Attachment S-8 Industry QandC.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 29 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 693KA9-22-R-00016
About this file
This document contains questions and responses related to a federal solicitation for the System of Airports Reporting (SOAR) program. The solicitation seeks proposals to provide software modernization, operations and maintenance, and transformation services for SOAR. Key details include that the solicitation is issued by the Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Headquarters. It involves continuing work begun under an incumbent contract held by Booz Allen Hamilton. Services required include maintaining and transforming legacy SOAR code from ColdFusion and .NET to a new technology stack, performing data analysis and entry, and reducing the backlog of approved change requests. The period of performance involves a one-year base period and four one-year options. Proposals are due within 45 calendar days of release and the government intends to make one award.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| SIR_693KA9-22-R-00016_Section B thru M_FinalRev_Amend 3.pdf | ||
| Attachment S-3_Question and Comments - Government Response.pdf | ||
| 693KA9-22-R-00016 Section B Workbook.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| SIR_693KA9-22-R-00016_Section B thru M_FinalRev.pdf | ||
| 693KA9-22-R-00016 Section B Workbook.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| SIR_693KA9-22-R-00016_Section B thru M_Final.pdf | ||
| Attachment S-6 BusinessDeclarationForm.pdf | ||
| Attachment S-2 Example Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment S-1 Section C - SOAR Statement of Objectives.pdf | ||
| Attachment S-5_ PP Questionairre.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment S-7 SOO Artifacts Workbook.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment S-3_Question and Comments Form.doc | DOC document | |
| Section A_SolOfferAwardSF33.pdf | ||
| Attachment S-4 CLIENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER.docx | DOCX document |
Show all 14
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
Question_Response
| Seq # | SIR Section | Page # | Offeror's Question or Comment | Offeror's Proposed Change | Govt Resp | Govt Comments to Proposed Changes/Comments |
| J6-1 | C.2.1.9 | 11 | Does the government have any concerns about a potential conflict of interest (COI) by having IV&V services under the same contract as the development work? | We recommend the government pursue a separate Screening Information Request (SIR) as currently exists to avoid potential COI and ensure truly independent, high quality testing support for the critical IV&V function. | Yes | The IV&V CLIN has been removed from this SIR. |
| J6-2 | C.2.1.9 | 11 | When the contractor identifies an automated tool that is approved by the government to replace Selenium, how does the government intend to procure the approved software? How long is that procurement estimated to take and how long until the contractor has it available and installed for use? | Given the extended amount of time typically required to have approved software (e.g. Selenium) installed on contractor GFE laptops, we recommend the government evaluate the measure of success against its own ability to approve the software, acquire the software, then install/configure the software on all required devices.Given the extended amount of time typically required to have approved software (e.g. Selenium) installed on contractor GFE laptops, we recommend the government evaluate the measure of success against its own ability to approve the software, acquire the software, then install/configure the software on all required devices. | Yes | The IV&V CLIN has been removed from this SIR. |
| J6-3 | C.2.1.5 | 8 | Can the government elaborate on their statement under “Data Analysis and Entry” that states “Sometimes this can be done via automated tools such scripting or Robotic Automation Tools (aka BOTS), but sometimes it requires analyzing and potentially correcting the data prior to or during entry.” | We recommend the government clarify what kind and how many “BOTS” it already has in place to include the software being employed, e.g. BluePrism, UiPath. | Yes | There is no current use of Robotic Automation Tools for data entry. The SOO simply introduces their use as a possibility, including a caution that some scripting for robotics could result in errors requiring human analysis. Should the offeror propose BOTs, the selection of software should be from the FAA appproved products. |
| J8-4 | Sections B thru M.docx. |
L.5
| 48 | Will this be a single award or multi award IDIQ? | We recommend single award for continuity and ease of ordering. | Yes | See Section M.1.1 which states “The Government intends to award one contract but reserves the right to either make a multiple award or award no contract at all depending upon the quality of proposals and the availability of funds.” |
| J8-5 | Sections B thru M.docx. |
L.5
| 48 | If this will be a multi award IDIQ, how will the task order requirements be broken down? (E.g., Will the task orders be issued per work area?) | Yes | The government currently anticipates awarding Task Orders by Work Area but reserves the right to deviate. |
