Amendment_000005-_STB_Case_Management_System.pdf

Amendment 000005 RFP No: 693JK418R900001, STB Case Management System

Question 1: Is the cover page, table of contents, and executive summary included in the 30 page limit for Volume 1?

Government Response: The cover page, table of contents and executive summary are not included in the 30 page limit.

Question 2: In Section L, the past performance is limited to the past 5 years and in Section M, the past performance is limited to the past 3 years. May we submit past performance for the past 5 years as opposed to the past 3 years?

Government Response: Yes. However, the Offerors shall provide no less than three Past Performance references of recent projects completed within last five (5) years that were similar to the effort described in this solicitation.

Question 3: Page 58, L.5.B., Part III – Past Performance References, states, “Past Performance references of recent projects completed within the last five (5) years” and page 63, M.1.C, Past Performance, states “within the last 3 years.” Will the Government confirm whether past performances should be within the last five or three years?

Government Response: Past Performances should be within the last five years.

Question 4: The file name includes the text “Examples” in “Attachment_D_-_High_level_User_Stories_- _Examples_.pdf”. Does this mean that there are additional workflows and/or the steps in the documents are not complete? For example, there are references to an “Intake Epic” but that does not appear to be provided. Are stories not provided within the RFP documentation in scope? If so, can all epics and user stories be provided to permit accurate estimation?

Government Response: Requirements will need to be gathered as part of this effort. Workflows at the STB are evolving so may be changing throughout the period of performance. The examples are provided as samples of the types of workflows that the Dynamic Case Management Software as a Service should be able to support.

Question 5: Are BPMN diagrams (or a similar notation) available for the workflows?

Government Response: BPMN diagrams are not available.

Question 6: Can a separate CLIN be created for storage costs as an ODC? There are a number of factors that can affect costs that will not be evident until the data migration begins.

Government Response: A separate CLIN for storage Costs as an ODC can be proposed by offerors.

Question 7: Portions of the RFP (such as Implementation Requirements in Section C.3.5) seem to indicate an expectation that the product vendors will be the Offeror. Can the product vendor partner or System Integrator be the Offeror?

Government Response: There is no expectation as to who will be the Offeror. The product vendor partner, the product vendor or a system integrator may be the offeror. In case of subcontracting, please include the subcontracting plan.

Question 8: Is scanning paper into the repository and the associated software included in the scope?

Government Response: Scanning paper into the repository is not included in the scope.

Question 9: Does the phrase in Section C.3.2 “Case file archival and disposition” indicate a requirement for records management capabilities?

Government Response: The phrase does indicate a requirement for records management capabilities.

Question 10: Under Section C.3.4, Integration / interoperability, the requirement to permit “b) public access to information that is today available in legacy case management applications” implies a data migration to permit this access. Was there some other being requested?

Government Response: The request is for the new solution to integrate seamlessly with the STB website following and during the data migration.

Question 11: For the requirement in Section 3.2, “Information Relationships between cases, parties, participants and general case information,” is there a standard case model for relationships or is it different for each case (or case type)? For “Electronic notification of decisions to parties and other interested persons”, is that standard across cases or changes by case (or case type)?

Government Response: Relationships are different for case types and notifications may also change by case or case type.

Question 12: In Section 2 (and elsewhere), there are references to “…some content stored in Case is made available to the public on the Board’s website.” Can the Offeror propose an alternate solution that leverages product capabilities or must the content be posted on an existing site?

Government Response: The Offeror may propose an alternate solution that leverages product capabilities if the content is stored in an authorized, FEDRAMP certified environment.

Question 13: Attachment D, User Story 2 has an assumption that “Email, instant messaging, and calendar enterprise applications will be integrated with the Case replacement system…” Is there an expectation that content created in those systems will be stored in the case or just that the case will allow generation of messages and content to these applications?

Government Response: The expectation is that the new Case management solution will allow generation of messages and content to these applications.

Question 14: Section F.3 has the System Design Document being due within 4 months of contract award while elsewhere there is a requirement to use Agile. Agile generally does not include a big-up-front-design. Will the Government clarify whether the architecture can be provided initially and then the design updated throughout?

Government Response: A system design document is required within four months of contract award.

