Questions_and_Answers_10-29.pdf

SOL18-223-SOL-00017

Amendment 1

Questions and Answers:

1) Would you be able to tell me if there is an incumbent contractor for this requirement? If so, could you please provide the contractor name and the contract number that was awarded?

Answer: Leidos; HHSF223200950007I-HHSF22301001T

RFP Document

2) RFP SOL, Appendix 2 Accessibility Conformance Report (ACR)

Organization of the Business Volume last bullet “In an appendix titled ACR, offerors shall submit an ACR based off a VPAT version 2.0 or newer that addresses the offeror’s compliance with applicable 508 standards.” RFP SOL, page 67 The VPAT, as stated in the VPAT 2.2 template is “used to document a PRODUCT’S conformance with accessibility standards and guidelines.” Since no products are being offered as part of this solicitation response, is an ACR required?

Answer: If no product is being submitted, then a VPAT would not be required.

3) 4.b Appendix 6: Draft Quality Assurance Plan (QAP) & Draft Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) What are the SLAs that the current incumbent is being held accountable to?

Answer: The government has provided certain SLAs within the RFP. Current SLA’s are not reflective of the requirements as written.

4) 2. Deliveries or Performance, Z.cc Subcontracting Goals The RFP states as follows: “HHS current subcontracting goal is 33.0% for Small Business (hereafter referred to as SB), 5.00% for Small Disadvantaged Business, including 8(a) Program Participants, Alaska Native Corporations (ANC) and Indian Tribes (hereafter referred to as SDB), 5.00% for Women-Owned Small Business and Economically Disadvantaged Women-Owned Small Business (hereafter referred to as WOSB), 5.00% HubZone business (hereafter referred to as HUBZone), 3.00% Veteran Owned Small Business (hereafter referred to as VOSB) and 3.00% Service Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (hereafter referred to as SDVOSB).”

Can the Government confirm that the percentages for SDB, WOSB, HUBZone, VOSB, and SDVOSB are included in the 33% Small Business goal?

Answer: That is correct; the percentages as listed are included in the 33% small business goal.

5) 2. Deliveries or Performance, Z.cc Subcontracting Goals Can the VOSB goal be met by an SDVOSB?

Answer: No, these are separate goals.

6) 2. Provisions and Clauses, B. Clauses Incorporated by Full Text The RFP includes FAR 52.212-3, which states as follows: “The offeror shall complete only paragraphs (b) of this provision if the Offeror has completed the annual representations and certification electronically via the System for Award Management (SAM) Web site located at http://www.sam.gov/portal. If the Offeror has not completed the annual representations and certifications electronically, the Offeror shall complete only paragraphs (c) through (u) of this provision.”

Section L did not include a requirement to provide the Representations and Certifications from this clause with the proposal. Should we complete the representations and certifications and include them as part of the proposal? If so, please confirm that they should be included in the Business Volume.

Answer: The clause should be filled out in accordance with the above instructions and as required by the clause. The offer can fill out the applicable sections of the clause and submit with their Business Volume.

7) 4.a General Instructions for the Preparation of The Technical Proposal and Business Proposal The RFP states that “The closing date will not be extended for the purpose of responding to questions received after this date and time, and the Government may elect to not respond to questions received after this date and time.”

Questions are due to the Government on Oct. 22nd, 11 days after the RFP was released.

If Q&A responses are published within a week from Q&A submission, it does not provide offerors with adequate time to make adjustments based on the Government’s responses. Would the Government consider providing a two-week extension for the proposal submission date?

4.a General Instructions To ensure that offerors have ample time to incorporate responses to questions throughout the 150+ pages of the Technical proposal and to provide the most competitive price and most advantageous proposal to the FDA, will the Government extend the due date to provide offerors with 3 weeks to complete their proposal after the release of Q&A responses?

Answer: Please see revised RFP. As a side note, there is a change in location where proposals are due. A future amendment will be issued to further define this change.