| J8-6 | Statement of Objectives.docx. |
C.2.1.8
| 10 | Will the awardee be continuing the current incumbent’s efforts, or is it requested/desired that the awardee starts anew? | Yes | The awardee will be expected to maintain current program continuity rather than start anew. | |||
| J8-7 | SOO Artifacts Workbook.xlsx | Tab 4 | Is the Technology Stack provided in tab 4 the current stack used for SOAR, or is this the desired to-be technology stack for the transformation? | Yes | The technology stack in Attachment S-7, SOO Artifact Workbook, Tab 4 lists the current SOAR transformation technology stack. Legacy SOAR is primarily Cold Fusion, .NET and Oracle. | |
| J8-8 | SOO Artifacts Workbook.xlsx | Tab 4 | If this is the current technology stack, would the Government please provide the current planned to-be technology stack? Or, does the Government intend for this contract to define the to-be state? | Yes | See J8-7 for response to the first question. The completion of transformation will define the "to-be" state. | |
| J8-9 | Sections B thru M.docx | What is the current place of performance? | Yes | Off-site | ||
| J8-10 | Statement of Objectives.docx. C.2.1.2 and C.2.1.8 | 5 and 10 | One of the Work Areas 2 and 3 Objectives is, “Maintain a reliable bench of subject matter experts (SMEs) for recurring tasks that do not require full time resources so that contractors can build program and system knowledge over time.” |
If ad-hoc availability is intended, what is the anticipated lead time the Government will provide the vendors to make the SMEs available?
| Yes | The expected lead time varies depending on the criticality of the need/project. The offeror may propose time estimates in their response. | |
| J8-11 | Statement of Objectives.docx. |
C.2.1.6
| 8 | Does SOAR utilize the FAA Enterprise Remedy system for helpdesk, or do they have their own system? If it is their own system, would you please provide the platform? | Yes | SOAR users do not utilize the FAA Enterprise Remedy System for SOAR Helpdesk response. The incumbent contractor uses a dedicated phone line, an FAA email box, and an Excel log. Jira is used to record tickets that cannot be immediately resolved. |
| J8-12 | Statement of Objectives.docx. |
C.2.1.7
| 9 | How many POA&Ms are currently outstanding? | Yes | As of June 2023 there were three risk accepted and eight delayed POA&MS. | |||
| J8-13 | SOO Artifacts Workbook.xlsx | Tab 9 | Sample data is provided. Would the Government please provide current metrics for system uptime and outages? | Yes | In 2022, there were 21 occurrences of 15 incidents. Through May 2023, there have been 19 occurrences of 13 incidents. Not all incidents were directly under the control of SOAR Operations (e.g., MyAccess or network outage). Time based metrics are not currently available. | |
| J8-14 | SOO Artifacts Workbook.xlsx | Tab 4 | Would the Government consider using any low code/no code platforms? | Yes | See Section C.2.1.2 "SOAR, in particular, has made a commitment to reassess the technology stack on a periodic basis to avoid obsolesces and evaluate potential benefits from new technologies." and Section 2.1.8 "Unless specifically approved by the SOAR Core Team, the contractor must follow existing transformation application standards, design and development guidelines, technology stack, configuration management and other applicable practices currently used for Transformation.... However, the contractor may propose modifications or changes to the processes and tools provided such change does not negatively impact objectives and offers benefits to the transformation outcomes or costs and resource use." | |
| J8-15 | Sections B thru M.docx. |
L.14.3.3.1
| 59 | General requires past performance information to be submitted for “both the Offeror and proposed subcontractors.” Could the Government limit this information to the Offeror and its proposed major subcontractors? | Amend the statement to read, “Past Performance – The Offeror must submit the following information as part of their proposal for both the Offeror and each proposed major subcontractor. A major subcontractor is defined as a subcontractor performing at least 20% of the SOAR requirements.” | No |
| J8-16 | Sections B thru M.docx. L.4 | 48 | L.4 3.10.4-20 Software Measures Proposal Requirement (August 1997) requires “historical data regarding software development from at least three prime contracts or subcontracts” that feature technical characteristics “similar to the proposed system with respect to domain, size, and complexity.” Section L.14.3.3.1 requires both the Offeror and proposed subcontractors to provide, “at a minimum, list of all contracts that are at last 3 years duration and averaging at least 5 million per year, completed during the past five years or in progress for at least three years prior to this SIR date.” |
For subcontractors, could the Government adjust the requirement so that the total contract value and contract work/description align to the subcontractor’s expected role on SOAR? This could be lower than the $5M minimum annual value specified in the solicitation and involve a subset of the SOAR scope.
