Industry Day Questions_ Final.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 38 KB Posted
- Attached to
- FMS-ACES Official Announcement Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- W519TC-23-R-ACES
About this file
This document provides details regarding the FMS-ACES federal contract opportunity. The U.S. Army Materiel Command Contracting Command Rock Island Arsenal is soliciting proposals under solicitation number W519TC-23-R-ACES to develop the Foreign Military Sales Automated Control Environment System (FMS-ACES). FMS-ACES will replace the legacy Centralized Integrated System for International Logistics system and associated modules. The contract awardee will be expected to design, develop, and implement an agile cloud-native solution that integrates with 25 external systems to manage foreign military sales and security cooperation programs. Offerors should demonstrate experience with modern software development approaches, identity and access management, and cloud hosting. Proposals are due in January 2023, with contract award anticipated by April 2023.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Other Transaction (OT) Instructions and Evaluation Plan v2 29 NOV 23 FInal.pdf | ||
| Other Transaction (OT) Instructions and Evaluation Plan 10.26.2023.pdf | ||
| Other Transaction (OT) Instructions and Evaluation Plan Final r.1.pdf | ||
| Attachment 004 - FMS-ACES Requirements Master List (RML).xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| FMS-ACES QAs - Official Announcement.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment 003 - FMS-ACES Statement of Objectives SOO r.1.pdf | ||
| Other Transaction (OT) Instructions and Evaluation Plan Final.pdf | ||
| Attachment 003 - FMS-ACES Statement of Objectives (SOO) Signed.pdf | ||
| Attachment 001 - FMS-ACES Product Roadmap.pdf | ||
| Attachment 002 - FMS-ACES COST ROM Template.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment 004 - FMS-ACES Requirements Master List (RML).pdf | ||
| Attachment 005 - FMS-ACES Operational Views.zip | ZIP file |
Show all 12
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Mailbox questions
| Disposition | Reference | Document/Section | Question | Response |
| FAQ | General | General | Is there an existing case management system? Is there an incumbent? | The current case management system is the Centralized Integrated System for International Logistics (CISIL) with associated Army Reports and Case management Application (CMA) business intelligence modules. Incumbent support at DSCA is General Dynamics information Technology (GDIT). |
| FAQ | General | General | Will the Government consider making a list of Industry Day participants available to facilitate small businesses who are seeking teaming discussions? | All attendees and contact information is/will be listed on SAM.gov. |
| Document revised | SOO | General | What is the expected case volume per year? What is median case duration? What is 95th percentile case duration? | On average, there are 771 new basic cases implemented each year and approximately 6,000 active cases in any given year. |
Approximately 95% of cases close within 18 years of case implementation.
Document revised SOO General How many USG users? How many foreign users? How many users actively on the system at any given time? There will be approximately 1000 USG users.
Foreign users are limited to approximately 25 Security Assistance Liaison Officers (SALOs) with duty location at USASAC New Cumberland, PA. Any foreign users will be CAC/PKI enabled.
On average, up to 600 concurrent users will access the system.
FAQ General General [Will] this opportunity will be released as full and open or [will there be] any restrictions on the size or type of the contractors; [Is the Government} considering releasing this opportunity as a small business set aside or [are you] open to doing so. We think this would benefit the government and the small business community. We are releasing this opportunity as an Other Transaction Agreement. Small Business set asides are not required since this is NOT a FAR Based Agreement.
IAW 10 U.S.C. 4022(d)(1) the awardee must meet one of the following conditions:
| 1. | There is at least one nontraditional defense contractor or nonprofit research institution participating to a significant extent in the prototype project. |
| 2. | All significant participants in the transaction other than the Federal Government are small business or nontraditional defense contractors. |
| 3. | At least one third of the total cost of the prototype project is to be paid out of funds provided by parties to the transaction other than the Federal Government. |
Significant extent is considered but not limited to: Supplying a new key technology, product or process; supply a novel application or approach to an existing technology, product or process; provide a material increase in the performance, efficiency, quality or versatility of a key technology, product or process; accomplish a significant amount of the prototype project; cause a material reduction in the cost or schedule of the prototype project; or, provide for a material increase in performance of the prototype project.
Non-traditional Defense Contractor is: An entity that is not currently performing and has not performed, for at least the one-year period preceding the solicitation for the procurement of this transaction for the DoD, and does not have any contracts or subcontracts for the DoD that are subject to full coverage under the cost accounting standards pursuant to section 1502 of title 41.
Vendors will be required to self-certify which of the three conditions they meet and provide justification of their certification.
FAQ General General Will there be a second RFI with additional information? Is the government interested in demonstrations of existing COTS solutions? Finally, will there be an attendees list provided to facilitate teaming. There will not be a second RFI. All information is posted on SAM.gov site for review with Government questions to industry included.
The FMS-ACES industry day was be held 9/7. The formal solicitation for responses will be released shortly after. Due to the solicitation, we are not entertaining industry meetings to ensure a fair and reasonable process.
