ConsolidatedRFPQuestions.docx

Question 1. Reference RFP Section L-4 (c) Past Performance:

Submission Requirements: Contractors shall provide no more than 4 examples of Government or commercial contracts/work efforts which they consider relevant, which are currently being performed or were performed within the last 3 years, and which demonstrate their ability to perform the work identified in the past performance areas identified below. Offerors should provide a clear explanation of the relevancy of each example submitted; however, the Government will not be bound by those statements in making its own relevancy determinations as set out below.

Of the required four past performance references, how many must come from the Prime Contractor? Can subcontractors also provide past performance references for work of similar size and complexity within the last three years? Is there a minimum number of references the Prime Offeror must provide?

Answer: As stated in RFP Section M (b) Past Performance, Evaluation. “The Government will consider past performance information on recent and relevant projects performed both as either a prime Contractor or as a subcontractor, with equal consideration provided. In addition, when assigning a confidence assessment rating, greater consideration will be given to the most relevant reference.”

There is no minimum number of references the prime offeror must provide.

Question 2. Reference RFP Section L-4 (c) Past Performance:

We did not see a page limit for past performance. Is there a page limit and if so, what is the limit?

Answer: There is no page limit for the past performance submission.

Question 3. Reference M (a) 1 (a). Staffing and Technical Approach:

Evaluation Criteria: The following evaluation criteria will be used to evaluate the staffing and technical approach: 1. The Government will evaluate the contractor's proposed staffing and technical approach to determine: (a) the adequacy of their unique approach to accomplishing the required effort, ensuring a quality service will be provided and… Please clarify what is meant by “the adequacy of their unique approach to accomplishing the required effort” as stated above in M(a)1(a).

Answer: The Government intends to review technical and staffing proposals submitted in response to this RFP and evaluate each contractor’s unique technical and staffing approach to the work described in the PWS to determine if a contractor’s approach to accomplishing the work is adequate.

Question 4. Reference M(b) Past Performance Relevancy Please help the offeror understand how to obtain a Very Relevant rating on Past Performance References.

a. Must a reference contain every element of the TRDM PWS, or can it contain just a portion?

Answer: See revised RFP, Section M (b). Added the following sentences.

“Offerors should address all past performance areas. Each past performance area does not need to be reflected in a single reference. However, the Government may give greater consideration to a single reference that reflects past performance in multiple performance areas.”

b. If a past performance reference only addresses half of the TRDM PWS, would it be rated less relevant? Similarly, if a reference only contained material relative to the design, development, and maintenance of web pages to view and manage complex datasets, would that be deemed less relevant? Please provide an example or two to help clarify this point.

Answer: See answer 4a above.

Question 5. Reference M(b) Past Performance Relevancy Similar to Question 4 above, if a team presents four past performance references that as a group cover the entire PWS, would that Past Performance Section be considered Very Relevant? Or, is each Past Performance reference rated individually? This would seem to favor the incumbent since they are the only competitor performing this exact PWS.

Answer: As described in M(b), relevancy will be determined using the definitions provided on pages 116 and 117. Each past performance effort will be assessed to determine recency and relevancy. Also, see answer to Question 4a for further clarification.

Question 6. Reference L-4 (d) Price Proposal (shall not exceed six pages):

Please explain why the Price Proposal is limited to 6 pages. With a lengthy list of CLINS and ODCs, the offeror may need additional space to provide the necessary detail and explain in sufficient detail as to how our prices were derived.

Answer: Attachment 4 is revised to allow interested offerors to list labor categories per CLIN and RFP, Section M(c) has been revised to eliminate page limit.

Question 7. Reference 6.0. Appendices, Appendix A – Estimated Workload The estimated workload has not accounted for 1.1.2.1. TRDM-Database Management. Please clarify the workload requirement.

Answer: Estimated workload data is not provided for CLIN 0002 since it is a firm fixed priced CLIN. PWS paragraph 1.1.2.1. is considered a sustainment task and is a firm fixed price item, therefore no workload data is included in the PWS.

Question 8. Reference 6.0. Appendices, Appendix A – Estimated Workload: The estimated workload is for the duration of one Fiscal Year (NOTE: Base period is six (6) months) for tasks deemed as development. Future workload may vary depending on the requirements of USTRANSCOM and OSD.

Is the 27,354 a six month or one Fiscal Year estimate? Can you pls clarify? A fiscal year projection with and without optional tasks would be helpful along with the current number of FTEs working the current contract.

Answer: The 27,354 hour estimate is a one (1) year or 12 month estimate for the development tasks. CLINS supporting sustainment tasks are not included in the estimated workload since they are firm fixed priced CLINS. Therefore, CLINS 0002 and 0004 (including subsequent option year clins) have no estimated workload data provided.

Question 9. Reference L-4 (b) Technical Approach The page allocation for the Staffing and Technical Approach seems overly restrictive at 20 pages. Would the government consider expanding the page limit to 40 pages to allow for a more thorough and compelling solution to be presented? With a lengthy, relatively complex PWS such as TRDM, the offeror requires space to provide a detailed explanation of how we plan to accomplish the many requirements as enumerated in the subject solicitation.

Answer: See revised RPF, Section L-4(a). Page limit is increased from 20 to 30 pages total for Staffing and Technical Approach. Note: Labor category descriptions submitted will not count against the 30 page limit for Staffing and Technical approach.

Question 10. Reference Page 1, SF-33. Extension to due date of January 22nd of 2013.

This offeror would like to request an extension due to the fact that there was no Draft RFP issued for review or comment, and it was not known whether or not this would be a Small Business Set Aside or a Full and Open Competition. That coupled with an aggressive turn time of 31 calendar days at the height of holiday season makes this competition seemingly more restrictive and would appear to favor the incumbent contractor. More time would level the playing field and increase competition to make sure the government receives a number of cost effective solutions to select from.

Answer: An extension to the RFP due date was considered and the Government determined an extension is not in the best interest of the Government.

Question 11. 1. Section C, Paragraph 1.2, Page 37: For the DAIS tasks, will the Government provide any source documentation such as a Concept of Operations (CONOPS) or Capability Development Document (CDD) for review?

Answer: No Question 12. Section C, Paragraph 6.0, Appendix A, Page 63: Does the Government consider each of the tasks in the Estimated Workload table on Pg. 63 to be “development” tasks in accordance with the language below the table that states, “*The estimated workload is for the duration of one Fiscal Year (NOTE: Base period is six (6) months) for tasks deemed as development.”

Answer: Yes Question 13. Section L, Paragraph 5. L-4 (c), Page 114: Will the Government provide Performance Areas 5 and 6 for Attachment 5 to allow answers for all Past Performance areas identified in this paragraph?

Answer: Performance areas 5 and 6 were inadvertently left off the RFP, Attachment 5. The RFP, Attachment 5 now includes all 6 performance areas.

Question 14. Section L, Paragraph 5. L-4 (d), Page 114: Does Attachment 4, Staffing and Pricing, constitute the entire 6 pages of the price proposal or are there 6 additional pages expected or allowed for a narrative of the price proposal?

Answer: See revised Attachment 4, Staffing and Pricing. RFP, Section M(c) has been revised to eliminate page limit.

Question 15. Attachment 2, DD254: Both blocks 11a and 11c are marked “YES” on the RFP’s DD254. Is it the Government’s expectation that the contractor will have classified material to store at the contractor’s facility during execution of this effort?

Answer: The contract does require the generation, maintenance, and storage of classified data/media. The Government does have seating availability on Scott AFB allowing contract employees to access and store classified data onsite. Any classified work done outside of the Government-furnished facility will require the facility to be cleared, as indicated on DD254, for this work otherwise this work must be done in the space provided.

Question 16. Attachment 5, Past Performance Reference Sheet: Each of the Performance Areas in Attachment 5 asks for “Proposed Performance for this area.” Does that mean we should list the percentage and dollar amount that we propose each member of our team to use on this solicitation?

Answer: Yes Question 17. In the Solicitation, pages 2 thru 26, please confirm the following PWS task /CLIN associations:

CLIN 001

· 1.1.2.2 (including sub paragraphs 1.1.2.2.1 thru 1.1.2.2.9)

· 1.1.2.4.1 (including sub paragraphs 1.1.2.4.1.1 thru 1.1.2.4.1.8)

· 1.1.2.5 (including sub paragraphs 1.1.2.5.1 and 1.1.2.5.2)

· 1.1.2.6 (including sub paragraphs 1.1.2.6.1 thru 1.1.2.6.4)

CLIN 002

· 1.1.1 (including sub paragraphs 1.1.1.1 thru 1.1.1.3.3)

· 1.1.2.1 (including sub paragraphs 1.1.2.1.1 thru 1.1.2.1.7)

· 1.1.2.3 (including sub paragraphs 1.1.2.3.1 thru 1.1.2.3.4)

· 1.1.2.4.2

· 1.1.2.7

· 1.1.2.8 (including sub paragraphs 1.1.2.8.1 thru 1.1.2.8.6.6)

· 1.1.2.9 (including sub paragraphs 1.1.2.9.1 thru 1.1.2.9.2.2)

CLIN 003

· 1.2.2.2 (including sub paragraphs 1.2.2.2.1 thru 1.2.2.2.4)

· 1.2.2.3.4 (including sub paragraphs 1.2.2.3.4.1 thru 1.2.2.3.4.9)

· 1.2.2.4.3

· 1.2.2.4.5

· 1.2.2.5 (including sub paragraphs 1.2.2.5.1 thru 1.2.2.5.8)

· 1.2.2.6.3 (including sub paragraphs 1.2.2.6.3.1, 1.2.2.6.3.2, and 1.2.2.6.3.4) NOTE: 1.2.2.6.3.3 is missing.

Answer: This is correct. There is no PWS paragraph 1.2.2.6.3.3

· 1.2.2.6.4 (including sub paragraphs 1.2.2.6.4.1 thru 1.2.2.6.4.7)

· 1.2.2.7

· 1.2.2.10 (including sub paragraphs 1.2.2.10.1 and 1.2.2.10.2)

CLIN 004

· 1.2.1 (including sub paragraphs 1.2.1.1 thru 1.2.1.2.3)

· 1.2.2.3.4 (including sub paragraphs 1.2.2.3.4.1 thru 1.2.2.3.4.9) NOTE: This paragraph is also listed under CLIN 0003. Which is correct?

Answer: PWS Paragraph 1.2.2.3.4 has been removed from CLIN 0004 and subsequent option year CLINS.

· 1.2.2.4 (except 1.2.2.4.3 and 1.2.2.4.5 which are listed under CLIN 003)

· 1.2.2.6.1.1

· 1.2.2.6.5 (including sub paragraphs 1.2.2.6.5.1 and 1.2.2.6.5.2)

· 1.2.2.8 (including sub paragraphs 1.2.2.8.1 thru 1.2.2.8.5)

· 1.2.2.9 (including sub paragraphs 1.2.2.9.1 thru 1.2.2.9.5.4)

CLIN 005

· 1.1.2.10 (including sub paragraphs 1.1.2.10.1 thru 1.1.2.10.2.5)

CLIN 006

· 1.2.2.11 (including sub paragraphs 1.2.2.11.1 thru 1.2.2.11.2) Answer: See revised CLIN structure in RFP, Section B for inclusion of subparagraphs as stated above.

Question 18. Please confirm the CLIN associations to the following PWS paragraphs:

· 1.2.2.1 (including sub paragraphs 1.2.2.1.1 thru 1.2.2.1.3)

· 1.2.2.3.1 thru 1.2.2.3.3

· 1.2.2.6.1 thru 1.2.2.6.2 (except 1.2.2.6.1.1 which was assigned to CLIN 004)

· 1.2.2.6.6 (What item is this paragraph associated with) Answer: PWS Paragraphs 1.2.2.1 and 1.2.2.6.6 (and subparagraphs) have been removed from PWS.

Answer: There are no tasks to be priced for PWS paragraph 1.2.2.3.1 thru 1.2.2.3.3 or Paragraphs 1.2.2.6.1 and 1.2.2.6.2

Where is PWS para 1.2.2.6.5.2?

Answer: PWS para 1.2.2.6.5.2 describes Ad-Hoc reporting Answer: No tasks are associated with PWS paragraphs 1.2.2.3.1 thru 1.2.2.3.3 or 1.2.2.6.1 thru 1.2.2.6.2 (except 1.2.2.6.1.1 which was assigned to CLIN 004) Question 19. Page 36, paragraph 1.1.2.10, “. . . re-hosting milestones within thirty (45) days . . . .”

· Please confirm either 30 or 45 days is correct.

Answer: 45 days is correct Question 20. Page 52. 2.0 Service Delivery Schedule lists PWS para 1.4.5.12. We could find no corresponding PWS paragraph. Should this reference another paragraph?

Answer: Amendment 0001 removes PWS paragraphs 1.2.2.12, 1.2.2.13 and 1.4.5.12 from the Service Delivery Schedule (Pages 51 and 52). Also, the Deliverable Schedule removes Task 1.2.2.12 and includes reference for paragraph 1.2.2.11.

Question 21. Between pages 52 and 53. It appears that the pages misprinted. Paragraphs 4.1.3 and the beginning of 4.1.4 are missing.

Answer: The PDF appears to have full paragraphs for 4.1.3. and 4.1.4. If you are missing those sections and need us to resend please contact the Contract Specialist.

Question 22. Page 112. L-3, 2 (b) states that Volume 3 – Cost Proposal should contain Section 1 –Section B and Backup Documentation. Page 114. L-4 (d) indicates that we are to use Attachment 4 of the PWS. Because of the six-page limit, we do not believe we can comply with both. Which do you prefer? If you require a completed Section B, we believe the page limit will have to be increased.

Answer: Page limit has been eliminated for cost proposal in RFP, Section L-3, 2(b) cost proposal. Offerors are required to return Sections A-K, including Section B, Attachment 4 (as revised in amendment 0001) and any backup documentation.

Question 23: Section B of the TRANSCOM RDM RFP (HTC711-13-R-D001) provides the schedule of Supplies or Services and Prices. ITEM NO 0003 of that schedule is titled Labor (RDT&E), FFP, Task 2, DAIS System Design, Configuration Management, Database Management and Web Services (for PWS paragraphs 1.2.2.2, 1.2.2.3.4, 1.2.2.4.3, 1.2.2.4.5, 1.2.2.5, 1.2.2.6.3, 1.2.2.6.4, 1.2.2.7, and 1.2.2.10). ITEM NO 0004 of that schedule is titled Labor (Ops & Maint) Optional Task 2, FFP, DAIS Test and Evaluation, Operations, Life Cycle Management, Security (for PWS paragraphs 1.2.1, 1.2.2.3.4, 1.2.2.4, 1.2.2.4.6, 1.2.2.6.1.1, 1.2.2.6.5, 1.2.2.8 and 1.2.2.9). PWS paragraph 1.2 DAIS Platform (Optional Task Two) includes all of the PWS paragraphs/subparagraphs described in ITEM 0003 and ITEM 0004. Is the Government requesting the paragraphs/subparagraphs included in ITEM 0003 be priced as Task 2 (i.e. not optional) and the paragraphs/subparagraphs included in ITEM 0004 be priced as Optional Task Two? The same question is relative to ITEM NOs 1003, 1004, 2003, 2004, 3003, 3004, 4003, 4004, 5003 and 5004.

Answer: See answer to question #17.

Question 24: Section B of the TRANSCOM RDM RFP (HTC711-13-R-D001) provides the schedule of Supplies or Services and Prices. The schedule does not include ITEM NOs for the pricing of PWS paragraph 1.3 Contractor Transition and Exit Requirements (Optional Task Four). Should offerors price Optional Task Four? If yes, will the Government modify the solicitation to include ITEM NOs for pricing purposes?

Answer: As stated in PWS Paragraph 1.3, The Government does NOT intend to price PWS paragraph Optional Task Four.

Question 25. In Solicitation Number: HTC711-13-R-D001, could you please clarify the statement Set-Aside: Total Small Business Place of Performance.

Answer: As stated in PWS paragraph 4.1.4, the Government anticipates contractor will work on site at Scott AFB, IL.

Question 26. Section C, Paragraph 1.1.2.7., Page 33: Does the Government prefer or will they require a specific ticketing system, such as Remedy, for enabling Customer Support capabilities?

Answer: As listed in PWS, Appendix B, JIRA is the software currently being used to manage customer and project ticketing. The Government currently has no plans or funding to purchase any additional software to accomplish this task.

Question 27. Section B, Item No. 0003 and Item No. 0004, Page 3 (and related optional Items 0003 and 0004): PWS Paragraph 1.2.2.3.4 is listed in both line items. Can the Government clarify in which Item Number the PWS Paragraph should be contained?

Answer: See answer to question #17 Question 28. Section B, Item No. 0003 and Item No. 0004, Page 3 (and related optional Item Numbers 0003 and 0004): PWS Paragraph 1.2.2.3.1, 1.2.2.3.2, and 1.2.2.3.3 are not listed in either line item. Can the Government clarify in which Item Number the PWS Paragraphs should be contained?

Answer: See answer to question #17 Question 29. Section B, Item No. 0006, Page 4: Section C, Paragraph 1.2.2.11., Page 48 states that “transition support will not start be optioned until FY14 and will only be optioned for as long as it takes the transition to be complete,” but Item Number 0006 asks for a Net Amount to be entered for the base period. Does the Government expect an amount other than $0 to be entered for the base period for Item Number 0006?

Answer: See revised PWS Paragraph 1.2.2.11. Also, see revised Staffing and Pricing, Attachment 4.

Question 30. Section C, Paragraph 1.2.2.5.4, Page 42: The Deliverable states, ”Provide logical and physical database models to the COR at contract award….” Can the government reconsider the “at contract award” time requirement? Without access to DOD I&E representatives to clearly define the business and the already defined data elements, the logical model cannot be created and therefore cannot be transformed to a physical model.

Answer: See revised PWS, Paragraph 1.2.2.5.4. Logical and physical database models exist today. Essentially the winning Contractor would be provided the existing models on contract award and any updates to these models would be provided to the Government as requested/necessary ongoing thereafter.

Question 31. Section L, Paragraph L-3.1(a), Page 111: In Section L, the instructions for the cost proposal appear to require extensive documentation, as outlined under L-3 1. (a). However, under L-3 2.(b) the cost proposal volume is limited to 6 pages. Is it your intention to require the completed sections A – K with the submittal of our proposal, thereby violating the 6 page limitation, or will you be requesting that documentation at a later time or not include it under the 6 page limitation as stated in L-3 2.(b)?

Answer: Sections A-K should be returned with your proposal in accordance with L-3 1.(a). The page limit for the cost proposal has been eliminated; see revised RFP, Section L -3 2.(b) Volume 3.

Question 32. Government has not provided estimated LOE for any PWS elements in CLIN 0002, 0004. Can government please clarify if this was on purpose or an omission? If it is an omission will government provide LOE against those CLINS?

Answer: See answer to question #7.

Question 33. Is the government looking for cost against the optional CLINS?

Answer: See Revised RFP, Section L-4(d) and revised Attachment 4 Staffing and Pricing Question 34. The following sentence in the PWS suggest that the government is not looking for a cost against Optional Task One. Can you please clarify?

"Transition Support (Optional Task One) The support provided under this task is optional for all follow on years, and shall be executed at the discretion of the Government. If the Government determines support is required, the Government will provide the Contractor with a request for proposal. The Contractor shall provide a price proposal, breaking out the labor categories/rates and number of hours to accomplish the task. Upon acceptance of a valid Contractor proposal, the Government will process a modification to the contract. If the Government deems this support necessary, the Contractor will be given at least 15 days’ notice before a funding modification is executed."

Answer: Answer: See revised PWS Paragraph 1.1.2.10. Also, see revised Staffing and Pricing, Attachment 4.

Question 35. Will the cost for optional tasks be included in the TEP calculation?

Answer: Yes. See revised RFP, Section M(c) 1.

Question 36. In section L-C past performance has 6 areas to address whereas the PPQ has only 4 areas listed. Can the government please clarify the discrepancy?

Answer: See answer to question #13.

Question 37. Can the government please clarify that the "Proposed Performance for this area:" in the Past Performance Reference template refers to the Prime/sub split of the dollar value of the performance area of the subject past performance and not the proposed Prime/sub split on the proposed TRDM contract effort?

Answer: “The Proposed Performance for this area” block refers to the percentage and dollar value expected to be performed on the TRDM effort, not on the past performance reference submitted for evaluation. Also, see answer to question #16.

Question 38. Section M Paragraph ( c) 1 discusses how the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) is calculated. It states: “Pricing for the six-month Extension of Services period will be based on half of the hours proposed for each labor category in the last option period and proposed labor rates in effect on the last of day of the final option period.” According to the Period of performance as identified in Section F, the final option period is 1 October, 2017 through 31 March, 2018. This final option is for a period of six (6) months.

Can the government please clarify how the Extension of Services period will be calculated based on the fact the final option period is already set at six months (CLIN 5001-5008)? Will there be a 6 month or 3 month Extension of Services period added to calculate the Total Evaluated Price (TEP)?

Answer: See revised RFP, Section M(c) 1. The TEP will be calculated using a 6 month period of performance for the FAR clause 52.217-8 extension of services NOT by using half of the hours proposed for the last option year. For instance, the last option period is a 6 month period of performance, the Government will use this total 6 month option period to calculate the 52.217-8 extension price (CLINS 5001 thru 5008).

Question 39. PWS 1.1.2.1.2. The Contractor shall provide and maintain logical and physical database models in support of this effort.

Can offerors be allowed access to the database models? We feel that offerors cannot come up with a viable solution unless we have access to the current DB?

Answer: See revised PWS, Paragraph 1.1.2.1.2. Logical and physical database models exist today. Essentially the winning Contractor would be provided the existing models on contract award and any updates to these models would be provided to the Government as requested/necessary ongoing thereafter.

Question 40. Is there an existing toolset used to maintain logical and physical database models?

Answer: See Question #26 Question 41. Is there a single sign on application?

Answer: No. The web user interface is accessed via PKI, but no single sign on exists between TRDM and any other system Question 42. Is TRDM looking at setting up a common development environment?

Answer: TRANSCOM’s goal is to have all of their programs eventually move into a central Common Development Environment. The environment is not readily available today, but is close to being operational. As with other TRANSCOM systems, TRDM is planning on migrating development into this environment when it becomes available.

Question 43. Do you have System and Operation Views you can share (i.e. SV-1, OV6c, etc.)?

Answer. These architectural documents are not available for distribution to the public.

Question 44. 1.1.2.1.3. The Contractor shall be responsible for the generation of the associated architecture products to support the Information Support Plan (ISP) or Tailored ISP (TISP) and DoD Information Assurance Certification and Accreditation Process (DIACAP) process. These products will require updates throughout the duration of the contract period as system changes occur. The Contractor shall assist with the mapping of reference data to any conceptual business models and enterprise-level logical data models.

We assume these documents currently exist, thus requiring updates and modifications per annual DIACAP review. Can you please verify?

Answer. These documents do exist today and are living documents; however some documents will require updates more frequently than others.

Question 45. Is there an architecture developed for the production environment?

Answer: Yes Question 46. 1.1.2.1.7. All data identified for the DoD Metadata Repository (DMR) shall have clearly-defined metadata and shall be Extensible Mark Up Language (XML)-tagged. This data shall be uploaded and maintained in the DoD Metadata and XML Registries to support the DoD Net-Centric Data Strategy for visibility, understanding, and discovery of data. The Contractor shall perform these duties in conjunction with DoD Net-Centric goals (http://metadata.dod.mil/mdr/ns/ces/techguide/net_centric_data_strategy_ncds_goals.html) and the USTRANSCOM Corporate Services Vision (CSV).

Will the offeror only be responsible for new additions to the DMR?

Answer: If existing metadata is changed or updated, the offeror is expected to update the corresponding entries into the DMR. New metadata will also be required to be inputted.

Question 47. 1.1.2.2.5. The Contractor shall create tables populated with commercial and Government reference data, maintain the data and make updates to the data. Authoritative data shall be managed by the data stewards per agreements made with each authoritative source as to the frequency of updates for reference data.

If the authoritative source provides a service then the systems can consume, otherwise this will require a human to manually complete the updates. Can you pls explain as this seems contradictory to the CSV?

Answer: TRDM receives data from approximately 800 authoritative sources. Some sources are systems, while others range from commercial data to hard copies of manuals or instructions. The CSV does state systems should use services when possible. However, the reality is that the majority of TRANSCOM and TRANSCOM Component (TCC) systems are not capable of building or consuming web services due to a variety of contractual and/or technical issues.

Question 48. Is the offeror responsible for data validation and integrity?

Answer: The offeror must validate that the data being populated within TRDM, either automatically or manually depending upon the source, matches what the source contains.

Question 49. 1.1.2.2.9. The Contractor shall support critical exercises (e.g. Terminal Fury, Dragon Reach, etc.) by preparing specific table updates for distribution, while ensuring interface partners and TRDM users are not impacted by these exercises. These exercises occur on a quarterly basis.

Will this require a separate database or does an exercise database currently exist?

Answer: The capability exists today. The offeror will be required to perform duties as outlined in the above task statement regarding table updates/creation and distribution.

Question 50. 1.1.2.3.3. The Contractor shall migrate the approximately 500 remaining legacy TMDS tables from the legacy database to the current TRDM database. This effort will involve the modeling, creation, and population of these tables within TRDM.

Can you pls provide additional information on the 500 legacy tables i.e. which systems or architectures they support?

Answer: The 500 tables being migrated support a variety of customers from other TRANSCOM and TCC systems to web users and reside on both the classified and unclassified sides.

Question 51. 1.1.2.4.1. The Contractor shall maintain the web site for the TRDM data using tools that meet DoD requirements.

Can you pls verify an assumption that the COR currently has a repository of the TRDM web site.

Answer: The TRDM web site exists today, but additional capabilities, views, queries, etc. are being added/modified on a regular basis. The offeror will be responsible for the development of these along with additional capabilities as outlined in the PWS (e.g. Change Request Capability).

Question 52. 1.1.2.4.1.2. The Contractor shall ensure appropriate DoD security mechanisms are in place to protect the reference data.

Can you pls verify an assumption that these mechanisms are currently in place as this could be a very costly task and result in reengineering?

Answer: Security mechanisms are in place today, however security is an ongoing effort involving patching, updates, IAVA mitigation, etc. to ensure compliance with DoD security regulations.

Question 53. 1.1.2.5.1. The Contractor shall maintain the data distribution application that will be used in conjunction with the user interface application to direct users’ changes to the appropriate systems. Expansion of distribution beyond current distribution may include sending reference data updates, as required, to other systems. The Contractor shall maintain and update a Relational Database Management System (RDBMS) that contains all managed reference tables and information associated with those tables. Reference table data must be viewable and downloadable for DoD and Government users using the security measures currently in place by USTRANSCOM (i.e. Common Access Card (CAC) login, Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) enabled).

Is the Reference table data harvested by a DBA for upload into the PKI enabled application? There is no PKI on the classified side that we are aware of.

Answer: DoD has released a SIPR token which allows PKI capabilities on SIPR.

Question 54. The Contractor shall maintain web services to support the receipt and delivery of data to and from systems. Web services shall also be implemented to support reporting and queries against repository data. The Contractor shall also monitor and validate automated queries of the web service to ensure that the web service responds in a timely manner. The Contractor shall maintain the mechanism to ensure positive and routine control of reference data to ensure all data is received by the using system.

Can you pls verify an assumption that monitoring tools are currently in place and what they are?

Answer: See PWS, Appendix B GFE (Software) Question 55. 1.1.2.6.2. The Contractor shall provide advisory services for web service, portal development, and Business Process Modeling architecture evaluations for reference data requirements to the USTRANSCOM agile development teams working within the Enterprise Integration Lab (EIL).

Is there any commercial portal software in place today?

Answer: USTRANSCOM is currently using Liferay as their preferred portal software.

Question 56. 1.1.2.6.3. The Contractor shall maintain web services to support the receipt and delivery of data to and from systems. Web services shall also be implemented to support reporting and queries against repository data. The Contractor shall also monitor and validate automated queries of the web service to ensure that the web service responds in a timely manner. The Contractor shall maintain the mechanism to ensure positive and routine control of reference data to ensure all data is received by the using system.

How are current Web Service consumers tracked?

Answer: The Government expects the offeror to provide a solution for web service metric tracking in their proposal.

Question 57. 1.1.2.6.4. All web services and interfaces will have defined metadata and will be XML-tagged. This data shall be uploaded and maintained in the DoD Metadata and XML registries to support the USTRANSCOM CSV for visibility and discovery of data including interfaces. The DoD Metadata Registry can be found at https://metadata.dod.mil/mdr/homepage.htm.

In reference to TRDM Web Services, are there any commercial SOA tools in place today?

Answer: All hardware/software being utilized by TRDM is listed within the GFE

Question 58. Could we see a few sample Web Service contracts (e.g. WSDL), so that we can gauge the granularity of the services?

Answer: These documents are not available for distribution to the public.

Question 59. How are the web service endpoints secured?

Answer: Using DoD certificates and IPs

Question 60. 1.1.2.7. TRDM – Customer Support The Contractor shall provide customer support five (5) days a week during normal business work hours (0800-1800 CST). Contractor shall respond to customer queries received outside of normal business hours within four (4) hours of start of next business day. For long-term resolution problems (two or more business days), the Contractor shall keep customers informed of call status daily. Contact information shall be provided on the web site and in user documentation. The customer support function shall manage and monitor the web site feedback area and respond to consumer questions and suggestions. Negative feedback or suggestions shall be communicated with the COR. The COR will then review the feedback and may require the Contractor to resolve any system or network-related issues.

Pls verify that help desk/customer support must be done on base due to the classified system?

Answer: Correct Question 61. How many TRDM users are there?

Answer: See PWS, Paragraph 1.1. Approx. 2700 web users for TRDM and 50+ unique system to system interfaces.

Question 62. How many calls occur per month?

Answer: See revised PWS, Paragraph 1.1.2.7 to include anticipated number of inquiries per month. The Government anticipates 50-75 inquiries per month.

Question 63. Do majority of the users access via front end GUI or back end?

Answer: The majority of users enter the front end GUI, while we have a large number of individual users that subscribe to the tables and over 50 unique complex system interfaces providing data, consuming data, or both.

Question 64. 1.1.2.8. TRDM – Information Assurance (IA) The Contractor shall ensure the repository allows access only to .mil and .gov domain users and systems. The repository shall conform to DoD IA policies, including C2 level security and user access by PKI-enabled or CAC access.

Can we see the source code repository or tell us the type of coding used?

Answer: The source code repository is not available for distribution to the public.

Question 65. Can you verify that there is no PKI access for classified system, so the repository will be maintained on the unclassified network, with no code containing classified information?

Answer: As mentioned above, there is no PKI access for classified systems Question 66. 1.1.2.8.3. The Contractor shall perform the duties of IA log monitoring and analysis on TRDM systems. The Contractor shall address any potential security findings by immediately relaying these findings to the COR and appropriate security entity for further instruction.

Is this separate from USTRANSCOM policy to have the GCCC monitor all systems and provide real-time reporting?

Answer: Yes Question 67. 1.1.2.8.5.2. The Contractor shall complete the creation of all DIACAP-required documentation prior to submission for an Authorization to Operate (ATO) and an Authorization to Connect (ATC). Currently, TRDM resides on the Air Force Network with the ATO/ATC expiring on both the NIPR and SIPR networks in July 2013. The initial package for this reaccreditation will have been submitted just prior to the start of this contract. As the Information Awareness (IA) team reviews this package, changes may be required in the first 6 months of the contract. The Contractor shall make the appropriate changes as necessary to satisfy DIACAP requirements and ensure reaccreditation prior to the July 2013 expiration date. Eventually, TRDM will migrate to the TRANSCOM network. This will require a submission for a new ATO. It is estimated that the Contractor will be responsible for the development of documentation for two (2) accreditation cycles throughout the life of the contract – FY14 (TRANSCOM Network), FY17 (TRANSCOM Network). This estimate may be impacted depending upon the length of the ATO/ATC granted by the Designated Approving Authorities (DAA). This documentation will be provided to the COR. The Contractor shall also support the Government in the coordination and submission of the DIACAP-related documentation. The Contractor shall monitor the status of the DIACAP package through the ATO/ATC phases and will keep the IAM abreast of current status.

Pls verify that there are two times for unclassified and two times for classified total four DIACP packages?

Answer: Depending upon the length of accreditation, the Government anticipates a minimum of two full DIACAP cycles for both the classified and unclassified environment (Four packages). Also as mentioned in the PWS, pending IA review the offeror may be required to make changes to or update the DIACAP submission for the NIPR and SIPR July 2013 renewal.

Question 68. 1.1.2.8.6. Test and Evaluation (T&E) The Contractor shall provide test and evaluation support for TRDM and IT program-related activities throughout the acquisition lifecycle using the Integrated Defense Acquisition, Technology, & Logistics Life Cycle Management Framework.

The offeror needs to know how in-depth software testers and security testers are involved or is this just administrative support to other T&E teams to provide a viable solution.

Answer: The offeror is expected to provide software testing as outlined in the PWS. The offeror will perform some security testing while other testing is completed within the Air Force and TRANSCOM IA shops. The offeror is also responsible for finalizing and maintaining a Joint Interoperability Test Center (JITC) certification which requires testing, reporting, and coordination as outlined in the PWS.

Question 69. The offeror feels that we need a copy of the incumbent’s Transition Out plan so we know what to expect and plan for? Also, what is the role of the incumbent during the transition period? What is the Government plan for transition?

Answer: The current contract does not include a transition plan.

Question 70. Is there an inventory of software versions and hardware?

Answer: The software and hardware is listed under the PWS, Appendix B, GFE Question 71. Are you considering upgrades? If so, pls describe?

Answer: Please refer to PWS as for what is expected of the offeror Question 72. Will Government and vendor jointly determine size and complexity of future releases?

Answer: Yes Question 73. Should the SF33 be executed and returned as part of the Cost Proposal? Is this page excluded from the page count?

Answer: See Question 31.

Question 74. In the Cost Proposal due 22 Jan 2013, for CLIN 0005, are contractors to provide labor categories and rates to deliver only the system re-engineering and re-hosting project plan within (45) days? The RFP language regarding TRDM Transition (PWS 1.1.2.10) indicates we would provide this data in the future, should the Government determine support is required.

Answer: CLIN 0005 is expected to cover the project plan (due 45-days after Government request) and the implementation of the plan. Therefore CLIN 0005 would cover 1 Apr 2013 thru 30 Sep 2013. Also, see estimated workload data form CLIN 0005 on page 63.

Question 75. This section states: “The Contractor shall have Contract Manager, team leads and all other personnel 100% available and in place at the start of the contract – 1 April 2013.” The RFP does not define a “transition period” in which to capture and transition incumbent personnel and knowledge from the current contractor. This seems to provide an unfair advantage to the incumbent contractor. Will the government add a 15-day transition period prior to the contract start date to facilitate knowledge transfer and CAC card-based access?

Answer: The Government intends to start a new contract on 1 April 2013. The current contract does not include a transition plan.

Question 76. For clarity, are “Staffing and Technical Approach” considered to be 2 separate evaluation factors as listed below and in Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award):

1. Staffing

2. Technical Approach Or, is “Staffing and Technical Approach” considered to be one combined evaluation factor, as listed in RFP Section M(a)?

Answer: Staffing and Technical approaches will be evaluated separately. See revised language in RFP, Section M(a) 1. (c). For proposal submission purposes, they are to be submitted in the same volume for evaluation.