TFM2_SIR-RFO_Amend-1_Industry_Comment_Responses_10-3-2016.pdf

TFM2 SIR/RFO (8/2/16) Amendment 1 (9/13/16) Industry Comment Response 10/3/2016

No. Section Paragraph or Sub-section #

Page Questions, Comments & Recommendations FAA Response

1 C C.7.2.1 18 Regarding “The Contractor must conduct first round of formal Government witnessed acceptance testing. Is any Contactor test support required for subsequent rounds of testing?

Yes, the Contractor must perform and support other test activities per Section C.7.2. “first round” has been deleted from C.7.2.1 to avoid confusion.

2 C C.7.2.2, F.4.2, Figure F-1

Is the TFM2 Contractor responsible for the OT&E TRR conduct and delivery of CDRL/DID M02?

No, the OT&E conduct is led by the FAA.

Section C.7.2.2 states, “The Contractor must support Government conduct of formal Operational Testing and Evaluation (OT&E)…”

3 C C.7.2.2 19 Regarding “The Contractor must provide timely analysis and response to new Problem Trouble Reports.” Is there an expectation/definition of timely?

“Timely” means that the contractor must successfully achieve schedule milestones that will be negotiated by release and identified in Sections F and H. Apart from meeting these milestones, the Government intends the common meaning of the term timely and expects. the common understanding to be applied to the specific situational context in question, e.g., severity, volume, and priority of PTRs.

The FAA added the following statement to C.7.2.5, “The FAA reserves the right to unilaterally determine PTR severity classification and priority (see section H.10.2 for PTR severity definitions).”

4 C C.10.1.1(g)

C.10.2.2(b)

Currently the SOW states:

“Escalate issues impacting operations that require coordination with 2nd Level through the SLE En Route Helpdesk;”

“For SLE support inquiries, the Contractor must open a ticket in the En Route & Oceanic Support Ticketing System, a Government managed web-based ticketing tool;”

However, in Q&A #3 the Government released the following information: “Regarding the number of tickets opened by the contractor in the En Route and Oceanic Support Ticketing System, this is primarily used by external customers. The contractor will open SLE tickets in AIMS – relevant numbers are included in the count below.”

(1) Please clarify whether or not the Contractor is

1) The Contractor will only be required to open tickets in the En Route ticketing system for inquires, not problem trouble reports. C.10.2.2.b has been revised to clarify this requirement.

2) The Contractor First Level Support personnel will not use a tool (i.e., SLE Enroute Help Desk) when escalating issues to the SLE, the SLE must be contacted by phone.

For issues impacting operations, First Level must request SLE assistance by calling the En Route helpdesk.

C.10.1.1.g&h have been clarified. The Offeror is not required to develop an interface between the first and second level issue tracking tools.

3) If the first level functions are transferred, Contractor SLE task assignments will still be based on tickets created by both the En Route and AIMS tools. Section 10.2.2. describes what circumstances dictate the use of each of these two systems.

or Sub-section #

Page Questions, Comments & Recommendations FAA Response expected to open and use En Route Helpdesk tickets and under which circumstances? Also, please update the SOW accordingly.

(2) What system should the Contractor First Level Support (FLS) personnel use when escalating issues to the Contractor TFMS Second Level Engineering (SLE)? Could the contractor use HP Service Desk for this purpose?

(3) If FLS functions (Optional CLIN 1) transitions to eFAST, and SLE support remains on TFM2, how will the Contractor SLE engineers get their work assigned to them (via En Route Helpdesk or via

AIMS)?

(4) Are we correct to assume that the TFM2 FLS is to use the En Route and Oceanic help desk ticketing system when they need to coordinate with En Route and Oceanic 2nd Level Engineering?

4) No, the Contractor First Level support staff will not be required to enter tickets in the En Route tool, the En Route and Oceanic help desk must be contacted by phone.

5 C C.11.2 34 “In addition, the following equipment must be replaced at the locations indicated using the same models for development test and support:

• TPC – 27 fileservers/workstations, 42 monitors, 3 routers and 5 switches.

• DRC – 25 fileservers/workstations and 38 monitors.

• Contractor site – 37 fileservers/workstations, 33 monitors, 4 routers and 4 switches.”

The requirement does not identify the specific models from J-4.A for the equipment identified.

Please confirm if the following hardware equipment models are correct for these sites:

File servers/workstations – HP xw4600 Monitors – 24” HP L2445W Routers – CISCO 2811 Ethernet Router Switches – CISCO 2960G-24 Ethernet Switch

For the refresh, the make and models do not need to be the same as the existing make and models existing in the field (for pricing CLIN 9A, the refresh do not to be the same as J-4.A). The make and models chosen, however, must be the same across the entire refresh. The make and models chosen must be of equal or better performance than the make and model present in the field. Sections C.11.2 and L.7.2 have been clarified accordingly.

or Sub-section #

Page Questions, Comments & Recommendations FAA Response

6 C & J-4A

C.11.2 & J-4.A, Tab 3

“The Contractor must replace all the equipment listed in Attachment J-4.A, Site Equipment List, tab “3 - Remote Site Equipment” (note DSP equipment is not included in this list and is not required to be replaced).”

Tab 3 of J-4.A, Site Equipment list includes 371 Sharp PN-E601 Esis Panels. The requirement statement is contradictory. Please confirm if the CLIN 9 technical refresh should include the ESIS panels shown in Tab 3.

CLIN 9 technical refresh requirements do not include ESIS panels; this discrepancy has been corrected in Section B, C.11.2 and L.7.2 pricing guidance by adding, “except for large displays (column R), also known as ESIS or TVLD.”

7 C, F & J-4A

C.11.2 F.5.1 J-4A

Tab 3

The Sites listed in Tables F.5-2, F.5-3, and F.5-4 include sites that are not listed in J-4.A Tab 3 Remote Site Equipment.

The requirements to refresh all locations listed in F.5.1 and all equipment listed in J-4.A Tab 3 are conflicting. Please confirm the assumption that CLIN 9 estimation and pricing is based on the list of sites and equipment included in J-4.A Tab 3 and the TPC, DRC, and Contractor Site as specified in C.11.2. The Sites listed in F.5.1 but missing in J-4.A are: DEN, EOC, ISP, SEA and ZUA.

1. Tables included in Section F.5 are presented in a slightly different format from J-4A, Tab 3; this is because some sites are combined as one location based on their geographical location (e.g. Denver). For the purpose of pricing this requirement, the FAA chose to combine site information where the equipment is in close vicinity. However, at these site locations, there may be more than one address as in the case for the Denver site which has equipment in more than one building. In this case, DEN ATCT HW quantities are combined with D01 (Denver TRACON) in J-4.A row 22 since this is a combined site. It’s listed in F.5 separately because the ATCT workstation(s) are at a different building.

2. The EOC site has only one workstation which is included with the FAAHQ quantity in J-4.A Tab 3 row 27). The FAA chose to list this site in F.5 separately because the building locations are different.

3. The ISP site only has DSP equipment which is not in scope of CLIN 9A. SectionC.11.2 and L.7.2 have been revised to clarify this requirement.

4. SEA ATCT HW quantities are combined with S46 (Seattle TRACON) in J-4.A row 55 since this is another example of a combined site. The FAA chose to list the locations of these two sites in F.5 separately because the workstation(s) are located in two different buildings.

5. ZUA was not omitted from J-4, Tab 3; it is included on row 89.

or Sub-section #

Page Questions, Comments & Recommendations FAA Response

8 J-4.B Document J-4B Commercial Software lists Oracle Database, WebLogic, RAC and other Oracle Software Products. Why isn’t the FAA looking at Oracle for Linux and Virtualization?

CLIN 3 is just for continuing support of what we have, not for replacing commercial SW products with different ones.

9 J-4.B Lines 170-

Regarding Oracle Products under FAA EULA, the Oracle products listed on lines 170-182 are listed with no recurring costs because they are covered under the FAA EULA. Please confirm that bidders should not provide pricing for these items.

Regarding Oracle products under FAA EULA, this is the correct interpretation of the CLIN 3 pricing guidance in Section L.7.2.

10 J-4.B Reference TFM2 SIR/RFO Industry Comment Response 9-13-16 Question #11 FAA response:

“The FAA is aware that certain VMware products are no longer available for future purchase, however the government has obtained market information that indicates “VMware will continue to support versions listed on lines 164 -167 through the "published product lifecycle" support period (March 2020 according to the vendor website).

The FAA requires continued support with the current license unless, and/or until the vendor no longer provides product support.”

There are other products besides VMware vSphere Enterprise, in the Commercial Software list that are nearing or will reach end of support during the full potential life of the TFM2 contract. Many of these product vendors, like VMware, have announced end of life/end of support dates (e.g., Tripwire, Red Hat, Oracle). Other vendors have not made announcements, while some offer custom quotes for extended support (e.g., SAS).

The Government’s answer to Question 11 implies that bidders should only provide pricing for any commercial software support up to the publically announced date when the vendor no longer offers support. Please confirm this assumption.

Please provide pricing guidance for products with no announced end of support/end of life date or

No, the FAA disaffirms the assumption offerors should only provide pricing up to the current vendor published end date.

Offerors should explore and propose options for extending product vendor support beyond any current publically announced end dates provided proposed options do not include replacement of a product with a different one (CLIN 3 is recurring vendor support cost only, not for labor to replace products).

If the vendor of given product refuses to extend support beyond a point specific point in time, then Offerors should price beyond that time as zero and explain in their cost proposal why no costs are included beyond that point in time. If a vendor has not indicated a firm end date for support, then Offerors should assume it will be continued for the full CLIN 3 POP.

Section L.7.2 CLIN 3 pricing guidance has been clarified accordingly.

or Sub-section #

Page Questions, Comments & Recommendations FAA Response when the vendor offers custom quotes for support.

11 J-5-

CDRL

E14

Block 12 Regarding “60 DA Deployed to Operations”, please clarify the meaning of deployed to operations. Is this the Ready for Operations milestone?

See Section F Figure F-1 (Typical TFMS Release Timeline) – Deployed to Operations is equivalent to “National Deployment.”

12 J-5-

CDRL

L03

Block 12 Regarding “with Each major release”, please clarify.

Is this the same as the Ready for Operations milestone?

J-5, CDRL L05 has been revised to clarify this requirement; FAA changed block 10 to “Semi-Annually or 30 days after a major TFMS Release, or a TFMS hardware/software baseline change, is deployed to operations, whichever occurs first.”

13 J-5-

CDRL

L05

Block 12 Regarding “30 DA Deployment Release”, please clarify. Is this the same as Ready for Operations milestone?

J-5, CDRL L05 has been revised to clarify this requirement; FAA changed block 10 to” Semi-Annually or 30 days after a major TFMS Release, or a TFMS hardware/software baseline change, is deployed to operations, whichever occurs first.”

14 L L.2.9 9 "Enroute Computer Services" has been added to the list of companies having OCI concerns. Please clarify if the company having OCI concerns in "Enroute Computer Services" or "Enroute Computer Solutions". Recommend to revise Section L if the intended company was not identified.

Section L.2.9 has been revised to delete Enroute Computer Services. There is currently no OCI concern with Enroute Computer Solutions.

15 L L.4.3.4 14 (1st Paragraph) For hard copies, printing on both sides is preferred. A page printed on both sides will count as two pages. Recommend that back sides of pages marked as "Intentionally Left Blank" will not be counted as part of the volume page count.

The FAA agrees with this recommendation.

16 L L.4.3.4 14 Reference TFM2 SIR/RFO Industry Comment Response 9-13-16 Question #35 response

The FAA’s response to Q&A #35 indicated that 11x17 foldouts must be printed in landscape format.

However, the change in Section L indicates portrait orientation. Please consider modifying Section L to be consistent with the response to Q&A #35 and require 11x17 foldouts to be printed in landscape orientation.

The FAA has revised Section L.4.3.4to correct this discrepancy.

17 L L.4.3.4 14 (2nd Paragraph) 11” by 17” pages must be printed in portrait orientation, folded to 8.5” by 11”, and must be secured within the volume binder. The FAA will count 11” by 17” print outs as two pages for each side, i.e., a two sided print of 11” by 17” will be

FAA agrees with this recommendation and Section L has been revised to reflect the change.

or Sub-section #

Page Questions, Comments & Recommendations FAA Response counted as four pages. Recommend that 11x17 pages be printed in Landscape so schedules and timelines can be seen vertically vs. horizontally.

18 L L.4.3.5

14 3rd Paragraph: In addition to hard copies, proposals must be submitted in electronic files on CD or DVD.

Electronic copies must match original hard copy of record. Additional information will not be evaluated or considered. The FAA must be able to edit all files using Microsoft Office 2010 software; the Offeror is responsible for ensuring software versions are compatible with this version. All MS Excel files must include cell references and calculations. The electronic copies must be marked with Offeror’s name, SIR /Amendment number, volume name(s), and volume number(s).

Recommend that cost spreadsheets (i.e., Excel files for BOE's and Cost Workbooks) be submitted electronically only. This will allow for easier review of the information as well as aide in the "green" initiative.

FAA agrees with this recommendation. Section L has been updated to reflect the change.

19 L L.5.6.3 Factor 3, Subfactor

C

18 Regarding the statement “The Offeror must discuss in detail the functions provided by the development environment, as well as the level of automation provided for each of the functions.”

Please clarify the term ‘functions’ or provide examples of functions?

Please clarify if the term ‘development environment’ only applies to the development phase (post-SDR to WSAT TRR) of the SDLC, or does it cover the entire engineering lifecycle including System Engineering inclusive of pre-SDR and post WSAT- TRR activities?

In response to the request to provide examples of functions, the FAA does not want to be more prescriptive than necessary on how an offeror should develop and manage software, however we edited the sentence in question to replace “functions” with “features”. Please see Attachment J-5 CDRL/DID E-06, Software Development Plan, for more information on FAA expectations regarding the scope of the development environment.

“Development environment” in this context is focused on software development, as indicated by this subfactor reference to C.5.5, and is applicable post-SDR through the rest of the software lifecycle in support of sustaining operations, e.g., correcting problems.

The FAA added “processes and tools” to the first paragraph of Subfactor 3C to improve consistency with Section M text and deleted “and” from paragraph c to avoid confusion and improve consistency.

or Sub-section #

Page Questions, Comments & Recommendations FAA Response

20 L L.7.2

CLIN 11.A

26 (3rd Paragraph) FAA stated that offeror should assume the FAA will provide ASDE-X airport layout map data as GFI in XML format. An ICD was not provided. ASDE-X airport data file was not provided with adaptation data. Please provide ICD description of ASDE-X airport layout map and/or sample adaptation XML data file.

The FAA has provided a sample file as an Attachment J-6.I.

21 L-1 3 Regarding “PTRs implemented for 2016- 181”.

Does the statement mean 181 over a 12-month period, or 181 for calendar year 2016 to date?

181 for the 2016 calendar year to date.

22 L-3 Tab C Where should bidders propose the costs for CLIN3?

Tab C in the L3 Workbook is blank except for the following statement " Deleted per Amendment 1". It is unclear whether CLIN 3 should be priced, and if so, where should these costs be shown?

Offerors must provide CLIN 3 costs on L-3 Tab A as stated in Section L.7.3.1.1.

23 L-3 Tab D The Government provided hours in all labor cats except for the Adaptation Lead as stated in Amend 1 for the T&M CLIN # 6 and #7. However there are no hours for 2 labor cats in CLIN #8. Were these omissions intentional? The labor cats that did not get included in CLIN 8 are below:

Hardware Engineer Junior Level Test Engineer Junior Level

The FAA did not provide a separate row and hours in L-3 Tab D for the Adaptation Lead since we consider this category equivalent to the Senior Software Engineer per Attachment J-7, Labor Category Minimum Qualifications.

The FAA does not think there will be work under CLIN 8 appropriate for Junior HW and test engineer categories.

24 L-3 Tab D Will the Government provide a version of the L3 Workbook that incorporates the amend 1 changes, but removes the changed items? For example Tab D includes labor categories and hours that are crossed out. Request that the Government provide a clean copy version of the L3 Workbook.

FAA agrees with this recommendation and has included an updated version of L-3 with Amendment 002.

25 L-3 & J-7

Tab D Reference TFM2 SIR/RFO Industry Comment 9-13- 16 Question #48 response.

Regarding the response statement, “Also see the note at bottom of J-7, “This is not an all-inclusive list of potentially acceptable labor categories.” Offeror wishing to propose different category titles must either map them to the equivalent titles provided by the FAA or clearly indicated proposed additions.”

For the purpose of evaluation, Offerors may propose alternate titles only for T&M labor categories; all proposed T&M Labor Categories must be equivalent to, and map to, a Labor Category listed in J-7. Alternate titles must appear in L-3 Tab D Rate Table, in place of the equivalent FAA Labor Category, with a key or brief explanation included on the worksheet. The L-3 Tab D instructions have been revised accordingly.

Per L.7.3.1.4, Offerors must propose a single fully burdened labor rate for each specified labor category on the T&M Labor or Sub-section #

Page Questions, Comments & Recommendations FAA Response

Please clarify how offerors should propose additional labor categories that do not map to those provided by the FAA.

Category Rate Table in L-3 Tab D.

Offerors must clearly explain the rationale and demonstrate the labor rate buildup methodology used to develop the rates in their cost/price proposal supporting details. The proposed rates must be traceable to the categories in L-3 Tab D.

26 M M.6.2.4 Factor 3, Subfactor

B

8 FAA modified Element 2 to include the evaluation of the degree to which the proposed basis for the estimate … is efficient and minimizes risk of degrading system performance. While an Offeror could create a performance model for a system design from scratch, the 3 releases are added to the existing TFMS system architecture and code base. There are key elements of information that are not available to a non-incumbent, and that the FAA has not published, that are needed to establish a realistic and complete TFMS performance impact model. This information includes:

• Documentation of the Trajectory Algorithms which implementation will have to be modified for IDP (J3A_TFMS_Functional Description, Appendix A is not provided),

• Design model (e.g., class diagrams, sequence diagrams, and deployment diagrams). While the SSDD and SDD are provided, they describe the overall generic architecture and typical transactions used in the system. They do not document the exact implementation of the capabilities.

• Performance characteristics of the current TFMS system under design workload would show how much reserve is currently available to support additional processing.

The incumbent has access to the algorithms, the MagicDraw model, the TFMS performance model, and the actual performance metrics. Please make these items available to all Offerors or modify the evaluation factor to evaluate the Offerors proposed engineering activities to efficiently identify and

Additional system performance information has been added to Attachment L-1 regarding utilization of key system components.

The FAA has considered the request for the additional information and has determined it is not necessary. The following has been added to M.6.1:

Offerors must only use information published with the SIR for proposal preparation purposes. For example, system security sensitive or FOUO design documentation not provided with the SIR cannot be used. If any such information is used, it won’t be considered and the FAA re-serves the right to assess a related risk or a weakness.

or Sub-section #

Page Questions, Comments & Recommendations FAA Response mitigate performance impact.

27 M M.6.6.4 15 (3rd Paragraph) Section refers to AMS Clause

3.2.2.7. However, this clause does not exist. AMS

Clause 3.2.2.7-1 is Qualifications Requirements, which is applicable to SIRs and contracts when acquisition is subject to qualification requirements (e.g., testing or demonstration) prior to award.

Please clarify the applicable AMS Clause.

Section M.6.6.4 references AMS Policy section 3.2.2.7 Contractor Qualifications and does not intend to reference an AMS clause.

The full text of the referenced AMS Policy made be found at http://fast.faa.gov .

http://fast.faa.gov/