HC1047-14-R-4003_Questions_and_Answers.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 25 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Omnibus
- Solicitation number
- HC1047-14-R-4003
- Issued by
-
Defense Information Systems Agency
About this file
HC1047-14-F4003 00001 Questions and Answers
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| HC1047-14-R-4003-0004.pdf | ||
| HC1047-14-R-4003-0004_Questions_and_Answers_02162014.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| HC1047-14-R-4003-0003_Questions_and_Answers_02132014.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| HC1047-14-R-4003-0003.pdf | ||
| HC1047-14-R-4003_Questions_and_Answers_02112014.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| HC1047-14-R-4003-0002.pdf | ||
| SF1408-14.pdf | ||
| HC1047-14-R-4003_P00001.pdf | ||
| Cost-Price_Template.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| HC1047-14-R-4003_Final_RFP_posted.pdf | ||
| Final_Omnibus_DD254_DEG.pdf | ||
| HC1047-14-R-4003_Omnibus__1-23-2014.docx | DOCX document | |
| HC1047-14-R-4003_RFP.pdf | ||
| Cost-Price_Template.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Omnibus_PP_QUESTIONNAIRE.docx | DOCX document |
Show all 15
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 | Section/Reference | Question/Comment | Government Response |
| 1 | PWS | What is the Current Level of effort in hours and Full-Time personnel for the total project and each Task Order? Is that LOE expected to remain constant, increase, or decrease? If a change is expected, by how much? | This is a performance based acquisition. Each firm should propose what they believe the required LOE is to produce the expected outcome to meet the solution. |
| 2 | General PWS | What specific software applications comprise the Forge.mil environment that developers and maintainers must know to support the system? | The core products underlying Forge.mil are Collabnet's TeamForge, Appache HTTP Server, Drupal, Java Runtime Environment, JBOSS Application Server, Oracle mySQL, PHP, Piwik, PostgreSQL, Python, Red Hat Enterprise Linux, Apache SOLR, and Apptache Tomcat are built on is CollabNet TeamForge and CommunityForge. |
| 3 | Background. Page 19 | Who is responsible for provisioning the virtual machines in the DECC(s)? A) How many DECCs? B) Which DECC(s)? | VMs are provisioned by DISA DECC personnel. A) 3. B) DECCs Oklahoma, Montgomery, and St. Louis. DECC St. Louis is a shared COOP location for Forge.mil. |
| 4 | Background. Page 20 | Will milCloud remain independent in regards to development support | Yes. The current milCloud.mil (note: in the process to change to a new project system name called: Cloud Ecosystem Management Service (CEMS)) engineering development team will responsible for the design and development. However, the OMNIBUS contract shall responsible to operation support and deploy the CEMS to the production environment which is DECC OKC |
| 5 | Background. Page 20 | Who will manage/oversee and how will the integration/interaction work between milCloud and Forge.mil work when upgrades, software changes, or other actions causes a disruption or interoperability issue between the capabilities? | The Omnibus support contractor will manage/oversee integration/interaction work between milCloud and Forge.mil with Forge.mil PMO oversight. |
| 6 | Background. Page 20 | Is the Classified Forge.mil environment the same full environment as on the unclassified side? |
a. What DECC is the classified Forge.mil located
| b. Are there any additional special requirements required to support this installation or is this a DISA action as it is in DISA space? | No, the classified Forge.mil environment is a subset of the Forge.mil environments deployed in the unclassified environment. It is made up of a single instance of Collabnet's TeamForge and does not include the Forge.mil Community. a) DECC Montgomery. b)There are no additional special requirements. | |||
| 7 | Background. Page 20 | The stated hours are 8 X 5. Does this refer to 8 hours a day 5 days per week? What days and what are the start time and end times and in what time zone? | Yes. Normal Forge.mil management and operations are an 8 X 5 function, however, when outages occur designated on-call personnel may be required to work during off-hour periods to perform emergency maintenance for RTS conditions. Operations are M-F 0800-1630 EST assuming a 30 minute lunch break is taken. | |
| 8 | Background. Page 20 | A designated on-call administrator during off hours is mentioned, is that 365 days a year? | Yes. | |
| 9 | 6/12/Subfactor 1 Performance Requirements. Pages 21, 36 and 85. | The PWS states the security clearance requirements for each task area which is Top Secret and Secret. Section 12 reiterates those requirements. Under Subfactor 1 on page 85, the evaluation criterion requires TS with SCI eligibility (an additional investigation, beyond TS, that is performed through a Government central adjudication facility (CAF) that is cognizant of the SCI determination) for personnel performing all tasks under the PWS and is required by proposal submission. If TS is the highest clearance requirement in any task area, why is SCI eligibility required? This requirement will minimize the pool of qualified candidates and unnecessarily increase the cost to the Government. | An update to the PWS is released to show the security clearance requirement for each task. | |
| 10 | 6.1 Projct Management and Documentation. Pages 22-23 | Does DISA provide the dial in bridge for the daily stand up? | Yes. | |
| 11 | 6.3 Software Integration, Test and Validation Support. Page 25 and 26 | This task lists a set of deliverables that include: |
• User Artifacts, Technical Reports, use cases, source codes, software scripts, and user support documentations, IA support documentations, environment System Architecture
• Iteration Test Plan
• Iteration Test Report
• Site specific issues/incident After Action Report
• Monthly Drop Readiness Assessment
• Reports to IAM
| The PWS does not address the content or requirements for these deliverables. Please provide the requirements for these deliverables so an appropriate LOE can be assessed. | Forge.mil utilizes an Agile Development methodology. Historically iterations span a 2 week period of time with small increments of new functionality (to include bug-fixes, IA updates, etc.) with a once per month update and deployment to production. Documentation for the iteration is generally maintained within wikis and/or trackers within the Forge.mil itself by the responsible parties for the function (development, test, release, etc.). | |||
| 12 | 6.5 Software Development for the Collaboration and Community Product Line. Page 27 | The PWS identifies a number of development activities, but does not define the scope, rate, or precise number of these activities. Please provide further definition for these activities so accurate resourcing judgments can be assessed. | See answer to question 11. Each deployed environment is 10 Red Hat Enterprise Linux systems, 3 PostgreSQL database servers, 1 MySQL database server, 1 Apache web server, 1 Drupal/Apache app server, 2 JBoss/Tomcat/Apache app servers, and 2 Tomcat/Apache subversion servers. |
There are also automated deployments to the following environments: dev, dev-test, staging (DISA RACE), Hanscom milCloud on DREN, and production NIPR. These occur as needed for development and testing as they would in any development project.
The SIPR environment has 5 systems deployed: 2 PostgreSQL database servers, 1 Apache web server, 1 JBoss/Tomcat/Apache app server, 1 Tomcat/Apache subversion server.
The scope and rate of changes depends on current priorities. Priority is placed on security patches, and security patches may take precedence over the monthly upgrades. This task is a level of effort task and is expected to expand and/or contract as needed and directed by the Government.
13 6.5 Software Development for the Collaboration and Community Product Line. Pages 27. “Assess engineering solution for IA security posture” is listed as a deliverable. The PWS does not address the content or requirements for this deliverable. Please provide the requirements for this deliverable so an appropriate LOE can be assessed. Provide guidance to the government and be aware of any IA issues as a result of ST&E and scanning that could impact related DIACAP packages; as necessary, assist the IAMs execute the DIP and implement IA controls on Forge.mil, compile the results and any POA&M’s into the DIACAP Scorecard, and review the DIACAP package. Communicate security risks and mitigations to the government IAMs, FSO, and DAAs during reviews and validation of DIACAP deliverables and artifacts related to the IA security posture.
14 6.6 Community Management Support. Pages 28. This task lists a set of deliverables that include:
• COTS required list with expected costs
• COTS required products for deployment
• Community Support plan
• Training & Webinar briefing slides
| The PWS does not address the content or requirements for these deliverables. Please provide the requirements for these deliverables so an appropriate LOE can be assessed. | Support the government with design and integration of Forge.mil services and customer outreach. Provide requirements and concept development, and COTS analysis and selection. The Community Support Plan is a tailored plan for communicating to Forge stakeholders about Forge.mil. Plan includes, but is not limited to governance, public relations outreach, community recruitment, training and support, ongoing process development, key messages, and communications to Forge.mil stakeholders. | |||
| 15 | 6.6 Community Management Support. Pages 28. | This task requires the contractor to make a number of purchases. Request clarification that the cost of these expenses are not part of the cost proposal and whether administrative fees associated with these purchases are acceptable. | The cost should be part of the cost proposal. Admin fee are not acceptable. | |
| 16 | 6.7 Business Operations. Page 28 and 29. | This task requires the contractor to make a number of purchases. Request clarification that the cost of these expenses are not part of the cost proposal and whether administrative fees associated with these purchases are acceptable. | The only deliverable in this section is the Business Support Plan. All other deliverables have been deleted. | |
| 17 | 6.4 Operations Support. Page 28 and 29 | Will contractor personnel have full access to the pre-production system in DISA’s RACE environment with the ability to set up the system and run the tests necessary for pre-production and IATT? | Yes. | |
| 18 | 6.7 Business Operations. Page 28 and 29. | This task lists a set of deliverables that include: |
• System build documentation
• Documented plan for upgrades, bug fixes and plan successfully delivered
• Business support plan
| The PWS does not address the content or requirements for these deliverables. Please provide the requirements for these deliverables so an appropriate LOE can be assessed. | The System Build Documentation has been removed as a deliverable. | |||
| 19 | 6.7 Business Operations. Page 29 | How many expected new customers per year (new onboardings) are expected? | 8,000 to 12,000 | |
| 20 | Performance Work Statement, Item 9, Place of Performance, Page 32 AND |
Section L, Item 6.0, Sub-Item 6.1.4, Cost or Pricing Information Requirements, Page 80 The RFP states "The Government estimates a total of 10 trips with 4 people for 5 days for planning purposes." In order to price travel correctly, please identify the destination/location for each trip. OR
| Will the Government consider providing "plug numbers" for travel for each year so all Offerors are evaluated equally for travel? | Trips will be to DECCs Montgomery and Oklahoma. | |||
| 21 | Scope of Performance. Page 42 | What is the historical trend for patch updates required for the system? | See the answer to question 12. Forge.mil normally updates its production system once per month; or as needed in emergency situations. The standard approach is to take the system off-line after business hours (e.g,. Friday evening) conduct the maintenance window and bring the system back on-line. Time needed for the update has been variable and due to the complexity involved in update. | |
| 22 | Part III Past Performance Information. Page 53. | The RFP states “All past performance surveys must be submitted and received by January 16th 2014, 7 days before the closing date of the RFP.” Please provide revised date. | The RFP will be updated to reflect a date for all past performance surveys to be submitted February 18, 2014. | |
| 23 | Section L, Item 6.0, Sub-Item 6.1.4, Cost or Pricing Information Requirements, Page 80 | This item requires Offerors to include labor categories, labor hours, etc. The solicitation did not include labor categories with associated qualifications. What labor categories do Offerors use? | The Government will not provide the labor categories. Each firm has to provide that information to the Government as part of their proposal. Please propose accordingly. | |
| 24 | RFP Section 6.3 Task 3, bullet 13 - "Execute performance tests prior to major deployment to the production environments(s); | Will the government provide, for each system or application that will be undergoing performance testing, the various performance requirements to be met including response time, throughput, and resource utilization threshold objectives? | yes. Forge.mil will purchase either public or private services such as IaaS or SaaS to support the various performance testing needs | |
| 25 | RFP Section 6.3, Task 3, First paragraph | A Top Secret security clearance and IT-I (privileged level systems access) are required when performance starts. Since it will take some time to process the IT-I through DISA Security does the government mean at the conclusion of the transition period? | No. | |
| 26 | RFP Section 3 Background, Page 18 | In the introduction, the description for milCloud references the use of "a limited number of integrated test tools" and later mentions that the selected vendor will "work with the Forge.mil PMO and milCloud development team to include the use of common open-source or COTS test tools used for web-service validation, functional, performance, code analysis, and other purposes". Is it expected that the selected vendor will have to use existing test tools for this effort? If so, can a list of those existing tools be provided? | Currently, a very limited common test tools have been implemented to the milcloud.mil environment - ITKO CA LISA & Retina Scan. | |
| 27 | RFP Section 6.1.4, page 83 | “Mandatory items to be included” describes DCAA Accounting System approval requirements. As a small business we have not been subject to CAS and have not had contracts which require submission of incurred cost claims. We therefore have not received a DCAA audit of our accounting system, although it is DCAA compliant. Are bullets a,b and c listed below still required for small business submissions? |
a. Latest Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) and/or Corporate Administrative Contracting Officer (CACO) approval;
b. Name, phone, mailing address, email address, and title of both your cognizant DCAA and DCMA points of contact; and
c. Statement of DCAA Accounting System approval – (Letter of Approval) IAW FART Pa6 16, The contractor’s accounting system must be adequate for determining costs applicable to the contract or order.
| 28 | 3. Background | Please provide a list of the tools used for web service validation, function, performance, code analysis and other tools referenced in "Background", page 20, paragraph 4. | Offerors should propose a list of tools that they have experiences in using. |
| 29 | PWS 6.1 | Are servers going to be provisioned via PCS contract? Can we leverage agents on those servers. | Production servers and networking equipment are provisioned, operated, and maintained by DISA DECC personnel; no access (administrative or otherwise) is provided to this equipment or their related software agents. DISA DECC personnel will provision the servers. It is up to DISA ESD which contract will be used. Forge.mil does not own the equipment or contracts. Offerors cannot leverage the servers. |
| 30 | PWS 6.1 | Is the networking equipment going to be provisioned via CSC contract? Can we leverage the existing HP NA installation there? | See answer #29. DISA DECC personnel will provision networking equipment. |
| 31 | PWS 6.2 | Is there value, or a desire to produce compliance reports for the infrastructure? | No. |
| 32 | PWS 6.1 | DISA recently released and RFP around Business Application Mapping? Is there a requirement to map business applications in this environment? i.e. to map out applications and their dependencies. | No. |
| 33 | PWS 2.1.2 | The RFP calls for “A collection of tools providing a full-featured application lifecycle management system” ITIL defines application lifecycle management as encompassing Requirements, Design, Build, Deploy, Operate and Optimize. Where information from operations is fed back to dev/test for reconciliation. Is there a requirement for end user monitoring in production and feeding that information back to Dev/Test? | This is a requirement. The goal is to be able to obtain the same provisioning, info from the production back to @ least the pre-production environment. |
| 34 | PWS 2.1.4 | The RFP section 2.1.4 references the "Encore II" website. Please clarify as this solicitation was not released under the Encore-II vehicle. | Correction made to reflect FBO. |
| 35 | RFP section 6.7, page 28, paragraphs 3-6 | The RFP states that "The contractor shall be required to maintain and provide upgrades to the existing Forge.mil ecosystem." and that "All purchases of products or support shall require advanced written approval by the COR or ALT COR prior to the contractor purchasing the products or support". It also lists a series of "acceptable purchases". Does the government desire the contractor to provide an estimate for these items as other direct charges (ODCs) in our proposal? | No, it should be made part of the cost for Task 7. |
| 36 | RFP Page 8 | CLIN 1006 cites "Community Management Support" in accordance with Task 7 of the PWS. However, all other *006 CLINS cite Task 6, which is Community Management Support. Is this an error | This is an error and will be corrected. |
| 37 | RFP Page 8 | CLIN 1007 cites "COST" as contract type, but all other *007 CLINs cite "FFP". Is this an error? | This is an error. It should be FFP. Correction will be made. |
| 38 | RFP Page 5 | CLIN 0008 is Travel in support of the PWS. Is it correct that no travel will be resulting from Task 3 or Task 5, which are priced CPFF? | Travel will be required for the full effort and should be proposed accordingly. |
| 39 | Cost-Price_Template.xlsx | In the cost buildup for the FFP CLINs are we required to provide full cost buildup information as we do with CPFF CLINs? That is, are we to show the direct labor rates and indirect burdens applied to determine the fully loaded rate or just the fully loaded rate? | Yes. Comply with the Cost Template provided. |
| 40 | 3. Part III (b) page 53. | The solicitation states that "All past performance surveys must be submitted and received by January 16th 2014, 7 days before the closing date of the RFP. ". Please clarify as January 16th has passed. | This will be corrected. The correct date is 20Feb14. |
| 41 | L.4.2.2 Page 77 of 95 | Are (1) List of Table and Drawings, (2) Glossary, and (3) Cross Reference Matrix included in the page limit for the Technical Management Volume? | Yes. |
| 42 | L2.2.2.1 Page 76 of 95 | “…the text shall be no smaller than 14.” Please clarify the minimum text size for tables, charts, graphs, and figures. | As stated, no smaller than 14 font |
| 43 | L2.2 Page 75 of 95 | Reference to three-ring-binder; Please clarify bound copies are not required. | Correct, not required. |
| 44 | Table 2.2 L5.2 Page 75 of 95 and Page 78 of 95 | Table 2.2 indicates 3 pages per Past Performance; L.5.2 indicates Past Performance shall not exceed 2 pages; We recommend specifying 3 pages. | Table 2.2 will be corrected to 2 |
| 45 | M2.1.3 (c) Page 86 of 95 | Government will review qualification for Key Personnel; therefore provide resumes; Please clarify what resumes must be provided. | For the purpose of the proposal, industry is allowed to provide whom they believe to be key personnel. However, at contract award, the government will identify key personnel as stated in Clause 52.204-9000 |
| 46 | PWS Section 9.0 Page 32 of 95 | Section 9.0 states that “work will be performed at DISA headquarters,” but it does not specify all work. Will all FTEs work from DISA headquarters or will regular work be allowed from other locations such as the DC Metro area? Please specify number of contractor seats that will be available at DISA headquarters should work be allowed in other locations. | This sections of the PWS has been updated with the following "Work for Tasks 2, 4 and 7 will be performed at DISA headquarters (Fort Meade, MD). Work for Task 1, 3, 5 and 6 shall be at the Contractor's facility or designated alternate location. The contractor shall be required to travel to support Forge.mil within CONUS." |
| 47 | PWS Section 13.0 Page 39 of 95 | Section 13 references GFE, then further references contractor purchases made under this contract. As there is not a CFE section to the RFP, what extent of material purchases from the contractor are anticipated? | CLIN x0008 Other Direct Cost (ODC) will be place where the contractor can propose to purchase the other services (software or material supplies) to perform & support the contract with government approval. |
| 48 | L 2.2.2 Page 76 of 95 | In the Cost or Pricing information section 2.2.2, there is no reference to material costs. Does this mean materials should be merged into the other tasks or are material costs not anticipated for this RFP? | Refer to answer 47 |
| 49 | Section 3, Page 20 of 95 | Section 3 states "Normal Forge.mil management and operations |
are an 8 X 5 function, however as previously stated, when outages occur designated on-call personnel may be required to work during off-hour periods to perform emergency maintenance
| for RTS conditions." This infers that "on-call" personnel will provide 24x7 support. Is this correct? | Yes. A primary key/core operational support personnel should be identified and be reachable in case of emergency. | ||
| 50 | Section 6.7, Page 29 of 95 | Section 6.7 lays out the tasks for Business Operations, then, after the bullets, includes requirements which seem more technical in nature. Do the paragraphs that include "The contractor shall be required to maintain and provide upgrades to the existing Forge.mil |
ecosystem. This includes providing open interfaces and product extensions to enable integration
| with other commercial..." belong as requirements for Business Operations? | The following statement - should not be the business operations functions. This should be corrected and move to the "Task 5 – Software Development for the Collaboration and Community product line" section. "The contractor shall be required to maintain and provide upgrades to the existing Forge.mil ecosystem. This includes providing open interfaces and product extensions to enable integration with other commercial and government tools that support the software development process. Acceptable purchases for the categories listed in this section are as follows: The contractor shall provide product maintenance and technical refreshes for existing software and hardware products." | |||
| 51 | Page 1 of 95 | Page 1 indicates that this is a small business set aside - Will the government confirm that the prime contractor must perform a minimum of 50% within the limitations of small business set aside subcontracting? Do prime contractors have to show the cost breakout by subcontractor in our cost proposal? | This is a 100% small business set-aside. The Prime MUST perform at least 51% of the work. The subcontractor MUST follow the same procedure as the prime and show their cost break down. | |
| 52 | Section 8; page 30: Place of Performance | Are all labor categories required to be onsite at Ft. Meade, or only select resources? | See the response to question 46 | |
| 53 | FAR 52.219-1; Page 52: Small Business Classification | Would the CO open the small business classification to another NAICS code? We would like to request either 443142 or 423430. Also, additional competition may be acquired by allowing GSA Schedule small businesses to submit responses. Is this something the CO would entertain? | No | |
| 54 | Section 6.1; Page 81: General Instructions | The CO has determined that enough competition exists to not solicit a Cost Plus contract. However, the data is being requested anyways. After solicitations are received, and the CO determines that competition was adequate, how will the contract be awarded (FFP, T&M?) | The determination made in reference to the question is not correct. This is a Hybrid contract with FFP and CPFF CLINS. The contract will be awarded as such. | |
| 55 | Section 6.1.1; Page 82: Cost/Price Reasonableness | The solicitation states that the Government is requesting discounts to the current offeror’s labor rates offered to the Government. The proposed, reduced labor rates will not be subject to audit. Is the government stating that if our proposed rates are lower than our posted government rates, then additional cost data will not be required? | That is not what the Government is saying. The Government has requested a discount to your proposed rates. We did not request or state we were requesting any additional cost data other that what has been requested in the RFP. |
Sheet2
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .