RFI - GAFS_IAPS Unisys Migration.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

BUSINESS AND ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS DIRECTORATE

MAXWELL AIR FORCE BASE, GUNTER ANNEX ALABAMA

6 January 2020

MEMORANDUM FOR INTERESTED VENDORS

FROM: AFLCMC/HIK

SUBJECT: Request for Information (RFI) for GAFS/IAPS Unisys Migration

THIS IS A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) ONLY. This RFI is issued solely for information and planning purposes – it does not constitute a Request for Proposal (RFP) or a promise to issue an RFP in the future. This request for information does not commit the Government to contract for any supply or service whatsoever. Further, the Air Force is not at this time seeking proposals and will not accept unsolicited proposals. Respondents are advised that the U.S. Government will not pay for any information or administrative costs incurred in response to this RFI; all costs associated with responding to this RFI will be solely at the interested party’s expense. Not responding to this RFI does not preclude participation in any future RFP, if any is issued. If a solicitation is released, it will be synopsized in accordance with FAR Part 5, on the website that is designated as the Government Point of Entry

(GPE). It is the responsibility of the potential Offerors to monitor these sites for additional information pertaining to this requirement.

A. BACKGROUND

Air Force Lifecycle Management, Business Enterprise Systems, Financial Systems Division

(AFLCMC/HIG) seeks to gather information about industry capabilities to migrate General

Accounting & Finance Systems Base Level (GAFS-BL) and Integrated Accounts Payable Systems (IAPS) from a Unisys mainframe platform running COBOL 74 and COBOL 85 to an alternate platform that can be hosted in an approved Air Force Cloud environment (e.g., DISA Managed Cloud Services, Cloud One, Oracle Cloud Infrastructure, etc.). The targeted application software needs to be a sustainable programming language. As needed, the migration solution may also include the introduction of a relational database. Additionally, the solution needs to be able to handle high side and low side transactions. The purpose behind this migration is to reduce current and future hosting and sustainment costs.

The project entails migration of application software and the platform-dependent systems calls/functions, efficient and high performance information storage and retrieval, user and application query reporting functionality, role-based access controls for user profiles, user front end screens (terminal or graphical), batch job scheduling and job monitoring software, file transfer and printing capabilities. The resulting solution must maintain internal controls compliance for configuration management, controls for production code migrations, and separate instances with affiliated access controls for development, test, and production environments.

This RFI is part of our acquisition planning to identify available vendors with demonstrated solution capabilities in the commercial market place and obtain their feedback.

B. OBJECTIVES

AFLCMC/HIG is seeking Industry comments and advice on the following items. Please provide responses.

1. Describe your suggested solution options for hardware platform and application software, database (if applicable), user interface, interface processing, high performance file systems and/or database, data migration, batch job scheduling, security, file & print management, content and user activity reporting, systems/application performance maintenance & monitoring, and system change/configuration management for the following systems.

a. GAFS BL - the current platform includes:

i. Approx. 1M lines of COBOL 74 code for user (terminal) screens, LOUIS II (version V07-00-B-005) reporting queries, and PROCs.

ii. User front end is mainframe virtual terminals

iii. Online file download/upload and printing capabilities

iv. User access provisioning and User systems activity reports

v. Approx. 1M lines of code for batch programs and ECL

vi. Unisys Shared File Systems of 17 shared files.

vii. Average transactions per day 50,000 to 80,000

viii. Approx. 16K interface files processes per month (56 total interfaces partners)

ix. Several Unisys systems utilities for file systems maintenance and performance monitoring

b. IAPS – the current platform includes

i. A total of 870K lines of COBOL 85 made up of:

1. Stored PROCs: 18K LOC

2. Screen PROCs: 175K LOC

3. ECLs: 17K LOC

4. COBOL 85 Code (TIP and Batch): 660K LOC

ii. User front end is mainframe virtual terminals

iii. Online file download/upload and printing capabilities

iv. User access provisioning and User systems activity reports

v. Unisys DBMS (Database Management Systems) and various MSAM

& ISAM files

vi. Average transactions per day 4500 to 5000

vii. Approx. 14K interface files processes per month (15 total interfaces partners)

viii. Several Unisys systems utilities for file systems maintenance and performance monitoring

2. Describe your Agile approach to deliver the solution identified above addressing DevSecOps, continuous integration / continuous deployment (CI/CD), environment management (development through production), RMF, and other topics you consider critical to successful completion of the migration. Please identify anticipated risks including benefits of your approach to mitigate the risks.

3. For the hardware and software combination you described in your answer to paragraph 1 above, please describe how many customer you have re-hosted who had software of a similar size and complexity to GAFS-BL and IAPS. What have you learned from those client engagements that will benefit future clients in performing a similar effort?

4. Please identify any contracts, contract vehicles, schedules or any other means available to the Air Force to obtain the migration services from your company.

Additionally, please indicate the size status of your company and the corresponding

North American Industry Classification Standards (NAICS) codes. In addition, describe your recommended contract type, CLIN structure, and performance objectives.

5. Describe the costs for each of your options, splitting them out by system.

AFLCMC/HIG needs to be able to understand each holistic solution to clearly compare the different options for hardware, software, related components, and support. This information will be used to compare to current hosting costs and identify proposed reductions.

a. Include cost drivers that would appear on any invoice to AFLCMC/HIG before, during, and after the migration is completed. Examples include but not limited to hardware, software, service, licensing, and maintenance.

b. Delineate the difference between one-time costs (such as setup costs) and recurring costs.

c. Delineate outside costs. Meaning, please also include job duties or functions that would need to be included by another organization such as DISA.

Examples include but not limited to file or database maintenance and/or platform security management. This information will be used to submit a

Service Request Form (SRF) to DISA to obtain separate cost estimates.

6. Describe models (such as project plans) for solution options:

a. High-level (1-2 page) implementation (project) plan through requirements, development, testing, deployment, performance tuning, user acceptance testing, and continued support (maintenance).

b. Whether and how the System/Application/Components can be customized and sustained by other organizations such as DFAS, DISA, or USAF. This could include a listing of tools and skill level required to maintain (such as Jr.

Software Engineer, Sr. Software Engineer, Systems Architect, Systems

Technician, etc.)

c. Your Training plans/options for DFAS, DISA, or USAF staff to maintain and support the entire suite of tools. The goal is obtaining complete knowledge transfer to DFAS, DISA, or USAF for sustainment and future modification purposes.

d. Your systems security plan for upgrades, patches, vulnerability assessments, and addressing/correcting vulnerabilities.

7. Are there any other capabilities AFLCMC/HIG should consider (not previously listed) to reduce systems costs and/or systems support costs?

8. Please provide any additional recommendations and suggestions you can provide that have not been called out above.

C. REQUIREMENTS

1. Internal Controls – The systems use Risk Management Framework (RMF) and Federal Information Systems Controls Audit Manual (FISCAM) to enforce internal controls. The resulting systems must be equal to or better than the original accounting systems as it pertains to internal controls compliance.

2. Usability – The resulting systems will also need to maintain the same level of usability for the users and not require advanced training for daily operations and routine maintenance. Meaning, the screen layouts and input edit checks will appear and function the same as the current terminal screens.

3. Performance – The systems need to perform with similar processing times as the original accounting systems. Current performance is between 2-10 seconds per inquiry (terminal screen), 98% of the time, for online update and output transactions. Specifically, user screens are 2 second response on average and any end-to-end response (updating other modules and reporting back) is 5 seconds.

4. Uptime and stability – The systems need to sustain similar “Uptimes” as the original accounting systems which is 99.5% average each year.

5. Interfacing – The systems must be able to process interfaces files and online transactions with the same results as the original accounting systems. Presently, the largest batch files

(millions of records) are processed within 20-30 minutes and the smaller files (hundreds or thousands of records) are processed within 5-8 minutes.

6. Quality and Integrity – The systems must be able to calculate transactions, summations, and account balancing to the same level of accuracy as the original accounting systems.

We do not have a current metric for this but a parallel test would confirm if the new systems are miscalculating. Rectification by the vendor would need to be immediately addressed.

7. Security – The systems must be able to withstand vulnerability assessments to include penetration testing and continue to operate as the original accounting systems.

D. INFORMATION REQUESTED

Information is hereby requested to gain information about goods and services available to satisfy the questions and requirements in paragraph B. OBJECTIVES and C. REQUIREMENTS.

PLEASE NOTE: Please provide responses which answer the questions in the above sections.

Unsolicited sales-oriented types of presentations are undesired. Gantt charts included for project plans and any other PowerPoint style graphics should be pasted as inline images into the MS Word or PDF document. Landscape mode will suffice for wide layout charts.

E. RESPONSES

Responses to this RFI should be in portrait layout with 12 point font or higher and not exceeding

35 pages in total length. The document can be either PDF or MS Word format and must include a separate cover letter with the institution name, points of contact (address, phone number, FAX number), DUNS number, whether you sell your software or services on GSA federal supply schedule, AF/DoD contract vehicles or other government wide acquisition contracts and CAGE code. Please provide responses no later than 11:00 AM, CST, 27 January 2020. Please submit responses electronically, via email to the Contracting Officer, Mr. Thomas Corum thomas.corum@us.af.mil; and Contracting Specialist, Ms. Rose Hudson rose.hudson.1@us.af.mil.

THOMAS E. CORUM

Contracting Officer mailto:thomas.corum@us.af.mil mailto:rose.hudson.1@us.af.mil