All attendees and contact information is/will be listed on SAM.gov.
| FAQ | Security | General | Will API security be a requirement in the FMS ACES OTA that will be released? | Yes |
| FAQ | Security | General | Who will be responsible on the Government side for API security, to monitor and test, is this the IA team, DCO, ARCYBER, NETCOM, etc.? | PEO EIS via the FMS-ACES PMO and supporting team will be the government entity responsible for validating API security through monitoring solutions and a comprehensive solution provider test plan designed to maintain the FMS-ACES cATO. |
| FAQ | Security | General | Is there a proposed security test plan for API security that can be shared with Industry? | No there is not |
| FAQ | Security | General | CHESS ITES-SW2 per CIO G6 Mandates anything IT related is supposed to be procured via a CHESS contractor, will the CHESS ITES-SW2 be required by the primes for the Software procurements for this OTA? | Software procurements that fall under the scope of the CHESS ITES-SW2 ID/IQ contract will need to be procured through that contract prior to execution or production. |
| FAQ | Instructions and Evaluation Plan | OT instuctions and Evaluation Plan | In both demonstration steps the Government states the Government will not interact (step 2) or does not intend to interact (step 3) with presenters. More holistically, there appears to be no opportunity for the Government and offerors to have quality conversations about the requirement until step 5. Will the Government please consider asking and answering questions during demonstrations so as to advance understanding of the requirements and potential solutions for both the Government and Offerors? | No. Steps 2-4 are competitive steps in the process intended to evaluate the Offerors understanding of the FMS-ACES requirements, challenges, proposed solution, technical approach, program management strategy cost and demonstrated experience. |
| No action | RML | RML Req 6, 21 | For line items 6 and 21 mentioning the PDF 'scan' functionality. We would advise the government to clarify whether this is about facilitating the secure and structured storage of these PDF files within the system, related and stored with associated records? | No change, requirements talk to using data from PDF files to create and populate fields within the record. Requirement 63 speaks to the ability to upload and files to the system and associate it to a specific case, line/subline, requisition, etc… |
| FAQ | RML | RML Req 33-42 | The Financial Execution line items call out the ability for the system to take several different actions to execute funding, billing, disbursement transactions. We would advise the government to clarify the intent for these actions to be taking place in an external financial system and simply facilitating these transactions through a secure, efficient, and user-friendly interface via integration? | FMS-ACES is considered a Financial Feeder System, as such FMS-ACES does not execute financial transactions, but passes transaction data to the Financial Systems of Record (SOR) to execute. |
| Document revised | RML | RML Req 114 | Would the government consider framing this requirement in terms of ensuring uninterrupted service during peak demand periods, with a focus on cost-effectiveness, without the specific mandate for dynamic scaling down of resources during lulls, to accommodate platforms that maintain a consistent high-capacity service level to meet potential demand spikes at any time? | Document revised |
| FAQ | RML | RML Req 42 | We would advise the government to clarify whether there is a need for any of the mentioned workflow to produce a PDF document for storing or printing, such as the DD form 645? | The DD 645 is received from DFAS and will need to be stored in FMS-ACES and aligned to the appropriate in country service, case, and line. |
| FAQ | RML | RML | Would the government consider a solution where the primary software integrates seamlessly with selected third-party software solutions to ensure optimal functionality and innovation in each specific domain of the system? | Yes |
| FAQ | RML | RML Req 132 | If we assume that financial transactions are executed in the existing FIAR-compliant financial systems (GFEBs or others), could the focus for this new solution/system be to seamlessly integrate and be configured to support the financial systems of record in maintaining their existing FIAR compliance? Does this align with the government's vision for this project? | FMS-ACES is a financial feeder system and is required to adhere to FIAR standards where applicable. |
| FAQ | RML | RML Interface Details | Most of the interface types listed use batch style SFTP. Have you considered using real time APIs so that FMS-ACES have access to system of records as/when required? | Yes. The Government is seeking to develop a modernized system to the extent possible, which includes the use of APIs for near or real-time processing. However, limitations of some interfacing systems will require the continue use of batch processing. |
| FAQ | RML | RML Interface Details | Can you share the maximum size of data for SFTP/FTP based transfers? | Assume a maximum size of 50 MB for SFTP/SFG |
| FAQ | RML | RML Interface Details | While FMS is transitioning from CISIL to FMS-ACES, we believe there will be a need to transform data in COBOL copybook format and provide frequent data synchronization updates to new FMS-ACES application. We would advise the government to state whether there is a preferred method to connect to CISIL. | The government believes the best way to interact with CISIL will be by intercepting interfacing imports and exports and transforming, extracting, and inserting data before it gets to CISIL. We envision this being done at the SFG Landing Zone. The government is interested in hearing other solutions from industry. |
| FAQ | RML | RML Interface Requirements | Do any of the systems of record reside inside the SIPR network? | No |
