AFLCMC Response to Questions.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 22 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Project Hydra: Software Refactoring under AFLCMC Data Operations Commercial Solutions Opening
- Solicitation number
- FA8600-23-S-C056-006
- Issued by
-
Department of the Air Force
About this file
This document is a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a federal contract opportunity titled "Project Hydra: Software Refactoring under AFLCMC Data Operations Commercial Solutions Opening". The opportunity is for services to assess and refactor government software to enable containerized, cloud-based applications with single sign-on capabilities. The work will be performed for the Department of the Air Force's Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC) and will require contractor personnel with security clearances up to Top Secret/SAP.
The RFP outlines three distinct requirements: 1) Software Assessment to evaluate the government's existing software and provide recommendations for refactoring, 2) Software Refactor to implement the recommended changes, and 3) Software Integration and Technical Support. Proposals are due by November 8, 2024, and the government intends to award a 5-year contract with fixed-price orders for each software application. Vendors must provide pricing based on software complexity (simple, moderate, complex) and may propose additional complexity categories. This is a new requirement without an incumbent contractor.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Hydra CSO Call FINAL Rev.2.docx | DOCX document | |
| Hydra CSO Call FINAL Rev.1.docx | DOCX document | |
| Hydra CSO Call FINAL.docx | DOCX document |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Question Number | Question | Response |
| 1 | Regarding the three requirements—software assessment, software refactor, and software integration support—are these considered separate user stories? Additionally, can you confirm if the five-page limit per user story includes all supporting documentation and pricing for each user story, or can appendices be used to provide additional details? | Companies will bid for all three and not individual stories. Amended call reflects increased page limit to 12 pages. Pricing is not included in the page limitations and can be included via appendices. |
| 2 | Given the complexity and scope of the requirements, we respectfully request an extension of the proposal due date to 18 November 2024 (30 days from solicitation release). This additional time would allow us to prepare a more thorough and detailed proposal that better addresses the needs outlined in the solicitation. | Proposal due date has been extended to 18 Nov per Neal Duiker. |
| 3 | Please confirm that Software Assessment, Software Refactor, and Software Integration and Technical Support are considered separate User Stories and should be each addressed separately? | This is one users story with three requirements. Companies will need to bid for all three tasks and not individual requirements. |
| 4 | Given the complexity and scope of the requirements, we respectfully request an extension of the proposal due date to 18 November 2024 (30 days from solicitation release). This additional time would allow us to prepare a more thorough and detailed proposal that better addresses the needs outlined in the solicitation. | Proposal due date has been extended to 18 Nov per Neal Duiker. |
| 5 | Assuming there are three User Stories, are each User Stories allocated five pages each? | Modified call increases page limit to 12 pages |
| 6 | Please confirm that the five-page limit applies to each User Story’s technical details only. For example, with having to provide pricing, Facility Accreditation Letter (FAL), Data Rights, Small Business Participation Plan, and the technical approach within five pages would not be feasible. | 12 pages total for all three technical Tasks. Page limit applies to Part 3, b, c, e & f. All other proposal requirements are not subject to the page limitation. |
| 7 | What is the period of performance for each User Story? | USG intends on awarding a 5 year contract allowing for purchased services to be used on an "as needed" basis. However, the USG also has an immediate need for two software applications to be analyzed/refactored of varying complexities. Therefore, USG is looking for immediate award and ability to rapidly award for new applications. Deadlines will be established on a per software application basis. |
| 8 | Please confirm that the Software Assessment, User Story 1, is the only User Story expected to be priced at an FFP, based on three scenarios, simple, moderate, complex, and the final software assessment out-brief deliverable should include a FFP for the next step, Software Refactor. Alternatively, is the intent that should the Gov’t evaluate the assessment and determine to go forward, User Story 2 Software Refactor will be awarded and the contractor will be asked to provide a price at that time? | No, per the CSO requirements, all three requirements must be awarded Fixed Price. The USG is requesting price cards based on software complexity on fixed price services for all three phases of the refactor. Post-assessment, the USG and awardee will determine where the refactorization effort falls within the software complexity price card. |
| 9 | Please confirm if a Small Business Participation Plan is required to be submitted if the offeror is an Other than Small Business. | No, the USG is not setting small business participation goals on this effort. |
| 10 | In reference to cost variance based on application complexity, can the government provide any guidance on defining simple, moderate, and complex? | The USG requests vendors provide definitions for software complexity with corresponding pricing. The USG will review complexity definitions (which vendors can provide additional categories) as part of our evaluation. |
| 11 | Please provide clarification: should the customer enact additional scope, will the offeror be able to provide input to cost change? | See response to question 8 |
| 12 | Can the government clarify if the pricing should be included in a separate volume? | Updated page count in amended call is 12 pages. Pricing is excluded from page limitation. |
| 13 | Would the government consider increasing the page count to make it easier to address all requirements? | Yes, please see amended call. 12 Pages. |
| 14 | Based on section "1. Software Assessment Requirements A. Scope", are you looking for a Product or a Process? | For the proposed solution, either is acceptable. Framework is not specific to either so long as awardee can produce identifed deliverables. |
| 15 | Based on the section "Proposal Review, Evaluation and Selection Process; Experience", are you looking for applications that have been worked on/developed in an IL6 environment in development environments as well? | Previous experience does not need to include development within IL6. Only that developed software has been approved for deployment in an IL6 or higher. |
| 16 | Does a Secret Level environment when pushing to production count (e.g., on Prem)? | This would be acceptable if using on-prem cloud technology. |
| 17 | Due to the stipulation under "Anticipated Delivery Date", you mention "each software application will have individual delivery requirements", how do you envision pricing being addressed, when the vendor doesn't have any idea of the scope/scale of each application? | The USG is requesting price cards based on software complexity on fixed price services for all three phases of the refactor. Post-assessment, the USG and awardee will determine where the refactorization effort falls within the software complexity price card. Vendors can propose varying complexity categories beyond what was suggested in the Call. |
| 18 | Would the output of "Software Assessment Requirements' influence the work in "2. Software Refactor Requirements" and beyond to include price? | See response to questions 8 & 17 |
| 19 | Would the Government consider an IDIQ for this effort and each application be considered a Task Order (TO) to properly address each application and provide pricing? | No. However, the USG will be issuing individual mods and CLINs for each software product. |
| 20 | Can AFLCMC provide the city and state of the location(s) where work would be performed at AFLCMC facilities? | USG expects all work can be performed remotely from contractor's facilities. Any unanticipated travel will be addressed in final contract award. |
| 21 | Does AFLCMC anticipate travel of vendor personnel to remote Government locations to perform work? | See response to question 20 |
| 22 | Overview section, paragraph 2: Is the Government open to sponsoring a facility accreditation at a contractor owned location, for work to be performed in support of this effort? | Per the call, No. |
| 23 | Will AFLCMC allow IL5 software application refactor work to be performed at remote unclassified vendor facilities? | Yes. |
| 24 | Can AFLCMC provide an estimate of the total number of applications that would be in scope for software assessment? | USG has the immediate need for two software applications for evaluations. However, the USG is looking for an ongoing relationship where additional applications are expected to be evaluated/refactored. |
| 25 | Can AFLCMC provide any further detail around the technology stacks/components used for existing applications? | No. Would be delivered upon award. Would follow complexity model in this phase. |
| 26 | What A&A tasks would the vendor be expected to perform for refactored applications within the scope of this contract? | The USG does not fully understand this question. Vendor is not responsible for any security requirements for the applications, but is responsbile for providing documentation in order to conduct an A&A. |
| 27 | PROPOSAL REVIEW, EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCESS section, Technical subsection, bullet a: Where AFLCMC references the "three tasks outlined in the acquisition objectives", please confirm that this refers to 1) Software Assessment, 2) Software Refactor, and 3) Software Integration & Technical Support. | Yes. |
| 28 | PROPOSAL REVIEW, EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCESS section, Price subsection: Should the pricing model reflect price to deliver all 3 requirements - Software Assessment, Software Refactor, Software Integration & Technical Support - or solely the price for the Software Assessment requirement given variability of the other 2 requirements? | The USG is looking for vendors to propose a fixed price structure that accounts for these requirements and adjusting for application complexity. See also answers to questions 8 and 17 |
| 29 | PROPOSAL REVIEW, EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCESS section, Price subsection: Please confirm whether it is acceptable if the vendor uses other criteria in addition to number of lines of code and cyclomatic complexity to define complexity and price, provided these criteria are defined in the proposal response. | Yes that is acceptable. Additionally, USG is not prescribing exact solution/pricing model. Vendors shall propose fixed price methodology to adequately address the requirements of the Call. |
| 30 | To enable a low-to-high software development pipeline, will the vendor have the ability to perform software refactoring tasks in the IL5 environment for software applications that will reside in the IL6 or IL6+ environments, assuming that any classified or sensitive data is not included? | Yes. |
| 31 | PROPOSAL REVIEW, EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCESS section, Price subsection: Please confirm whether it is acceptable if the vendor provides additional complexity groups (if needed) beyond simple, moderate, and complex in order to more accurately reflect price variations. | Yes. |
| 32 | PROPOSAL REVIEW, EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCESS section, Price subsection: Please confirm whether it is acceptable for the bidder to provide a price range rather than specific dollar amount for each application complexity group. | Yes, recognizing final awards require fixed pricing |
| 33 | The government states Interested vendors are required to provide a fixed price methodology for their solution brief to include cost variance based on application complexity: simple, moderate, and complex. Vendors should align their complexity to number of lines of code and cyclomatic complexity and indicate those metric values. The vendor should include any additional assumptions made for complexity in their pricing methods. |
| Can the government confirm that the simple, moderate and complex pricing is only for assessment or for each scope area. Can the government clarify how it wants the pricing to be presented. Additionally does the vendor need to provide all tooling as part of the proposed pricing ? | See answers to questions 8 and 17. | |||
| 34 | Can the Government provide information regarding whether this opportunity represents a new requirement or is there an incumbent? | This is a new effort. | ||
| 35 | Vendor proposals shall not exceed five (5) pages (Times New Roman, 12 pt font). |
| Could the government clarify whether the page limit of 5 is for Part 3 - User Story Response(s) only or it includes part 1 and part 2 also. | Amended call increases page limit to 12 pages. | |||
| 36 | Could the government clarify if there is a preferred naming convention for the proposal. | No. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .