

SOL-

0001_RFP

Section F.5

Most of the work will be completed at the contractor’s facility. However, the Government requires all personnel listed as Key Personnel (Section G.3) must be located with a commutable distance from the Rockville, MD headquarters for items that require onsite support. Key Personnel within commutable distance What does commutable mean? Within driving distance? Or just available for a weekly face to face?

Reference Document

Reference Paragraph

Questions

42a.

Answer: Within a reasonable driving distance in order to be on site multiple times per week but not full time or on short notice (24 hours’ notice).

16-236-

SOL-

0001_RFP

Section F.5

The solicitation states “Most of the work will be completed at the contractor’s facility”.

Are there any permanent Government site seats available for Contractor personnel?

43a.

Answer: Yes, for key personnel to support face-to-face communications with the RPMS Program and Investment Manager and other OIT leadership.

16-236-

SOL-

0001_RFP

Section G.3

The solicitation states “The contractor shall provide a project manager who shall be responsible for the performance of the work”.

(a) Is the reference to a Project Manager intended to be a Program Manager responsible for the performance of the work?

(b) Is this Project/Program Manager role a separate role from the Program Manager identified as Key Personnel?

44a.

Answer:

(a) Yes, See amendment 003

(b) No, See amendment 003

16-236-

SOL-

0001_RFP

Section G.7.4

The solicitation states “The Contractor shall furnish materials, supplies, and equipment necessary to meet the requirements under this PWS”.

In accordance with FAR 31.205-26, Material Costs, “when materials are purchased specifically for and are identifiable solely with performance under a contract, the actual purchase cost of those materials should be charged to the contract.

(a) Please confirm that the materials, supplies, and equipment that can be identified specifically with a final cost objective (e.g. the RPMS Software Engineering Support Services contract) are allowable direct costs of the contract.

(b) Please confirm that these allowable direct costs are to be invoiced as Other Direct Costs (ODCs).

45a. Answer: Please refer to the revised Section B in Amendment 003.

16-236-

SOL-

0001_RFP

Section G.7.5

The solicitation states “The Contractor shall provide laptops, servers, software and all software development equipment necessary to meet the requirements under this PWS”.

In accordance with FAR 31.205-26, Material Costs, “when materials are purchased specifically for and are identifiable solely with performance under

Reference Document

Reference Paragraph

Questions a contract, the actual purchase cost of those materials should be charged to the contract.

(a) Please confirm that the laptops, servers, software and all software development equipment that can be identified specifically with a final cost objective (e.g. the RPMS Software Engineering Support Services contract) are allowable direct costs of the contract.

(b) Please confirm that these allowable direct costs are to be invoiced as Other Direct Costs (ODCs).

46a. Answer: See answer to No. 45a above.

16-236-

SOL-

0001_RFP

Section G.7.5

Please confirm that costs associated with server maintenance and software licenses are allowable direct costs of the RPMS Software Engineering Support Services contract.

47a. Answer: They are not.

16-236-

SOL-

0001_RFP

Section H.18

What is the escalation process to the COR and process for evaluation revisions if there are impediments NOT caused by contractor that negatively impact performance standards?

48a.

Answer: Through written notification/request. A contractor can propose a phase-in of certain performance measures, including what exclusions may apply.

16-236-

SOL-

0001_RFP

Section H.18

#11 – Customer satisfaction rating for Remote Training sessions shall be a rating of 4.0 or higher.

Ratings can be low when onsite technical difficulties arise. Can these be removed from overall ratings?

49a.

Answer: No. However, a contractor can propose a phase-in of certain performance measures.

RFP16-

236-SOL-

Section H18.D #1

Contractor shall achieve CMMI Level 2 within one year and Level 3 within 2 years.

Should it be the Contractor who achieves those levels or should the Contractor help IHS/OIT achieve those levels?

50a.

Answer: The contractor should achieve this level of maturity for the IHS work provided under this contract. It is not sufficient that the contractor’s firm achieve this level of maturity.

RFP16-

236-SOL-

Section H18.D #2

Releases may include fixes, but must predominantly contain features or feature enhancements.

What is the threshold that equates to ‘predominantly’? What if a high incident rate of legacy/established software/code bug fixes cause the release quota to drop below threshold?

51a.

Answer: Bug fixes that can be specifically tied back to legacy code may be considered for exclusions for this measure. Software written by the contractor as new product or as integrating with legacy product may not be considered for exclusion to this performance measure. However, exclusions must be documented in the change management system and evidenced

Reference Document

Reference Paragraph

Questions produced upon the request of the COR. Predominant means 51% of changes or greater.

RFP16-

236-SOL-

Section H18.D #3

Beta testing is conducted at a production site using production systems and end-users.

At “a” site – Does this specify the number of sites must be included in beta testing?

52a.

Answer: Historically IHS has conducted beta testing at four sites for any release. This model for beta testing will likely continue. Beta site selection will be determined by IHS but with input from the contractor.

RFP16-

236-SOL-

Section H18.D #5

Contractor ensures 90% of deliverables are provided within 5 days of their agreed upon due dates.

How does Contractor document/establish delays out of the Contractor’s control or attributable to non-Contractor resources (e.g., Federal resources, developers, other contractors, or external [non-IHS and non-Contract] resources/dependencies)?

53a.

Answer: The contractor should propose the approach to this in their technical proposal. However, poor stakeholder management and project management will not be legitimate reasons for any exclusions to the measure. It will be the contractor’s responsibility to track and report issues to the COR and to the government program manager so that IHS can act on any impediments to contract performance and to obtain approval in a timely manner for rebaselining schedules.

RFP16-

236-SOL-

Section H18.D #8

85% of stakeholder problems will be resolved on first contact.

What constitutes ‘resolved’? If the need for a bug fix is identified, the resolution path is established, but ‘resolution’ does not occur until the bug fix is released (quarterly release).

54a.

Answer: Identifying a software bug fix for a scheduled release and reporting that information back to the customer would be considered a valid “resolution” state from a Help Desk perspective. This kind of information should be communicated back to the customer along with the associated tracking numbers, planned release date, etc. Again, as this work is described in a PWS format, it is the contractor’s responsibility to prepare a technical proposal that meets the contract performance objectives.

RFP16-

236-SOL-

Section H18.D #12

80% of users specified top 10 tasks as completed ‘easily’.

This is a subjective assessment and capability/functionality/work flow may be so complex that an easy completion is unattainable. Please delete this performance requirement or revise it so that an objective measure is attainable.

55a.

Answer: This performance measure is critical to the success of the program and is a requirement for Meaningful Use. It will not be removed from the performance standard. This is also a common approach to measuring a

Reference Document

Reference Paragraph

Questions product’s usability in an objective way. It is critical that the contractor propose a methodology to software development that will enable them to meet this measure.

16-236-

SOL-

0001_RFP

Section I.1, 52.204-

Is the 52.204-7, Central Contractor Registration (FEB 2012) reference intended to be System for Award Management (Jul 2013)?

56a. Answer: This clause has been updated per Amendment 003.

16-236-

SOL-

0001_RFP

Section K

Section K contains many outdated references. For instance, www.ccr.gov has since been replaced by www.sam.gov and the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) has been replaced by the System for Award Management (SAM).

Will the Government please update the solicitation accordingly?

57a. Answer: This section has been updated per Amendment 003.

16-236-

SOL-

0001_RFP

Section L.2

Volume I: Technical Proposal is not to exceed 100 pages, excluding resumes, commitment documentation, and/or other supporting attachments.

The reference to “commitment documentation” implies that the Government is seeking letters of commitment for all or some personnel.

Will the Government please clarify the reference to “commitment documentation” and provide the related proposal requirement(s)?

58a.

Answer:This section has been revised per Amendment 003. The commitment documentation referenced letters of commitment and subcontracting/teaming arrangements if applicable.

16-236-

SOL-

0001_RFP

Section L.7

A Small Disadvantaged Business Participation Plan is required in accordance with FAR Part 19.1201-2.

This section of the FAR no longer exists. Please amend or remove this requirement and the related evaluation criteria contained in Section M.9.

59a. Answer: This provisions has been removed per Amendment 003.

16-236-

SOL-

0001_RFP

Section L.8

The solicitation states “II.” The model subcontracting plan can be found be [by] going to the HHS website: http://www.hhs.gov/osdbu/forms/html”.

This is not a valid link to the referenced model subcontracting plan.

Will the Government please update the solicitation to include a valid link or provide this as a separate attachment?

60a.

Answer: The correct link is http://www.hhs.gov/asfr/ogapa/osbdu/smallbusiness/subcontractplan.html http://www.ccr.gov/ http://www.sam.gov/ http://www.hhs.gov/osdbu/forms/html

Reference Document

Reference Paragraph

Questions

16-236-

SOL-

0001_RFP

Section L.8

Proposed subcontractors are required to provide a complete cost/price proposal in the same format as the Offeror’s cost/price proposal.

(a) As many companies consider cost information to be proprietary, may proposed subcontractors submit cost/price proposals directly to the Government?

(b) Please provide submission instructions for subcontractor cost/price proposals.

61a.

Answer: All subcontractors should submit them electronically to the Government directly. The IHS POC is Michael Fischer at Michael.Fischer@ihs.gov

16-236-

SOL-

0001_RFP

Section L.13

The solicitation states “A completely executed copy of Section K - Representations, Certifications and Other Statements of Offerors, must be included as a part of your business proposal”.

Please confirm that offerors may satisfy this requirement by checking paragraph (d) of Section K.3.D (FAR Annual Representations and Certifications (Dec 2014).

62a. Answer: All offerors must complete all applicable sections of Section K.

16-236-

SOL-

0001_RFP

Section M.5.A.2.

The solicitation states “The plan must include names of personnel proposed, their skill category, and hours and rates by labor category that make up the proposed FFP”.

Please remove the reference to FFP as the resultant contract is anticipated to be CPAF.

63a.

Answer: The reference to FFP is a clerical error and has been revised to reflect a CPAF award in Amendment 003.

16-236-

SOL-

0001_RFP

Section M.8

The solicitation states “For the cost-plus-incentive-fee services….”.

Please remove the reference to cost-plus-incentive-fee as the resultant contract is anticipated to be CPAF.

64a.

Answer: Answer: The reference to FFP is a clerical error and has been revised to reflect a CPAF award in Amendment 003.

IHS RPMS

SW ESS

Page 70: PWS #8 85% of stakeholder problem reports resolved on first customer contact – Dashboard available to end users…

(a) Please clarify “resolved on first customer contact” and how the Government will measure this metric. In some cases the issue may be referred to another contractor or organization (e.g. cannot immediately be resolved by or is out of control of the Systems Engineering support contractor).

Reference Document

Reference Paragraph

Questions

(b) If a dashboard of this information is required to be accessible to end users, will the contractor have the authority or be expected under the scope of this contract to support development and updates to the IHS.gov website as a communication vehicle to the end users?

(c) If website development/support is not under the contractor’s control, how will the contractor’s performance standard be evaluated should another contractor not have the resources to facilitate posting this information to end users on IHS.gov?

65a.

Answer:

(a) Firstly, the data collection and reporting on performance measures and the QASP dashboard lies with the contractor, not the Government. In this circumstance “resolved on first contact” means on first contact with the Contractor for issues that the Contractor has responsibility over. The Contractor may propose valid exclusions in the technical proposal along with the approach to accounting for exclusions.

(b) No, the dashboard is not required to be accessible to end users.

However, ticket status is (to ensure process transparency and improve customer satisfaction). Ticket status must be made available in a format that is easily consumable by an end user.

The contractor should propose how this could be done.

(c) See #65b response.

RFP16-

236-SOL-

General

Past RFPs/contracts required use of specific tools/software such as Serena SBM, Unanet and HEAT.

(a) Is the choice of tools/software to use at the discretion of the Contractor?

(b) Will the cost of end-user licenses (i.e., MS Project Server for end-users entering time) be covered by the allotted ODC’s on page 13 Section B.4?

66a. Answer: See response to question 11a.

RFP16-

236-SOL-

B.3.B Award Fee

Pg.12

The RFP states "All interested offerors are to complete the performance assessment chart in Section H.21 of this solicitation"

There is no Section H.21. Please clarify.

67a.

Answer: The numbering issue has been revised per Amendment 003. B.3.B now references H.18

68.

RFP16-

236-SOL-

F.2. Deliverable

Schedule and

Deliverables

Pg.31

Transition-in plan: Is there an incumbent for this work? If yes, please provide company name(s).

68a.

Answer: There are multiple incumbents, whose work (or a portion thereof) generally fall under the scope of this RFP. The incumbents include: Cas

Severn, Cimarron Medical Informatics, Data Networks Corporation, and

Reference Document

Reference Paragraph

Questions

Medsphere. However, this contract is structured significantly different than the scope of the incumbent’s work

69.

RFP16-

236-SOL-

L.5. Volume II Past

Performance

Pg.101

The RFP states "…or contracts with the Federal Government, indicate whether the government has evaluated the Contractor and past performance information is available through PPIRS or whether the reference will be providing information via the past performance questionnaire".

Question: Should offerors include a copy of the PPIRS report in the Volume II?

Additionally, will the Government please confirm that for the Federal referenced contracts Offerors are not required to surveys?

69a.

Answer: Offerors are instructed to submit a copy of the PPIRS report in

Volume II. No survey is required if the reference contract is entered in PPIRS.

If there is no CPARS record in PPIRS then a Past Performance Survey is required.

70.

RFP16-

236-SOL-

M.12 Section 508

Compliance

Pg.125

The RFP states: “In order to be evaluated as "Acceptable", the Offeror must complete the HHS 508 Evaluation Template, the technical proposal must demonstrate compliance with the established EIT accessibility standards and the technical proposal must include a binding statement of conformance to the established EIT accessibility standards."

Question: Will the Government please clarify the instructions for submitting the completed template? Is the template to be completed for specific product?

70a.

Answer: The template is completed for all work covered by the contractor.

Instructions can be found online here: http://www.hhs.gov/web/section-

508/contracting/technology-products/vpath-instructions/index.html

The contractor must ensure accessibility is built into its software development methodology in order to produce accessible products and information.

Therefore, accessibility reports should be provided with the initial proposal

(even if a preponderance of the answers may be N/A), subsequently with each major product release, and each year with the Section 508 compliance report.

71.

RFP16-

236-SOL-

Section 2.2: Task 2-

Architecture

Pg.18

Question: Is compatibility with VA's VistA roadmap, or re-use of VA VistA software, an objective for future state data models, application inventories, or technical design patterns?

71a.

Answer: Yes, when it is in the best interest of the IHS. The same can be said of government shared service opportunities or open source products.

72.

RFP16-

236-SOL-

General Based on the RFI that was released in November 2014, the work statements within that document and the subsequently released Questions and Answers suggested that the Indian Health Service is pursuing an RPMS Modernization initiative.

http://www.hhs.gov/web/section-508/contracting/technology-products/vpath-instructions/index.html http://www.hhs.gov/web/section-508/contracting/technology-products/vpath-instructions/index.html

Reference Document

Reference Paragraph

Questions

Question: Is there an estimated timeframe for when the modernization effort will be released?

Question: Does the Architecture design, planning, and Trade Studies support required in the current SW Engineering Support Services PWS lead to an OCI as it pertains to the future modernization effort?

72a.

Answer: Given that RPMS is a system of systems the modernization of RPMS is a continuous process. IHS modernizes its systems based on requirements for Meaningful Use, other regulatory drivers, and the needs of the RPMS stakeholder community. The purpose of this RFP is NOT to complete a whole sale replacement of RPMS.

73.

RFP16-

236-SOL-

Section B.4

Travel/Other Direct

Costs

The travel cost table in this section shows Base and Optional Effort Travel at

$20,000 each for each proposed contract year, but the Total Amount for each year shows $30,000 instead of $40,000.

Question: Would the Government please clarify the ceiling amount per year for travel costs?

73a. Answer: See question (No. 6) above

74.

RFP16-

236-SOL-

Task 3, Sub Task

3.1 Identity and

Access

Management

Is there an Identity and Access Management solution in place today? If not, is it the expectation of the Government that the Contractor will support the roadmap development for IAM and the subsequent implementation?

74a. Answer: See response to #19 above.

75.

RFP16-

236-SOL-

Task 3, Sub Task

3.1 Identity and

Access

Management

Is the Indian Health Service looking for the Contractor to provide Tiered Help

Desk/Service desk Support for the current system?

75a. Answer: See responses to #31 and #32 above.

76.

RFP16-

236-SOL-

Cost Plus Award

Fee Pool

How does the Government envision the schedule for the Award Fee Pool?

Will it be broken out in quarters, 6-month increments, or on an annual basis?

76a. Answer: It will be conducted on an annual basis

77.

RFP16-

236-SOL-

Cost Plus Award

Fee Pool

Will the Government entertain the use of a rolling award fee pool?

77a.

Answer: The government will utilize the award fee structure detailed in the

RFP.

78.

RFP16-

236-SOL-

Section M, Technical Criterion

2-Key Personnel

The RFP states “The plan must include names of personnel proposed, their skill category, and hours and rates by labor category that make up the proposed FFP.”

Reference Document

Reference Paragraph

Questions

Pg.118 Question: Does the Government intend for bidders to include rates in the

Technical Proposal Section?

78a. Answer: This section has been revised in Amendment 003.

79.

RFP16-

236-SOL-

Attachment 3 Does the Government intend to add years of experience and education requirements to the RPMS Labor Categories?

79a.

Answer: No, given that this is a PWS, the contractor must propose the team that will enable it to meet the required performance objectives and to cover the described scope in an effective manner.

80.

RFP16-

236-SOL-

Section K, REPRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS

AND OTHER

STATEMENTS OF

OFFERORS

Pg.82

Please confirm that the NAICS code for this acquisition is 541512 as listed on the FBO announcement page.

80a. Answer: The NAICS code for solicitation 16-236-SOL-0001 is 541512

81.

RFP16-

236-SOL-

Section M, 2.

Technical Criterion

- Key Personnel

Pg.118

The RFP states "the plan must include names of personnel proposed, their skill category, and hours and rates by labor category."

Please clarify what plan the Government is requesting. Additionally, where in the Volume response should offerors provide the plan?

81a. Answer: See Amendment 003

82.

RFP16-

236-SOL-

L.5. VOLUME II:

PAST

PERFORMANCE

Pg.100

"Offerors are instructed to complete the past performance reference template (See Attachment) for three (3) contracts.