| No | |||
| J8-17 | Sections B thru M.docx. L.3.1-1 | 46 | Included in the list of clauses is Clause 3.6.2-15 Evaluation of Compensation For Professional Employees (April 2017). |
Where in the proposal should offerors address compensation?
| Yes | The government has deleted this clause. | |||||
| J8-18 | SOO Artifacts Workbook.xlsx | Tab 4 | Would the Government please provide any platforms which they currently have licensing agreements for? | Yes | See Attachment S-7 SOO Artifacts Workbook, Tab 4. | |
| J8-19 | C.1.2 | 1 | Could you provide details on the security measures implemented in SOAR External (AEP) to ensure the confidentiality and integrity of the data shared between external organizations and ARP? | If there are any specific security measures such as FedRAMP/NIST compliance to be considered, we propose to include them in the RFP. | Yes | See Attachment S-7 SOO Artifacts Workbook.xlsx Tab 2 showing Akamai and data connection from SOAR Internal. Security measures/NIST compliance must be consistent with FIPS-199 Moderate system impact or have approved risk acceptance. |
| J8-20 | C.1.2 | 2 | Could you provide details about the integration capabilities of your solution, specifically in relation to the internal system interface between AEP and SOAR? Additionally, how does your solution handle data loads from various sources, including publicly available data, data provided by ARP program staff, and approved sources? | It is important to know the details of the size of data coming from various sources in order to deliver a system that can handle SOAR’s data management needs. | Yes | The government added a brief narrative on Attachment S-7 SOO Artifacts Workbook.xlsx Tab 2 describing interaction between Internal and External SOAR, and Tab 9 was updated with AEP size information. |
| J8-21 | C.1.3 | 3 | Are there any specific technologies considered by FAA for the new transformation technology stack? | If technology stack is not specified already, we can propose state-of-practice technologies to design SOAR. | Yes | See response to J8-7 and J8-14. |
| J8-22 | C.2.1.3 | 6 | Can you provide more information about the FAA technology roadmap and the end-of-life timeframe for product versions? | If there are any timeframes for revisions in the system designed under this procurement, it should be included as part of the RFP. | Yes | See Attachment S-7 SOO Artifacts Workbook.xlsx Tab 4. |
| J8-23 | C.2.1.5 | 8 | Are there any current tools integrated as part of SOAR for data analysis? | Please provide information on currently deployed data analysis tools in the RFP. | Yes | See Attachment S-7 SOO Artifacts Workbook.xlsx Tabs 2 and 4. |
| J8-24 | C.2.1.9 | 11 | What specific objectives or requirements are there for replacing Selenium with an automated test software or service? | Reasons for replacing Selenium should be included in the RFP. This will help us in proposing a suitable alternative to provide the required functionalities. | Yes | The government revised the text in section C.2.1.9 to clarify. |
| J8-25 | Section C - C.1.3 | 3 | Would the government please confirm that the addition of Work Area 3, in the context of this procurement, includes transitioning to a cloud-based platform versus enhancing a legacy application system on Cobalt? | Yes | The legacy system is not on Cobalt, and transition to cloud would include both legacy and tranformed code which comprise the current operational system. | |
| J8-26 | Section B - Part IV Section M-M.1.1 | 61 | [BLANK] | Recommendation: There are several excellent COTs grants management products on the market. The FAA should require oral presentations and demonstrations as part of its acquisition process. This is widely used practice in federal procurements and significantly reduce procurement risk and risks to the user community. |
Current language:
“The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award without discussions with any Offeror (other than discussions conducted for the purposes of clarification requests); however, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions, clarifications and negotiations with some, any or all competing Offerors, as the situation warrants."
