Q&A_69056719Q000009.pdf

Q&A Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS) Solicitation No. 69056719Q000009

5/9/2019

1. Whether companies from Outside USA can apply for this? (like,from India or Canada)

The restriction on purchasing foreign end products does not apply to the acquisition of information technology that is a commercial item. But there are foreign sources we are prohibited from contracting with by law. We are prohibited from contracting with a inverted domestic corporation, or a subsidiary of an inverted domestic corporation as defined in 6 U.S.C. 395(b), applied in accordance with the rules and definitions of 6 U.S.C. 395(c). We are prohibited on contracting with entities engaging in certain activities or transactions relating to Iran see 52.212-3 -- Offeror Representations and Certifications -- Commercial Items (Oct 2018) paragraph (o). We are also prohibited from Contracting for Hardware, Software, and Services Developed or Provided by Kaspersky Lab and Other Covered Entities (Jul 2018) (Section 1634 of Pub. L. 115-91) see FAR clause 52.212-5 (a) (2).

2. Whether we need to come over there for meetings? See Section B.5 and B.7 of the RFQ starting on page 14

3. Can we perform the tasks (related to RFP) outside USA? (like, from India or Canada)

A Majority of Task can be performed outside the USA. Refer to Section B.5 and B.7 of the RFQ starting on page 14 for those that cannot.

4. Can we submit the proposals via email?

See ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1 – INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS – COMMERCIAL ITEMS (Oct 2018) page 18 of the RFQ.

5/20/2019

1) The requirement states:

“The system shall optionally allow the technician to print data sheets for assigned tests”.

We assume from the context that the agency uses printed test questions in some cases, with spaces to record data from tests that are performed in the field or away from the lab. Is this correct? Can the agency please provide a couple of example “data sheets”?

Data that need to be recorded for a given test are determined according to the methods listed in Attachment C.001. Data fields needed for these tests are defined according to the method on what data are required. The proposed solution should allow for the printing of empty data sheets that could be used by the testing technician to hand write specific data during testing that would be entered into the LIMS system once testing is completed.

2) The requirement states:

“The system shall provide simultaneous user access control”.

Please provide examples of the use case or an example of when “simultaneous user access control” would be used? Are we talking about instances where multiple users are logging samples at the same time (lab and field)? Multiple users executing tests at the same time?

Any data input into the system should be controlled in such a manner that only one user would have access to that data input field at any given time.

3) The requirement states:

“The system shall support automatic isolation of test results based on equipment calibration status”.

Please clarify the need/use case for this requirement––perhaps a definition of “isolation of test results”.

The system would have the capability to compile a list of test results based on a specific piece of equipment and the calibration status.

4) The requirement states:

“The system shall support automatic flagging of test results for review based on equipment calibration status”.

Please provide an example of the expected outcome or a use case for this requirement.

If a test is completed using equipment that is out of calibration (i.e. calibration has expired), the system would flag the test result.

5) The requirement states:

“The system shall support record keeping for the full equipment database including maintenance dates, servicing technicians, calibration certification, disposal of property and transfer of property records”.

Please define “transfer of property” and provide an example of use.

“Transfer of property” refers to the transferring ownership of property and the documentation associated with that action.

6) Is the database locked-in to only MS SQL or will Oracle be acceptable? Reference page 5 second to last bullet.

In the IT Infrastructure section of the Request for Quotation it states, “The system shall include a relational database utilizing Microsoft SQL to meet the requirements of the FHWA referenced architecture.”

7) Is the vendor ever given access to the Government server for installation and maintenance of the software? Reference page 6 first bullet.

The vendor will not be given direct access to the Government server. Any work requiring vendor assistance will be performed by government system administrator with direct assistance from the vendor.

8) Who owns the software?

This Request for Quotation is seeking to purchase licenses of a commercial off-the-shelf product for use of the software.

9) Can you provide clarification on the “inventory” requirement. The requirement states: “The system shall support comprehensive inventory management”.

Does this refer to laboratory equipment inventory? What are the main functionality needs of FLH represented in “comprehensive”?

The inventory management feature would provide a method for tracking various pieces of equipment and apparatus that are purchased and used as part of material testing operations within the laboratory.

5/23/2019

1) Pricing Quote The RFQ instructions provide for the vendor to create their own price quote document for submission. In doing so, we need clarification on how to submit a price quote for a product that has annual cloud hosting and annual licensing fees. We can provide pricing for multiple years, however, the RFQ document also says that in the pricing qualification process, all option costs will be added together to provide a total cost that will be used for qualification and comparison:

“ If the solicitation includes option items, the Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement.”

By providing a schedule of pricing for multiple years, we want to make sure that our pricing will be on an equal footing comparison with other vendor quotes that might quote only the implementation costs or a different number of years. Please provide some clarification on how you would like pricing to be submitted for a cloud hosted environment with annual cloud hosting and annual licensing fees. Would you like pricing for multiple years?

We have issued an amendment updated the pricing page which should make it more clear for what you need to submit and how on the pricing.

2) Test Plotting Options The test methods listing in C.001, specifically the plotting requirements, can be implemented in various ways and we would like clarification on your preference:

- Data from test results can be exported to Excel or other programs designed for graphic output, to utilize their plotting capabailities.

- Plotting can be provided within the application. This method, dependent on FLH’s plotting complexity requirements, may represent additional development work and cost.

The plotting requirements would be performed in a manner that is consistent with the test methods listed. The complexity of the plotting is a function of the specific test method and needs to be provided in a manner that meets the method requirement. The proposed system shall support the plotting requirements as stated in B.3.2 for the functionality required.

3) We are confused about how the implementation will actually occur, if the vendor's integration team is not permitted to access Government servers or network. Are they able to access government clients? Are they supposed to create a mirrored development environment on their own hardware? Could you please explain in greater detail how the Government envisions the integration actually transpiring?

The vendor will not be given direct access to the Government server. Any work requiring vendor assistance will be performed by government system administrator with direct assistance from the vendor.

5/29/2019

1. QUESTION: Vendor Confidential Information The RFQ submission instructions do not deal with vendor confidential material or the treatment of confidential information submitted by the vendor as a part of this RFQ submission. There may be items viewed as trade secrets (i.e.

system architecture, database schemas, etc.) that should be held confidential by the Agency if the RFP submission is released based on freedom of information request. Should the vendor label confidential information as such in the RFQ submission or will Agency contact the vendor and request a redacted version of the submission if there is a FOIA request for the document? Are there procedures in place to protect this confidential information from release?

The responses will be treated as source selection information. They are stored electronically with limited access. They will be shared with a source selection team who have signed confidentiality statements.

You are not required but can mark the pages as confidential. If there is a FOIA the information is collected and screened through our division counsel to make sure information that should not be released is not.

2. After implementation, the vendor shall provide system maintenance and/or updates to insure the continuing operation, performance and security of the system. The vendor shall define responsibility and support needed by the Government for the continued operation and maintenance of the software.

Does this mean that the Government wants the vendor to actively support the application? My question hinges on "shall provide." "Shall provide" could mean that we provide the manpower and actively perform system maintenance and updates, or it could mean that we provide the software updates to the Government's LIMS Administrators who would in turn actively perform system maintenance and updates. When you get a chance, could you please clarify what the Government is looking for?

The vendor shall provide updates to the Government's LIMS Administrators who would in turn perform system maintenance and updates, this may include technical support from the vendor.

3. It's normal that we are not given access to the Production server (i.e., the live server), but the requirement says "servers or network." By that definition, the vendor would not be able to touch anything inside of FLH, forcing the vendor to create development and testing systems outside of FLH that mirror the FLH architecture. In addition, configuring instruments and any third party systems (e.g.., billing) for communication with the LIMS would be exceptionally difficult and add substantial time, cost, and risk to the effort. Is this the correct interpretation of the requirement?

Since we are looking for a Commercial off the shelf (COTS) solution (not custom developed), it should not be necessary to create a “development and testing system”. Additionally, we do not grant network access to external vendors/users.

In essence, the interpretation is correct in that the vendor will not be given direct access to the governments servers or network.

4. RFQ C.003 Past Performance Questionnaire indicates a due date of Thursday June 3, 2018.

Should this read Thursday June 6, 2018?

Yes Past Performance Questionnaires will be accepted to Thursday June 6, 2019.

5. RFQ Section B2 notes that there are approximately 30 to 50 individuals in the FLH labs.

What number of these will be LIMS users and what is the maximum number that would likely use the system concurrently?

All of the individuals would be LIMS users. The maximum number of concurrent users would be approximately 30.

6. RFQ Section B4 addresses Section 508 requirements. It is our experience that LIMS systems comply with some parts of the standard but are not able to comply with others.

Please explain the extent to which compliance is required vs. preferred.

Please consider allowing an explanation, by software vendors, as to their current compliance and planned compliance strategy.

Compliance with Section 508 requirements is required. Before final acceptance of a product any area determined not to be compliant will be required to be corrected/updated at no cost to the Government.

7. Section B6 notes three primary use cases and 3 locations for training to be provided.

Is it your expectation that the vendor provide training to the “expert users” only so that they can train the remaining lab personnel or is your expectation that the vendor train everyone directly?

The vendor will provide 3 training sessions, one at each location for the employees located there.

8. Section 2.C on Page 19 asks for “Complete system configuration documentation.”

Please provide some detail as to what you are expecting to find in this documentation.

The system configuration document captures all of the configuration information for the system.

9. Would it be possible to extend the proposal due date by 7 days?

We do not intend to extend the proposal due date at this time.