8) 4.a General Instructions for the Preparation of The Technical Proposal and Business Proposal, 4.e Instructions For Business Proposal (Volume II) Under “Organization of Technical Volume,” it states that a description of the Earned Value Management System should be included as Appendix I of the Technical Volume.

Under “Organization of the Business Volume,” it states that a description of the Earned Value Management System should be included in the Business Volume as an appendix titled “EVMS”?

Can the Government confirm whether the Earned Value Management System should be included in both volumes or provide direction as to which volume is preferred?

Answer: See revised RFP. Removed requirement from Business Evaluation.

9) A) 4.b Organization of Technical Volume The RFP states that, “Text color shall be black.” Would the Government provide specifications for the font and size for the proposal response text?

B) 6

RFP

Proposal Instructions 62 & 68 On page 68 under Pricing Sheet Instructions, it is indicated that "The Font shall be Calibri no larger than 11 no smaller than 10 in the Pricing Sheet." however on page 62 for Technical instructions, it does not state the font or size for the text - may we assume that the Government requires the same font and size for the Technical and Business Volumes as in the Pricing Sheet?

Answer: Please see revised RFP document.

10) 4.b Organization of Technical Volume The RFP states that, “Proposals are due to Justin Cole no later than 3:00 PM Eastern Time (local), November 8, 2018.”

Would the Government please provide additional details on the logistics of hand delivering the CDs to Mr. Cole? What is the protocol for confirming the receipt of the CD submission?

Answer: A future amendment will further define the change as OAGS is moving to this location on November 13th.

11) 4.c Instructions for Technical Proposal (Volume I) Under “Staffing Plan,” it states that bidders should provide a WBS as part of their submission. Should bidders provide the WBS in PDF format?

Answer: The government does not intend to constrain the offerors to a specific format.

PDF is acceptable, and other formats will also be accepted provided the WBS is easily read and delivered in accordance with the other provisions of the Instructions for Technical Proposal.

12) A) 4.c Instructions for Technical Proposal (Volume I) 64-65 The list of key personnel provided on page 65 of the RFP, under Qualifications of Key Personnel, is inconsistent with the key personnel provided in the PM&I task order. Could the Government clarify and confirm the key personnel, particularly, the conflict between Senior Computer Security Analyst (missing in the Task Order) and Lead BA and Software Engineering Lead (missing in the RFP)?

B) RFP and Task Order 2 SOW 4.c. (RFP) and 2.4.3 (TO 2 SOW) Pages 4 and 65

The number and titles of the Key Personnel required listed in the RFP are different than those listed in the TO 2 - PM&I SOW. Please clarify what the Key Personnel should be for TO2 - PM&I.

C) page 65, Qualifications of Key Personnel RFP 18-223-SOL-00017 solicitation document page 65, Qualifications of Key Personnel, lists labor categories for key personnel, whereas the four individual task attachments list key personnel roles.

Please clarify whether bidders are required to use only the labor categories specified under the “Qualifications of Key Personnel” section for the key personnel roles defined in the task attachments.

D) page 65, Qualifications of Key Personnel and RFP Attachment 3, Task 2 – Program Management and Integration, page 4, Section 2.4.3 For Task Order 2 (PM&I) the solicitation document identifies the following Key Personnel:

• Project Manager

• Principle Systems Architect

• Quality Assurance Specialist

• Senior Computer Security Analyst

• Senior Database Mgmt. Specialist

Whereas RFP Attachment 3, the SOW for PM&I, lists the following Key Personnel

• Project Manager

• Test Lead

• Lead Business Analyst

• Lead Database Administrator

• Software Engineering Lead

• Lead Architect

The two different lists of Key Personnel are mostly easily mapped (e.g., Lead Architect to Principal Systems Architect) but one major difference is that the solicitation document refers to a Senior Computer Security Analyst versus Attachment 3 which refers to a Software Engineering Lead. Please clarify exactly what labor categories and or roles are required for the PM&I Task Order.

E) 4.c

2.4.3 65 The RFP indicates that there are 5 key personnel required for the PM&I task order:

Project Manager, Principle Systems Architect, Quality Assurance Specialist, Senior Computer Security Analyst and Senior Database Mgmt. Specialist.

The PM&I SOW indicates there are 6 key personnel roles: Project Manager, Test Lead, Lead Business Analyst, Lead Database Administrator, Software Engineering Lead, and Lead Architect.

The Key Personnel described in the TO for PM&I is different than the Key Personnel described in the RFP. Can the government confirm which key personnel roles are required for PM&I?

F) 2

4c 65 There is a discrepancy between the main RFP solicititation (page 65) and the SOW for Task 2 – Program Management and Integration.

Please confirm these are the key personnel for SOW Task 2.

• Project Manager

• Principle Systems Architect

• Quality Assurance Specialist

• Senior Computer Security Analyst

• Senior Database Mgmt. Specialist

• Senior Computer System Analyst

F) 5

4c For each LCAT defined for key personnel, can the government clarify the name of the role? The list of key personnel in the RFP was changed from a list of roles and suggested labor categories to just a list of labor categories.

Answer: See revised RFP language.

13) 4.c Instructions for Technical Proposal (Volume I) Under Relevant Experience and Past Performance, the RFP states that the “offeror must demonstrate three recent and relevant projects within the last three years.”

The process of closing a contract includes several contractual actions including final payment, ultimate contract expiration, contract close-out, and tax filing. These actions typically have different respective dates often several months apart. Is the end date of the contract the close-out date or the end of the period of performance?

Answer: The RFP refers to the “project”, not the contract. Completion of the project is assumed to be at or near to the end of the Period of Performance.

14) 4.e. Instructions for Business Proposal (Volume II) With regard to the section titled “Completed Attachment No. 6: Pricing Sheet Instructions,” the labor category descriptions do not include the required number of years of experience. Please specify the number of years of experience required.

Answer: The labor categories adequately describe the requirements for the listed positions.

It is up to the vendor to determine if the employee meets the requirements for the position.

15) 4.f Basis for Award

Under “Basis for Award,” can the Government provide the evaluation criteria for Transition In costs?

Answer: The transition costs are included in the Total Evaluated Price and will be evaluated as a part of the business evaluation as stated in the RFP. All proposals are required to include Transition In costs.

16) 4.f Basis for Award How is Attachment 1 - IDIQ SOW being evaluated? It is not called out in any of the evaluation factors. Is the offeror expected to address this SOW in the 75-page proposal response or has the IDIQ SOW been provided as a reference document to understand scope areas?

Answer: Please see revised Evaluation Factor 1 Sub Factor 1.

17) 2.cc HHS current subcontracting goal is 33.0% for Small Business (hereafter referred to as SB), 5.00% for Small Disadvantaged Business, including 8(a) Program Participants, Alaska Native Corporations (ANC) and Indian Tribes (hereafter referred to as SDB), 5.00% for Women-Owned Small Business and Economically Disadvantaged Women- Owned Small Business (hereafter referred to as WOSB), 5.00% HubZone business (hereafter referred to as HUBZone), 3.00% Veteran Owned Small Business (hereafter referred to as VOSB) and 3.00% Service Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (hereafter referred to as SDVOSB).

Would the government please confirm if the percentages identified in the small business subcontracting plan should be determined using the IDIQ total contract value of $400M or total dollars planned to be subcontracted to small business concerns?

Answer: The percentages are there to be used against the total contract value.

18) 4.c 4.f 67, 73 Technology: 1) Cold Fusion 2) .NET 3) Oracle Forms and Database 4) Java (reference Appendix A for full list and descriptions)

Relevant experience will be evaluated collectively as a whole. Each individual project does not necessarily have to be highly relevant on all criteria for the offeror's overall relevance to be considered highly relevant. A collection of projects that individually demonstrate relevance only for some aspects of this RFP's requirements may, when considered collectively, demonstrate an overall high degree of relevance.

Will the government evaluate technology relevance based on an overall collective similarity to the technologies in use and not require specific inclusion of lesser used and legacy individual tools/platforms?

Answer: The government will evaluate the overall relevant experience to assess the ability of the offeror to meet the stated objectives. The RFP identifies the technologies currently used by the systems that are operated and maintained or under development within the scope of this contract. The ability to support those systems will be considered in evaluation of relevant experience.

19) 4.b Proposals, to include Evaluation Factors 1-3, cannot exceed 75 pages in length.

Would the government provide a defined page allocation for relevant experience;

Recommend 12 pages in addition to the 75 provided for the rest of the technical and staffing approach.

Answer: Offerors are to determine how many pages to allocate to each area of the RFP.

Relevant Experience is to be included in the 75 pages allocated for the response.

20) 4.f The Government will evaluate adjectivally using Excellent, Highly Satisfactorily, Satisfactorily, and Unsatisfactorily. For Factor 3, the Government will also assign a Past Performance Risk Rating of Low, Medium, High, or Neutral.

Can the government provide additional clarity on the evaluation of relevance; or is this element to be completely addressed in the performance risk score?

Answer: Relevance will receive an Adjectival Rating in addition to a Risk Rating. The Adjectival Rating will document how the offeror’s response while the Risk Rating is there to help determine the risk to the Government.

21) 4.f

Relevant experience will be evaluated collectively as a whole. Each individual project does not necessarily have to be highly relevant on all criteria for the offeror's overall relevance to be considered highly relevant. A collection of projects that individually demonstrate relevance only for some aspects of this RFP's requirements may, when considered collectively, demonstrate an overall high degree of relevance.

Would the government allow offerors the option to provide a fourth relevant experience reference to allow them to show breadth of experience with the tools and technologies in use at FDA?

Answer: Offerors are free to submit more than three projects, that is the minimum.

However, the page limits shall be adhered to.

22) Pricing Sheet Instructions - “IDIQ Labor Rate Contractor Site Tab (Tab 2)”.

The Government has provided written instructions on how to burden the direct labor.

Fringe is referenced twice in this section. Once as #2 and then again as # 6. Can the Government confirm that #6 should read “Fee” and not Fringe?

Answer: Please see revised RFP.

23) pages 61 and 67 The “Organization of Technical Volume” on page 61 requests the EVMS and ACR response to be included in appendices in the Technical Volume.

The “Organization of the Business Volume” on page 67 requests the EVMS and ACR response to be included in appendices in the Business Volume.

Clarify whether the EVMS and ACR responses should be included in both the Technical and Business volumes.

Answer: Please see revised SOW.

24) 1.d The labor rates shall be fixed for the duration of this contract and shall be derived from the IDIQ pricing schedule.

Could the Government please confirm that the intent is to allow rate escalation cross IDIQ years?

Answer: The intent is to allow for escalation between IDIQ years but not within task orders. For example, PoP of IDIQ January 2018-January 2019 January 2019-January 2020

Task Order issued with a PoP of July 2018-July 2019

Offerors shall only utilize labor rates from the January 2018-January 2019 rates despite crossing into the next year. Task Orders with option periods can use the labor rates that are in effect when each option is exercised.

25) 4.c The Offeror’s proposal shall include a proposed Software Development Plan (SDP)… Can the Government confirm that the Program Management Plan, Task Order Management Plan and Software Development Plan are valid across all Task Orders and do not need to be detailed separately in each Task Order response?

Answer: The offerors may submit a single SDP and Program Management Plan.

Submission of separate Task Order Management Plans are not required for the response to the RFP; the offeror’s approach to the management of Task Orders should be addressed in the Program Management Plan.

Attachment 1 IDIQ SOW

26) Section 2.5.1 - Software Development Requirements

The SOW says to see Section 3.3 for Software Development Plan requirements.

However Section 3.3 contains Meetings requirements. Please clarify the section that is being referenced for the Software Development Plan Requirements.

Answer: Please see revised SOW.

27) 2.5.6. Management Activities

The SOW states as follows: “The Contractor shall perform project management activities for each DME task outlined in the following sections. Project management activities for this optional task order shall include the tasks described in Section 3.0 Program/Project Management.”

Can the Government please clarify the reference to the “optional task order”?

Answer: This is referring to the PM&I task order.

Attachment 2 O&M SOW

28) Attch. 2 - Task 1 SOW

Attch. 3 - Task 2 SOW Section 2.1 (both SOWS) Pages 5 and 2 The Task 1 SOW states that the Management Plan does not need to be submitted with the Technical Proposal (draft submitted 10 days after award) while the Task 2 SOW states that the Management Plan is required to be submitted with the Technical Proposal.

Since there is no Appendix specified for the Management Plan, please confirm that the Management Plan for Task 2 is not required to be submitted with the proposal.

Answer: The Offeror shall submit a Program Management Plan. Submission of separate Task Order Management Plans are not required for the response to the RFP; the offeror’s approach to the management of Task Orders should be addressed in the Program Management Plan.

29) A) Attachment 2 - O&M SOW

Section 8 - Period of Performance Can the Government provide a new estimated POP since we have moved past the August 2018 timeframe for the estimated start date of this contract?

B) 8.0 Period of Performance The estimated base year is given as August 2018 to August 2019. As August 2018 has passed, would the Government provide the revised estimated period of performance for O&M?

C) Attachment 3 - PM&I SOW Section 8 - Period of Performance Can the Government provide a new estimated POP since we have moved past the August 2018 timeframe for the estimated start date of this contract?

D) Period of Performance (Estimated) Base Year: August 2018 – August 2019 Option Year 1: August 2019 – August 2020 Option Year 2: August 2020 – August 2021 Option Year 3: August 2021 – August 2022

Can the government please confirm the start date for each task order? The listed start dates have already passed.

F) 4 Attachment 2-5 Task Order 1-4 For pricing purposes please clarify the estimated start dates for the Task Orders as the dates provided occur in the past.

Answer: Please see revised SOW.

30) RFP attachment 2 Operations and Maintenance SOW section 2.0 page 3

RFP attachment 2 Operations and Maintenance SOW section 2.0 page 3 reads, in part:

“The Contractor shall submit a high-level transition plan, including a draft schedule, as part of the proposal”.

Please confirm that the high-level transition plan is to be provided with and evaluated as part of Evaluation Factor 1 Sub Factor 1: Technical Approach, separate from the Sub Factor 2 Staffing Plan requirement to address “Approach to Transition In and Knowledge Transfer” staffing needs.

Answer: The transition plan as a whole will be evaluated in Evaluation Factor 1, Sub Factor 1. The requirement to address the “Approach to Transition In and Knowledge Transfer” will be evaluated in Sub Factor 2.

31) 1.1

The Imports and SIRCE investments currently manage the operations and maintenance of over 30 applications and components (see IDIQ Appendix A) In Appendix A, NFSDX, eFIELDX, and MIM are classified as “Not in Production”.

When are these applications/components expected to be in Production and transitioned to O&M? Can the government estimate what the usage and ticket volume will be for these systems once in O&M?

Answer: MIM and eFieldX are not currently planned to be deployed to Production.

NFSDX has recently been implemented in Production. O&M support for NFSDX will be transitioned into this contract at a later date (TBD). The volume of tickets is expected to be very low (<2/week) for this system.

32) 1.1 Additional systems may be added during the base or option years… Can the Government please provide information on what additional systems are planned to be added during the base year or option period of the task? Can the government estimate what the usage and ticket volume will be for these systems once in O&M?

