Amd 0001 Attachment A Q_As.pdf

Solicitation 9594CS26Q0025 – Amendment 0001 Attachment A - Questions and Responses

Question #1: Solicitation section L.6.4.2.1. Would the Government allow for Microsoft Teams to be used for the live demonstration?

Response: Amendment 0001 revises solicitation section L.6.4.2.1 identifying MS Teams as an acceptable platform for the live demonstration. However, note that the amendment also states:

Note: The Quoter remains fully responsible for ensuring the technical quality, connectivity, screen-sharing functionality, and clear delivery of their demonstration on the selected platform. The Government takes no responsibility for technical difficulties or bandwidth issues originating from or experienced on the Quoter's chosen platform.

Question #2: Solicitation Attachment J-1, section C.2.4.2. How many dedicated handheld scanners would need software licenses?

Response: See Amendment 0001, revision to Attachment J-1, changes to section C.2.4.2.

Question #3: Solicitation Attachment J-1, section C.2.4.2. Please confirm if the subject barcode scanners support the Android mobile operating system?

Response: See Amendment 0001, revision to Attachment J-1, changes to section C.2.4.2.

Question #4: Solicitation Attachment J-1, sections C.2.4.4 and C.2.4.5. Please confirm that C.2.4.5 is an inadvertent duplicate of the requirement C.2.4.4?

Response: Amendment 0001 removes the duplicate section.

Question #5: Solicitation Attachment J-1, section C.2.4.2. Regarding the integration with Oracle Financials, is it envisioned to be real-time or periodically in batch?

Response: There is no information in Attachment J-1, section C.2.4.2 regarding integration with Oracle financials. However, see Amendment 0001, revision to Attachment J-1, section C.10, Integration Support, for added information regarding integration with Oracle Financials. Also, see Attachment J-1, newly added section C.2.8, which requires the system to be capable of periodic batch updates to Oracle Financials via REST API without requiring manual intervention.

Question #6: Is there any incumbent/recompete or this is a brand-new project? If yes, could you please provide us with their award number or even if the customer bought similar services in the past.

Response: The answer to this question is provided in solicitation section L.13.

Question #7: SOW – FedRAMP Requirement. Can the Government confirm whether the proposed SaaS application itself must possess a current FedRAMP Moderate Authorization, or whether deployment within a FedRAMP Moderate Authorized cloud environment satisfies this requirement?

Response: See Amendment 0001, revision to Attachment J-1, changes to section C.2.2.

9594CS26Q0025 – Amendment 0001 Attachment A

Question #8: SOW – SaaS Solution. Can the Government confirm whether offerors may propose a commercially available proprietary SaaS solution that requires configuration and minor customization, or is the Government specifically seeking an existing Commercial Off-the-Shelf (COTS) Personal Property Management System?

Response: Amendment 0001 revises Attachment J-1, section C.1.2 to reflect this requirement is for the purchase of a commercially available Personal Property Management System delivered as a Web-based Software as a Service (SaaS) solution that is deployed in a FedRAMP Moderate Authorized cloud environment.

Question #9: SOW – Existing Solution. Does the Government require the proposed solution to be fully operational and commercially available at the time of proposal submission, or are configurable proprietary platforms acceptable?

Response:

a. No, configurable proprietary solutions or custom-built solutions requiring custom development, major code rewriting, or are not already commercially available SaaS products are not acceptable. The solicitation explicitly requires a commercially available, Web-based Software as a Service (SaaS) solution that is already deployed in a FedRAMP Moderate Authorized cloud environment at the time of proposal submission.

b. "Commercially Available" / software-as-a-service (SaaS) solution means the product must already exist, be proven, and be functioning in a production environment at the time of proposal submission. It cannot be a solution that the Contractor intends to build, heavily customize, or code from scratch specifically for this award.

c. While custom-built or proprietary platforms are ruled out, configuration within a standard "Commercially Available"/SaaS framework is expected.

• Acceptable: Adjusting workflows, setting up data fields, defining user roles, and configuring the REST API integration parameters using built-in administration tools of the existing SaaS platform.

• Unacceptable: Writing custom software code, building new proprietary modules from scratch, or treating the solicitation as a custom software development project.

d. The proposed system must be an existing, proven off-the-shelf product capable of meeting requirements through standard platform configuration, system administration tools, and native integration capabilities (such as the specified REST API for Oracle Financials), rather than through custom software development or future code creation.

Question #10: SOW – Oracle Financials Integration. Please provide the version of Oracle Financials currently in use and indicate whether integration will be through REST APIs, SOAP services, database connectivity, or another integration mechanism.

Response:

The Statement of Work requires the foundational capability to integrate via REST API and support automatic periodic batch updates. The exact version of Oracle Financials, along with specific technical endpoints, authentication credentials, and configuration parameters, will be shared with the awarded Contractor during the post-award implementation and interface development phase.

See Amendment 0001, revised Attachment J-1, newly added section C.2.8, which requires the system to be capable of periodic batch updates to Oracle Financials via REST API without requiring manual intervention, and section C.11, Integration Support, for added information regarding integration with Oracle Financials.

Question #11: SOW – Data Migration. Besides the approximately 8,000–8,500 active asset records, are there any historical, archived, or inactive asset records that are also required to be migrated?

Response: See Amendment 0001, revised Attachment J-1, which replaces section C.2.3 with a new section C.2.3, quantifying historical records and asset growth during the life of the award. Also, see Amendment 0001, revised Attachment J-1, changes to section C.10, Data Migration Requirements, which identifies the total current database volume to be migrated.

Question #12: SOW – Data Migration. Will the Government provide the BarScan database schema, data dictionary, and sample export files before migration activities begin?

Response: See Amendment 0001, revised Attachment J-1, section C.10.2.1, which adds the above information will be provided prior to the start of the migration effort.

Question #13: SOW – Barcode Support. Does the Government currently utilize specific barcode scanners or mobile inventory devices that the proposed solution must support? If so, please provide the manufacturer and model information.

Response: See Amendment 0001, revised Attachment J-1, section C.2.4.2, which adds the barcode scanner manufacturer and model information.

Question #14: SOW – Barcode Labels. Will existing barcode labels remain in use, or should the contractor provide new barcode labels as part of implementation?

Response: See Amendment 0001, revised Attachment J-1, section C.2.4.1, which adds existing barcode labels will remain in use.

Question #15: SOW – RFID. Is RFID functionality mandatory, or is barcode-based asset management sufficient to satisfy the requirement?

Response: See Amendment 0001, revised Attachment J-1, changes to sections C.2.4.1 and C.4.4.

Question #16: SOW – Authentication. Please confirm whether integration with the Government's enterprise identity provider (e.g., Active Directory, Azure AD, or another IdP) will be required in addition to PIV authentication.

Response: No additional authentication is required.

Question #17: SOW – PIV Authentication. Can the Government provide technical specifications regarding the required PIV authentication method (e.g., SAML, CAC/PIV middleware, PKI certificates, etc.)?

Response: See Amendment 0001, revised Attachment J-1, section C.5.3, which adds SAML.

Question #18: SOW – User Licensing. The solicitation references up to 33 users. Are these named users, concurrent users, or a combination thereof?

Response: See Amendment 0001, revised Attachment J-1, newly added section C.6.

Question #19: Pricing Schedule. Should subscription pricing include future increases in user count and asset volume during the contract period, or will additional licenses/assets be procured separately?

Response: See Amendment 0001, revised Attachment J-1, newly added section C.6.

Question #20: SOW – Asset Volume. Does the Government anticipate significant growth beyond the stated 8,500 assets during the contract term?

Response: See Amendment 0001, revised Attachment J-1, newly added section C.6, which addresses scalability of active assets during the life of the award.

Question #21: SOW – Reporting. Does the Government have predefined report formats and templates that must be replicated from the existing BarScan system?

Response: No.

Question #22: SOW – Custom Reports. To what extent are custom reports expected beyond the standard reporting capabilities of the proposed solution?

Response: Solicitation section C.3 identifies reporting requirements for the proposed solution.

Question #23: SOW – API Integration. Are API specifications and technical documentation for Oracle Financials available to the successful contractor after award?

Response: See Amendment 0001, revised Attachment J-1, changes to section C.11, Integration Support.

Question #24: SOW – Training. Will all training sessions be delivered remotely via Microsoft Teams, or should the contractor anticipate any onsite training requirements?

Response: See Amendment 0001, revised Attachment J-1, changes to section C.7, Training.

Question #25: SOW – Security. Will the successful contractor be required to complete a Security Assessment and Authorization (ATO) process, or will the solution operate under an existing Government authorization boundary?

Response: See Amendment 0001, revised Attachment J-1, changes to section C.12.2.

Question #26: SOW – Hosting. Are there any restrictions regarding the geographic location of the cloud hosting environment, provided it complies with the solicitation's security requirements?

Response: See Amendment 0001, revised Attachment J-1, changes to section C.2.2. “U.S. persons” used in the revised Attachment J-1 language is defined as follows per National Institute of Standards and Technology, Information Technology Laboratory, Computer Security Resource Center:

• U.S. Citizens: Individuals born in the United States or naturalized citizens.

• Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs): Individuals who hold a valid Green Card (aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence).

• Protected Individuals: Specific categories under immigration law (such as refugees or asylees).

• U.S.-Based Entities: Corporations, partnerships, or organizations incorporated or legally organized to do business under U.S. federal or state law.

Question #27: SOW – Section 508. Will the Government require submission of a completed Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT) or Accessibility Conformance Report (ACR) with the proposal?

Response: Attachment J-1, section C.17, Deliverables, Table 1, identifies the required delivery of the

VPAT.

Question #28: SOW – Service Levels. Are there minimum uptime or Service Level Agreement (SLA) requirements that the contractor must guarantee?

Response: Solicitation Attachment J-8, Compliance with Personal Property Management System Requirements and Features, line C.9.2 requires the Quoter to identify its SLA response and resolution times. Per solicitation Attachment J-1, Statement of Work, section C.9.2, the Contractor identified SLA response and resolution times shall be adhered to in the performance of the purchase order.

Question #29: SOW – Implementation. Does the Government have a target implementation or go-live date beyond the contract period specified in the solicitation?

Response: Solicitation Attachment J-1, Statement of Work, includes a deliverables table in section C.17.

This table identifies the timeline for a go-live system.

Question #30: SOW – Asset Types. Besides standard IT equipment and office furniture, are there any specialized asset categories or controlled property that require additional tracking capabilities?

Question #31: Section L.13 notes that the legacy system is BarScan. What file formats (e.g., CSV, SQL dump, XML) will the government use to export the historical asset data for the vendor to perform the migration required under CLIN 0003?

Response: See Amendment 0001, revised Attachment J-1, changes to section C.10.2.1.

Question #32: Are there attached files, photos, or historical PDF lifecycle documents tied to the current 8,500 legacy asset records that must be migrated into the new system, or is the data migration strictly limited to text-based database fields?

Question #33: Does the agency require a complete historical audit trail of all previous changes made in BarScan to be imported, or will data migration look forward from a static "current inventory balance" baseline?

Response: See Amendment 0001, revised Attachment J-1, changes to section C.10.2.1.

Question #34: Section L.6.4.2 allows vendors to submit a recorded 90-minute video demonstration via a secure link. Will the government confirm which specific secure file-sharing methods are acceptable (e.g., Secure FTP, password-protected OneDrive link) to ensure government firewalls do not block access to the submission file?

Response: There is no specific secure file-sharing method. Possibly the solicitation use of the word “secure” describing the link is the cause. It was intended to describe the Contractor’s location regarding its provided demonstration since this is not to be a marketing demonstration. Any link that will open to the demonstration is acceptable. If the link requires a password, the password should also be included.

The government does not mandate a specific file-sharing platform. Contractors may use standard commercial secure file-sharing services (e.g., OneDrive, Google Drive, Dropbox, or secure FTP links) to provide the 90-minute video demonstration. However, Contractors are solely responsible for ensuring that the provided link is publicly accessible and will not be blocked by Government firewalls. If a password or specific login credential is required to access the file, it must be clearly provided within the submitted quotation. Amendment 0001 adds language to solicitation section L.6.4.2.2 to address the procedures for a link that is not functioning. See response to question #35.

Question #35: For vendors selecting the recorded video path, is there a specific deadline by which the government will notify the vendor if a video link is deemed broken or blocked, and will the vendor be given 24 hours to remedy a technical linkage issue without facing immediate rejection under Section M.3.2.2?

Response: The Government is not bound by a specific timeframe to notify a vendor if a video link is determined to be broken or inaccessible. However, if the Government notifies the Contractor of a technical linkage or accessibility issue, the Contractor shall provide a functional, accessible link or corrected file within one business day of receiving the notification. Failure to resolve the technical linkage issue within this one-business-day timeframe may result in the proposal being evaluated as non-compliant under Section M.3.2.2. See Amendment 0001, added bullet to solicitation section L.6.4.2.2.

Question #36: Section H.1.3.3 states that the agency requires up to 30 days to process local background checks before contractor personnel can begin work. Will the government clarify if the 12-month Base Period clock for CLIN 0001 begins immediately at contract award, or if it begins after the contractor's key personnel receive final security approval to access the system environment?

Response: The base period of performance begins the date of award, i.e., when the Contracting Officer signs the purchase order. There is adequate time in the 12-month base period to provide a fully operational go-live system, even with the security clearance processing period being up to 30 days.

Question #37: Will the government confirm whether contractor personnel performing work 100% remotely from their own commercial facilities are required to complete the physical PIV Card application process outlined in Attachment J-4, or if electronic-only system access profiles will be utilized?

Response: Yes. All Contractor personnel requiring system access, including those performing work 100% remotely, are required to complete the agency security clearance process and obtain PIV access, which will be provisioned via a YubiKey rather than an electronic-only profile.