Questions_and_Answers.pdf

UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

CS\ISD\ITCPU

RFI – 19FS1A18SS0145

UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Thursday, March 29, 2018

Questions and Answers

Question #1

Reference: General Question.

Is there an incumbent on this contract? If so, please provide the incumbent name, current contract number, length, value of the contract.

Answer to Question #1

There are three (3) incumbent contractors:

Alliant Enterprise JV LLC., SFSIAQ13F0118;

Alliant SB CTA, LLC, SFSIAQ13F0119; and

Ventura Group, INC., SFSIAQ13F0212. All contracts have a five (5) period of performance.

Question #2

a. I had seen a forecast for this effort that mentioned Q3 FY18 as the anticipated solicitation timeframe so I was just curious if that is still the expectation.

b. Also, I had identified 5 contracts awarded through Alliant SB that appear set to expire

September 15, 2018 - is that the correct expiration date for the incumbent contracts?

Answer to Question #2

a. The Government is considering all options.

b. There are multiple incumbent contracts. The Government is unable to answer this question without specific contract numbers referenced. Contracts can be searched by using FPDS-NG website.

UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Question #3

We would like to submit the following questions regarding RFQ# 19FS1A18Q0009.

a. Is this a new contract?

b. If there is an incumbent, what is the contract value and contract number?

Answer to Question #3

a. Yes.

b. See answer to question #1.

Question #4

I am writing to inquire as to whether the subject solicitation/sources sought notice is for a new requirement or if there is an incumbent contractor currently engaged on this effort?

Answer to Question #4

No, this is not a new requirement; however, there are substantial updates to the Statements of

Work.

See answer to Question #1 for incumbent contractors.

Question #5

a. I am inquiring about Solicitation 19FS1A18SS0145 to see if there is an incumbent currently or previously completing this requirement?

b. Or is this a new requirement?

UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Answer to Question #5

a. See answer to Question #1.

b. See answer to Question #4.

Question #6

Will there be an industry day for this contract?

Answer to Question #6

The Government is considering all market research possibilities at this time.

Question #7

a. How does this scope of work align with FSI forthcoming LMS modernization procurement?

b. Will this contract provide support services for the new LMS?

Answer to Question #7

a. The Government is still working out the details.

b. The Government is still working out the details.

Question #8

Will Key Personnel determined at the divisional level within the master contract by specifically having Key Personnel for each of the three divisions?

Answer to Question #8

Yes.

UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Question #9

There is no incumbent contract associated with this effort however the draft PWS references a

60-day transition period. Is this requirement associated with existing contracts?

Answer to Question #9

See answer to question #1.

Question #10

Will a list of incumbent personnel be provided at award and prior to the start of the 60-day transition period in an effort to retain qualified incumbent personnel?

Answer to Question #10

Question #11

Reference: SOW, Section 1.6.14.

Section 1.6.14 reference(s) Other Direct Costs and states “Estimated ODCs are for

Miscellaneous and Material IT/Hardware, Software, IT equipment and IT devices.” Will a complete list of existing IT infrastructure be provided?

Answer to Question #11

The Government will provide the contractor its IT requirements to fulfill tasks under this contractual instrument.

Question #12

Does the government intend to make one single award for this entire scope of work or is a multi-award contract possible?

UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Answer to Question #12

The Government is contemplating a single award.

Question #13

Does FSI have an existing ticketing and helpdesk system in place across all three of these divisions? If so, does FSI plan on retaining that system?

Answer to Question #13

No. Potential offerors are encouraged to provide any ideas that may strengthen the current draft

PWS.

Question #14

Is this notice to identify sources that will continue current requirements with DOS? If so, please provide a list of the current contract numbers that support the requirements.

Answer to Question #14

The purpose of this notice is to satisfy requirements outlined in Federal Acquisition Regulation

Part 10.

See answer to question #1.

Question #15

Will you be awarding a single contract to cover both IT and ISD task areas?

Answer to Question #15

UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Question #16

Will this be a single or multiple award contracts?

Answer to Question #16

See answer to question #15.

Question #17

Will this be a deliverable based contract or labor hour contract?

Answer to Question #17

The contractual instrument will be mostly Firm-Fixed-Price tasks with very few Labor Hour tasks.

Question #18

Reference: Draft PWS

There appears to be some incorrect numbering for tasks and subtasks in the DPWS. Please confirm the correct numbering for each of the tasks and subtasks identified in the DPWS.

Answer to Question #18

Interested firms are to use the numbering that is listed in the draft PWS. If you believe that the numbering is incorrect, firms can use the draft PWS page number in addition to citing the task or subtask number. It is highly recommended that both numbers are referenced.

Question #19

Will the Government consider allowing for the use of a smaller font size (e.g., 10 pt. Times New

Roman) for tables and graphics in the capabilities statement?

Answer to Question #19

Yes. Restrictions on font size only apply to the written text, the body of the capability statement.

UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Question #20

Will the Government consider allowing the inclusion of a Cover Page for the capabilities statement? If so, would the Government consider excluding this page from the 30-page limit?

Answer to Question #20

Cover pages are highly recommended. No, the cover page(s) will not count towards the page limit.

Question #21

With respect to Item 7, Questions or Feedback on the Draft PWS: Will the Government accept feedback and/or recommendations on the acquisition strategy for the FSI requirement in the capabilities statement?

Answer to Question #21

Question #22

Reference: Draft PWS, Section 5.2.1.5

Does FSI have chosen Reporting tools or is FSI requesting that the vendor bring in new reporting tools?

Answer to Question #22

FSI currently has a set of reporting tools in operation and will not require a new reporting solution at this time.

Question #23

Reference: Draft PWS, 5.2.2.2.1.6 Database Administration.

Which DBMS tools are in place at FSI?

UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Answer to Question #23

The following are DBMS tools currently at FSI:

Microsoft SQL Server Management tools;

Microsoft Visual Studio;

Windows performance monitoring;

Red Gate DB tools; and

Windows PowerShell Script runtime.

Question #24

Reference: Draft PWS, 5.2.2.2.1.7 Webmaster Services.

Which trend analysis tools are in place at FSI?

Answer to Question #24

The trend analysis tools currently at FSI are Google analytics and WebTrends.

Question #25

Reference: Draft PWS, 5.2.2.2.1.10 Data Conversion.

Does FSI have Databasel ETL tools in use for Data Conversion?

Answer to Question #25

Yes, MS SQL SSIS.

Question #26

Reference: Draft PWS, 5.2.3.1 Design and Delivery of eLearning Courseware and Performance

Support Products.

a. How many daily concurrent users are expected for this LMS?

b. How many individual classes are expected for this LMS at any given week?

c. We are cognizant that security of class materials is the highest priority. Has FSI looked at deployment of this LMS in the GovCloud?

UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

d. We are creating at a solution with 99.99% guaranteed uptime. What is FSI's uptime requirement?

e. We expect to implement a fully-functional LMS that will rely on configuration over custom coding. Does FSI expect to use certain third party plugins for this LMS? If so, what are the plugins?

f. The advantage of a COTS LMS product is that they will be updated with new features added frequently. Does FSI expect to see quarterly upgrades, monthly upgrades or on a different schedule?

g. Has FSI reviewed their current themes and UI with regards to a new LMS COTS product? Is FSI interested in a UI redesign with the implementation of a COTS LMS?

h. Does FSI have expectations for advanced student analytics?

i. Does FSI have a Not to Exceed value for pricing ODCs and Materials or should the vendor submit all expected licensing costs?

j. What is the current size of the team (in number of staff) who maintain the legacy custom elearning solution?

Answer to Question #26

a. How many daily concurrent users are expected for this LMS?

The average number of users per day is 1,089.

b. How many individual classes are expected for this LMS at any given week?

Average Completion/Day = 317 + 72 = 389, Courses completed/week (5 workdays) =

1945.

c. We are cognizant that security of class materials is the highest priority. Has FSI looked at deployment of this LMS in the GovCloud?

There is no requirement for FSI’s future LMS to host classified materials; however, FSI is looking to potentially deploy the future LMS into a cloud-based environment rated to host FIPS 199 moderate level data.

UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

d. We are creating at a solution with 99.99% guaranteed uptime. What is FSI's uptime requirement?

FSI’s minimum expectation would be 99% uptime however FSI would evaluate the cost/benefit of higher levels of guaranteed uptime.

Uptime (%) Downtime per year Downtime per Month

99 3.65 days 7.20 hours

99.5 1.83 days 3.6 hours

99.9 8.76 hours 43.8 minutes

99.99 52.56 minutes 4.38 minutes

e. We expect to implement a fully-functional LMS that will rely on configuration over custom coding. Does FSI expect to use certain third party plugins for this LMS? If so, what are the plugins?

Specific plugins have not been identified for use with the LMS at this time however extensibility is a desired feature of the future LMS solution.

Vendor is free to propose any recommended third-party plugins if the core-COTS LMS proposed cannot meet all the requirements in the PWS.

f. The advantage of a COTS LMS product is that they will be updated with new features added frequently. Does FSI expect to see quarterly upgrades, monthly upgrades or on a different schedule?

Quarterly updates are acceptable for a fully-functional LMS that can best meet the requirements stated in the PWS.

g. Has FSI reviewed their current themes and UI with regards to a new LMS COTS product? Is FSI interested in a UI redesign with the implementation of a COTS LMS?

FSI is interested in a User-Centric UI Design for Students, Instructors and Administrators in the COTS LMS.

h. Does FSI have expectations for advanced student analytics?

Yes, to track performance results and to react accordingly.

UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

i. Does FSI have a Not to Exceed value for pricing ODCs and Materials or should the vendor submit all expected licensing costs?

The vendor can submit all expected licensing costs.

j. What is the current size of the team (in number of staff) who maintain the legacy custom elearning solution?

This question will not be answered at this time.

Question #27

Reference: Draft PWS, 5.2.3.4 Multimedia Services.

Can FSI describe some of their goals for novel or innovative multimedia design?

Answer to Question #27

FSI has the expectation of the latest or modern multimedia design to include mobile apps, micro-learning, and hybrid design products.

Question #28

Reference: Draft PWS, 5.2.3.5 Instructional Technology Training and Support Services.

Can FSI describe come of their novel multimedia labs for the purposes of this RFI?

Answer to Question #28

FSI’s Multimedia Labs are evolving from traditional physical labs space toward a service for support of educational technologies accessed virtually. Demand continues for traditional labs usage and will for several more years. However, our program is beginning to implement updated concepts including immersion training, speech-to-text, utilization of collaborative space and promotion of social and peer-to-peer learning.

Question #29

Reference: Draft PWS, 5.2.3.5 Quality Assurance, Technical Writing and Section 508 Testing &

Validation Services.

Are some of the multimedia, audio and video training systems waivered from following Section

508 or are all training systems of all kinds Section 508 Accessible?

UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Answer to Question #29

No, we do not waiver products from these requirements. FSI’s expectation is that all products are to be 508 accessible per federal requirements.

Question #30

Reference: Draft PWS, 5.2.3.6 Mobile Design and Development.

What percentage of FSI classes currently [has] a mobile component?

Answer to Question #30

FSI is working toward making FSI eLearning fully mobile compatible. ISD does not have data pertaining to this at this time, but FSI is modernizing quickly, strongly pushing for mobile services, a process which is evolving.

Question #31

Reference: Draft PWS, 5.2.3.6.7 Data Management and Reporting.

What tools are currently in place at FSI to provide data reporting?

Answer to Question #31

The expectation is that the contractor will use all tools available to conduct relevant reporting.