Answer: As noted in the response to #31, NFSDX is expected to be added to the O&M support. SERIO (see Attachment 4) will be supported once implemented in Production.

Since SERIO will replace functionality currently in OASIS, little increase in tickets is expected. Additional systems may be added as these are developed during the Period of Performance.

33) 1.1

3.1.1 Pages 1, 6 Some of these functions are mission critical and must be operational 24 hours/day by 7 days/week.

..including 24x7 operations for those systems and components so designated”.

Can the Government identify which functions/applications listed in Appendix A are covered by 24 hours/day by 7 days/week SLA requirements?

Answer: Due to the interfaces between many of the systems, the Offeror should plan to support all systems. FDA currently patches all of the systems during off-hours, and the Contractor will need to ensure the systems are operating as expected following completion of patching. Historically, the Contractor can expect to receive an average of one Priority 1 ticket and one Priority 2 ticket per month during off-hours.

34) 2.0 Contractor shall submit a high-level transition plan, including a draft schedule, as part of the proposal, identifying how they will meet the Government objectives and following the guidelines below.

Will the Government allow the Draft Transition Plan to be submitted as an appendix not included in the page count?

Answer: Offerors are only required to provide a high-level plan; a more detailed plan can be submitted after award. The plan is included in the page count.

35) 2.0 Transition In

The SOW asks that bidders submit “a high-level transition plan, including a draft schedule, as part of the proposal.”

Can the Government confirm that the high-level transition plan and the draft schedule do not count against the 75-page limit for the technical volume? Is it acceptable for the offeror to provide these artifacts in an appendix?

Answer: The offeror should describe their approach to the transition at a high-level as part of the proposal. This material is part of the 75 page limit.

36) 1

O&M SOW

2nd 3 Will the government exclude the Transition and Management Plan and Draft Schedule from the page count or allow it to be an attachment, that is not part of the page count?

Answer: The Management Plan can be excluded from the page count.

Attachment 3 PMI SOW

37) A) Atch 3 – PM&I SOW, Paragraph 2.1

RFP SOL, page 2

The RFP (Atch 3 – Program Management and Integration SOW) calls for an initial Management Plan to be included in the proposal response. With the page count limitation, can this be included as an appendix outside of the page count?

B) 2.1 Management Plan The SOW asks bidders to provide the “initial draft Management Plan as part of the Technical Proposal, as described in the IDIQ.”

Would the Government confirm that the initial draft Management Plan does not count against the 75-page limit for the technical volume? Can we provide the draft Management Plan as an appendix?

Answer: The Management Plan can be excluded from the page count.

38) 8.0 Period of Performance The estimated base year is given as August 2018 to August 2019. As August 2018 has passed, would the Government provide the revised estimated period of performance for

PM&I?

Answer: See revised SOW.

Attachment 4 SERIO SOW

39) Attachment 4 SERIO-SOW Section 1.2, page 2

The SOW states “Requirements for the Import Investigation Time and Input Line Availability have been captured. These requirements along with proposed corresponding screen mockups are available upon request.”

Please provide the requirements and screen mockups for the purpose of developing a solution approach and accurate level of effort estimation.

Answer: The high level requirements have been added to the SOW. Examples of the OASIS screens are included. Mockups of possible SERIO screens will be provided upon Task Order Award.

40) 2.1.3 A list of tables and OASIS screens and database objects categorization will be provided.

Can the government clarify what they mean by Database Objects? Additionally, a list of tables, screens and objects were not provided. Would the government provide these to allow vendors to accurately estimate the effort? Will it include other details, such as amount of data and information on logic and processes encapsulated in views and db functions/triggers/procedures to aid with estimation?

Answer: The detailed information will be provided on Task Order award. The SOW has been updated with the number of tables to assist the offerors in assessing the scope of the analysis.

41) 3.0

The Contractor shall identify a Task Order Lead (Key Personnel) with responsibility for the team conducting the work.

Could the government clarify what is meant by Key Personnel designated as “(optional)”? How will this option affect scoring of the proposal by the government?

Answer: This task order does not describe “optional” Key Personnel. As stated “The Contractor may identify a separate Technical Lead who will provide technical leadership”, or may choose to have the Task Order lead provide technical leadership. The government will evaluate the ability of the personnel to provide project and technical leadership.

42) 1.2 Objectives The SOW references “attached Fact Sheets” for an overview of FDA’s imports systems;

however, the Fact Sheets do not seem to have been included in the RFP packet. Can the Government please provide them?

Answer: Fact sheets are attached with the updated SOW.

43) 3 Attachment 4 Task Order 3 Will the Government please clarify the Public Trust Level for Task Order 3 SERIO DME as the overall IDIQ requires a minimum level 4 and each Task Order specifies a particular Public Trust Level sans TO3.

Answer: SOWs have been corrected to require Level 4 Public Trust for all work on this contract.

Attachment 5 Assignment SOW

44) A) Section 10 - Period of Performance

Can the Government provide a new estimated POP since we have moved past the September 2018 timeframe for the estimated start date of this contract?

B) 10.0 Period of Performance Section 10.0 states that the estimated period of performance is September 2018 to September 2019.

As September 2018 has passed, would the Government provide the revised estimated period of performance?

Answer: See Revised SOW.

Attachment 6 Pricing Worksheet

45) Atch 6 – Pricing Worksheet

The LCAT description for Project Manager references a Program Manager. Please confirm that the Program Manager should be included in Task Order 2 – Program Management and Integration as Key Personnel to be staffed by the Offerer. If confirmed, would the government please add the relevant information for the Program Manager

Labor Category Description and Estimated Contractor-Site LOE in Attachment 6 – Pricing Worksheet

Answer: The person serving as the Program Manager is expected to use the Project Manager labor description.

46) Will the government allow offerors to modify the pricing worksheet to incorporate all costs associated with building the fully burdened rate (ie. FCCM)?

Answer: The Pricing Worksheet cannot be modified.

47) LCAT Descriptions Based on the LCATs depicted in the pricing worksheet and the scope of the work depicted in the IDIQ and sample Task Orders, success of similar programs requires modern skills/roles to be incorporated into the pricing worksheet to ensure successful delivery to include: platform/devOps engineers, test engineers to perform detailed testing, operations and modernization activities. As a result, can the government add additional LCATs (listed below) into the pricing worksheet and/or allow bidders to add adequate LCATs to deliver the proper resources required to fulfill the scope depicted in the IDIQ and sample Task Orders to realize FDA’s mission objectives? Recommend adding following LCATs: Test Engineer (Jr), Test Engineer (Mid), Test Engineer (Sr), Application Programmer (Mid), Application Programmer (Sr), Application Engineer (Jr), Data Engineer (Jr), Data Engineer (Mid), Data Engineer (Sr), Platform Engineer (Jr), Platform Engineer (Mid) and Platform Engineer (Sr). Where Jr = Junior level, Sr = Senior and Mid = mid-level between junior and senior?

Answer: The labor categories remain unchanged.

48) Labor Category Descriptions The Senior Computer Security Specialist LCAT description doesn’t read like a security labor category. Can the Government please review and confirm this is the correct labor category description?

Answer: Please find revised Pricing Worksheet.

Historical Data

49) Historical Data on Unplanned Outages

This includes FY16 and FY17 data. Can the Government please provide FY18 data on unplanned outages?

Answer: Data for FY 18 is not significantly different from the prior years.

50) Historical Data on Tier 3 Help Desk Tickets Can the Government please provide FY18 data and/or an estimate of number of Tier 3 Help Desk tickets in the Base year of the contract. What is the projected level of ticket increase based on the projected additional systems/components are expected to be in Production?

Answer: Data for FY 18 is not significantly different from the prior years. The expected number of Help Desk tickets is not expected to change significantly due to the new systems and components.