Round_1_Q A's_ICODES-V7_(11_Dec_14).pdf

RFP HTC711-14-R-D006

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS (1–42)

1. I do not see a date/time suspense for questions regarding the PWS. Is the Government not accepting questions pertaining to the PWS?

Answer: In accordance with RFP Sections L-1 through L-3, formal communications and request for clarification and/or information concerning the solicitation shall be submitted in writing or via email to the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist. Written inquiries will be answered in writing and provided to all Offerors via Federal Business Opportunities at www.fbo.gov.

Please reference RFP Section L-1 for the mailing and email addresses.

2. Please confirm that the $3,000,000 of funding associated with CLIN 0001 is the entire amount of funding available to complete Task 2 (ICODES v7.0 development).

Answer: Please reference question 3 below.

3. Can the Government provide the underlying assumptions for the Independent Government Cost Estimate which resulted in the $3,000,000 funding limit, i.e. SLOC, function points, etc.?

Answer: Based on its analysis, market research conducted and limited fiscal resources, the Government has budgeted approximately $3,000,000.00 for the development portion of the contract. This information is provided for offeror’s information only and is not intended to limit an offeror’s proposed technical approach or establish a firm maximum acceptable price.

4. What is the period of performance for Task Area 3? Does it begin at contract award, following delivery of ICODES V7, or at a TBD transition point in between?

Answer: Task Area 3–Sustainment will begin when Task Area 2– Develop System Functionality is complete and the developed solution is implemented. The sustainment start date may vary based on each offeror’s unique approach for accomplishing Task Area 2.

5. Are the labor categories listed in Attachment 4 required to be used, or may the offeror propose their own labor categories and qualifications?

Answer: Offerors shall utilize the labor categories listed in Attachment 4.

6. We received the AMRDEC e-mail and have downloaded the provided GFI. Review of it raises a couple of questions: All the documentation contained therein is for Version 6.0.5 while the web page http://www.sddc.army.mil/icodes/default.aspx reports the current version of ICODES is 6.0.6. Will the potential bidders be receiving 6.0.6 documentation to review?

Answer: If there were no updates in the documentation from v6.0.5 to v6.0.6 the document version remains the same. If changes to the document were required the version number will reflect the change. The documents provided with the RFP are the most current version.

http://www.fbo.gov/ http://www.sddc.army.mil/icodes/default.aspx

7. After industry day, attendees received source code for build 6.0.4 as part of the GFI package.

There was no source code in the most recent download. Our analysis of 6.0.4 source code yielded the following: The current version is 2 builds later, will bidders receive source code for

6.0.6 so we can compare and determine if there are any major changes that might affect our proposal?

Answer: Offerors will receive current source code upon request.

8. In the solicitation, there is a certain work share set aside for small businesses. Can you please clarify Subfactor 2 - Small Business Utilization Plan (Applies to Small Businesses Only)? We will be close to about 55 to 60% of work share for SB including ourselves, so do we qualify for any additional credit/points on this.

Answer: As stated in the RFP, Section L-9 (d) and Section M-2, Factor 4, Subfactor 2–Small Business Utilization Plan applies to Small Businesses Only. The utilization plan submitted by Small Businesses will be evaluated as stated in Section M-2, Factor 4, Subfactor 2 of the RFP.

This subfactor is rated Acceptable or Unacceptable. Points are not awarded and all Acceptable ratings are considered equal for evaluation purposes.

9. What is the Period of Performance for the Base Period? PWS states Estimated March 1, 2015 through NLT September 30, 2016. Attachment 5A states April 1, 2015 through September 30, 2016.

Answer: The Base period of performance is 1 Apr 2015 through (Offeror to Identify Date) (NTE 30 Sep 2016). The PWS was updated in Amendment 2 to the RFP.

10. RFP Section L, Page 43-45, Para L-6.

a. May graphics be rendered in a font other than Times New Roman? Non-serif fonts such as Arial and Calibri are generally easier to read when in small-size fonts.

Answer: Offerors may utilize non-serif fonts for figures and diagrams.

b. Will Tables of Contents count toward the page limits of Volumes 2, 3 and 4?

Answer: Tables of Contents will not count toward the page limits of Volumes 2, 3 and 4.

c. Would the Government please provide an editable (i.e. MS Word) version of the solicitation (to complete fill-ins) and CDRLs?

Answer: Please complete the PDF version of the RFP. Offerors are not required to complete and submit the CDRLs with the proposal.

d. Would the Government consider increasing the number of past performance references so that we may reflect the full range of experience and performance for all team members? An additional two references (maximum of 5) would provide a more comprehensive view.

Answer: The number of past performance references for the prime offeror will remain at three (3). However, offerors may submit up to two (2) additional references for each subcontractor performing major or critical aspects of the requirement. The government will update the RFP in the next Amendment.

11. PWS Page 5, Para 1.3 Task 1. What is the size (in SLOC, function points or a similar metric) for the ICDM software to be replaced in Task Area 1?

Answer: The government does not have access to the ICDM code base. The purpose of the ICODES V7 contract is for the offeror to identify and provide a solution that will replace the functionality provided by ICDM and grant, at a minimum, government purpose rights to all the ICODES V7 source code. The Government provided all available documentation with the RFP.

12. RFP, Cost/Price, Page 57, Paragraph Factor 5.

a. The Government provided not-to-exceed (NTE) amounts for all Travel and Other Direct Costs (ODCs) for the Base and all Option Periods. Is it the Government’s intent that all bidders are to use these NTE numbers for the travel and ODCs line items as plugged bid numbers?

Answer: Yes. Offerors shall utilize the Government provided NTE amounts.

b. The Government provided NTE amounts for all Sustainment Enhancements labor hour (LH) CLINs for the Option Periods. Is it the Government’s intent that all bidders are to use the NTE values for the Sustainment CLINs as plugged bid number? If so can the Government please provide the NTE amount for LH CLIN 1005?

Answer: Offerors shall utilize the Government provided NTE amounts for all Sustainment Enhancements labor hour (LH) CLINs. Please reference Amendment 2 to the RFP.

13. RFP, Section L-8, Page 48, Para (d). The solicitation provides recommended subcontracting goals based on total “domestic subcontracting” dollars. Could the Government please clarify its small business goals as they relate to total contract value? It is important that industry is working toward the same goals in order to comply with Section M acceptability criteria and ensure a fair comparison of Small Business plans.

Answer: The goals are recommended to assist in the development of Small Business utilization.

There are no small business goals as they relate to total contract value.

Each offer must consider their business model and opportunities to incorporate small business into the product or services they provide. Offerors may have their own historical data that supports either a higher or lower percentage of contract dollars awarded to small business.

While small business need only submit an acceptable utilization plan for proposal evaluation, large business must submit an acceptable subcontracting plan with goals they set for themselves.

Offerors may review the United States Government Small Business dashboard at http://smallbusiness.data.gov for additional information to assist them in determining realistic goals to utilize small businesses to the maximum practical extent possible.

14. RFP, Section M, Page 54, Para f. Can the Government clarify how it will perform best value trade off analysis? For example, what value does the Government place on early delivery, maximum reuse of existing code or low risk approaches as balanced against costs?

Answer: As stated in Section M of the RFP, Technical Approach is the most important factor (technical subfactors are equal in importance). Staffing Approach and Past Performance are approximately equal and are the least important of the non-cost/price factors. When combined, all non-cost/price factors are considered approximately equal to Cost/Price. Value will be assigned based on each offeror’s unique approach. The Government may assign strengths to offeror’s technical proposal based on the definition of a strength as identified in the RFP. In addition, the Government will assess the degree to which the offeror’s proposed technical approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The integrated best value assessment (trade off between non-cost/price factors and cost/price) will consider both the strengths and risk rating assigned to each offeror’s technical proposal.

15. RFP, Section L-9, Page 56, Para (a) Technical Approach. Would the Government accept an approach that provides FOC prior to Sep 2016, while continuing the development and enhancement of the replacement code? This approach would reduce risk and expedite the integration of new functionality into ICODES version 7 while continuing to the improve replacement code.

Answer: The Government will not accept an approach that provides FOC prior to Sep 2016, while continuing the development and enhancement of the replacement code. Development of the replacement code is required prior to FOC. The Government will accept an approach that includes spiral development of the replacement code to reduce risk.

16. RFP, Section L-9, Page 50, Para (e) 13. For the Sustainment and Enhancement labor hour CLINS how, does the Government intend to award profit or fee to the awarded contractor?

Answer: The Government expects a fully burdened labor rate which would include profit or fee.

17. PWS - The PWS does not address the production deployment of the new ICODES system which generates some questions:

a. Is this to occur during the sustainment phase?

Answer: Please refer to PWS Paragraph 1.3.2.4 Subtask 4: Implementation and 1.3.3.3.3 Common Production Environment (CPE), which essentially state that the contractor will (1) ensure the code does not have any Category I violations or conflicts other systems installed in the Common Computing Environment (CCE) and (2) the contractor shall support the Enterprise http://smallbusiness.data.gov/

Integration Program (EIP) team in monitoring, planning for system changes, identifying, evaluating and trouble-shooting issues and re-starting the servers as required.

Subtask 4 will require coordination with the EIP team to ensure the development environment duplicates the CCE. Deployment of the system in conducted by the EIP team with contractor support, as required, and will be in accordance with contractor-provided installation documentation (1.3.3.1.2 Sustain Documentation).

b. To the extent that there are changes in the user interface, will there be any need for training support?

Answer: Yes. Initial fielding will be directly correlated to the significance of the developed GUI change. Since the level of training required cannot be anticipated until the significance of changes are analyzed, dramatic changes to the current interface is discouraged.

c. Given that some users will be operating offline at the time of transition from the current ICODES to ICODES-NG; will there be a need to be any special considerations to accommodate work they did under the previous versions when they update to the new version? Specifically does any existing data such as completed or partial plans have to be accommodated in the new system.

Answer: (1) The name of the new system was changed to ICODES Version 7 to support the software naming conventions. (2) Yes. The Version 6 files are expected to load into Version 7;

however, Version 7 software is not expected to be backwards compatible to previous versions.

18. PWS, Section Subtask 2 – Development, Page 8-9, Para 1.3.2.2. Request Clarification of the dates for deliverables as specified in the paragraph, deliverable lines and the associated CLINS in the RFP:

Answer:

a1. Deliverable: Prototype Software due at the end of the Base Period.

The Prototype of SLP, CE and TARGET is the minimum functionality requested for testing at the end of the Base Period, which is to be no later than 30 Sep 2015.

This will serve at the prototype version of Version 7 and provide evidence to the government that the contract is on track and capable to complete software development. If the contract starts April 1, 2014, then the expected deliverable date will be Wednesday, September 30, 2015.

a2. Deliverable: Production Candidate for GAT due 16 months after contract start.

The production candidate is expected 16 months after the contract starts. If the contract starts April 1, 2015, then the expected deliverable date will be Friday, August 5, 2016.

a3. Deliverable: Government Accepted Production Software due at the end of Option Period 1.

The final accepted ICODES Version 7 production version is due 18 months after start of the contract, the end of Option 1 of the contract, or Friday, September 30, 2016. If the contract starts April 1, 2015, then the expected deliverable date will be Wednesday, September 30, 2016 or sooner.

b. The paragraph states the delivery of the production candidate software for GAT at 16 months after contract start. It also states that Prototype software is due at the end of the Base Period. Is the Base Period synonymous with CLIN 0001? If so, the period of performance for that CLIN could be up to 18 months in duration. Please clarify when the prototype software is to be delivered.

Answer: The Prototype of SLP, CE and TARGET is the minimum functionality requested for testing at the end of the Base Period, which is to be no later than 30 Sep 2015. This will serve at the prototype version of Version 7 and provide evidence to the government that the contract is on track and capable to complete software development. If the contract starts April 1, 2014, then the expected deliverable date will be Wednesday, September 30, 2015.

c. The paragraph states the Government Accepted Production Software is due 19 months after contract while the Deliverable list after the paragraph and deliverable table says after Option Year 1. What is the correct date and if applicable what is “Option year 1” in CLINs.

Answer: See PWS Section 1.3.2.2 for updated language to reflect “Gov’t Accepted Production Software due 19 months after contract start”. If applicable, Option Year 1 will start when development is completed during the period of performance of 1 Oct 2015 thru 30 Sep 2016.

Option Year 1 will be determined based on the offeror’s unique approach.

d. How long should be assumed for government acceptance testing including any interface testing that may be required.

Answer: Government Testing usually takes 3 weeks, starting on a Monday and Ending on a Friday.

19. PWS, Section Subtask 4 – Tier II/III Help Desk Support, Page 15, Para 1.3.3.4. The Tier II/III helpdesk timeframes for response are not totally clear.

Answer:

Actions upon help request:

Sequence Time Limit Action 1 Upon receipt of helpdesk ticket Log the helpdesk issue information into Siebel (the ticket management system). Required for tracking who and when the Contractor initially responded to the ticket.

2 Within 1 hour of Respond to the initial request.

notification from Tier I

3 Within 48 hours Record resolution details of the helpdesk ticket in Siebel.

The resolution may be an System Problem Report (SPR) or a System Change Request (SCR) to the Program Management Office (PMO), if the problem could not be resolved without a change to the software.

4 After 48 hours Provide to the PMO a Draft SPR or a SCR with a resolution strategy (Recommended Solution) for tickets that cannot be resolved in 48 hours. The PMO considers a week or less as reasonable time to receive an SCR/SPR for an unresolved Help Desk issue. These sometimes require discussion and coordination.

Other Requirements:

• Provide software licensing code generator for tracking Oracle Licenses to Tier I help desk.

• Resolve all functional and technical helpdesk calls/notices received from Tier I.

• Provide enough detail for Tier I to resolve the same issue without escalation.

a. Does Tier II/III have 48 hours of receipt from Tier 1 to resolve the issue or create a problem report? One sentence in the paragraph indicates 48 hours from receipt at the Tier II/III helpdesk and the other notification to the Tier 1 help desk.

Answer: The contractor is the Tier II/III helpdesk. The requirement is the same for both Tier II and Tier III because the contactor is responsible for both levels of help. The contractor has one

(1) hour to respond to a helpdesk ticket from the Tier I helpdesk (a different contractor). This response will (1) resolve the issue, (2) clarify the issue with the submitter, (3) resolve the issue with the submitter, (4) establish a more convenient time with the submitter (if problem is during non-business hours and is NOT an emergency), or (5) notify the submitter that the response will require an SCR/SPR and provide an alternate solution in the interim.

“The contractor shall record in Siebel the detailed resolution for the Tier I escalated ticket within 48 hours after initial receipt to the Tier II/III helpdesk”

Answer: The contractor will provide Tier II/III helpdesk support. The contractor will have 48 hours to resolve the issue and record the detailed resolution in Siebel from the time they are notified of the helpdesk ticket from the Tier I helpdesk (a different contractor).

“The contractor shall provide a System Problem Report with a resolution strategy or a System Change Request for any tickets that cannot be resolved with 48 hours of initial notification to the Tier I help desk”

20. PWS Section Subtask 5 – Training, Page 16, Para 1.3.3.5.

a. How frequently per year are the three standard courses given?

Answer:

Course 8C-F26/822-F25 is 2 times during CY 2015.

Course 8C-F44/553-F19 is not scheduled for CY 2015, but 2 or 3 classes can be expected.

Course 8C-882A is scheduled for 2 Classes for FY 2015.

A total of six to nine classes can be expected each year.

b. The three standard courses indicate that course materials are provided by the Transportation School. Does this include the curriculum to be taught? If not does the trainer have to get TRADOC approval for any substantive curriculum changes?

Answer: The Transportation School makes the final determination on the curriculum. The contractor’s input towards the curriculum and course structure is dependent upon the relationship established between the contractor and the Transportation School.

21. PWS Section 8.0 Contract Transition, Page 41, Para 8.1 Incoming Contractor Transition.

Please clarify when the transition of the support task from the incumbent contractor is to begin:

prior to delivery of version 7.0 or after? If after, how long after the delivery of version 7 will the incumbent contractor remain under contract to conclude the transition?

Answer: The transition will begin immediately after the government accepts ICODES Version 7 Software for implementation into the production servers. The transition time will depend on the transition plan provided by the incoming contractor.

22. Reference: Document: RFP, (General). Question: The incumbent contractor, Tapestry, has advised us that they will not license the ICDM proprietary software embedded in ICODES to

us. This would appear to provide Tapestry with an unfair competitive advantage in this procurement. In order to understand how the procurement might be made competitively equal, please provide the government data rights clauses that apply to the ICDM software and a copy of the license agreement between Tapestry and the government.

Answer: Rights to the ICDM code are the subject of a dispute between Tapestry and the Government. The disputed code is not available for review or distribution by the government.

The purpose of the development portion of this contract is to obtain for the Government sufficient indisputable rights to competitively award this and future contracts for sustainment.

23. Reference: Document: RFP, (General). Question: If a contractor other than Tapestry wins this competition, how does the government intend to maintain and support, or have a third party maintain and support, the claimed Tapestry proprietary code, until the replacement code is written, tested, accepted and deployed?

Answer: Maintaining and supporting the disputed code is not a requirement of this RFP.

24. Reference: Document: RFP, Section: L-9, Page: 46, Paragraph: (a), (or Figure: n/a).

Question: Technical Evaluation Subfactor 1 states “Development Approach for the following:

Replacement of all proprietary dependencies in the present code-base”. The government released over 82MB of architectural documents in conjunction with the RFP upon specific contractor request for the information. After review of the documentation, we do not believe the documents specify what functionality is included in the Proprietary code-base and what is not, nor what the proprietary dependencies are. Does the government expect a contractor to provide a design approach for a solution, a realistic staffing approach/matrix, and an acceptable price proposal without knowledge of detailed requirements and/or proprietary code-base, and proprietary dependencies in advance or even during the RFP response timeframe? Without this information, the government and a contractor other than the incumbent, Tapestry, assume a heightened level of risk for delivery within acceptable schedule and cost parameters. We request that the additional detail information indicated above be released to potential bidders.

Answer: The disputed code is not available for review or distribution by the government.

25. Reference: Document: RFP, (General). Question: With the complexity and quantity of architectural information released and the timeframe given for a response, we believe the incumbent has an unfair competitive advantage. We respectfully request a 90-day extension to ingest the architectural documents provided by the government and allow for the government to Answer specific questions regarding the Proprietary code-base, proprietary dependencies, and the information requested in Question 2 (above). The additional specific information and the time will allow contractors other than the incumbent, Tapestry, to provide a proposal that is realistic and decreases the risk to the government.

Answer: The Government extended the RFP due date as stated in Amendment 2. Prior to posting the RFP, the Government provided industry with all available architectural documents and the following opportunities to participate in the ICODES market research:

• May 2011 – A Sources Sought was posted on FedBizOpps

• Apr 2013 – An RFI was posted on FedBizOpps

• Jun 2013 – TCAQ hosted an ICODES Demonstration

• Jul 2013 – Interested parties provided their ROMS

• Dec 2013 – TCAQ hosted a DPO Industry Day and ICODES One-on-One Sessions

26. Could you please provide Attachment 14 as referenced on Pg. 49 (e) Price Proposal of the solicitation?

Answer: Please reference Amendment 2 to the RFP.

27. RFP L-5 a.5 (page 41) Offerer's proposals must be valid for not less than 180 days. Will the NTE 30 Sep 2016 for CLIN 001 Development be adjusted based on contract award date?

Answer: Yes.

28. RFP L-9 c (page 47) Past Performance Instructions. Will the Government allow the offerer to submit a one page Past Performance summary sheet in addition to the 2 page Reference Sheet (Attachment 6)?

Answer: Please reference Amendment 2 to the RFP.

29. 1.3.4 Task Area 4: Enhancement, Paragraph 4 The contractor shall provide three (3) work days of Government Acceptance Testing (GAT) support. Will the Govt be utilizing another contractor for IV&V ?

Answer: No. The government will not utilize another contractor for IV&V.

30. PWS Page 17, 1.3.4 Task Area 4: Enhancement, Paragraph 3 The Government will provide the contractor requirements through SERENATM Business Manager, to which the contractor CM shall have access. The Government will provide textual descriptions to further define the functional and performance requirements and business rules associated with the business processes and process tasks. Is the govt considering this process to be iterative/agile-like and thus building 'User Stories' within Serena? Will the contractor be able to conduct 'interviews'?

Answer: (1) yes. An iterative/agile-like development process for enhancements is preferred. (2) The contractor will be able to discuss requirements with the PMO and the requesting agency/personnel.

31. PWS Page 17 1.3.4 Task Area 4: Enhancement. General Section Comment. Will there be an expectation to incorporate 'enhancements' into what would be the baseline re-write design, prior to completion of the initial task? Recommendation: Avoid scope creep - establish baseline functionality requirements.

Answer: Changes to the baseline-code will be addressed on an individual basis. Critical changes may require inclusion before production installment.

32. PWS Page 17 1.3.4 Task Area 4: Enhancement, Paragraph 9 Enhancements – SCRs.

Historical information: FY14 resulted in 40 SCRs implemented in one release with 10,258 labor hours. The math equates to 6 week release 'sprints'. Is this effectively what the govt envisions going forward?

Answer: Yes. However, the government is open to alternate options.

33. PWS Page 18 1.3.4 Task Area 4: Enhancement, Subtask 1, Paragraph 1 monthly Information Needs Meeting, with the COR/ACOR and the Government PMO to review the status of all ongoing updates, repairs and changes to existing capabilities and discuss and validate new workflow solutions using the CCB priorities to track. Will the contractor be required to be physically present at the CCBs?

Answer: No.

34. RFP Page 41, L-5, a.2 (2) Respondents must submit the Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 10) via e-mail to Linda Murphy and Belfield Collymore, at the e-mail addresses listed in Section L-1 above. Questionnaires must be received no later than the proposal due date/time specified above. The Government will not accept completed Past Performance Questionnaires submitted by the offeror. Given the fact that the respondent is responsible for submitting the past performance questionnaire on-time, and the offeror cannot control if there is a delay, would the government be willing to soften this clause to allow for discussion if the questionnaire is not received on time?

Answer: It is the offeror’s responsibility to ensure respondents submit the PPQ in a timely manner as specified in the RFP. However, if a reference is identified in an offeror’s proposal, but a PPQ is not received from the respondent, the Government will make a reasonable attempt to contact the respondent.

35. RFP, L-9, Proposals, (d), Subfactor 2 (Small Business Utilization Plan) Page 48 AND RFP M-2 Evaluation Criteria, Factor 4 Small Business Proposal, SubFactor 2: Small Business Utilization Plan.

Small Business Utilization Plan and Acceptable/Unacceptable Evaluation Criteria To be rated acceptable, the offeror’s proposed SB Utilization Plan:

(a) Describes the extent of participation of SB concerns under this contract and provides a description of the services to be performed by the offeror and any small business concerns proposed. The extent of participation and description appears to be realistic.

(b) Provides goals, expressed as dollars and percentages of total contract values and dollars and percentages of total domestic subcontracting values for the small business concerns (including the offeror) proposed. The goals appear to be realistic based on the services to be performed under the contract.

The government requests that Small Business use the table on page 49 of the RFP. However, there are no "target" percentages of workshare to be allocated to specific small business designations, as there are in Subfactor 1. Would the government please confirm that there are no targets or restrictions (as indicated in Subfactor 1, Small Business Subcontracting Plan) on subcontracting that would render the offeror's Small Business Proposal "unacceptable" if it did not meet a specific target or goal?

An alternate way of asking this question is this: Will the government factor in percentages or dollar figures when making a determination of acceptable vs. unacceptable? If the Small business offeror simply follows the format provided in the Small Business Utilization Plan Table, and provides accurate detail of the work breakdown of its team, should it expect to be rated "acceptable?"

Answer: The Small Business Utilization Plan does not identify “target” percentages of workshare. Each offer must consider their business model and opportunities to incorporate small business into the product or services they provide.

36. PWS 4.0 Will the Government please confirm their intent to provide the winning company, on the START date of performance for the contract, with a current complete run-time operational version of the ICODES software, including source code, build scripts/procedures, software artifacts required, test/sample databases, GFE and description of development environment. This will enable the winning contractor to have a baseline to compare functionality with during the development of the prototype and Government Accepted Production Software? Recommend Government provide a full, operating versions with test/training data be made available to the contract within 10 days of award.

Answer: Please reference question 37 below.

37. PWS 4.0 Will the Government please confirm their intent to provide the winning company, on the START date of performance for the contract, all the source code for the non-proprietary pieces of ICODES as well as providing guidance and/or technical support to ensure all the provided non-proprietary software can and will compile? This would include at the minimum deployed/deployable software package (of fielded ICODES), Software Installation Procedures (or other deployment mechanism/description/guide), Software User Manuals and other CDRLs of the ICODES software (including all COMPILED versions of ICDM for fielded ICODES) for testing purposes? Recommend Government providing all available documentation, slides, review material, technical notes and other available support materials.

Answer: The government will provide the contractor with all current ICODES version software and documentation to which the government has access and permission to distribute. The Government version of ICODES requires Common Access Card (CAC) access. If an offeror does not have CAC access, the offeror may request a live Department of Defense Connect Online (DCO) demonstration.

38. PWS 4.0 Will the Government please confirm that while they are unable to provide the actual ICDM code, they will provide all the XML configuration files, JESS/CLIPS Rules files, semantic files relating to the taxonomies and ontologies as well as any inference/relationship configurations, data file, XML object model files, and other configuration related material used to drive ICDM application generation used in the generation of the target applications?

Recommend Government provide all configuration, system, data, and domain files.

Answer: The government will provided when requested in accordance with Attachment 12.

39. PWS Task 3, subtask 1 Under the PWS Task 3, Subtask 1, it states the contractor shall manage, monitor and maintain the incoming and outgoing interfaces agreements for numerous systems which are listed. To ensure these interfaces capabilities are not affected during the prototype development will the government be able to provide the referenced agreements and sample or test data for each of the names system interfaces? Recommend Government provide interface agreements/specifications and sample/test data.

Answer: Interface agreements/specifications will provide when requested in accordance with Attachment 12. Sample/test data will be provided to the offeror award the contract. The Government will provide sample/test data if requested. The request must specifically identify the type and purpose of the test data.

40. RFP L.5 RFP Section L-5, will the Government please clarify whether it is acceptable to only submit an electronic version of a proposal or does the Government require both hard and soft copies submitted by the 22 December 2014 closing date? Recommend soft copy only be acceptable.

Answer: As stated in Section L5(a)(1) of the RFP, BOTH hard and soft copy proposals are due by the date and time specified for the receipt of proposals.

41. RFP L-9 c (page 47) Past Performance shall not exceed 2 pages per submission. Question:

Attachment 6 is 3 pages in length prior to being completed. Is the government requesting 2 additional pages of past performance write-up in addition to Attachment 6, or is completed Attachment 6 all that is being requested and the page limitation should be increased? Increase the page limitation for Past Performance submission.

Answer: Please reference Amendment 2 to the RFP.

42. Pricing: Regarding SUSTAINMENT Pricing (CLIN 0002, 2002, 3002, and 4002) can the Government please confirm that the following Functions should be included in our FFP Bid for Sustainment activities:

External Interface Changes Port Operations Planning

IA Controls / IAVA Updates Help Desk, Customer Support Fielding v6.0 Enhancements Hand Held Terminals CM/Sys Admin

Recommend the Government provide the list of functions that should be included in our Sustainment FFP Bid.

Answer:

The following should be included in sustainment:

External Interface Changes Port Operations Support (on-site training as approved by PMO and provided for in Travel funds) IA Controls / IAVA Updates Help Desk, Customer Support Hand Held Terminals CM/Sys Admin

The following should not be included in sustainment:

Port Operations Planning Fielding v6.0 Enhancements (Not included until Sustainment)