1645BC-18-R-00001_Q_A_2.docx
DOCX document 12 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Information Security Support Services
- Solicitation number
- 1645BC-19-R-0001
About this file
Q&A #2
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| FAR_52_212_2_Evaluation_amended.docx | DOCX document | |
| PWS_for_ISO_Support_amended.docx | DOCX document | |
| Q_and_A_1645BC_19_R_0001.docx | DOCX document | |
| FAR_52_212_2_Evaluation.docx | DOCX document | |
| NEW_PAST_PERFORMANCE_QUESTIONAIRRE.docx | DOCX document | |
| 1645BC_18_R_0001_201809280939.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Q&A #2 This is a follow-up request about the CMMI-SVC requirement. The MSHA System is complex and large which will benefit more from CMMI-DEV rather than the CMMI-SVC Model. As both models originate from CMMI common framework and having 16 process areas in common, they can be treated as references for each other and can be used alternatively for the development of service systems. We are requesting you to allow CMMI- DEV Level 3 appraised 8(A) firms to bid as well.
Although there is some overlap, there is clearly a distinction between the two and the PWS is aligned with the CMMI-SVC.
Also, we would like to request a due date extension based on the Q&A’s received on Friday.
This will be extended until 11/15/2018 at 12:00 PM EST. No more questions are to be accepted.
File details come from the government source that posted it.