| FAQ | RML | RML Req 107 | Given the stated volume (88k reqs + 6k cases), how are they getting to almost 2M transactions per day? We would advise the government to provide more information about the nature of the transactions (integration v UI, size, frequency, target object / record, etc) | The numbers 6K cases and 88K requisitions reflect the number of active cases and requisitions in the system at any given time. The number 1.7 million reflects the number of batch processing transactions that occur in the legacy system given its 28 interfacing systems, each providing updates on the same records multiple times, the automated deconfliction of these data records, and the creation of output/export files created for interfacing systems. |
| FAQ | RML | RML Req 123 | We would advise the government to further clarify the requirements re: "backup and disaster recovery ability" | The FMS-ACES data repository will have the ability to restore the entire database, with minimal loss of data, from backups should the need arise. Disaster recovery means users (human and machine) can regain access and functionality to the system after events such as natural disaster, cyber attack, or act of war. |
| FAQ | RML | RML Interface Details | We would advise the government to share the maximum size of data for SFTP/FTP based transfers. | Assume a maximum size of 50 MB for SFTP/SFG |
| FAQ | RML | RML Interface Requirements | We would advise the government to confirm whether any of the systems of record reside inside the SIPR network? | They do not |
| FAQ | RML | RML Interface Requirements | Can bidders assume that FMS-ACES will make the ECMA cDATA environment available to them to support the design, development, testing, deployment, and management of the project's API/ETL/microservices needs? | During Prototype development (Step 5) - No |
After Step 6 - Yes FAQ Security Industry Day Clarify the comments at the Industry Day that SaaS needs to be secured via cArmy.
This contradicts what the Government stated in SOO where the government expressed their desire to leverage commercial cloud infrastructure for FMS-ACES to take advantage of current and provisional Authorizations to Operate (ATOs) for platforms supporting DoD systems already deployed in IL4 and FedRAMP certified cloud environments and to take advantage of lower costs for maintaining platform solutions. The Army Cloud Plan 2002 states "For all Software as a Service (SaaS) design patterns, cARMY serves as the broker of connectivity and common cloud services to secure and scale its use across the Total Army."
PEO EIS interprets this to mean all connections (human to machine and machine to machine) to SaaS managed IL4 and FedRAMP certified cloud environments must go through a cArmy managed gateway (User -> Gateway -> BCAP -> SaaS Cloud for traffic inbound to FMS-ACES and SaaS -> BCAP -> Gateway -> User for traffic outbound from FMS-ACES).
This approach satisfies the Army Cloud Plan guidance and allows FMS-ACES to take advantage of lower maintenance costs and provides a faster path to an ATO.
| FAQ | Instructions and Evaluation Plan | FMS ACES Other Transaction (OT) Instructions and Evaluation Plan | In the Acqusition Process table, can you confirm whether these are calendar days or business days? | The notional Industry Timeline shown in Figure 1 OT Acquisition Process, is shown in calendar days. |
| FAQ | Instructions and Evaluation Plan | FMS ACES Other Transaction (OT) Instructions and Evaluation Plan | Can you provide more information regarding the Agile work management software? | The FMS-ACES Backlog will be created, updated, and maintained in the Government’s Jira instance hosted in the CReATE tool with work items documented in the form of user stories, to accomplish the vision of the Product Roadmap. (CaC) is required to access these tools. |
| FAQ | Instructions and Evaluation Plan | FMS ACES Other Transaction (OT) Instructions and Evaluation Plan | In addition to the FedRAMP and DISA FedRAMP+ authorization strategy which will address the authorization status of all solution components and products, do we need to address our plan to obtain an Authority To Operate for the FMS-ACES solution? Who will be the Authorizing Official (AO) and Program Information Systems Security Manager (P-ISSM) for the solution? | Yes. The Response to White Paper Questions should address the components of the proposed solution required for delivery of the FMA-ACES application. |
| FAQ | Instructions and Evaluation Plan | FMS ACES Other Transaction (OT) Instructions and Evaluation Plan | Does the government have a preference for any particular tool used for vulnerability scans? ACAS? Fortify? | No. |
| FAQ | SOO | Statement of Objectives (SOO) | Per the Statement of Objectives, "the program will consider and pursue opportunities to leverage existing Army infrastructure and/or capabilities. These can include ICAM, the cARMY Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS)//Platform as a Service (PaaS) environment, and Development Security and Operations (DevSecOps) tools such as the Code Resource and Transformation Environment (CReATE)." Who will make the decisions regarding whether or not to leverage Army ICAM, cARMY and/or CReATE and when will these decisions be made? | It is the Government's intent to leverage all of the tools listed where reasonable and feasible, with input from the solution provider |
| FAQ | SOO | Statement of Objectives (SOO) | Per the Statement of Objectives, the Solution Provider will “provide qualified personnel to participate in all BPR workshops to perform BPR activities and describe the business processes within the solution…”. Will these workshops occur during or after Step 6 or will the solution provider(s) need to support any BPR efforts earlier in the OTA process? | Step 6 is a single event, not a window of time. BPR will be performed post step 6 |
| FAQ | Instructions and Evaluation Plan | FMS-ACES OT Announcement and Instructions_DRAFT Final | Section 1.4, Page 5, states "These advisors [Chenega IT Enterprise Services LLC / ADEPT Force Group Inc. / Project XYZ Inc] may be used in the evaluation of OT process steps and proposals and will have signed Non‐Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) with the Government. The Army understands that information provided in this announcement is presented in confidence and may contain trade secrets or commercial or financial information and agrees to protect such information from unauthorized disclosure to the maximum extent permitted and as required by law." Section 1.5.4, Page 6, Defines proprietary information as third-party information that has not been disseminated to the general public, and the Government has not yet determined whether the information can or will be made available to the public. |
| Section 14, Page 5, indicates that information provided may include trade secrets, commercial, or financial information that must be protected from unauthorized disclosure. As such vendors responses may include proprietary information that includes data that should not be disclosed outside the Government, duplicated, used, etc. except to evaluate the proposal. However, this conflicts with Section 2.8, which states in 2.8.a all materials will be non proprietary and in step 3.1.1.d that all content will be non-proprietary. Please confirm that information within the white paper may be proprietary and will not be disclosed outside of the Government and will be protected under the NDA as discussed in Section 1.4. | The government will treat white paper submissions as proprietary. | ||||
| FAQ | SOO | N/A | The Roadmap provided depicts both SaaS and cArmy DISA for Infrastructure, sometimes with activity at non-overlapping times. Does the Government anticipate the need or preference for a solution that occurs, at least in part, in a vendor SaaS environment, outside of cArmy? If so, what if any aspects of the solution are desired/required to occur only within cArmy? | The FMS-ACES solution must comply with Army Cloud Plan 2022 guidance which specifies all IaaS and PaaS solutions will be hosted in cArmy while SaaS solutions will be secured through cArmy. The government leaves it to industry to propose a solution that satisfies this guidance. | |
| FAQ | SOO | N/A | The Roadmap provided depicts "Interface Integration" during the "Prototype" phase, in which only SaaS (not cArmy) is listed. The phrase "the protype will simulate the exchange..." is used. To clarify, is the intent to connect to external interfaces from within the SaaS prototype environment (e.g. existing non-production interface test instances)? Or would interface integration during Prototype phase create and use local/mock instances? | Interface integration during the prototype phase will use local/mock instances | |
| FAQ | Instructions and Evaluation Plan | FMS-ACES OT Announcement and Instructions_DRAFT Final | A criterion for Phase 2 evalutions states: "Business Usability: The extent to which business rules, changes to alerts and notifications can be configured and applied without developer | ||
| assistance." Can the Government please provide an example, so as to clarify the type of scenario and role making these changes (e.g. end user, administrator, etc.)? | The government is leaving this to industry to determine the scenario and role making the changes as this is an "Offeror-defined Demonstration". | ||||
| RML | Some interfaces listed in the RML (Attachment 0004, Interface Details tab) state both FTP and API as the Interface Type (e.g. DIFS is listed as "FTP via DISA SFG/API"). Can the Government please clarify what, if any, other API(s) beyond FTP/SFTP are available for such integrations? (E.g., are there https web APIs?) | The terms "API" in the RML refers to modern protocols that allow for data exchanges in real or near real-time (Ex. web API, REST and SOAP, etc). | |||
| FAQ | Instructions and Evaluation Plan | FMS-ACES OT Announcement and Instructions_DRAFT Final | Will there be a reading room or other means to allow industry to view the legacy data ahead of Step 3? | No. The Upward Invitation for Step 3 will include details about how, when, and where the Offeror will be issued and sign for the required Government data and Government-defined scenario descriptions to be included in the demonstration. (ref: Section 3.3.1 d). | |
| FAQ | General | N/A | Will the Army publish results of the data inventory of legacy CISIL data? | The data dictionary for the CISIL data repository will be made available to offerors selected for Step 5 - Competitive Prototype. The data dictionary is CUI and not available for public release. | |
| FAQ | General | N/A | Is there an existing integration platform/middleware component(s) (e.g. API gateway, MuleSoft, etc.) in the cArmy environment which should be used to develop/facilitate integrations for this solution? | No, there are no prescribed platforms/middleware, but the government expects the Offeror's solution to be aligned with the Army Cloud Plan guidance. | |
| FAQ | Instructions and Evaluation Plan | OT Instructions; 3.2 | Will the Government please confirm if Offerors can use slides as part of the technical demo in step 2? | The format of the Offeror-defined Product Demonstation is at the discretion of the offeror. | |
| FAQ | Instructions and Evaluation Plan | OT Instructions; 3.2.C and 3.3.1.e | Recommend the Government allow Offerors to bring up to six (6) individuals for the technical demo. We also recommend one additional individual (that does not need to be part of the project team) to function as the "demo driver". | The demonstration team will be limited to the four (4) individuals identified in the Upward Invitation acknowledgement letter. | |
| FAQ | Instructions and Evaluation Plan | OT Instructions; 3.5 | For the competitive demo prototype, per the Government's IL4 hosting requirement, is any IL4-accredited environment acceptable, including SaaS prototype environments that are accredited at IL4? | The prototype must be developed in an IL4 and FedRAMP certified environment, this includes SaaS prototype environments that are accedited at IL4. | |
| Document revised | Instructions and Evaluation Plan | OT Instructions; 3.3.1.d | We recommend the Government allow Offerors seven (7) business (vice 96 hours) from receipt of the data and scenarios from the Government to create and be ready to present their technical demo. | Document updated | |
| FAQ | Instructions and Evaluation Plan | OT Instructions; 3.4.c.iii and 3.4.1, c iii | Will the Government please clarify what information Offerors will need to "estimate the monetary value of Government support"? Will the Government clarify the statement "Any additional cost associated with the proposed support will be considered as a potential upward adjustment in the Government’s evaluation of the Offeror’s proposed price?” to indicate if the Government will simply add this estimated cost directly to the Offeror’s bid price as part of the total evaluated price? We recommend the Government specify individual roles who will be available (e.g., Product Owner) and not penalize Offerors for driving customer engagement standard to Agile SAFe methodology. Further, we recommend the Government reserve any “upward adjustment” in price only for extraordinary requests by Offerors for resources or hours. | Section 3.4.1.c.iii refers to Government Furnished Equipment. This section relates to additional GFE resource needs in addition to standard GFE laptops/software/hardware. | |
| FAQ | Instructions and Evaluation Plan | OT Instructions; 3.1.2 | We recommend the Government consider requiring Offerors to specifically document their Human Centered Design (HCD) approach as well as past performance in this area. | Offerors are encouraged to provide information pertaining to their demonstrated experience as part of Step 1. | |
| Document revised | Instructions and Evaluation Plan | OT Instructions; 3.2.1.c.ii | We recommend the Government consider providing greater specificity around "modernization approach" including desired outcomes and timeline to support consistent evaluation and align on Government's critical success factors. | Document has been updated. |
Language in the document has been changed to: How will management implement processes and procedures to continually assess the changes being made by the software vendors to assess the impact to the FMS-ACES solution as a whole and program requirements
| FAQ | Instructions and Evaluation Plan | OT Instructions; 3.2.1.f and 8.4 | We recommend the Government consider providing greater specificity around the Offeror past performance requirement. Specifically, please consider the following limits: 1) Offeror must be the prime contractor on at least two performances; 2) Contract must have been completed or started within the last 5 years; 3) Total contract value must exceed $10M. | Offerors will be evaluated based on the criteria outlined in FMS-ACES OT Announcement and Instructions. |
| FAQ | Instructions and Evaluation Plan | OT Instructions; General | Will the Government please clarify how many companies will be downselected after each phase? | There are no targets for steps 2 through 4. The quality of responses will determine how many offerors are extended upward invites. |
| FAQ | Instructions and Evaluation Plan | OT Instructions; 3.2.1 | Will the Government please clarify the intent and contents of the Vulnerability Assessment Summary report? Is this the same as the software security assessment? We understand that vulnerability assessments are typically executed once the software has been implemented in a Government environment - which would not be at this step. | The government expects the offeror to provide OEM generated Vulnerability Assessment Summary reports for platform and 3rd Party Software along with the OEM's plan of action to remediate known vulnerabilities. |
| FAQ | Instructions and Evaluation Plan | OT Instructions; 3.4 | To create an environment where risk is shared between Government and the Offeror, we recommend Army use either T&M or an FFP Level of Effort (LOE) capacity-based approach for configuration and development phases of the program. For FFP LOE efforts, capacity is put on contract in anticipation of upcoming work, allowing the Army flexibility to prioritize specific configurations and enhancement projects. The intent is to establish long-term steady-state capacity, reduce turnover and leverage continuity across individual scrum team staffing. This model also provides the Government flexibility as re-shuffling of skills is done as needed for individual projects (epics) and aligned to available capacity. | At this time the Government chooses to stay with an FFP approach. |
| FAQ | Instructions and Evaluation Plan | OT Instructions; 3.4.2 | Will Government please confirm that references to "data protection" are directly related to Role Based Access Control (RBAC) and Identity, Credential, and Access Management (ICAM)? | Data Protection includes RBAC, ICAM, Encryption at rest and transit, best practices for securing the data from spills, and implemeting controls that reduce or eliminate exposure to unauthorized users. |
| Document revised | Instructions and Evaluation Plan | OT Instructions; 3.5 | Will Government please update OT Instructions to indicate Step 5 duration will be 5 months? Section 2.5 references "no more than 5 months". | Yes. Document updated. |
| Instructions and Evaluation Plan | OT Instructions; 3.2.2, b | Will Government please confirm that "Government's expectations" refers directly to paragraph a, the Step 2 Evaluation Criteria Metrics? | Yes. The evaluation criteria refers to the 3.2 Step 2 Offeror-defined Product Demonstration. | |
| Document revised | Instructions and Evaluation Plan | OT Instructions; 3.3.1, e | Will Government please clarify the statement "introduce reasonable scenarios to step 3 in addition to the scenarios described in section 3.3.1e. The details of any additions will be provided when the offeror arrives for their designated setup time and are to be incorporated into the step 3 demonstration"? Does this mean that Government anticipates new configurations to be made during the 3 hour window? | Document Updated |
Document language changed to reflect the scope of the expected changes as well as specifying the changes will be implemented and demonstrated during the demonstration
| Document revised | Instructions and Evaluation Plan | OT Instructions; 3.3.3, a | Will Government please confirm what "approved devices" are being evaluated as part of the step 3 demo? | Document revised to remove language |
| Document revised | SOO | SOO, 4 and 2.6 Product Roadmap | Will Government please clarify the term "split operations"? Specifically, how will data from CISIL be available in ACES if the Government's intent is to generate reports from ACES even when all cases have not been implemented in ACES? | A definition for "Split Operations" was added to the SOO in section 2.6. |
With respect to the question of how data management will be conducted between CISIL and ACES, the government is looking to industry to develop solutions that achieve this outcome.
| No action | SOO | SOO, 8.4 | Will Government please provide the CEMI standards for the federated Security Cooperation Enterprise referenced in the SOO technical considerations? | Removed reference |
| FAQ | RML | Draft RFP/RTM Line 4 | What transmission method and file format will be used to retrieve DSAMS data? | All FMS-ACES interfaces that use SFTP or FTP via DISA SFG will use the ASCII, EBCDIC or BINARY file format. |
| FAQ | RML | Draft RFP/RTM Line 9 | By what means will the system be aware of shipment milestones? Will the system need to consume data from 3rd party shipping vendors, or will shipping milestones be manually input by a user? | Yes, FMS-ACES will need the ability to track shipments with data from the Invoicing, Receipt, Acceptance, and Property Transfer (iRAPT) system. iRAPT is an existing interface in the RML. |
| FAQ | RML | Draft RFP/RTM Line 10 | Is there a standard approach across all suppliers for notifying them of cancellations? Or will each supplier have its own way of notifying them of a cancellation? Will this generally involve API calls to a supplier's outside system? | Yes, DLM 4000-25-1 defines the regulation for tracking requisitions, to include cancellations. |
| FAQ | RML | Draft RFP/RTM Line 14 | What format will DD 4569 forms be in? PDF, Word, a human user filling in a web form? If it's in the form of an electronic document, is it expected that the system can extract the data from the electronic document and store it as an object? | The DD 4569-1 is received as a flat file and will need to be uploaded and stored in FMS-ACES. |
| FAQ | RML | Draft RFP/RTM Line 17 | What format will these digital publications be in? A Word doc, a PDF, other? | |
| FAQ | RML | Draft RFP/RTM Line 18 | Is "Fund Center" a property/field of a Requisition, and all this is asking is that the system will be able to programmatically set the value of that property/field? | Yes |
| Document revised | RML | Draft RFP/RTM Line 20 | How does this differ from requirement #10? | Removed |
| FAQ | RML | Draft RFP/RTM Line 38 | What does "execute the transaction" entail? Is the system expected to process payments, or just record data from payment transactions that were processed externally? | Record data from payment transactions that were processed externally |
| RML | Draft RFP/RTM Line 49 | By what method will the system interact with SCMS / EUM? Is there an HTTP based API that needs to be consumed? Or will there be files of a specific format exported and uploaded to an FTP? Etc. | All FMS-ACES interfaces that use SFTP or FTP via DISA SFG will use the ASCII, EBCDIC or BINARY file format. | |
| RML | Draft RFP/RTM Line 50 | By what method will the system interact with EUM? Is there an HTTP based API that needs to be consumed? Or will there be files of a specific format exported and uploaded to an FTP? Etc. | All FMS-ACES interfaces that use SFTP or FTP via DISA SFG will use the ASCII, EBCDIC or BINARY file format. | |
| FAQ | RML | Draft RFP/RTM Line 57 | In this context, does "data structure" mean a record of a pre-defined type? For example, being able to create a new Requisition record, where a Requisition is a well known type of object in the system? Or is this intending that new types of objects must be provisioned on the fly based on data received? | The first example (being able to create a new requisition record where a requisition is a well known type of object in the system) is an appropriate example for what is required. |
| FAQ | RML | Draft RFP/RTM Line 58 | When referring to CRUD operations in this context, does this mean giving users the ability to view existing records, create new records, update existing records, or delete existing records via the application's UI? Or is this referring to ways of doing the same outside of the application's UI, such as via direct database manipulation or API? | The first example (giving users the ability to view existing records, create new records, update existing records, or delete existing records via the application's UI given appropriate RBAC permissions) is an appropriate example for what is required. |
| FAQ | RML | Draft RFP/RTM Line 64 | When referring to CRUD operations in this context, does this mean giving users the ability to view existing records, create new records, update existing records, or delete existing records via the application's UI? Or is this referring to ways of doing the same outside of the application's UI, such as via direct database manipulation or API? | The first example (giving users the ability to view existing records, create new records, update existing records, or delete existing records in reference tables via the application's UI given appropriate RBAC permissions) is an appropriate example for what is required. |
| FAQ | RML | Draft RFP/RTM Line 65 | What kind of prioritization configuration is envisioned? Does this mean that admin users of the system should be able to configure rules around which external system "wins" if two external systems try to update the same record? Or is there another meaning to the concept of prioritizing transactions? | This means that admin users of the system should be able to configure rules around which external system "wins" if two or more external systems try to update the same record |
| FAQ | RML | Draft RFP/RTM Line 73 | What device form factors need to be supported? Is mobile / small screen (i.e. tablet) support required? | The Government does not currently have a requirement for a mobile (phone/tablet) capability. |
| FAQ | General | General | Yesterday, the focus was around low code/no code and SaaS as an overarching theme, but with a focus on an intuitive UI alongside Agile-informed custom prototyping – to what extent is process going to drive customization from a BPR perspective vice the process adjusting to the SaaS solution? The evaluation criteria and Statement of Objectives lead towards a customized software solution to facilitate customization. How should industry balance or weigh these considerations? | The government prefers a No Code/Low Code solution with minimal customization (including enhanced configurations) required to satisfy requirements as approved by the Government through a mutually agreed to process. |
| FAQ | General | General | We recommend a nominal amount of funding to incentivize competition in Step 2 (e.g., $100K); this maximizes the incentive for innovative industry solutioning in Step 2 | The government has determined that incentive funding is not appropriate for Step 2. |
| FAQ | General | General | It was mentioned at the Industry Day that FMS-ACES not expecting OEM involvement in the prototyping phase (Step 5). In order for prototypes to be representative of the capabilities of the proposed solution, can the Government require direct participation from all major team members (including OEMs and technology partners) as part of the agile process through the FMS-ACES lifecycle? | The government is not prohibiting OEM involvement in the protoype phase nor is it directing involvement. If Offerors and OEM representatives believe they can produce a more compelling case for their proposed solution, then a mutually agreed upon partnership between the Offeror and OEM may be the best path forward for that offeror. |
| FAQ | General | General | Will the Government consider the CAMO contract and marketplaces established through the existing agreements the Army has with cloud service providers as a mechanism to accelerate the ability to acquire software capabilities? | The government is looking for industry to provide viable solutions. If CAMO is part of the solution then it will be considered. |
| FAQ | Instructions and Evaluation Plan | FMS-ACES OT Announcement and Instructions_DRAFT Final | On Page 34 there is a requirement to "vi. Create master CLSSA Forecasting." |
On Page 35 "ii. Enterprise reporting and dashboards." are listed as out of scope.
Can you please provide additional information on the type of forecasting / reporting that is to be considered within scope for the prototype? "CLSSA Forecasting" refers to FMS-ACES programmatically estimating when a product should reach various logistical milestones based on historical data. The forecasted milestone date is displayed on the appropriate UIs where that date is used for comparison to actual dates.
| FAQ | General | General | Do you all need a single POC per company as you post the registered companies as mentioned yesterday? | The government will make available the participating companies and attendees. At this time there is no need to provide an additional POC |
| FAQ | General | General | What was the thought process behind the scenario visions in Steps 1 and 2 (Cooperation Logistics Supply Support Arrangement (CLSSA) processes)? What is your vision for scaling up from one agile team to a SAFe approach with simultaneous teams working more than one functional process? | CLSSA involves fewer cases hitting fewer of the capability areas. Consequently, it would be easier to digest. The documents provided for industry day describe the goals for the initial prototype. The product roadmap provides the way forward to a future state and the number of teams needed. We are looking for industry to propose more specific team structures. |
| FAQ | General | General | How much funding is available for each procurement step, especially step 5, and how many awards would be made? | We will be awarding up to three prototype OTAs. Industry should be providing in their estimates what they believe the cost should be for each step. The information is in the documentation. |
| FAQ | General | General | Is there a predisposition with FMS-ACES and PEO EIS to move toward a particular original equipment manufacturer (OEM) solution, such as SAP, as happened with a previous OTA? | There is no predisposition toward any solution. Industry is expected to come forward with a recommended approach. |
| FAQ | General | General | Will there be an opportunity for one-on-one discussions between FMS-ACES and the vendors following the submission of White Papers in Step 1? | No. After the white papers are evaluated, invitations will be sent out for participation in the Step 2(offeror solution demonstration). |
| FAQ | General | General | Will contractor personnel need to be located near the FMS-ACES (Crystal City) and/or USASAC (Pennsylvania) locations? | There will be no mandates on contractor employee location. Contractors may be expected to travel. |
| FAQ | General | General | Do you see FMS-ACES as a Single source- aligned data domain or will you be using multiple data domains where FMS-ACES will be providing aggregated data products out? | A single source data domain. |
| FAQ | General | General | Does FMS-ACES have a sufficient understanding of its legacy systems and the legacy systems of its interface sponsors, or does the vendor need to plan to hire COBOL programmers who can delve into and extract process information from these systems? | Government believes that we have adequate understanding of the data that we need to integrate. More work needs to be done on data and interfaces at a high level in relation to the solution that is chosen. |
| FAQ | General | General | What is the adoption within the community? How many users are there presently and how many do you expect it will grow by upon initial deployment? | Approximately 1000 users between CISIL, CMA, and Army Reports. Some changes may result in those numbers going up or down. |
| FAQ | General | General | Which other transactional authority (OTA) do you intend to use? Is a consortium membership required? | There will be a Prototype OTA initially and Production OTA later. Membership in a Consortia not required. |
| FAQ | General | General | When the program reaches the data migration phase, do you expect elevated clearance requirements for supporting personnel? | No. |
| FAQ | General | General | Has FMS-ACES office already secured data access rights to the 25 systems your OTA partners need to integrate into FMS-ACES? | There are no interface agreements between FMS-ACES and the interfaces partners. The interface documents that we have gathered are those for the legacy CISIL system. However, as part of the partner interviews, we have gathered information about the data that will be exchanged with FMS-ACES and the protocols that will be used. New interfaces agreements will have to be developed for FMS-ACES with all of the existing and new interface partners. |
| FAQ | General | General | Are the Small Business (SB) requirements for large teams in the solicitation? How will they be measured? | Our approach is to use the language in 10 USC 4022 that provides the basis for OTAs. |
IAW 10 U.S.C. 4022(d)(1) the awardee must meet one of the following conditions:
| 1. | There is at least one nontraditional defense contractor or nonprofit research institution participating to a significant extent in the prototype project. |
| 2. | All significant participants in the transaction other than the Federal Government are small business or nontraditional defense contractors. |
| 3. | At least one third of the total cost of the prototype project is to be paid out of funds provided by parties to the transaction other than the Federal Government. |
Significant extent is considered but not limited to: Supplying a new key technology, product or process; supply a novel application or approach to an existing technology, product or process; provide a material increase in the performance, efficiency, quality or versatility of a key technology, product or process; accomplish a significant amount of the prototype project; cause a material reduction in the cost or schedule of the prototype project; or, provide for a material increase in performance of the prototype project.
Non-traditional Defense Contractor is: An entity that is not currently performing and has not performed, for at least the one-year period preceding the solicitation for the procurement of this transaction for the DoD, and does not have any contracts or subcontracts for the DoD that are subject to full coverage under the cost accounting standards pursuant to section 1502 of title 41.
Vendors will be required to self-certify which of the three conditions they meet and provide justification of their certification.
| FAQ | General | General | You mentioned implementing Role Based Access Control (RBAC) and being 100% cloud native. The Army's ICAM solution does not currently offer RBAC as a shared service-- are you looking to industry to include RBAC in the prototype? | An implementation of RBAC will not be required for the prototype. |
| FAQ | General | General | Is it intended for original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to participate in the prototype period (in which case they will need to be funded) or is it only envisioned that system integrators (SIs) will be present even though the SI’s will ultimately prime them? | OEMs are expected to work through SIs. Significant OEM involvement would not be seen during the prototype period, as the funding and scope of the work is limited. However, such OEM involvement would be planned for the future. |
| FAQ | General | General | Is Extract Transfer Load (ETL) only for Data Migration, or do application programming interfaces (APIs) have a role? | We are looking for industry to provide inputs on the best migration approach. |
| FAQ | General | General | Will outbound shipments of software (software bill of materials (SBOM)) require tracking throughout the Lifecycle Phase of the FMS-ACES implementation? Will there be any requirements for outbound shipping tracking or continual use tracking during life of the case? | FMS-ACES must be able to track materials and goods from contractor to port of debarkation (POD). There is no requirement for in-transit tracking from POD to customer receipt. While this is a feature USASAC may consider for future enhancements, it is currently out of scope for this effort. |
| FAQ | General | General | Will the development be done in containers? If so, how does the program plan to secure lateral movement within those closed environments from adversaries? | We are looking for industry to provide the solution. |
| FAQ | General | General | At higher DASA levels, the Army has identified an architecture as part of a strategy called “data mesh,” which adds a mesh layer on top of data fabrics? How will FMS-ACES comply with that strategy? | FMS-ACES cannot specifically address the data mesh strategy, but whatever is put out as policy by the Army, FMS-ACES will have to comply with. |
Sheet3
| FAQ |
| Document revised |
| No action |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .