H92222-10-R-0046_Questions_and_Answers 25 Mar 2011.pdf

H92222-10-R-0046 Attachment 14 – App Mgt Questions and Answers - Supplemental

***Not to be included in any resultant contract***

SITEC APPLICATION MANAGEMENT RFP

QUESTION

SECTION /

PARAGRAPH /

PAGE

Questions / Comments Response

Questions 2, 29, 30, 101, 134

The Government indicated that the PWS has been revised to clarify the service areas names and number. The PWS does not reflect this revision. Please clarify.

The PWS, dated 25 Mar 2011, was revised to make the clarifications.

140 Question 69 states

The answer to: “DFAR 215.470 required offerors to provide estimated data prices. Prices are estimates only and will not be billed separately.” DFAR 215.470 reads:

(b)(i) The form and the provision included in the solicitation request the offeror to state what portion of the total price is estimated to be attributable to the production or development of the listed data for the Government (not to the sale of rights in the data). However, offerors' estimated prices may not reflect all such costs; and different offerors may reflect these costs in a different manner; Standard practice is to make CDRLs not separately priced (NSP). In light of this and the language in (ii) above, does the requirement for CDRL pricing as stated in the RFP still stand?

Yes, it stands. CDRLs will be not separately priced (NSP) in resulting contracts. However, the Government will review the estimated data prices to ensure they are not drastically more expensive than their perceived value to the Government.

141 SOOs, Question 55

All SOOs are currently Government site/Client site work.

1. Are offerors also to submit contractor site rates?

2. If so, then shall offerors submit a rate table as part of the submittal showing government site and contractor site rates?

3. Should all five SOO cost volumes be separate documents or all under one volume?

1. Yes, offerors must include these rates in your cost proposals if a contractor site is proposed.

2. Yes, please include both site rates in your cost proposals if they are available.

3. All 5 SOOs should be individually numbered documents starting with page one contained in a single proposal Volume.

(Cont)

SOOs, Question 55

4. Question # 55: Attachment 8 SOO for Evaluation HQ AFSOC/A3OU, Paragraph 3.3 and 3.3.1, page 1 The SOO states, “The Contractor shall ensure comprehensive software documentation” and then lists a series of deliverables in Section 3.3.1. Request that the Government indicate the status for each deliverable listed (for example, new, existing, update, etc.). For each version of the application the listed documents must be delivered. Each document is developed in a CMMI-Level 5 format. If the document does not exist will need to create one. Currently, all documents exist and must be updated accordingly for each delivery. We are knowledgeable about CMMI processes, inclusive of Level 5.

Document template formats are not specified by CMMI at any level. Will the government consider removing this reference? Alternately, can the government provide more specific information on what these formats are?

4. The Attachment 8 documentation requirement is absolutely essential in requesting SUASMAN as a Program of Record which is the customer’s intention.

There must be a historical record of the applications design, development, and delivery.

Currently, the existing deliverable documentation is very lean in that it specifically addresses the requirements for the specified version and only provides great level of detail when it is required.

In the SITEC Bidder’s Library you will find a copy of the SRS, SDD, and ICD for the latest version of SUASMAN.

These will provide you an idea of how "lean" the documentation is and also an understanding of its importance.

The current development team delivers the following documentation with each version:

SUASMAN Project Schedule Developer Journals SUASMAN Summary of Changes SUASMAN User's Manual SUASMAN Unit Testing SUASMAN System/Software Test Plan (STP) SUASMAN System/Software Change Requests (SCR) Summary SUASMAN Interface Control Document (ICD) SUASMAN Requirements Traceability Matrix (RTM) SUASMAN System/Software Change Requests (SCR) SUASMAN Deployment Plan (DP) SUASMAN CCB Meeting Minutes Note: the CCB meets bi-annually and SUASMAN delivers a new version every 6 months.

SUASMAN System/Software Requirements Specification (SRS) SUASMAN System/Software Design Document (SDD)

Question / Answers #

31, 32, 63, 76

Question / Answers # 31, 32, 63, 76 all state “Key personnel have been revised so that all personnel are not key”.

Question/Answer # 108 states “The Service area leads for each SOO package/ task order are considered key personnel”.

Key Personnel Requirements found in the RFP on Page 51 states (c) The follow positions are identified as Key Personnel: Program Manager, Assistant/Deputy Program Manager, Lead Individual for each Service Area under SOW Paragraph 5.1, Lead Individual for Subcontractor/ Teammate.

a. Are the “Lead Individuals for each Service Area under

SOW Para. 5.1” the same as the Service Area Leads referenced in Question/Answer #108?

b. Please validate that the answer to Questions/Answers 31, 32, 63, 76 is correct.

a. Not necessarily, but that is for the offerors to propose.

b. The cited questions are answered correctly.

Questions 2, 29, 30, 101, 134

Just an observation – the PWS still does not reflect “Application End User Training” as a separate area under 5.1.

The PWS, dated 25 Mar 2011, was revised to make the clarifications.