The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
Question #
| Page |
| Section |
| RFP Text |
| Comment/Question |
| CO Responses |
| Given that access to the CJIS site in Clarksburg requires clearance or an escort, please describe the process for delivering proposals by hand and also by delivery service (such as FedEx |
| All proposals may be hand delivered to the FBI visitor’s center. No special access is required to enter the FBI’s visitor center. Upon parking in the visitor’s center parking lot, enter the visitor’s center and ask to contact Michael Konchesky at (304) 625-4031. Only hand deliver your proposal to Michael Konchesky. If your proposal is being sent via mail, Fed Ex, UPS, or other, then send it to: Federal Bureau of Investigation |
Criminal Justice Informational Services Division Attention: Michael Konchesky Module E-3 1000 Custer Hollow Road Clarksburg, WV 26306
Also, the above address is the location for Hand Delivery of proposals.
| 127 |
| 78 |
| L.4.1 Format and Instructions for Proposals |
| L.4.1 indicates files shall be in a format readable by MS Word/Excel 2007. As this version of Office is over 9 years old, please confirm using a later version is acceptable. |
| Files shall be submitted as .docx and .xlsx. |
| 128 |
| 78 |
| L.4.1 Format and Instructions for Proposals |
| L.4.1 indicates CDs shall be “read-only” CDs formatted for Microsoft Windows NT...” Please explain this requirement as we believe CDs are formatted by the CD manufacturer. |
| Ensure the CDs submitted to the Government cannot be altered or additional information cannot be added to the document. Submit a CD-R only. |
| 129 |
| 67 |
| J.2.2, Technical Attachments |
| Please provide the technical attachments listed in Section J.2.2. |
| Per the provided instructions, the J.2.2 Technical Attachments are to be requested from the CO following the completed submission of an NDA. |
| 130 |
| 18 |
| C.3.1.1.1, Development Technical Requirements - requirement #25, Data Center Requirements |
| Can the data center can be at a different location than the physical work environment? |
| Offerors may propose a data center that's at different location than main work location. The Offeror must demonstrate how all accessibility, performance, and security requirements will be satisfied. |
| 131 |
| 18 |
| C.3.1.1.1, Development Technical Requirements - requirement #25, Data Center Requirements |
| Is the specified data center facility to be used for CODIS development and test activities, or is the Government's intent to also transition production operations to this facility? |
| The Government has no intentions to use the Offeror's data center for production operations. |
| 132 |
| 84 |
| L.5.4 Volume IV, Price Volume |
| Page 84, Section 1, requires an "index summary". Please clarify the requirements for the index summary. |
| Remove "index summary" from Section 1 on page 84 of the RFP. |
| 133 |
| 6 |
| C.3.1.1.1, Development Technical Requirements - requirement #3, Data Center Requirements |
| Requirement #3 on page 6 says "...Offeror's deliverables will be measured against the Quality Assurance Requirements section of this RFP". However, the RFP does not include this section. Please clarify. |
| Reference is to requirements listed in RFP section C.3.1.1 (21), starting on page 12. |
| 134 |
| 103 |
| Appendix III, Task Order 3, Task Order Summary |
| Please confirm that the reference to Task Order 1 (in the first paragraph) should be Task Order 3 (as Task Order 3 includes the enhancements). If not, please clarify the enhancements listed within Task Order 1. |
| Reference should be to enhancements in Task Order 3. |
| 135 |
| 107 |
| Appendix III, Task Order #3, Enhancement #1 |
| The link provided for more information regarding the NIEM Type 18 DNA record does not work. Can the Government provide a working link? |
| http://biometrics.nist.gov/cs_links/standard/ansi_2012/Update-Final_Approved_Version.pdf |
| 136 |
| 43 |
| H.2.1, Key Management Personnel Listing |
| RFP says "the above information shall be filled out completely by the Offeror" This is the only sentence in this section. Please clarify what is required by RFP Section H.2.1. |
| Extract from the RFP Section H.1, "In Section K, Offerors shall complete the Acquisition Risk Questions and Key Management Personnel Listing (KMPL) for the prime Offeror and all proposed subcontractors. Provision of false information shall be cause for default under the Default Clause of this contract". Clarification, Offer and their subcontractors shall fill out the information (questions) required by the KMPL. This information shall be submitted to the CO in individually sealed envelopes since it contains personal information. Prime Offer place information in a single sealed envelope and each individual subcontractor submit via a sealed envelope to the CO. The envelopes shall be submitted with the RFP. |
| 137 |
| N/A |
| Questions 114 and 115 |
| The answers to these questions state that a revised RFP will be released with changes made to reflect the Government’s answers to questions. When may offerors expect release of that document? |
| The respective "Amendments issued" formally reflect the revision to the RFP. |
| Section L.4.1 indicates submission of a Program Management Plan with the proposal, but Section C.3.1.2, Requirement #66 - indicates it is due within 30 days of contract award. Further, Task Orders #1 and #2 do not include the due date for the PMP. The Government’s answer to Question 53 clarifies that the PMP is not required with proposal submissions. |
| See Amendment 2, response to question # 51. "The PMP will be a required deliverable after contract award in response to the respective Task Order issued". |
| Can the government please provide the expected submission date for the Program Management Plan? |
| See Amendment 2, response to question # 51. "The PMP will be a required deliverable after contract award in response to the respective Task Order issued". |
| Section L.4.1 indicates submission of a Security Plan with the proposal, but the Security Plan is not mentioned anywhere else except for L.4.1 and Requirement 73 under C.3.1.2 - which makes a reference to the list of deliverables in Section C.6, but there is not a list of deliverables in C.6. Further, neither Task Orders #1 or #2 list the Security Plan as part of the Program deliverables. |
| See Amendment #2 response to question # 114. "Government does not require a security plan in Section L.4.1. An Amendment will be issued to remove this requirement". |
| Can the government please provide clarification on the expected submission date and contents for the Security Plan? |
| See Amendment #2 response to question # 114. "Government does not require a security plan in Section L.4.1. An Amendment will be issued to remove this requirement". |
| Where should the hard-copies and CD’s be delivered for the proposal? |
| See Section A of the RFP; refer to the SF33 in Section A block 8. Refer to Amendment #2 response to question #66. |
· FBO indicates Contracting Office Address is:
Washington, District of Columbia 20535
· Original RFP does not specify an address
1000 Custer Hollow Road, Module E-3, Clarksburg, WV 20636
| The requirement states that the data center facility must be at a minimum Tier 2 level (as defined by the Uptime Institute). Does the data center need to be certified by the uptime institute, or must it simply meet the Uptime Institute’s requirements? |
| The data center must meet the Tier 2 requirement. There is no requirement to have it certified by Uptime or a third-party. |
| 144 |
| 91 |
| Section M.8 – Factor 1 – Sub Factor 1 |
This RFP includes requirements for substantial test automation activities, both on functional and performance features.
Can the government please clarify:
- Test tools and licensing:
| o Does the government have a requirement on what automation tools should be used? |
| Existing automation capability must be maintained. Offeror would need to demonstrate benefit of an alternative tool/methodology for AT based on a post award evaluation of the CODIS application. |
| o If new tools are to be licensed/acquired – is the government going to cover the costs? |
| New tool to be acquired or licensed would be vetted through BOM process. |
| o What automation tools were/are used so far by the incumbents? |
| (C.3.1.1 (18) and (19), pages 10-11 at a minimum) states that automated tests using SpecFlow/NUnit with reporting in Pickles exist in the software baseline currently. |
| o Are they installed on government servers/cloud or at a vendor site? |
| Vendor site. Offeror will be responsible for maintaining automation server/clients and code. |
| o Does the government own the licenses, and if so how many (broken-down by tool)? |
| No. Offeror will be responsible for purchasing/maintaining automated tool software/licenses through the BOM process. |
| - Percentage of automated regression testing: Does the government have a requirement on what percentage of the regression testing should be automated, e.g., 30%, 50%, or 80% ? |
| The percentage of automated regression testing will be negotiated after contract award. |
| - Performance testing requirements: Does the government have requirements on performance testing parameters that need to be achieved? |
| The performance requirements must be met for 17a through 17d. The Contractor is expected to improve the performance of pedigree searches as part of the CODIS 8.0/9.0 development effort. The Contractor is expected to meet these performance requirements for each CODIS release. Performance testing must be conducted for each CODIS release to verify that performance requirements are being satisfied. |
| - Test coverage and quality: Roughly, how many automation test scripts were developed and used so far (functional and performance), and have they fully satisfied the automation testing requirements to-date, or, if not, what is the gap percentagewise? |
| It is anticipated that approximately 200 automated functional tests will exist at the time of contract award. No automated tests exist for performance requirements. Only a small percentage of the existing functional requirements currently have an associated automated test. The Government desires the number of automated tests to increase as CODIS is enhanced over Task Order 3 and future task orders. New functionality being developed in Task Order 3 should have automated tests. |
- Existing test scripts:
| o Are we going to be granted access to the existing automation functional and performance test scripts? |
| After contract award, the Government will provide all existing source code including any automated tests. |
| o Are we supposed to continue building on the existing base, or start automation from scratch? |
| Currently, CODIS 7.0 Service Pack 7 will be the foundation architecture for CODIS 8.0. Test automation should continue building on the existing base. Existing automated tests were developed using SpecFlow. |
| 145 |
| Format A |
| Attachment 1 – Pricing Format |
| Please confirm that the CY columns (columns B and C) should total the costs of all five Task Orders cumulatively? |
| Confirmed. |
| 146 |
| Format B |
| Attachment 1 – Pricing Format |
| Format B has a single column for “Subcontractor (name)” (Column D). IF an offeror has multiple subcontractors providing a line item (e.g., labor, travel, or materials)? Are offerors allowed to add columns for additional subcontractors as applicable? |
| Offerors should add columns in line with their approach. Response should include a column for each subcontractor or IDT identified. |
| 147 |
| Format C |
| Attachment 1 – Pricing Format |
| If a line item in Format C is satisfied by multiple WBS elements, should offerors include the highest level WBS element to which it applies. For example, if an activity applies specifically to Rapid DNA Integration should offerors list only WBS 1.3.1.1, or should we list all WBS elements that apply (e.g., 1.3.1.1, 1.3.1.1.1, 1.3.1.1.2, 1.3.1.1.2.1, 1.3.1.1.2.2, 1.3.1.1.3). |
| Offerors are to list all Work Breakdown Structure details to support the decomposition of the provided WBS for their respective approach, to the lower levels of detail as directed in the cost proposal format instructions. |
| 148 |
| Format D |
| Attachment 1 – Pricing Format |
| Should offerors provide a new worksheet/tab for each subcontractor or should offerors provide a new set of tables for each subcontractor in the same worksheet tab? If we are to add new worksheets/tabs, is it permissible to apply the subcontractor’s name to the worksheet/tab name? |
| There should be one worksheet tab of Format D. Additional rows are to be added for additional subcontractors and/or interdivisional transfers, using the provided rows as a model. |
| 149 |
| Format D |
| Attachment 1 – Pricing Format |
| Should offerors add rows for additional subcontractors? |
| Yes. |
| Should offerors add rows for additional subcontractors and WBS elements? |
| Yes. |
| As this workbook is currently set up, there is significant modification that is necessary to make the worksheet match the WBS structure and the team structure that we will propose. |
| It is the responsibility of the Offeror to ensure that appropriate detail is provided in specific alignment with their technical approach, and therefore the Government cannot stipulate these lower-level details. |
| 150 |
| Format F |
| Attachment 1 – Pricing Format |
For each labor category there are three rows: Hours/Months, Rate, and Cost.
| - Is the hours/months row requesting a response of, for example, 160 hours/12 months or 160 hours per month? |
| Please provide the total hours by labor category for the contract year. |
| - Should these hours be a total across all task orders based on LOE for each labor category in its totality for the base period? |
| Yes, hours provided are to represent the total of all task orders in the appendices. |
| - Is the cost row requesting the total cost per month or total cost for the labor category for the Contract Year of the Base Period? |
| Please provide the total cost by labor category per contract year. |
| 151 |
| N/A |
| Question 70 of Answers to Questions |
| In Question 70 regarding EVM, the Government’s answer indicates Task Orders 2 and 3 will require EVM. Can the government specify the EVM requirements for Task Order 2 and 3 or provide to what extent EVM will be tracked for these task orders? |
| At this point, Task Order 3 only requires EVM. Future Task Orders issued against this IDIQ will identify at award if EVM will be applicable. |
| The RFP states, "In Section K, Offerors shall complete the Acquisition Risk Questions and Key Management Personnel Listing (KMPL) for the prime Offeror and all proposed subcontractors. Provision of false information shall be cause for default under the Default Clause of this contract." On the following page, there are a list of 11 questions related to an Acquisition Risk Questionnaire. Will the Government please confirm offerors are to insert the ARQ questions and answers at the end of Section K as part of the Contract Volume? The RFP states the questions are part of Section K, however, Section K does not currently reflect any questions. It is assumed the offeror is to insert the questions and answers in Section K to be consistent with the RFP clause. |
| Extract from the RFP Section H.1, "In Section K, Offerors shall complete the Acquisition Risk Questions and Key Management Personnel Listing (KMPL) for the prime Offeror and all proposed subcontractors. Provision of false information shall be cause for default under the Default Clause of this contract". Clarification, Offer and their subcontractors shall fill out the information (questions) required by the KMPL. This information shall be submitted to the CO in an individually sealed envelope since it contains personal information. Prime Offeror place information in a single sealed envelope and each individual subcontractor submit via a sealed envelope to the CO. The envelopes shall be submitted with the RFP. |
| After the 3rd paragraph in L.5.2, the government states, "The Offeror's technical proposal shall be organized as follows and include the line numbers addressed" and lists 16 bullets. |
| Offeror shall all of the below items. Submit in the order as bullets identified. This will aid the Government in the evaluation process |
| Can the government please confirm that the Offeror can address these bullets in our Volume II organized as we desire (and marked properly with the RFP references and in the traceability matrix) rather than have each of these bullets in that exact order in our Volume II response? For example, we would like to include the traceability matrix (bullet 16) at the front of the volume after the TOC for evaluation ease. |
| Offeror shall all of the below items. Submit in the order as bullets identified. This will aid the Government in the evaluation process |
Q&A #75 (Amendment 002)
| When asked if Offerors should include Section K in Volume I - Standard Form of Contract, the Government responded via Q&A provided in Amendment 002, "No, there will be a separate Section K. Contractor shall submit section K as Part 1 of the proposal." Will the Government please clarify offerors are to insert Section K (starting on page 67 - 71) at the end of Part I (page 56) of the RFP. |
| Section K shall be submitted in Volume I of the proposal |
| In the Government’s response to Question 100 in Amendment 2, the Government indicates that is does not desire to evaluate sealed package cost or pricing data. Section B of the RFP requires disclosure of direct costs, including direct costs from Subcontractors (and as confirmed elsewhere in the Government’s Answers). In Section L.4 Proposal Volume Requirements, page 77, the Instructions to Offerors indicate that the Government may or may not conduct a cost realism. Does the Government require all costs disclosed for both prime and subcontractors (including vendors proposing commercial items)? Since costs are deemed trade secret for each industry entity, they are not disclosed between industry entities, and are only disclosed to Government either via a sealed package or directly to the Government cognizant official. In the case of small businesses (to meet the 10% small business requirement) industry may issue Fixed type subcontracts. In the case of the Fixed type subcontract as well as the requirement for cost disclosure which occurs directly to Government, we are seeking clarification about the instructions in Section B, Section L, Government Answers to Questions 73 and 100, including whether or not the Government requires disclosure of all costs from all tiers if it decides to conduct a cost realism analysis, and, to confirm that such disclosure can be done via a sealed package or directly to the Government. In either event, it appears that Section B’s Pricing Sheets and instructions, only require the disclosure of direct costs subcontractors (and/or vendors) directly via the prime contractor’s disclosure in Section B. |
| Offeror shall submit direct costs which will include the price of the subcontractor's proposed labor or service. |
| 156 |
| 14 |
| C.3.1.1 24 a) i) first bullet |
| Please verify that the most recent version of DOJ IT Security Standards is DOJ 2640.2F (Nov. 2008) or identify the version we should be using. |
| Affirmative. The most recent version of the DOJ Order is 2640.2F dated November 26, 2008 |
| Please clarify the relative weights of each sub-factor and standard. |
| Unless specifically noted, all standards are equally weighted in the evaluation of the sub-factor. |
| 158 |
| General |
| Government’s answer #22 |
| Please clarify whether key personnel can operate under an interim Secret clearance until their final is approved. |
| This will be handled on an individual basis by the FBI Security Division. Most likely an interim will be sufficient but it cannot be answered on a blanket basis. |
| Q&A #55 |
| The past performance is in relation to the Prime Contractor. It is imperative the Prime Contractor possesses the skills and experience required to ensure the CODIS program is successful. |
| The Government's response to question#55 states that it is imperative the prime contractor possess the skills and experience required to ensure CODIS program success. Hence, the Government is only accepting past performance references from the prime contractor (and not their subcontractors). In order to consistently apply the importance of the prime possessing the skills and experience necessary to ensure success, please clarify that the Government will only accept as valid past performance references those citations where the prime contractor is acting in the capacity of prime contractor (versus merely being a subcontractor to some other company). If this is not the case then we request that such subcontractor references be graded lower than references where the offeror was fulfilling the requirements of prime contractor. |
| The Government will review and consider all past performance documentation submitted with the proposal. |
| 160 |
| 23 & 143 |
| C.3.2(89) & Appendix III & Attachment 4 |
| 89) Document and deliver a Liaison Plan within forty-five (45) calendar days of award detailing to the CO and COR how the Offeror will work with the Operations and the current Maintenance Offeror. Offeror will work with the current Maintenance Offeror until the current contract expires or the Government does not exercise future option periods. At a minimum, the plan shall be updated on an annual basis or within forty-five (45) days of any change in the Operations and Maintenance Offeror(s). |
| Attachment 5, Deliverables states that the Liaison plan is due within 30 days of award. Please clarify. |
| Liaison Plan is due 30 days after the award of Task Order #4. The award date of Task Order #4 has yet to be determined. |
6) Document and deliver a Liaison Plan detailing how the Offeror will work with the Operations offeror within thirty (30) days of award. At a minimum, the plan shall be updated on an annual basis or within forty-five (45) days of any change in Operations vendor.
| 161 |
| 7 |
| C.3.1.1(8) |
| The Offeror shall deliver FBI Life Cycle M gate artifacts in support of Government LCM technical assessments and Gate reviews, when defined by the Government CO or COR. |
| Should this read: The Offeror shall deliver FBI Life Cycle Management gate artifacts in support of Government LCM technical assessments and Gate reviews, when defined by the Government CO or COR. ? |
| Correct. The statement should read:"The Offeror shall deliver FBI Life Cycle Management gate artifacts in support of Government LCM technical assessments and Gate reviews, when defined by the Government CO or COR." |
| 162 |
| 12 |
| C.3.1.1(20)(i) |
| All meeting minutes shall be available within ten (10) work days of the meeting. |
| This appears to conflict with Line 62 of Attachment 5 which states "All minutes <3 business days following meeting" |
| All meeting minutes < 3 business days following the meeting. |
| 163 |
| 10 |
| C.3.1.1(18)(n)(ii) |
| Read ahead material e.g. agenda items, problem reports, etc. (Minimum of 24 hours in advance of meeting) |
| This appears to conflict with Line 63 of Attachment 5 which states "Agenda at least 2 business days prior to meeting" |
| Agenda should be available a minimum of working 48 hours in advance of meeting. |
| 164 |
| 10 |
| C.3.1.1(18)(n)(iii) |
| Meeting minutes are to be delivered to the Government within ten (10) business days from the CCB. |
| This appears to conflict with Line 62 of Attachment 5 which states "All minutes <3 business days following meeting" |
| All meeting minutes < 3 business days following the meeting |
| C.3.1.1 |
| (General; numerous requirements) |
| Can the Government please specify how many CODIS baselines need to be supported at any given time? |
| Task Order #3 would only have one baseline (the main development baseline of 8.0 and then 9.0.) In addition and when awarded, Task Order #4 would need to support the two most recent baselines. |
| Attachment 5, Line 117 |
| sprint build DVD (should support both new installs and migrations) |
| Does the FBI expect a full build be delivered after each sprint via DVD or DVD-compatible ISO image? |
| The government does not expect a full build delivered after each sprint. However, the Government reserves the right to request delivery of any or all sprint builds; delivery anticipated via DVD or electronic means. |
| 167 |
| 12 |
| C.3.1.1(21)(f) |
| Complete review forms for every code or document review and check them into the CM repository within seven (7) business days after each review. When work products are delivered to the CODIS COR, these forms should be delivered as well. |
| The review forms are not listed in the formal deliverables schedule for Attachment 5, and represent a burden inconsistent with Agile Methodology as required per the contract. Recommend removing the requirement that the forms be kept under CM control. |
| At this point, this will remain a requirement. The requirement for review forms under CM control could change at Task Order award. |
| 168 |
| CF-E |
| Q&A# 73 |
| An Offeror asked "Is it acceptable to for the prime contractor to input the proposed fully burdened rates(s) from its subcontractors in lieu of the "direct labor cost"? The Government has indicated that "Direct Labor Costs is what the Government requires" |
| This answer contradicts the answer for Q&A #100. Subcontractors rarely - if ever - share their direct labor costs with prime contractors. Please clarify how Prime Contractors are to price subcontractors when the subcontractor will not provide their direct labor rate to the Prime. |
| Offerors shall submit fully-loaded subcontract pricing. |
| 169 |
| General |
| Q&A# 100 |
| An offeror asked "Will the Government allow Subcontractors to submit their proprietary information in either sealed packages with the prime offerors proposal or directly to the Government via e-mail?" The Government has indicated that "Sent in a sealed package via the Prime Offeror" is acceptable but "not the Government's desire for evaluating the Prime's Proposal." |
| This answer contradicts the answer for Q&A #73. Since the convention for this industry is for subcontractors to provide only fully-loaded labor rates to their Prime Contractors, please clarify that this will be sufficient for pricing this proposal. |
| Offerors shall submit fully-loaded subcontract pricing. |
| 170 |
| General |
| Q&A# 100 |
| An offeror asked "Will the Government allow Subcontractors to submit their proprietary information in either sealed packages with the prime offerors proposal or directly to the Government via e-mail?" The Government has indicated that "Sent in a sealed package via the Prime Offeror" is acceptable but "not the Government's desire for evaluating the Prime's Proposal." |
| Since it is not the Government's desire to evaluate a subcontractor's sealed package proposal, would the Government consider removing the requirement for the submission of any cost data from either the prime or the subcontractors? If the Government eliminates the CPFF contract type from consideration, there would be no need to evaluate cost or pricing data. Furthermore, T&M would retain the Government's desired flexibility for the development work under Task Order 3, while removing any uncertainty regarding cost fluctuations. |
| Offerors shall submit fully-loaded subcontract pricing. If a cost plus task order is issued in the future, the Offeror shall be responsible for supporting the cost to the Government via cost review. |
| 171 |
| Contract Clauses |
| I.1 |
| EVM is a requirement for this program, but the Government has not included the applicable FAR clause in Section I of the draft contract. |
| Please clarify which Earned Value Management System FAR Clause applies. Is it 52.234-2, 52.234-3 or 52.234-4? |
| 52.234-3 Notice of Earned Value Management System - Post Award IBR applies. The government does not expect to review and approve the Offorers Plan EVMS prior to contract award. However and at this point, the government does expect to review and approve the plan EVMS prior to Task Order 3 award. |
| Does the current CODIS 7.0 architecture baseline meet the performance metrics in 17a-d? |
| The current CODIS 7.0 SP6 release meets the performance requirements for 17a and 17b. Performance requirements for 17c and 17d are not being met by the existing CODIS architecture. The Contractor is expected to improve the performance of pedigree searches as part of the CODIS 8.0/9.0 development effort. The Contractor is expected to meet these performance requirements for each CODIS release. Performance testing must be conducted for each CODIS release to verify that performance requirements are being satisfied. |
| 173 |
| 8 and 108 |
| C.3.1.1 17.a) and Appendix 3, Task Order 3, Enhancement #1 |
| SOW Section C.3.1.1 item 17.a) states "50 million DNA profiles, DNA searched against 50 million DNA profiles in eight (8) hours or less using moderate stringency." |
| The performance requirement stated in 17a is not the same as the performance requirement for Task Order 3, Enhancement #1. Both performance requirements must be satisfied for CODIS 8.0 and 9.0. Both performance requirements are stated correctly. |
However, Appendix 3, Task Order 3, Enhancement #1, states "It is critical that SERs and RSRs containing a single specimen be processed in less than one minute when searching at least one million rapid enabled single source forensic profiles at high stringency with no missed STR loci. The current performance requirement for processing uploads and performing autosearches at NDIS must be satisfied while concurrently processing SERs and RSRs."
Please clarify whether moderate or high stringency is required.
| Please provide more detail on expectations for a Unit or Integration “Test Event,” including the level of formality, degree of documentation, and government participation. |
| Unit and Integration testing should be constantly recurring anytime new code is applied to a build during development. Evidence of Unit testing shall be an informal summary of test coverage, upon request. Integration testing should have a test report which includes test scenarios executed against existing functionality impacted by the new code being integrated. The FBI PMO may provide guidance/feedback to the developer on integration test scenarios. |
| The RFP indicates “Offeror shall expand from existing automated testing capability, which will be provided by the Government, for developed software changes.” Does the “existing automated testing capability” provided by the Government include all existing scripts and any applicable test environment, tools, data, and test harnesses supporting the execution of those scripts? |
| Existing automated scripts, data, test harnesses, and description of suggested test environment will be provided to the Offeror. |
| Should the contractor consider the off-site back-up location as a Government facility? |
| No. It will be the Offeror's responsibility. |
| The SOW states: “Offeror’s facility is an evaluation item within Section M.” However, we can find no reference to it in M. Please clarify the factor, subfactor, and standard under which the Offeror’s facility will be evaluated. |
| The Offeror's response to the requirement in Section C.5 will be evaluated. It falls under the technical factor. |
| The partial waiver indicates “all CODIS users must be sighted and have the full use of their hands.” There are Section 508 requirements that apply to people who are “sighted” but have some visual difficulties with seeing certain colors, smaller font sizes, flashing/blinking text/images etc. Please define “sighted” (for example, does it mean no visual impairments that would impact seeing a GUI, webpage, etc?). |
| It means no visual impairments that impact seeing a GUI. |
| Will the government provide to the contractor as GFI, mock/test data that is not subject to data protection requirements as would be required for operational CODIS data that is Law Enforcement Sensitive (LES) but Unclassified? |
| The Government will provide the existing data-set generator (DSG) to the Contractor for creating test specimen and pedigree data. The Contractor is responsible for maintaining the DSG for each CODIS release. The Contractor is responsible for creating realistic test data regardless of the capabilities of the existing DSG utility. The Government will not provide operational CODIS data to support the development effort. |
| Will the development/test systems or workspaces need to accommodate any classified levels other than those appropriate to connect to the CJIS SEN? |
| There will be no higher classification requirements other than those appropriate to connect to the CJIS SEN. |
| Given that documents created in MS Office 2010 (Word, Excel, and PowerPoint) are fully readable in MS Office 2007, can we submit our proposal in MS Office 2010? |
| The documents submitted shall be executable and readable by the Government using MS Office 2007. Submitted documentation shall be readable in MS Office 2007. |
| The RFP states “The Offeror should recognize that the Government and contract evaluators will be using the electronic version for reading, searching, reviewing, and evaluating. Proposals shall embed all external objects in native format in order to allow the evaluators to better understand the proposal and concepts contained therein.” |
| Proposals shall not embed external objects that are not readable in MS Office 2007. The Government will not install any other COTS products other than MS Office 2007 in order to read and evaluate the Offeror's proposal." |
This offeror notes that 1) embedded objects cannot be searched within MS-Word even if they are in native format, 2) external objects that are embedded in native format cannot be opened if the originating software product is not installed on the evaluators’ computers (for example, Adobe Illustrator or MS-Project or MS-Visio), and 3) these same objects, when embedded as pdf objects can be searched when clicked on in the document.
Will the Government modify this requirement to permit embedded objects to be provided in pdf format?
| 183 |
| 80 |
| L.4.1.1 (second table) and Amendment #2 Question 14. |
| The answer to question 14 in Amendment 2 indicates that the offeror’s BOE format is acceptable and there is no page limit. In RFP Section L.4.1.1, the second table, titled “Volume and page Limitation,” states in the page limit column for Vol III Basis of Estimate “Same as tables See J.2.1”. Please provide additional clarification on this statement and its effect on Vol III Basis of Estimate. |
| Reference to J.2.1 is incorrect in reference to the BOE. There is no page limitation for the BOE. |
| The RFP states “…and include the line numbers addressed.” Please clarify what line numbers are being referenced. |
| The Offeror's technical proposal shall be organized in the following chronology and include all of the following bullets addressed below. |
| 185 |
| 82 |
| L.5.2 and Amendment #2 Question 58 |
| The required outline presented in Section L.5.2 identifies Exceptions and Assumptions as a separate section from the Executive Summary. The response to question 58 indicates the Government prefers these be included in the Executive Summary. Given that the Executive Summary is limited to a single page, will the Government permit Exceptions and Assumptions to be listed in a separate section, as described in L.5.2? |
| The requirement states, the Government "prefers", not required. |
| Please verify that the following 2 items appearing as separate bullets in Section L.5.2 Volume II Technical Response to Requirements can be combined into a single section in the proposal that is being submitted: |
| Yes |
• Government-Furnished Items (if required). GFE and GFI will be evaluated as cost to the Government.
• List any additional Government-furnished hardware, if required, software, etc., required to address and deliver the requirements in Section C and the Task Orders by CLIN.
| 187 |
| 83 |
| L.5.2.1 and L.5.2.3 |
| Please verify that the missing heading, L.5.2.2 should appear just prior to the paragraph addressing resumes of key personnel. |
| Yes |
| 188 |
| 85 |
| L.5.5 and Attachment 6 |
| Section L.5.5 indicates that 3 contract references are to be provided, while Attachment 6 (Section 2) states “Include at least three contracts.” Should the contracts listed in Attachment 6 be the same 3 provided in the page-limited past performance section? |
| Yes |
| 189 |
| 86 |
| L.5.5; J.2.1, Attachment 6 (16) |
| The Management Questionnaire is referred to in Section L as Attachment 6 and in the file name, however, the actual attachment is titled Attachment 16 at the top of the page. Please verify this is Attachment 6. |
| Attachment 6 |
| The instructions for orals state, “…up to three presenters and one observer in the room at a time.” Will offerors be permitted to bring more presenters (for example, all our proposed key personnel) and observers and switch them in and out of the room during the presentation, so long as the maximum numbers are maintained? |
| No. A maximum of four (4) persons will be admitted before the presentation and all four will be required to stay for the duration. |
| 191 |
| 101 |
| Appendix I, Item 7.j |
| Please confirm that, while the development site must be within 35 driving miles of the Government’s Quantico facility, the data center can be located elsewhere, so long as it meets the Government’s standards for securely storing and accessing data. |
| The Government's preference is to be co-located but not required. |
| Will the government provide support for grooming the backlog outside of the sprint reviews? |
| Yes. The Government will actively participate with the Contractor in product and release backlog grooming throughout the SDLC. |
J.2.1, Attachment 6 (16)
| Item 1 of Attachment 6 requests “the approximate work distribution (by dollar value) expressed as a percentage between Government contracts and commercial contracts for work similar to that required by the solicitation.” Please answer the following: |
| a) Yes b) Yes |
a) Does this refer to all similar work performed by the Offeror within the past 3 years?
b) Does this refer only to the 3 contracts cited in the Past Performance section?
J.2.1, Attachment 6 (16)
| Item 2 of Attachment 6 stipulates, “Equivalent efforts shall be of similar contract types (e.g., IDIQ), durations, and cost.” Are task orders and standard contracts considered equivalent contract types if they are similar in complexity of effort? |
| Past experience should be of similar size and complexity, but Offerors shall have experience performing on an IDIQ contract. |
Amendment #2, Questions 70 and 94
| The answer to question 70 in amendment 2 states EVM is required for Task 2 and 3, however, the answer to question 94 says EVM is required for Task 3. Please clarify. |
| At this point, Task Order 3 only requires EVM. Future Task Orders issued against this IDIQ will identify if EVM will be applicable. EVM will be required for any/all development task orders of an appropriate pricing type (CP, T&M, etc.). |
Amendment #2 Question 41
| The answer for question 41 does not appear to relate to the question asked, regarding the Government’s expectation for the content of the Small Business Participation Plan. Please clarify |
| Small Business Participation Plan and Price as prescribed in Section M.8 of this IDIQ RFP. At least ten (10) percent annually of the services labor (Development and or Maintenance) shall be subcontracted to a minimum of one Small Business. Within the best value continuum, the Government will employ a tradeoff analysis of price and non-price factors in evaluating the proposals submitted. The Offeror’s initial proposal shall contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. The IDIQ resulting from this solicitation will be awarded to the Offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation requirements, is determined to provide the “best value” to the Government. |
| Please verify that all deadline references to times are for ET rather than EST. |
| Reference should be to Eastern Time |
