ATTACHMENT_06,_INTERESTED_VENDORS'_QUESTIONS_AND_GOVERNMENT_RESPONSES.pdf

QTN # INTERESTED VENDOR QUESTION/COMMENT GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

1 Item 4.6.5 specifies therequired database is either Oracle or Microsoft SQL. IATS currentlyrelies on SAP’s SQL Anywhere server for which DFAS procuresthe licenses. I have to assume that, if we migrate to SQL Server or Oracle, DFAS will provide those licenses? Nowhere in the RFP is the number of sites nor size of each site listed for which licenses would be required. Also, does the government have a preference.

Vendor software needs to operate on DFAS ELAN approved infrastructure which includes Oracle and MS SQL. Vendor software must run on either/both of those database platforms. DFAS provides the database licenses in a shared environment which the vendor software will operate

on. No expectation for vendor to provide Oracle or MS SQL database licenses separately unless they require a specialized/non-standard option not normally included in Oracle or Microsoft database licenses.

1) Item 4.6.6 suggests that the application beweb or client-server based. Does client-server option essentially also imply a web application in contrast to the Windows desktop application that the fielded IATS current is? This is crucial to performance, maintainability and stability in the field. There are many standalone systems in the field that cannot handle either (on board ships, in the field, etc.). There are, in addition to these independent and often air-gapped machines other travel offices that have no internet connectivity.

Client-server option does not imply a web application, but that is an option (Ref. 4.6.1). The following are required operational environments to support the Travel Pay requirement: 1. Stand-alone personal computer non network connected without internet access

2. Stand-alone personal computer non network connected with internet access

3. A stand-alone computer within a secured enclave

4. A computer networked via a mid-tier client-server relationship hosted on a single server 5 A computer networked via a mid-tier client-server relationship hosted on hosted on multiple servers.

Section 12 deals with security clearances. Only 3 people at PSC currently have Secret Clearances and our site is not a secured site (although our software resides at a secured repository in Chicago, IL). Most employees work from home in various locations around the country. I had told DFAS in the past that we needed security clearances, but the contract would have had to be modified to require it for us to even apply. I can get security clearances for everyone, but that takes up to a year or morewhich is beyond our control. Even if I find a secured facility here in Florida, that takes time and doesn’taddress the remote engineers and support staff who work from home offices. I could never meet this requirement before a contract award. Some of us have secret clearances because we have sensitive customers whom we visit on-site. The rest of the customers and travel offices, such as Rome, NY, Indianapolis, Quantico and Millington, TN where SAT testing is conducted do not conduct business at that clearance level.

Section 12 of the PWS has been updated, and addressed this question (See RFP ATTACHMENT 01, PWS Dated March 22, 2019).

I notice the contract mentions ATO (Authority to Operate). The ATO is procured by each service or user, not by PSC (in our case). The Marines, Navy, and various other installations have their own organizations that seek and generate the ATOs. Those organizations do not currently consider any ATO generated by DFAS to be applicable or valid. PSC can and do assist but we cannot control that process. Several organizations are quite a number of releases behind in getting ATO for IATS and SAT test sites for those organizations have to seek internal wavers and approval to individually install the current software just to participate in SAT testing. Our secret IATS customers under the current contract have their own offices responsible for ATOs. This affects the distribution of final software to field sites.

Refers only to DFAS. Reference to "sites" removed from PWS.

Section 4.1 requires the ability to interface with authorized travel authorization systems. The only one we know of is our own TPAX front end and our CEFMS interface. What specific systems is this section referring to?

Requirement is for any systems (such as TPAX) that is or will be used by special customers. Also, in support of special customers, the ability to accept flat files. Section 4.5 states the requirements for interfacing with travel order systems as well as flat files.

Section 4.2 asks that travelers and their surrogates be able to enter vouchers directly into the system.The direct inclusion of this functionality into a Travel Pay system such as IATS violates the strict separation of duties when anyone is allowed to enter travel claims rather than just authorized travel examiners. This section does however seem to imply that the requested travel pay system provide voucher entry, preparation and approval functionality like that of DTS and Smart Voucher. PSC does provide such a front end module, named TPAX, for travelers and AOs but DFAS has rejected this in the past. Under what circumstances DFAS wants travelers to enter travel claims directly enter into the travel pay system?

This appears to be referencing 4.1.2 (rather than 4.2). If so, prior 4.1.2 deleted, subsequent sections automatically renumbered."

Section 6.0 Task 3 – Program Support: " Are we supporting a team of supporters at DFAS as we currently do or are we supporting the field. There are around 350 locations for the various services that use the current IATS. They contact DFAS support when they need help and if DFAS support cannot handle Are we supporting a team of supporters at DFAS as we currently do or are we supporting the field. There are around 350 locations for the various services that use the current IATS. They contact DFAS support when they need help and if DFAS support cannot handle their issues, they then as us to contact the field.

DFAS will continue to provide the support as described in the question

Whether companies from Outside USA can apply for this? (like,from India or Canada) Competition of this effort is restricted to eligible small business concerns located within the United States of America

Whether we need to come over there for meetings? Contractor shall be required to attend meetings as needed

Can we perform the tasks (related to RFP) outside USA? (like, from India or Canada) No

Can we submit the proposals via email? Eligible interested vendors shall submit proposals via e-mail in accordance with the RFP instructions.

Would you kindly confirm if this is an entirely new effort or is there an incumbent currently providing these services? If so, would you kindly provide the incumbent contract details (contractor name, contract number)?

This is a new requirement. There is an existing active contract for similar functionality.

The RFP calls for price quote using Microsoft Excel. What is actually expected in the price quote. What level of price details is required? Price proposal shall include pricing firm-fixed price for all Contract Line Items (including Options) listed in the RFP.

Currently DFAS has a Travel Help Desk for all of DoD. I had asked who PSC supports, the field or select support offices at DFAS. Does this contract eliminate the DFAS Travel Help Desk and require the vendor to know take over that responsibility for all of DoD offices using IATS worldwide?

DFAS Travel Help Desk will continue to support DFAS offices.

1. Is this solicitation for a follow-on contract, to an existing active contract? If this is not to a follow-on contract, is there an existing active contract performing the work stated in the PWS of this solicitation?

This is not a limited sources follow-on contract. There is an existing active contract for similar functionality.

ATTACHMENT 06, INETERSTED VENDORS' QUESTIONS AND GOVERNMENT RESPONSES - Macrh 22, 2019

16 If this is a follow-on contract or another active contract performing this work:

a. What is the incumbent contract’s number?

b. What is the Total Value of this incumbent contract?

c. When does the incumbent contract end?

d. What is the company name of the incumbent contractor?

This is a new requirement. There is an existing active contract for similar functionality. The previous requirement was awarded under contract number HQ042315C0008. The period of performance ends 09/30/2019. The contractor is Professional Software Consortium, Inc.

17 As the contractor awardee must possess a Facility (Security) Clearance (FCL) at the Secret level, how much time (hours per week / days per month / months per year) does the Government estimate the contractor personnel will require their Secret personnel (security) clearance (PCL) to perform on this contract?

There is no requirement for facility security clearance on this effort. PWS and RFP have been updated to reflect as such.

How much time does the Government expect the contractor personnel to be on-site at the Government’s facilities, safeguarding classified information or controlled unclassified information (CUI) (hours per week / days per month)?

Contractor visits shall be on as-needed basis during the performance period.

19 Depending on the answers to the above Questions #1 and #2, and as our company does not possess a FCL, if the Government awards our company this contract, will the Government allow for an Interim FCL? Per NISPOM 2-107, an interim FCL may be granted to eligible contractors by the Cognizant Security Agency (CSA). An interim FCL is granted on a temporary basis pending completion of the full investigative requirements. Within this interim FCL timeframe, the company would complete all service / deliverables not requiring access to classified information or CUI.

The period of performance in the PWS has been aligned with the RFP. There is no requirement for facility security clearance on this effort. PWS and RFP have been updated to reflect as such.

PWS page 4, Section 1.5: Should this be changed to read: "The period of performance is a four month software integration period, one year base period, and four one-year option periods”? We believe that this would correlate with the table in this section.

The period of performance in PWS has been aligned with the RFP.

PWS page 4, Section 1.5: To ensure a smooth transition, will the government extend the software integration period to be 6/1/19 - 9/30/20? No, the Government does not intend to change the period of performance..

PWS Section 4.5 lists the potential of many interfaces with a wide variety of systems. Since the government has asked for firm fixed prices, can the government provide more details on which interfaces will be required and when they will be needed?

A list of required interfaces can be found in section 4.5 of the PWS.

PWS page 13, Section 5.2.1: Will the government change this requirement to read: "The Contractor shall incorporate mandated Joint Travel Regulations (JTR) rule changes and system improvements in accordance with DoD policy, based on requirements provided by and approved by the COR”?

No, the Government does not intend to change the statement.

Sheet1