However, it is expected that the documents will be updated as needed.

Question 15: Question 13 - The Government’s response to Question 13 indicated, “Offerors are invited to propose their own labor and staff mix.” However, in reference to the estimated level of effort provided in the earlier version of the solicitation, it was also indicated, “Any deviation should be explained in the proposal. The final RFP does not include the number of staff and the hours per person should not 1960 hours.” Noting that the final RFP no longer contains any estimates for level of effort, are Offerors still required to note deviations in proposed level of effort from the previous version of the solicitation?

Government Response: The final RFP supersedes the draft RFP. Offerors can propose the labor and staff mix. However, the total hours per person shall not exceed 1960 per person within each designated labor category. Labor categories may include but are not limited to:

o Program Manager o Solution Architect o Application Developer o Systems Information Analyst o Test Analyst

Question 16: Section B.2 - In the final RFP posted 5/17/2018, Section B.2 shows CLINs 00003, 00004, and 00005 as Firm Fixed Price items. As these activities (Implementation/Configuration, Integration, and Migration) all require labor, can you please explain why they are listed as FFP and not labor hours?

Government Response: CLINs 00003, 00004, 00005 are listed in the table but are not listed as FFP.

These services/support shall be provided under a Fixed labor hour contract. Only annual licensing is

FFP.•

Question 17: Section B.2 and Question 25 - In Section B.2 Deliverable/Payment Schedule, the RFP asks for a Payment Schedule as a percentage. Will the Government please clarify: 1) is this expected to be a percentage of the total Base Year price, and 2) since this is a Labor Hours contract, please confirm we will be invoicing monthly for the hours expended by labor category and not for FFP deliverables? It is not clear how the contractor could invoice a combination of monthly invoice and deliverables based invoice.

Government Response: This is a Hybrid Contract that is consists of Firm Fixed Price for annual licenses, Fixed Labor Hour rate for the labor categories and the deliverables should be billed in percentage of the total cost. Annual licenses are onetime payment, labor categories shall be billed on monthly basis while the deliverables shall be paid based on the task accomplished.

Question 18: Section 6.3.1 – The Government requires a Proof of Concept (POC) to function in parallel with the current systems. Please elaborate on the vision for the POC, e.g., is it expected to be fully functional or with partial functionality? Is it expected that it would be 100% reusable for the production system? By “function in parallel”, does the Government expect both systems to be processing the same cases, etc. and comparing the outcomes?

Government Response: The Proof of Concept (POC) is expected to have enough functionality to allow the Board to completely process new cases and is expected to be 100% reusable for the production system. The government does not expect both systems to be processing the same cases. It is expected that old/current cases will be processed in the current system until migration is complete.

Question 19: Section C.3.5 – “Partner strategy/resource availability”. The wording of the Implementation Requirements seems to indicate that the Government is expecting proposals only from product vendors. Can you please clarify if you will accept proposals from System Integrators who are partnered with the product vendors (i.e., software manufacturers)?

Government Response: There is no expectation/restriction as to who will be the Offeror. System Integrators can bid on this project as well..

Question 20: Section C.3.6 – The wording of all of the requirements seems to indicate that the Government is expecting proposals only from product vendors. Can you please clarify if you will accept proposals from System Integrators who are partnered with the product vendors?

Government Response: Please see the response to Question No. 19.

Question 21: N/A

Government Response: N/A

Question 22: Question 38 – Is the Government saying that the Offeror shall provide three past performance references in addition to any past performance provided by the subcontractor? Or will the subcontractor past performance reference count toward the Offeror’s three?

Government Response: The subcontractor past performance will count towards the Offeror’s three references.

Question 23: Questions 67 and 70 – Will the Government please confirm that proposal front matter -including tables of content and other tables included to assist the evaluators – are excluded from the page count?

Government Response: The cover page, table of contents and executive summary are not included in the 30 page limit. However, any other tables within the document are included in the page count.

Question 24: B.2, Price Schedule, “Data Migration costs – the table below contains approximate storage and sizing information related to the Case data migration effort.” Will the Government clarify whether Data Migration is expected to occur over the DOT Network or via transportable encrypted storage devices shipped to the Cloud Services Provider?

Government Response: The STB does not use the DOT Network and has its own Trusted Internet Connection (TIC) Services. Migration may occur over at the STB network or via authorized transportable encrypted storage devices shipped to the Cloud Services Provider.

Question 25: C.2, Introduction, Background, and Current Capabilities states, “When applicable, geographic information is maintained about sections of track that are relevant to a proceeding.” C.3.1, Requirements Scope Overview states, “The solution proposed by the Contractor shall include updates to the website to consolidate and display information from both the current Lotus Notes based Case Management system and the new solution on the STB’s website.” Will the Government please provide additional information on this process and the current website architecture and content presentation process?

Government Response: The current website and Lotus Notes based Case Management system are located in the STB’s data center. Approved content updates are made directly on pages on the website or in the Lotus Notes databases (Case Management system and other databases). Efforts are underway to setup the website in the Cloud, using WordPress to manage static content while still displaying other content that resides in Lotus Notes databases. However, the architecture and content presentation processes are not yet finalized.

Question 26: C.3.3, Business Requirements, Advanced search states, “Robust and rapid full text search and information retrieval and detection of content and case documents across archived and active files.” Will the Government please provide the criteria for “rapid full text search”?

Government Response: A full text search capability is the ability to search content within documents or databases. The search results should not be limited to metadata associated with a document.

Question 27: C.3.4, Security and Technical Requirements, Security / Access Control states, “Support for secure authentication (multi-factor) to the application.” Will the Government clarify what this specifically means? Is OpenText, for example, compatible with the STB IM capabilities? Will the Government please provide the specifics of the implementation to assess compatibility and level of effort for integration?

Government Response: Multifactor authentication (MFA) requires more than one method of authentication from independent categories of credentials to verify the user's identity for a login or other transaction. See section C.3.8 – ‘Solution should support Personal Identity Verification (PIV) authentication via Single Sign On using Active Directory domain credentials.’

Question 28: C.3.4, Security and Technical Requirements, Security / Access Control states, “Are encryption capabilities supported?” Will the Government clarify whether this is desirable? If so, what is the scope? I.e., on database, on ALL migrated document objects, on ALL new document objects, on data in transit, etc.

Government Response: Encryption mechanism must be employed on all information storage devices for all Data At Rest (full disk encryption) and any Data in Transit in accordance to FIPS PUB 200 and NIST SP 800-53 Rev4.

Question 29: C.3.4 Security and Technical Requirements includes a category for “Content / data migration.” Will the Government provide the contractor with access to the raw document object storage and corresponding database? Alternatively, will access to Legacy Case object only be via the software system (i.e., Lotus Notes)?

Government Response: The contractor may be able to access the raw document object storage based on the concept of least privilege and need to know. Access will be coordinated with the contractor currently supporting the Lotus Notes applications.

Question 30: C.3.7 Other Requirements, Quality Control, states, “The Contractor agrees to be liable for any damage or loss of business as a direct result of malware or malicious code embedded within software licensed to or developed for STB under the authority of the purchase/work order.” Does the contractor need to price an insurance rider for the project for this requirement?

Government Response: This is a determination for the offeror to make.

Question 31: C.3.8, Additional Security Requirements, C.3.8.1, Confidentiality, Security, and Privacy states, “The Contractor, using an independent assessor approved by the STB Authorizing Official (AO), will perform the FISMA Compliant Security Assessment and Authorization activity (SA&A – formerly referred to as Certification and Accreditation (C&A) of the information system developed or maintained prior to going into production).” Will the Government clarify how many times Offerors should price this assessment in?

Government Response: The offeror should price the assessment as needed to maintain the FEDRAMP certification.

Question 32: F.3, Milestones (M) and Deliverables (D) states, “By the end of the base year, the solution should also be integrated with the STB’s website.” Will the Government clarify what “integrated” means? Please provide additional, specific details regarding this requirement.

Government Response: By the end of the base year, external stakeholders (who do not have access to the Case Management system (current and future) should be able to view publicly accessible content via the website.

Question 33: F.3.1, Deliverable Review states, “The STB will have thirty (30) working days to complete its review of the deliverable. The STB will accept or reject the deliverables in writing. In the event of the rejection of the deliverable, the Contractor shall be notified in writing by the COR, giving the specific reason(s) for rejection. The Contractor will have ten (10) working days to correct the rejected deliverable and return it to the COR.” Will the Government clarify how long the STB has to review the resubmitted deliverable?

Government Response: The STB will have ten (10) working days to review the resubmitted deliverable.

Question 34: L.4 Proposal Format. Will the Government clarify whether Offerors should return Executed Standard Form 1447 in the Technical Proposal volume or in the Price Proposal volume?

Government Response: Executed Standard Form 1447 should be returned in the Business/Cost Proposal volume.

Question 35: L.5 Proposal Content and Structure, Part III – Past Performance References. Will the Government clarify whether the due date for Past Performance Questionnaires is the same as the proposal due date?

Government Response: The due date for the Past Performance Questionnaires is the same as the proposal due date.

Question 36: Reference L.4 and M.1. Will the Government clarify whether Part II should be titled “Staffing/Resumes, List of Proposed Key Personnel” or “Staffing Approach”?

Government Response: Part II should be titled ‘Staffing Approach’.

Question 37: Given the number of questions that remain regarding the RFP, will the Government extend the due date for proposals by two weeks from the date the answers to questions are posted?

Government Response: The due date will not be extended.

Question 38: Attachment H: Non-Disclosure Agreement. Will the Government clarify whether this is to be completed and returned by Offerors with their proposal? If so, may Offerors provide it within an Appendix in the Technical Proposal?

Government Response: The certificates of non-disclosure shall be made available as soon as the award is made to the offeror and upon request of the STB.

Question 39: L.4, Proposal Format. Will the Government clarify whether Offerors may provide any ancillary information in Appendices of either of the two volumes?

Government Response: Offerors may not provide ancillary information in Appendices.

Question 40: L.4 Proposal Format; Will the Government please confirm that resumes are excluded from page count.

Government Response: Resumes are excluded from the page count.

Question 41: L.4 Proposal Format; Given the complexity and scope of this RFP, will the Government increase the page limit for the Technical Proposal to 45 pages to allow offeror the opportunity to address all RFP requirements in the necessary detail?

Government Response: The page limit will not be increased.

Question 42: L.4 Proposal Format; Will the Government allow text in tables, graphics, and callout boxes to be size 10 font?

Government Response: Text in tables, graphics and callout boxes may be size 10 font.

Question 43: L.4 Proposal Format; will the Government please confirm that cover pages, tables of contents, and transmittal letters are excluded from page count?

Government Response: Cover pages, tables of contents and transmittal letters are excluded from page count.

Question 44: L.4 Proposal Format; Will the Government accept a 2-page limited executive summary? If so, please confirm that this executive summary is excluded from page count.

Government Response: The government will accept a 2-page limited executive summary. The executive summary is excluded from page count.

Question 45: C.3.8.9 Contingency Plan; Will the Government please confirm that offerors are not required to submit the contingency plan with the proposal and, instead, the successful offeror is required to provide this with the ATO package?

Government Response: Offerors are not required to submit the contingency plan with the proposal. The successful offeror should provide this with the ATO Package.

Question 46: B.2; Please confirm that contractor hours cannot exceed 1920 per year per employee without express written consent from the Contracting Officer.

Government Response: See Section B.1.3 in the Final RFP. The Contractor performance cannot exceed 1960 hours per person within each designated labor category without express written consent for the Contracting Officer.

Question 47: General, Will the Government provide an anticipated budget for this program?

Government Response: The government will not provide an anticipated budget for this program.

Question 48: Demonstrations, To allow Offerors the opportunity to adequately prepare for demonstrations, will the Government provide an anticipated timeline for this phase of evaluation?

Specifically, how long after submitting proposals can offerors expect to be selected for demonstrations?

Can the Government estimate how much time Offerors will have to prepare for demonstrations after being selected?

Government Response: The government expects that the Offerors selected for demonstrations will be notified approximately five to six weeks after submitting the proposals. The government expects that Offerors will have approximately 10 working days to prepare for demonstrations after being selected.

***End of Amendment 000005***