Document_Management_System_-_QA_-_8-Aug-18.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

AIR FORCE INSTALLATION CONTRACTING AGENCY

08 August 2018

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS FOR

DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (DMS) - SOLICITATION FA8052-18-R-0021

(The following questions were submitted prior to the 1-Aug-2018, 3p.m. deadline and after the first set of answers were released):

Question: In reading the Q&A posted on 1-Aug-2018, it appears you have already selected your solution. This does not make sense to me - as you say there is no incumbent - but you have the system in place and you are happy with it. This was not mentioned in the sources sought - nor was it stated in the RFP.

Answer: This is a new requirement for our agency, meaning a contract does not currently exist for this specific requirement; therefore, there is no incumbent.

Prior to requesting the establishment of this requirement, various Military Treatment Facilities (MTFs) acquired the web-based commercial sterile processing DMS via their individual Government Purchase Card (GPC) accounts. Use of a web-based commercial sterile processing DMS is now mandated for all Air Force MTFs. We issued a Sources Sought to query industry to see if this requirement could be satisfied by multiple vendor; thus providing a fair opportunity and increase competition for this new requirement.

Question: Referencing RFP Instructions Evaluation (Page 2 of 10):

The instructions state that the page limit for Volume I is 20 pages total. Further instructions restrict “documentation for each proposed technical approach to 3 pages”. Please clarify what is meant by ‘each proposed technical approach’. Please clarify if the three pages is included in the 20 pages or not.

Answer: For Volume I (Factor 1) ‘Each proposed technical approach’ refers to the three (3) sub-factors found in the table on page 7 of the RFP. There is a 3 page limit for each technical approach to explain the approach the offeror proposes for each sub-factor in meeting the SOW requirements dated 3 May 2018 (for a maximum of 9 pages within the 20 pages total allowed for Volume I).

Please note Page 4 of the RFP:

Additional Copies: Each volume submitted must contain two electronic copies each. The second copy must be redacted to exclude any distinguishing logos, verbiage, or other markings which would make any references to the company’s identity.

Question: Referencing RFP Instructions Evaluation (Page 9 of 10):

Section refers to Attachment 3-6 – Attachment 3 is Clauses; Attachment 4 is contract provisions;

and there are no attachments 5 and 6. Please verify that it was attachments 5-1 through 5-3 that was meant in the requirement.

Answer: This answer verifies attachments 5-1 through 5-3 were meant in the requirement.

Question: Referencing RFP Instructions Evaluation (Attachment 5-2):

A.) Instructions including with Attachment 5-2 state the Client Authorization Letter is applicable to private sector entities. However, RFP Instructions Evaluation document lists the Authorization Letter as one of the required documents for submission. Please confirm that the Client Authorization Letter is required only for those Past Performance References from private section entities and not from government references.

B.) Should a copy of the letter be included in the submission to the government?

Answer: A) This answer confirms that the Client Authorization Letter is required only for those Past Performance References from private section entities and not from government references.

B) If applicable, a copy of the letter should be included in the submission to the government.

Question: Referencing Appendix B in the SOW – Customer Complaint Form:

Would the government be amenable to an automated customer feedback feature?

Is there an incumbent? If yes, who is the incumbent and what is the contract number?

Answer: If an offeror considers proposing an automated customer feedback feature as part of their technical approach in satisfying this requirement, the Government would be open to the suggestion; however, the offer of this feature will not impact the evaluation factors for award listed in the RFP Instructions-Evaluation document included in this Request for Proposal.

There is no incumbent.

Question: The SOW (Page 4, Paragraph 2.1.1) states, “Database shall have search features and a user-friendly interface. This service shall provide multiple, simultaneous access to the site via internet/world wide web. This service shall also incorporate use of an internet browser, such as Explorer, Firefox, or Netscape to enable authorized users to retrieve manufacturers’ IFU for reusable medical equipment that includes: surgical instruments, dental instruments, flexible endoscopes, and other reusable medical equipment. This database is for use at 76 MTFs world-wide. A list of the AF MTFs is located in Attachment 1”.

Does the Search feature need to allow users to search by any or all of the following: file name, database name, file type (ex: .docx, .pdf, .jpg), and/or metadata tags? What other search parameters need to be covered?

Answer: Yes, the Search feature need to allow users to search by any or all of the following: file name, database name, file type (ex: .docx, .pdf, .jpg), and/or metadata tags.

We are not aware of other parameters needed to be covered at present, but that may change over time. We expect the contractor to have the capability to adapt and ensure all manufacturer IFUs are available as needed.

Question: The SOW (Page 4, Paragraph 2.1.2) states, “Ensure site is available (24/7x365) days a year excluding website maintenance requirements”.

Please define the maximum downtime allowable for maintenance.

Answer: No longer than 12 hours.

Question: The SOW (Page 4, Paragraph 2.1.3) states, “Provide 24/7 customer technical support for this contract for assistance with technical problems accessing the site within 15 calendar days of award”.

What is the expected daily level of support (for example, five calls per day)? Please define support for workday hours versus after-hours support.

Answer: Twenty-five calls per day during normal business hours for the continental United States and Europe MTFs; five calls per day during after-hours for Pacific and Europe facilities. This may change based on AF operations.

Question: The SOW (Page 4, Paragraph 2.2.1) states, “The Surgical Instrument Database shall provide access online to manufacturers’ IFU documents for decontamination, assembly, and sterilization of reusable instruments. The search engine provides multiple paths, i.e., general instrument name, manufacturer, product number etc., to all needed documents”.

A.) What is the expected storage size and file type(s) of the Surgical Instrument Database files?

B.) How often will manufacturer documentation be updated?

C.) Will manufacturers be provided access to keep their documentation updated? If yes, how many manufacturers will need access? If no, will the contractor receive the documentation updates from the manufacturer to load to the database, or will this be a facility manager function (government)?

D.) Is it desirable to allow users to provide comments, feedback, lessons learned and other such input to the database? If yes, will they have their own access? If yes, how many end users will there be for each facility?

Answer:

A.) Given the thousands of IFUs related to surgical instruments and equipment used throughout the Air Force, we cannot determine this; however, we expect the contractor to have the capability to store an extensive amount of files in their database.

B.) As needed when manufacturers make updates to their IFU or new instruments, etc are fielded.

C.) No, the contractor is responsible to keep manufacturers’ IFUs current.

Both. The contractor will have to stay informed as to when manufacturers’ IFUs are updated and add those to the database. Government workers can also notify the contractor if they are made aware of a new IFU. It is the Contractor’s responsibility to update and add all new or current manufacturers’ IFUs to the database.

D.) The database will be available to all workers in the facility. Workers will provide feedback using the Customer Complaint Form in the Statement of Work (SOW) document and submitting it to the Contracting Officer Representative (COR).

Question: The SOW (Page 4, Paragraph 2.2.2) states, “The Dental Database shall provide access to sterilization and reprocessing documents for dental instruments and equipment, including surgical instrument IFU documents used in dental procedures and oral surgery. The database shall also include Safety Data Sheets (SDS) and Biologic Tissue Bank Registrations, Certifications and State Licenses”.

A.) What is the expected storage size and file type(s) of the Surgical Instrument Database files?

B.) How often will manufacturer documentation be updated?

C.) Will manufacturers be provided access to keep their documentation updated? If yes, how many manufacturers will need access? If no, will the contractor receive the documentation updates from the manufacturer to load to the database, or will this be a facility manager function (government)?

D.) Is it desirable to allow users to provide comments, feedback, lessons learned and other such input to the database? If yes, will they have their own access? If yes, how many end users will there be for each facility?

Answer:

A.) Given the thousands of IFUs related to surgical instruments and equipment used throughout the Air Force, we cannot determine this; however, we expect the contractor to have the capability to store an extensive amount of files in their database.

B.) Manufacturers make updates to their IFU on an as-needed basis.

C.) No, manufacturers do not update the document management site. It will be the responsibility of the contractor to ensure the most current IFU are available. If government workers become aware of a new IFU, they can notify the contractor of the update, but have no responsibility for loading any documents.

D.) Government workers will provide comments/feedback by filling out a Customer Complaint Form found in the Statement of Work (SOW) document and submitting it to the Contracting Officer Representative. All workers will have access to the database.

Question: The SOW (Page 4, Paragraph 2.2.3) states, “The Equipment Database shall provide access online to manufacturers’ instruction documents for cleaning equipment outside of the sterile field, such as compression sleeves and pumps. The search engine shall also provide multiple paths, i.e., general instrument name, manufacturer, product number etc., to all needed documents”.

Answer:

A.) What is the expected storage size and file type(s) of the Surgical Instrument Database files?

Given the thousands of IFUs related to surgical instruments and equipment used throughout the Air Force, we cannot determine this; however, we expect the contractor to have the capability to store an extensive amount of files in their database.

B.) How often will manufacturer documentation be updated?

Manufacturers make updates to their IFU on an as-needed basis.

C.) Will manufacturers be provided access to keep their documentation updated? If yes, how many manufacturers will need access?

No, manufacturers do not update the document management site. It will be the responsibility of the contractor to ensure the most current IFU are available.

If no, will the contractor receive the documentation updates from the manufacturer to load to the database, or will this be a facility manager function (government)?

If government workers become aware of a new IFU, they should notify the contractor of the update.

D.) Is it desirable to allow users to provide comments, feedback, lessons learned and other such input to the database?

Government workers will provide comments/feedback by filling out a Customer Complaint Form found in the Statement of Work (SOW) document and submitting it to the Contracting Officer Representative.

If yes, will they have their own access? If yes, how many end users will there be for each facility?

All workers will have access to the database.

Question: The SOW (Page 4, Paragraph 2.2.4) states, “A username and password will be issued upon receipt of the purchase order for unlimited access for a one (1) year period per facility”.

Does this mean only one person per facility will be accessing the system at one time? If more than one person will have access at a time, please provide the number of users that will need access per facility.

Answer: All workers will have access to the site; up to 200 workers at each facility will be using the system.

Question: The SOW (Page 4, Paragraph 2.2.5) states, “The subscription shall provide a monthly usage report to the Government PM or designated representative displaying the number of users and number of reviews accessed”.

Does report need to be broken down or summarized by facility, by database, or by any other metadata categories?

Answer: Yes, usage will be reported by facility names.

Question: The SOW (Page 4, Paragraph 2.2.6) states, “The subscription shall provide 24/7 access to the website to authorized users via both internet protocol (IP) authentication and some form of token/key generation. For IP-based authentication, access shall be granted for all AFMS duty locations. The Government will supply a list of IP ranges for AFMS duty locations. As IP ranges are changed, an updated list will be provided, and the Contractor shall enable access from the new IP ranges within two (2) business days”.

This will mean that authorized users will not be able to access the system unless they are already physically or virtually authenticated within the designated IP range when they attempt to log in.

Is this what the agency intends?

Answer: Yes; authorized users will be using the site at the designated facility.

Question: The SOW (Page 4, Paragraph 2.2.7) states, “The subscription shall provide enhanced accessibility to IFUs and “Tech-Ready” abbreviated versions (which provide a snapshot of all the critical cleaning, decontamination, assembly and sterilization parameters found in the original IFU), which helps ensure compliance with the manufacturer’s standards”.

Answer:

A.) What file types will these abbreviate versions of the IFUs be (such as PDF, DOCX, etc.)?

PDF, or similar efficient format.

B.) Will the government be providing the “tech-ready” versions? Or will the contractor develop the “tech-ready” versions? If the contractor will be prepping the tech-ready versions, please provide a full document list for which these will be prepared and page count of the full versions.

Alternately, please consider allowing a T&M CLIN to accommodate documentation support services (writing, editing, etc) on a task basis.

No, the “tech-ready” version is a product of the contractor. It is impossible to provide a list/page count, as there are thousands of manufacturers’ IFU.

Question: Referencing Appendix A in the SOW – Types of facilities:

Answer:

A.) Will there be any difference in contractor support and/or access to the different types of facilities (Hospital, Clinic, ASC, Limited Scope Facility)? If yes, please define the differences.

Yes, inpatient facilities and Ambulatory Surgical Centers may require more support due to their surgical product lines.

B.) What is the impact of the level of support and/or access relevant to the number of beds at a facility? Please define differences with respect to access and/or contractor support.

There may be more technical support needed regarding using the database; telephone support.

Question: Pricing Instructions (Page 5 of 6) state, “The pricing evaluation criteria factors can be found in Attachment 2 – DMS Pricing Worksheet of addendum RFP FA8052-18-R-0021”.

Will the government consider an additional one time use CLIN for set-up, configuration and training to be used for year 1?

Answer: No.

Question: Referencing Subfactor 1.2 (Page 7 of 10) – Provide server capability, COA for maintenance periods:

Please define COA.

Answer: Course of Action (COA) is needed to define maintenance periods (down time) to keep government workers aware of when the site is down and the anticipated back-on-line time.