Proposed language:
“The Government intends to evaluate proposals and may engage in discussions with offerors to assess the degree to which their proposed solution and current capabilities could accelerate timelines and reduce cost; however, the Government reserves the right to award without discussions with any or all Offerors (other than discussions conducted for the purposes of clarification requests, negotiations, as the situation warrants.”
| No | |
| J8-27 | Section B - Part IV Section M – |
M.3.4.1 63 Would the government consider updating the evaluation criteria to require vendor’s to have demonstrated experience implementing the proposed end-to-end grant-related software solution at multiple federal and state/local agencies given that the breadth of this effort includes supporting FAA and airports? Current language: “The FAA will evaluate the past performance submissions based on either the information provided by the Offeror’s CPARs report or the information received from the Offeror’s points of contact on each referenced past performance questionnaire as either acceptable or unacceptable. Assessment of the Offeror’s past performance will be one means of evaluating the credibility of the Offeror’s proposal, and relative capability to meet performance requirements. An Offeror’s lack of past performance on similar types of contracts may result in an Offeror receiving a lower rating.”
| Propose language “The FAA will evaluate the past performance submissions based on either the information provided by the Offeror’s CPARs report or the information received from the Offeror’s points of contact on each referenced past performance questionnaire as either acceptable or unacceptable. Assessment of the Offeror’s past performance will be one means of evaluating the credibility of the Offeror’s proposal, and relative capability to meet performance requirements. An Offeror’s lack of past performance on similar types of contracts with demonstrated experience implementing the proposed end-to-end grant-related software solution at multiple federal and state/local agencies may result in an Offeror receiving a lower rating.” | No | |||
| J8-28 | Draft Section C-C.2.1.8 | 10 | Comment: The scope of transformation under the proposed contract is not clear. The SOW states that this work area is focused on “transforming… all legacy SOAR code from SOAR, including reports but with the possible exception of database components” and that the “contractor may propose modifications or radical change to the processes and tools provided.” However, it also states that “work on transformation continues through the end of the current contract”. This suggest that the transformation strategy is set and inflight. |
| Question: Are responders responsible for proposing a transformation strategy or continuing execution of a transformation plan in flight. If so can the FAA provide its modernization /transformation roadmap. | Yes | See Appendix S-7 SOO Artifacts Workbook, Tabs 1a, Ic and 4 for status of transformation and what remains as operational legacy code as of June 2023. Offerors must support operation and completion of transformation, using either the transformation technology stack or offeror's proposed additions, if any. | ||
| J8-29 | Draft Section C-C.2.1.8 | 10 | Comment: The SOW states that this work area is focused on “transforming… all legacy SOAR code from SOAR, including reports but with the possible exception of database components”. However, it also states that “work on transformation continues through the end of the current contract”. |
Question: For the purposes of pricing, what percentage complete should responders assume the transformation is at the start of the contract (i.e., are responders expected to complete 75% or 15% of the transformation by 2026. If so, would the government please Yes See Attachment S-7 SOO Artifacts Workbook Tab 1a which can be used by responders to calculate their estimates of remaining transformation.
| J8-30 | Artifacts Workbook | Tab 4 | Please identify the versions of each technology in the technology stack and the timeframe for plan upgrade? | Yes | See response to J8-22 |
| J8-31 | Artifacts Workbook | Tab 4 | If transformation to a future-state platform has already started, would the government please identify which platform or codebase has been chosen for the future state tech stack? |
| Yes | See Attachment S-7 SOO Artifacts Workbook, Tab 4. | ||
| J8-32 | Section C-C.2.1.4 | 7 | Comment: The SOO states the following objective for “SOAR Application Change Management”, |
“Reduce backlog of approved items (not including deferred due to transformation) by 20 percent in first year of contract, and 30 percent per year thereafter” This objective is followed by a statement regarding the state of aging items in the backlog, “Changes are addressed depending on priority and time of year. This practice, coupled with the large number of defects, data issues, and new mandated functionality, resuls in a large backlog of aging requests.”
Question: Are responders responsible for proposing which specific approved backlog items the FAA expects to complete in the first year of the contract? If so, would the government please provide the story point estimates for the approved backlog items rank-ordered in terms of priority?
| Yes | Responders are not responsible for proposing specific approved backlong items would be completed in the first year of contract. The government, specifically the SOAR CCB, System Owner and Business Lead, will work with the awardee to prioritize approved backlog. | ||||
| J9-33 | C.1.3 | 1 | Work Area 4 – The contractor must provide independent verification and validation including system design review, process and procedure review and streamlining, audit services, and system testing including automated testing and User Acceptance test support. | ||
| This requirement places the contractor in a situation whereby it will be verifying and validating work that itself performs, thereby creating the potential for impaired objectivity. Will the FAA accept an OCI mitigation plan that relegates IV&V support to a subcontractor as a method to mitigate the OCI? | Yes | The IV&V CLIN has been removed from this SIR. | |||
| J9-34 | L.13.1 | 50 | Would the government consider defining the page limit for individual sections of the Technical Volume (e.g., Organizational Approach and Personnel vs. Work Area Solutions)? Doing so will provide better logical organization of proposal content, promote easier scoring, and reduce the burden on source selection reviewers. | No | |
| J9-35 | L.14.3.3.1 | 59 | Past Performance - The Offerors must submit the following information as part of their proposal for both the Offeror and proposed subcontractors: (1) A complete response to AMS clause 3.10.4-20 Software Measures Proposal Requirement. Historical data must include at a minimum, list of all contracts that are at least 3 years duration and averaging at least 5 million per year, completed during the past five years or in progress for at least three years prior to this SIR date. |
Can the government confirm that you are expecting historical past performance data for only three (3) contracts in total in response to AMS Clause 3.10.4-20 (Software Measures Proposal Requirement)?
| Yes | See L.14.3.3.1 General (1) which calls for a "list of all contracts that are least 3 years duration..." ; not 3 contracts in total. | |||||
| J9-36 | N/A | N/A | Is the government’s intent to issue an awardable task order when the RFQ is released? This will help the government perform comparative analysis of pricing solutions more easily against actual task orders, better assess the offerors’ ability to perform associated work, and minimize lead time between IDIQ contract award and task order execution. | No | ||
| J9-37 | L.14.3.1.2 M.3.4.3 | 52, 64 | It is generally understood that a PWS is a SOW that describes work to be performed in terms of required results (i.e., as a set of shall statements) rather than "how" the work is to be accomplished. Please confirm that FAA evaluation under Section M.3.4.3 Factor 3a, 3b, 3c, and 3d will be solely against the submission requirements stipulated in L.14.3.1.2 Preparation Instructions (Section 3a, 3b, 3c and 3d). In other words, please validate that the FAA is looking for the contractor to provide their understanding and technical approach (presenting the features, benefits, and proofs of their proposed solution and highlighting strengths) rather than providing a PWS consisting of a set of shall statements. | Yes | The PWS is a feature of a Performance Based Acquisition not a SOW. It has two mandatory features: (1) work stated in terms of outcome or results, rather than methods of performance; and (2) measurable performance standards and a method of assessing contractor performance against those standards. Therefore, the FAA not only expects the contractor to provide their understanding and technical approach but also to include any and all absolute requirements in the PWS, QCP or QASP. Also the government has moved away from the use of "shall" statements in the context of statements of work or objectives and prefers "must" statements because the word "must" implies that it is mandatory. | |
| J13-38 | H.2 | 9 | Does the FAA intend to identify Key Personnel and their role(s) or is identification of Key Personnel up to the Offeror? | Identify Key Personnel and their roles if any | No | |
| J13-39 | I.15 | 28 | When is the Draft Software Measurement Plan required to be submitted to the FAA as identified in section I.15? | Looking to hear from FAA | Yes | See I.15(ii) and S-7 SOO Artifacts Workbook_Rev08172023 |
| J13-40 | I.15 | 28 | Does the Draft software Measurement Plan count as part of the page count limitation of the Technical Volume? | Looking to hear from FAA | No | |
| J13-41 | 3c | 64 | Who is the incumbent and can the incumbent bid on this opportunity? | Looking to hear from FAA | Yes | Booz Allen Hamilton. There is no restriction from current incumbent bidding. |
| J13-42 | C.2.1.5 | 8 | Are there any plans to use Microsoft 365/PowerBI for all the reporting and data analytics requirements in this opportunity? | Looking to hear from FAA | Yes | There are no current plans to use Microsoft 365/PowerBI for all the reporting and data analytics requirements. See also response to J8-14 |
| J14-43 | Does the Government require Amazon Web Services certifications? | Yes | There is no requirement for Amazon Web Services certifications. | |||
| J14-44 | Does the Government plan to require the deployment of Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) and require project qualifications where SAFe was successfully deployed within FAA to ensure digital transformation was successfully implemented? | Yes | Use of SAFe is not required. | |||
| J14-45 | Does the Government plan to include project qualifications showing experience with FAA Cloud Services, specifically Amazon Web Services? | Yes | See response to J14-43. | |||
| J14-46 | Will the Government consider deploying a hybrid FFP and T&M aligned to specific SOW Task Areas (e.g., operations and maintenance will be a firm fixed price, and the development will be time and materials)? | Yes | See Section B Workbook. | |||
| J14-47 | Draft+Schedule_Section+B+thru+M_ | Base Period Duration: The one-year base period is too short to evaluate contractor compliance with SOAR SOW objectives fully. Given that the transition period is 90 days from the award, the one-year base period leaves only 9 months to evaluate contractor performance before granting the first option period - a very short period to evaluate performance on such a complex project as SOAR. Moreover, several SOW objective deadlines listed in the SOW Section C.2.1 have due dates beyond the first year. Examples: “retire legacy reports” by 2026 end; “complete SOAR transformation” by 2026 end; “retire legacy code” by March ’27; “achieve 70% automation of regression testing” by ’27 end. A thorough evaluation of contractor performance can thus not be made within a one-year time frame. We recommend the FAA expand the initial period to a 2 Year Base and 3-1 year options to cover the end of FY27 to fully evaluate contractor performance against objectives. | No | |||
| J14-48 | Draft+Schedule_Section+B+thru+M_ | 52 | Does the Government plan to have key personnel requirements? Section L.14.3.1.2, A.2 discusses key personnel but leaves the type and number of Key Personnel at offerors discretion. Bidding large numbers of key personnel provides advantages to the incumbent and lowers their transition and operational risk, to the disadvantage of non-incumbent offerors. A better approach would be for the FAA to specify the positions requiring key personnel or limit the number of key personnel to level the competitive playing field. | Yes | See response to Question J13-38. | |
| J14-49 | Draft+Schedule_Section+B+thru+M_ | 53 | Does the Government plan to include Labor Categories, skill levels, and training requirements associated with key personnel since they are critical to this SOO success? | No | ||
| J14-50 | Draft+Schedule_Section+B+thru+M_ | 59 | Will the Government specify the number of past performance references required for the prime contractor to submit? | Yes | See response to Question J9-35 | |
| J14-51 | Draft+Schedule_Section+B+thru+M_ | 59 | Will the Government allow a prime contractor to submit an ID/IQ contract that is at least three years and averages at least 5 million per year, completed during the past five years, or in progress for at least three years before this SIR date? | No | ||
| J14-52 | Draft+Schedule_Section+B+thru+M_ | 64 | QASP Evaluation order of importance: Section M.3.4.2 specifies how the QASP is to be evaluated: “This Factor will be evaluated based on the extent to which it demonstrates a comprehensive quality control approach and methodology for monitoring, measuring, tracking and reporting Contractor’s performance in as well as achievement of FAA objectives and business results.” The italicized portion indicates the QASP should discuss (or at least reference) how to achieve SOAR SOW objectives. Yet, Section L.14.3.1.2 Section B states: “The QASP does not detail how the Contractor accomplishes the work – that information is contained elsewhere in the contract.” Given the importance of meeting SOAR objectives, would the FAA consider inverting the Section M Evaluation Factor Order of Importance, placing the Performance Work Statement (PWS) ahead of the QASP in evaluation importance? | Yes | See M3.4.2 which states "Factors 1 and 2 are of equal importance but not as important as Factor 3." Factor 3 is the PWS. See also response to J9-37. | |
| J14-53 | Draft_Schedule Section B thru M | 48, L.4 | The government requires historical past performance for at least three prime contracts similar to the proposed system with respect to domain, size and complexity. Will the government also require that past performance include modernization of legacy systems and data migration? | The technical characteristics of the historical programs shall be similar to the proposed system with respect to domain, size, and complexity to include include modernization of legacy systems and data migration. | No | |
| J14-54 | Attachment S-7 SOO Artifacts Workbook | Tab 4 | Functional Requirements highlights features in light grey that are under development and plan to be in production prior to contract transition. Tab 4-Technology Stack lists all technologies currently being used, will the government please indicate which elements of the technology stack are legacy and which elements are part of the transformation work currently under development on the current contract? | Identify which elements of the technology stack are legacy and which elements are part of the transformation work currently under development on the current contract in Tab 4 | Yes | See response to J8-7. |
| J14-55 | C.2.1.8 TRANSFORM LEGACY SOAR (Work Area 3) | 10 | Would FAA consider enabling a contractor to review volumes, capacity and throughput of Oracle database resources to assist in decisions about transforming SOAR database components? | Include in objectives that a contractor will be required to review volumes, capacity and throughput of Oracle database resources to assist in decisions about transforming SOAR database components?" | Yes | While the government has no objections around transforming SOAR database components beyond relatively minor refactoring, we are open to offerer inclusion of a post award examination around the benefits of database transformation. |
| J14-56 | Attachment S-7 SOO Artifacts Workbook. | Tab 4 | Referring to the S-7_SOO_Artifacts_Workbook, Technology Stack Tab, has FAA selected a refactoring toolset to transform .NET applications? | Identify in S-7_SOO_Artifacts_Workbook, Technology Stack Tab, the efactoring toolset has selected to transform .NET applications | Yes | See response to S8-7 and S8-14. |
| J14-57 | Draft Schedule_Sect B thru M, also Draft Section C C.1.2, C.2.4 and S-7_SOO_Artifacts_Workbook | Architecture Tab | We see that the SOAR Training environment (also UAT and "Proto") and Gateway Server are on-premises WJHTC components. Are these planned to move to cloud?" | Identify which elements of the SOAR Training environment (also UAT and “Proto”) and Gateway Service and on-premises WJHTS components will be moved into the cloud | Yes | The plan is for all components at WJHTC to be moved to the cloud. However, we are in early stages of investigation and planning, pre-security assessment. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .