Amendment_0003_CRM_Response_20170921_Industry_Response.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 117 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- N00039-17-R-0002
View the file
Other files
Show all 47
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
CRM
| New CRM No.5 | Source Document | Page Number | Section/Para No. | Question/Comment | Response | DASN AP Comments |
| 1 | Attachment 1 - Performance Work Statement (PWS) | 81 | 4.6.2.8 | Item h states “Perform software configuration audits (two Functional Configuration Audits and one Physical Configuration Audit)…” What is the time frame for these audits? Are these per year, or total over the Sustainment period? Required to staff and price appropriately, and develop WBS and schedule. | No RFP Change. |
The Configuration Audits are identified in Attachment 4 (Notional Schedule). There are three Functional Configuration Audits and one Physical Configuration Audit scheduled. FCA1 is scheduled for QTR 2, 2019; FCA2 QTR 1, 2021; FCA3 QTR 2, 2022. PCA occurs QTR 4, 2022. No other audits scheduled after PCA.
| 2 | Attachment 15 - Gate Form: Requirements Self-Certification | NA | IUS-01 and IUS-02 | Currently, USA Spending does not accept inbound integration from contract writing or grant writing systems. Data comes from FPDS (which is a separate requirement), upload to the Fiscal Service’s Award Submission Portal (for grants), FSRS (for subcontracts), and SmartPay (for small credit card buys). These requirements cannot currently be met as written. Recommend removing. Requirements cannot be met, government-owned USA Spending system is not architected to support this. | No RFP Change. | |
| Requirement is valid as written. ePS just needs to be able to perform export data for posting using the “Data Act Schema.” | Suggest revision. Intent is to allow consume information from USA Spending to aggregate reporting (i.e., allowing reporting on additional data elements captured by external activities that are captured within USA Spending). There is no requirement at this time to export information directly to USA Spending. | |||||
| 3 | Attachment 15 - Gate Form: Requirements Self-Certification | NA | SMR-84, 89, and 136 | These three requirements seem to be in conflict as to whether a task can be assigned to a user or not based on his access rights. Please clarify. Resolution of apparent requirements conflict. | No RFP Change. | |
| There is no conflict. SMR-84 constrains access that is not specifically granted by SMR-89/136. | Do not concur. SMR-84 constrains access that is not specifically granted by SMR-89/136. | |||||
| 4 | Attachment 15 - Gate Form: Requirements Self-Certification | NA | SMR-144 | What is the intended business process for overriding a mandatory task? Would it better to implement logic to determine when a task is truly mandatory verses optional? Need to understand the requirement in order to understand how best to implement. | No RFP Change. | |
| Intent is to allow for urgent and compelling need. For example, a mandatory task may be overridden given that the appropriate level or approval has been received and it is captured as part of the workflow history. | Intent is to allow for urgent and compelling need. For example, a mandatory task may be overridden given that the appropriate level or approval has been received and it is captured as part of the workflow history. | |||||
| 5 | Attachment 15 - Gate Form: Requirements Self-Certification | NA | DCA-43 and 45 | This functionality has traditionally applied to order serial ranges which, given the new document numbering policy, no longer apply as orders receive their own PIID. Would the Navy envision using serial ranges for basic PIID numbers or is this requirement OBE? The updated document numbering may have an impact on this requirement. | No RFP Change. | |
| The requirement is valid as written and is independent of the new PIID numbering policy. The DON still requires the need to identify order ranges. The new PIID rules would mean this would be more granular (i.e., a range per PIID), but would allow existing business procedures to continue. | Do not concur. The DON still requires the need to identify order ranges. The new PIID rules would mean this would be more granular (i.e., a range per PIID), but would allow existing business procedures to continue. | |||||
| 6 | Attachment 15 - Gate Form: Requirements Self-Certification | NA | DCA-44 | Is the term “reserve” in this requirement meant to allow the PIID or SPIID assignment within ePS or to indicate that it should not be assigned within ePS? Need to understand the requirement in order to understand how best to implement. | No RFP Change. |
'Reserve' is intended to mean that it can be used by that user only
| Reserve is intended to mean that it can be used by that user only. | ||||||
| 7 | Attachment 15 - Gate Form: Requirements Self-Certification | NA | DCA-84, 85, 86, and 87 | In these requirements, is the term “multiple awards” meant to indicate multiple awards related under a single program or similar and consistent with Multiple Award Contract procedures? Please confirm this would not be a set of unrelated awards. Need to understand the requirement in order to understand how best to implement. | No RFP Change. | |
| The term "multiple awards" within DCA-84, 85, 86, and 87 applies to Multiple Award Contract (MAC) procedures. | Based on inference, the intent is a Multiple Award Contract (MAC). | |||||
| 8 | Attachment 15 - Gate Form: Requirements Self-Certification | NA | DCB-15 | Please clarify if this requirement is meant to only apply to draft modifications as DCB-14 prevents award lines to be deleted via modification. Need to understand the requirement in order to understand how best to implement. | No RFP Change. | |
| The intent is to allow deletion of line items from an existing modification. A line item may be deleted only if it has not been executed at any point (i.e., has been created in error on a draft document). | Correct. A line item may be deleted only if it has not been executed at any point (i.e., has been created in error on a draft document). | |||||
| 9 | Attachment 15 - Gate Form: Requirements Self-Certification | NA | DCB-58 | This requirement is written in a very implementation specific manner. Our solution addresses the intent of this requirement; however it does so by automatically synchronizing all changes from approved concurrent modifications prior to submitting the selected modification for signature rather than making the user select whether or not to proceed. Suggest re-writing in a less implementation manner to allow for alternative solutions that meet the same business intent. Implementation-specific requirement that results in the user taking additional steps that the system could do instead. | No RFP Change. |
The requirement is neither design-specific or restrictive and it exists to provide the users the opportunity to cancel the signature prior to synchronization.
| Background: At any given time, there could be multiple modifications in process on one contract, each in a different state of completion. As such, the business intent is for the system to be aware of these in-process mods and to be able to update them to reflect the changes affected by whichever modification gets signed first. However, the Navy requires the system to enable the user to control the signature/synchronization process, thus preventing inadvertent premature overwriting of line item data in other draft, in-process concurrent modifications. when signing the modification. | Concur. Recommend revision requirements to address a) informing users that a concurrent modification exist (both outstanding concurrent modifications and the newly created), b) disallowing multiple concurrent modifications for the same line item and c) updating concurrent modifications upon execution (signature) of one. | |||||
| 10 | Attachment 15 - Gate Form: Requirements Self-Certification | NA | DCB-64 | This requirement seems to conflict with other requirements that require a single PR line item to be associated with multiple solicitations or awards, such as SMW-56. Potential conflict between similar requirements that needs to be resolved. | No RFP Change. |
Requirement valid as written.
| DCB-64 indicates that the PR Line Item can be associated with multiple solicitations or awards but not with more than one line item in an award; which is not in conflict with SMW-56 | Recommend removing this requirement. Primary business need is to allow a single PR line item to trace to multiple Award line items; and, multiple PR line items to trace to a single Award line item. | |||||
| 11 | Attachment 15 - Gate Form: Requirements Self-Certification | NA | DCG-15 | Please clarify that the “Line Item Obligation Amount” field is meant to be the funded amount and not the calculated extended line amount field. Need to understand the requirement in order to understand how best to implement. | No RFP Change. | |
| Requirement DCG-14 does state calculated extended total of each instrument line item to be populated in the Line Item Obligation Amount field identified in DCG-15. | Correct. Recommend revision to clarify statement. | |||||
| 12 | Attachment 15 - Gate Form: Requirements Self-Certification | NA | VEP-18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25 | What is the business intent behind restricting attachments to only specific vendors when the solicitation is openly advertised? What are the business processes/ types of procurements that would require this? This process would seem to limit competition as written. Need to understand the requirement in order to understand how best to implement. | No RFP Change. |
Requirements valid. Restrictions may be necessary based on sole-source, or on controlled or classified data contained in attachments, which may require advanced clearance.
The business intent behind restricting attachments to authorized vendors only when the solicitation is openly advertised is consistent with 10 U.S.C. 140c. This statue permits DoD to withhold from public disclosure any technical data with military or space application if such data may not be exported lawfully without an approval, authorization, or license under E.O. 12470 or the Arms Export Control Act. (Ref: DODI 5320.25 "Withholding of Unclassified Technical Data and Technology from Public Disclosure", and Canadian Technical Data Control Regulations.)
The business processes/ types of procurements that would require this are covered by the Export Administration Regulations (EAR, 15 CFR §§730-774). The list of EAR-controlled items (the Commerce Control list, or "CCL") is published at 15 CFR §774, Supplement 1.
Public disclosure of technical data subject to DODI 5320.25 is tantamount to providing uncontrolled foreign access, withholding such data from public disclosure, unless approved, authorized, or licensed in accordance with export control laws, is necessary and in the national interest.
| Question unclear. Not all attachments apply to full-and-open competition rules. | |||||
| 13 | Attachment 27 - ePS Managed Services and Commercial Cloud Hosting and Servcies PWS | 12 | 4.4.5 #1 | Requirement says that DR site must also be backed up. Since DR site is itself a warm-standby backup, why is this requirement needed? Recommend striking requirement to backup DR site. Not needed. | No RFP Change. |
Disaster Recovery (DR) backup is required as the DR site must be autonomous at any time relative to the primary site. E.g., if DR site primary storage fails, and the database is in the multi Terabyte (TB) range, the DR site must be able to recover on its own rather than rely on a re-baseline from the primary, which could take days / weeks, leaving a gap in DR coverage. Reference NIST SP 800-53 Rev 4.
14 Attachment 27 - ePS Managed Services and Commercial Cloud Hosting and Servcies PWS 4 3 Scope indicates “All pre-production and production environments will be IL5.” Would the government allow IL2 accredited services for environments for system integrator dev/test prior to push to IL5 pre-production test environments. Lowers cost to the government No RFP Change.
Yes, the System Integrator's internal COTS product development environments do not fall under the scope of the hosting PWS and shall not contain DoD data; therefore, they can use IL-2 environments. All other environments will be IL5 per section 3 of the hosting PWS.
15 Attachment 27 - ePS Managed Services and Commercial Cloud Hosting and Servcies PWS 7 4.2.4 SRG does not require PKI for administrative access (management backplane). Suggest removal of this requirement Requirements above the SRG will drive additional cost to the government No RFP Change.
This is an RMF requirement and requirement will remain. Reference NIST SP 800-53 Rev 4.
16 Attachment 27 - ePS Managed Services and Commercial Cloud Hosting and Servcies PWS 11 4.4.1 #4.a Please clarify requirement to “ensure data segmentation and isolation in a multi-tenant environment” Segmentation is part of SRG requirements; ePS is not a multi-tenant solution. No RFP Change.
If ePS is hosted in a multi-tenant shared Cloud Service Offering (CSO), then the Cloud Service provider (CSP) must ensure data segmentation for ePS.
17 Attachment 1 - Performance Work Statement (PWS) NA NA What tool(s) will/does the government use for data profiling/analyzing? Will the contractor have access to the tool(s) and its output files? No RFP Change.
The contractor will not have access to the data profiling results. The purpose of Data Profiling efforts is to assist in identifying possible pre-migration cleansing efforts by HCAs and will be executed prior to award.
18 RFP Section L 364 L-10.2.c Will the government employees involved in the HCA Real-World Scenario Evaluation also be part of the demo evaluation and therefor will have had some exposure to the capabilities of the solution? Or will they be different resources from HCAs that were not involved in the 2 day Demo? To maximize the 2.5 days of training it would be beneficial to know whether the students would have just sat through the 2 day demo. No RFP Change.
The Real-World Scenario participants will also participate in the Use Case Demonstration and Training.
| 19 | Attachment 15 - Gate Form: Requirements Self-Certification | NA | TKM-01, 04 | We recommend the Navy drop these requirements and rely the PD&V phase to establish end-user acceptability of the UI in the context of viewing and using the UI in the full context of evaluating overall system effectiveness to support the many aspects of the contracting process. “Consistency” is a relative, not an absolute concept, and as such, difficult to definitely judge. Moreover, in modern commercial systems, one will find considerable consistency, and one will also find a variety of design solutions or techniques to accomplish the same end result, such as “data entry” or “navigation” and “information presentation” in the same system, not the same, identical technique for every system function or transaction. This variety is utilized by design. Because of the nature and context of particular system/user dialogue, one technique will be more suitable and more efficient than another. Well-designed systems will incorporate optimal application of the best design techniques for given situations. They will have substantial consistency, but not identical design in all UI components system-wide. The planned PD&V hands on “usability” assessment by the Navy contracts professionals from the HCAs is the right way to assess usability. | No RFP Change. | |
| The Offeror shall self-certify to the consistency of their user interface. Offeror should provide rationale for why they believe their GUI and error handling are consistent/common. | Under consideration. | |||||
| 20 | RFP Section L | 373 | L-10.7(c) | Please confirm the purpose of the Letter of Consent is only for allowing the prime offeror to discuss past performance data with the Navy. Therefore, if no subcontractor past performance info is proposed then we do not have to submit Letters of Consent. | No RFP Change. |
Correct. Per L-10.1(d)(iii), the purpose of the Letters of Consent is to"…authorize the Government to discuss the subcontractor's, teaming partner's, or each member of the JV's past performance evaluation results with the Offeror during discussions." As such, Offerors are not required to submit Letters of Consent if no subcontractor past performance is proposed.
21 RFP Section L 359 L.9.1 As per section L-9.1 the Staffing Plan is now part of the Technical approach volume however the evaluation of the staffing plan seems to be included in the Management Approach (M.3.5.a). Please confirm that the staffing plan is to be included in the Technical Approach as per section L-9.1 and the evaluation criteria will be modified to reflect this change. No RFP Change.
Although M-3.5(a) (Factor 4: Management Approach) references staffing, the Management Plan is intended to provide the Navy with a comprehensive understanding of how the Offeror will accomplish the PWS requirements, and staffing is just one part of that plan. The criteria for evaluating the Staffing Plan is described in the Factor 3: Technical Approach in paragraph M-3.4(e).
22 Attachment 15 - Gate Form: Requirements Self-Certification 107 Interface with GEX Requirements IGX-22 through IGX-27 are present in the SRS/RTM, but not in the Gate Criteria. Please clarify which requirements will be used in the evaluation process and update the documentation accordingly. No RFP Change.
IGX-22 through IGX-27 are not part of the Attachment 15 (Gate Form).
23 Attachment 19 - Product Demonstration Use Cases 45 3.1.9 Modify Instrument Use Case 3, Modify Instrument includes a step to create and process 300 concurrent modifications. Given the duration of the demo, we assume that we can electronically upload modification forms into the system rather than manually keying in 300 individual records and that this information will be provided with the demo data. No RFP Change.
Data to be pre-populated for the PD&E demo and HCA use case scenarios will be provided 14 days prior to the start of each Offeror's PD&E.
24 RFP Section L 370 Section L-6 (C ) (1) Line 6 of paragraph L-6 (c)(1) references subcontractor BOEs. Please confirm that if there are no third tier subcontractors that the BOE tab in Attachment 21 - Cost-Price Worksheets meets this requirement since the prime would be directing the LOE. Rationale: Need clarification for proper input into the Cost-Price Workbook. No RFP Change.
Correct. Refer to Section L-10.6(c)(2). There is no L-6(c)(1).
The Cost-Price Workbook and all Bases of Estimates (BOEs) must contain all required information. However, subcontractor BOEs containing proprietary rate information may be submitted under separate cover. Detailed instruction for completing Attachment 21 are included within the attachment. Refer to Attachment 21 Instructions Tab which directs the Offerors to identify by name which entity (Prime or subcontractor) is performing.
25 Attachment 27 - ePS Managed Services and Commercial Cloud Hosting and Servcies PWS 6 Section 4.2.2 Will the Navy issue the PKI certificates for the ePS or is the contractor required to implement the PKI system and manage the PKI certificates through the life cycle? No RFP Change.
PKI certificates will be DoD issued and managed.
26 RFP Section B 3 B The FPI CLINs cover a vast number of requirements within one CLIN. Please confirm offerors may break out the requirements into individual sub CLINs No RFP Change.
No, Offerors shall propose at the CLIN level as specified in the RFP.
| Intent is to maximize OOTB capabilities and remain on the COTS product line (i.e., preserving all inherited maintenance activities) while meeting 100% of the requirement. There are multiple implementation methods to meet this criteria. | |||||
| 27 | Attachment 1 - Performance Work Statement (PWS) | n/a | 4.1.4.1 | Can the government specify specific artifacts that need to be included in the Technical Data Package? (Example: Configuration Rationales) | No RFP Change. |
Examples of Technical Data Package artifacts are cited in 4.1.4.1, a.ii. Specific artifacts will be identified after contract award when Configuration items/ information are discussed in detail.
28 Attachment 1 - Performance Work Statement (PWS) 4 4 Attachment 27 indicates that "The Prime contractor shall provide all the necessary services to support IL5 data." Does this requirement apply to development and test environment? Can the government specify the data classification levels of specific data in the ePS solution? E.g. Data available to industry via the vendor portal, data in testing/development environments, etc. No RFP Change.
System Integrator's internal product development environments do not fall under the scope of the hosting PWS and shall not contain DoD data. All other environments will be IL5 per section 3 of the hosting PWS.
29 RFP Section F 236 Section F Did the government intend for Option Period 1 and Option Period 2 to overlap by one month? No RFP Change.
The Government intends to begin Option 2 30 days prior to the end of Option 1.
30 RFP Section L 369 Section L-10.4 (8)(i) Can the government confirm project tools which will only be used by the prime offeror and its subcontractors do not require EULAs? For example, third party tools for supporting system configuration management. No RFP Change.
Assumption is correct. The Navy is only specifically directing the Prime Contractor to use one tool--IBM System Architect (SA) (Ref: Attachment 1 PWS section 4.6.2.5, f.)
31 RFP Section L 365 Section L-10.4 (2) Can the government confirm that only government activities with direct touch points to the contractor work activities should be included within the proposed IMS? Example: Integrated Testing with a government interface partner would be highlighted as a government activity in the IMS, but the development lifecycle for that external system to prepare for the integrated test activity would NOT be included in the IMS. No RFP Change.
The ePS IMS will have high-level work packages/tasks to represent work being performed by the vendor. Government tasks supporting that work will be in the ePS PIMS. We expect the vendor to 1) verify the duration of the work packages and 2) detail tasks in their IMS they are performing to support that work. We do not expect the vendor's IMS to detail work being performed by another government entity to support the task.
In the example provided, the ePS IMS would contain a high level task to Conduct Integrated Testing followed by a key milestone event. There may be some sub tasks such as receive functional specification data from vendor, obtain ICA approval, provide test schedule. The vendor IMS would contain the same high level task, but would also include all the detailed sub tasks to complete it which might include: develop functional design specifications, provide specifications to government, coordinate with system partners to prepare for test activity, prepare for testing, develop test plans, conduct testing , etc. The vendor would not have to have the development lifecycle for the external system in their IMS.
32 Attachment 27 - ePS Managed Services and Commercial Cloud Hosting and Servcies PWS 4 3. Scope / para 2 “The Prime Contractor shall deliver a cloud hosting environment capable of meeting Department of Defense (DoD) IL5.” Does the Government prescribe DoD IL5 for pre-production, such as dev/test, as well? No RFP Change.
System Integrator's internal product development environments do not fall under the scope of the hosting PWS and shall not contain DoD data. All other environments will be IL5 per section 3 of the hosting PWS.
33 RFP Section L 300 L-9.3 Will the government allow 9-point font to be used for text in the headers and/or footers? No RFP Change.
No. The Government will not allow 9-point font in the headers or footers. In accordance with L-9.3(a)(6), "Except for the reproduced sections of the RFP document, font type shall be Arial and the font size shall be no less than 12 point."
34 Attachment 5 - Systems Engineering Plan (SEP) 23 3.1.1 Technical Schedule, Figure 6 The RFP Systems Engineering Plan refers to a notional schedule which is provided in figure 6. This does not align with the provided GWBS or the MIL STD 881-C. Question: Is it the Government intention to have the WBS/IMS align with the GWBS and MIL STD 881-C? If, yes, please confirm that the notional schedule may be restructured to align with the GWBS and the MIL STD 881C. No RFP Change.
The Notional schedule is a high level representation of the IMS designed for use by Leadership with functional swim lanes in lieu of detailed WBS structure. The actual ePS IMS is structured on WBS elements provided by the System Engineering group and aligned with the GWBS/MIL STD 881-c. The full IMS schedule file will be provided to the vendor when the award is made.
35 Attachment 1 - Performance Work Statement (PWS) 67-89 Section 4.5, Transition to Sustainment and 4.6 Question: Will the government provide the vendor with historical annual ticket counts for all areas of support? No RFP Change.
The ePS endeavor is a first of its kind in regards to the integration of multiple existing contract writing systems and cloud hosting. This fact, combined with the fact that the legacy systems have been post-FDD for many years, makes any historical data non-applicable.
36 Attachment 1 - Performance Work Statement (PWS) 67 4.5 The transition should be completed in a reasonable timeframe. Question: How many days should it take to complete the transition? No RFP Change.
The program office expects the Offeror's to propose the timeframe for the transition.
37 Attachment 1 - Performance Work Statement (PWS) 70 4.5.2.1 For any ePS product issues that cannot be resolved via Contractor Service Desk support, provide on-site maintenance at a specified location (i.e., hosting facility or user location) within an agreed upon specified time period. Question: Will the government provide the vendor with historical annual ticket counts for Tier 3 on-site and remote support? No RFP Change.
The ePS endeavor is unique in regards to the integration of multiple existing contract writing systems and cloud hosting. This fact, combined with the fact that the legacy system has been post-FDD for many years, makes any historical data non-applicable 38 Attachment 27 - ePS Managed Services and Commercial Cloud Hosting and Servcies PWS 4; 6 2 Objectives; 4.2.1 Validated Cryptography Comment: SLAs are determined up to the meeting point (express route). No RFP Change.
Outages and response time delays resulting from Navy owned and operated networks will not count toward the system integrator SLAs related to availability and response times.
See ePS SRS, paragraph 5.2.1, System Responsiveness.
39 Attachment 1 - Performance Work Statement (PWS) 69 4.5.2.1 Need clarification as to what ITSM tool is being used in Option 1. Question: Is Remedy the ITSM tool being used by the government for Tiers 133 support? No RFP Change.
The government has not determined the ITSM tool it will use in the option where it provides Tier 1 support. The vendor is encouraged to identify the tool and associated module they will use.
40 Attachment 1 - Performance Work Statement (PWS) 69 4.5.2.1 Service Desk Option 1 Details Need clarification as to what ITSM modules are currently being used in Option 1 (e.g., Incident Management, Problem Management, Service Request Management, Customer Satisfaction, Change Management). Question: What ITSM modules will be used in Option 1? No RFP Change.
See response to Question #39.
41 Attachment 27 - ePS Managed Services and Commercial Cloud Hosting and Servcies PWS 8 4.2.5 Incident Reporting Question: Do the CSP and the prime contractor share responsibility for reporting? No RFP Change.
Per Attachment 27 section 4.2.5, the Prime Contractor is ultimately responsible for reporting to the Government. Detailed reporting responsibilities between the subcontractor CSP and the Prime Contractor depend upon the contract and SLA between the Prime Contractor and the CSP.
42 Attachment 27 - ePS Managed Services and Commercial Cloud Hosting and Servcies PWS 8 4.2.6.3 Media Transport Comment: The CSP will work in accordance with DISA to meet these requirements. No RFP Change.
This is an RMF requirement. Reference NIST SP 800-53 Rev 4.
43 RFP Section L 359 L-9.1 Proposal Organization Table L-9.1 Proposal Structure Question: Can pricing Excel spreadsheets be submitted in XLSB format (to reduce file size)? No RFP Change.
No. DoD computers are blocked from reading binary files therefore the Government will not accept the XLSB format.
| 44 | Section F | Per the referenced section (Section F): Option Period-1 (OP1) duration is 14 months and Option Period-2 (OP2) is stated to start 13 months after the start of OP1 (leading to a one month overlap). | |
| Question: Does the Government intend for OP2 to start before OP1 ends in the finalized RFP? | No RFP Change. |
Yes, the Government intends to begin Option 2 30 days prior to the end of Option 1.
| 45 | Attachment 22 - PWS-Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) Mapping | The referenced section includes the statement “All Cost/Price information shall be submitted in Then-Year (TY) dollars, unless otherwise noted.” | |
| Question: By stating “All Cost/Price,” is the Government instructing that Materials/Travel/ODC costs should also be escalated using an inflation factor? | No RFP Change. |
The Materials/Travel/ODC costs are "otherwise noted" at NOT TO EXCEED (NTE) amounts.
46 Attachment 1 - Performance Work Statement (PWS) 63-65 4.4.7.1 and 4.4.7.2 In the data management section (4.4.7), there are sub-sections for Data Migration (4.4.7.1) and Data Conversion (4.4.7.2). However, there are overlapping tasks between these sections, and the difference between “migration” and “conversion” is not defined. Request the Government clarify the requirements in these two sections. RFP Changed.
While the terms Data Migration and Data Conversion are similar, the Data Migration section (4.4.7.1) refers to the overall process of migrating the data into ePS. The Data Conversion section (4.4.7.2) refers to the process of actually converting data into the prescribed format and loading it into ePS. The tasks in each section have been updated for clarity. It is critical that the potential vendor delineate how they intend to differentiate the two for oversight and management.
47 Attachment 15 - Gate Form: Requirements Self-Certification N/A CAB-53 "The system shall export the final performance evaluations to the government-wide performance repository." Is the government-wide performance repository CPARS? If so, our understanding is that it does not support an inbound interface. Please clarify the repository referred to here, and confirm that it accepts inbound performance information. If possible, please provide specifications for the interface. RFP Changed.
The current government-wide performance repository is the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). It is a web-enabled reporting system for all government contractors. PPIRS doesn’t have the capability to interface to another system currently. However, the source repository could change in the future.
ePS will not have an interface to CPARS. XPC-01 states "The system shall provide a web link to the CPARS homepage from within the application" (See 2.1.4.3.3 Facilitation of the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) requirement.)
Attachment 2 (SRS) updated to. "CAB-53 The system shall provide the capability to generate a file containing final performance evaluations."
| Pursuing discussion with CPARS about current/future capability. Need additional time to finalize response. | |||||
| 48 | Attachment 21 - Cost/Price Worksheets | N/A | Tabs: Section B Summary, Labor, and Total Evaluated Cost-Price | Please provide clarification as to whether offerors are expected to fill in section B (Government Provided "NTE" Amounts by CLIN) of the Total Evaluated Cost-Price tab with all of the NTE amounts associated with many CLINs found in the Section B Summary tab. If so, does this mean that offerors should NOT include those CLINs in the Labor tab of Attachment 21? | RFP Changed. |
Section B and Attachment 21 have been revised to delete the NTE amounts from Transition/Sustainment Activities CLINs X012, X014, etc and change the Total Evaluated Cost-Price Tab to reflect this change. Offerors are required to propose the total amount for the Transition Sustainment Activities CLIN based on the Direct Staffing Hours listed in Section B. 14 and complete Attachment 21 Total Evaluated Cost-Price Tab and the BOE that provides labor mix and rates necessary to complete the tasks. The Government will issue a technical instruction and a bilateral funding modification will be issued for the Contractor to start work.
49 Attachment 15 - Gate Form: Requirements Self-Certification N/A SEB-54 The SBA website indicates no interface for COCs, this appears to be a process where the COC is emailed/mailed to the contracting professional. Please confirm that it is possible for a system to interface with SBA to obtain a COC (and if so, please provide any details on the interface). If not, please revise or remove the requirement. RFP Changed.
This is a manual process and not related to a system interface to the Small Business Administration (SBA). Requirement in Attachment 2 (SRS) updated to "SEB-54 - The system shall provide the capability to obtain the Certificate of Competency (COC), if required from the Small Business Administration (SBA)."
| 50 | Attachment 15 - Gate Form: Requirements Self-Certification | N/A | IC-REQ-006, 007 | These two requirements are not system requirements, but requirements governing the process by which ePS will be implemented and maintained. They do not lend themselves to any of the possible responses to the certification matrix. They are not fully satisfied out of the box, but they do not require extension either. They require a combination of OOTB capability and established processes. We recommend that the Government move these to the PWS rather than the requirements matrix, or provide some guidance on how these should be completed (maybe ‘Business Process Reengineering’, but it isn’t reengineering the contracting process, but various IT processes). | RFP Changed. | |
| DPAP Internal Controls are guidelines and not requirements and have been removed from Attachment 2 (SRS) and Attachment 15 (Gate Form). | Concur. Request comment from FMP Team (Quentin/Ann) regarding these controls. | |||||
| 51 | Attachment 5 - Systems Engineering Plan (SEP) | 23 | 3.1.1 | Where do we find the latest official “notional schedule”? There is one in the SEP, but it’s even older and more out of date than the one published in the Schedule RFI. | RFP Changed. |
The official notional program schedule is included as Attachment 4. Attachment 4 has been revised to include the following statement: "The ePS notional program schedule depicted below takes precedence over all other schedules. This should be used instead of any schedule imbedded in other documents, such as but not limited to the TEMP, SEP, PPP, and LCSP that may not capture the latest version."
52 RFP Section L 359 L-9.1 Please confirm the 10-page QCP is excluded from the 20 pages allocated to the Management Approach volume. RFP Changed.
Table L-9.1 has been revised to indicate that the page limit for the QCP is excluded from Volume IV page count limitation.
53 RFP Section M 381, 359, 369 M-3.5 Factor 4 - Management Approach and L-9.1/L-10.5 What content is expected in the "Program Management Plan" aka "Management Plan" versus the 20-page Management Approach? L and M are not clear. It seems that more than 5 pages will be needed to respond comprehensively to the PWS requirements in 4.7. Also per L-9.1, the “Management Plan” was previously limited to 5 pages and excluded from the 20-page volume limit. Please confirm this is still correct. RFP Changed.
All references to the Program Management Plan (PMP) and Management Plan have been removed from the RFP. Page limits for Volume IV remain unchanged.
54 Attachment 19 - Product Demonstration Use Cases 45 3.1.9 Table 3-12 Step 3 Use Case 3.1.9 Modify Instrument Step 3 states “Create and Process 300 Concurrent Modifications”. Is it the Navy’s intent to have the 300 concurrent modifications created and released during the demo or can the 300 modifications be created in advance and a few sample ones completed during the demo? There will likely not be enough time during the 2 day demo to perform all 4 Use Cases if 300 concurrent mods need to be demonstrated live. RFP Changed.
Attachment 19 (Use Cases) has been updated. For Use Case #3, Table 3.1.2 step 3 under heading 3.1.9 has been reduced from 300 concurrent modifications to 30.
55 Attachment 1 - Performance Work Statement (PWS) 63-65 4.4.7.1 and 4.4.7.2 In the data management section (4.4.7), there are sub-sections for Data Migration (4.4.7.1) and Data Conversion (4.4.7.2). However, there are overlapping tasks between these sections, and the difference between “migration” and “conversion” is not defined. Request the Government clarify the requirements in these two sections. Needed to better understand the requirement. As written, migration and conversion sound like the same task. RFP Changed.
See response to Question #46.
56 Attachment 1 - Performance Work Statement (PWS) 73-74 4.5.3.3, 4.6.1.1 Within the Transition Management section, 4.5.3.3 specifies that the Contractor shall “enable the transition of training to a self-sustained model for each HCA following initial Release to the HCA.” However, 4.6.1.1 specifies that the Contractor will “mature the sustainment training” and “coordinate with the PMO and HCAs to customize training” following FDD. These sections appear to be in conflict with each other. Need to clarify the Contractor’s training responsibilities following initial release to each HCA and following FDD in order to properly staff and price. RFP Changed.
Contractor is asked to implement a self-sustained delivery model of training CBT for each HCA following the initial ePS release. This training model must be maintained and updated to include subsequent software releases or any update that impacts the form, fit, or function of the user interface and capabilities. Attachment 1 (PWS) Sections 4.5.3.3 and 4.6.1.1 have been updated.
| 57 | Attachment 15 - Gate Form: Requirements Self-Certification | NA | AUT-32, AUT-33, AUT-34 | What is meant by the word ‘contingency’ in these three requirements? (“The system shall record contingency clause(s) at the appropriate CLIN level at the time of commitment in the final document.”? Does this requirement apply to all clauses? Specific clauses dealing with the availability of funds? Need to understand requirement to allow accurate response. | No RFP Change. | |
| Contingency is referring to "statement of funding contingency when funds are not expected to be available by the planned issuance date of the solicitation" (i.e. subject to availability of funds) with regard to provisions/ clauses and not the contingency contracting environment. | Pursuing discussions with NAVSUP regarding the definition of the word "contingency" in these requirements. | |||||
| 58 | Attachment 15 - Gate Form: Requirements Self-Certification | NA | CAB-53 | “The system shall export the final performance evaluations to the government-wide performance repository.” Is the government-wide performance repository CPARS? If so, our understanding is that it does not support an inbound interface. Please clarify the repository referred to here, and confirm that it accepts inbound performance information. If possible, please provide specifications for the interface. Ensure that the requirement is able to be met in its current form; interface specifications will allow a more accurate estimate of the interface complexity/cost. | RFP Changed. |
See response to Question #47.
| Duplicative. Recommend removal. See No. 2. | ||||||
| 59 | Attachment 15 - Gate Form: Requirements Self-Certification | NA | CAB-03, CAB-49 | “The system shall generate the Performance Evaluation Form.” and “The system shall generate the performance evaluation form.” Are duplicate requirements. Is the Performance Evaluation Form a standard/DoD/Navy form? Or is any system-generated form sufficient? Please delete the duplicate requirement to avoid traceability confusion during execution. Need to understand requirement to allow accurate response. | RFP Changed. | |
| Requirement CAB-49 has been deleted from Attachment 2 (SRS) and Attachment 15 (Gate Form) | Concur with duplicative requirement. Recommend removing CAB-49. Intent is to allow these forms to pass to the official repository, CPARS, in the future. As a result, form must meet or exceed related CPARS data requirements. | |||||
| 60 | Attachment 15 - Gate Form: Requirements Self-Certification | NA | DCC-02.01 | Recommend removing this requirement. First, there are cases where it would not be appropriate to update the Smart Attachment, such as after distributing the attachment to the vendor, or potentially after it has been approved/released. Second, it is implementation-specific. If an existing COTS product has OOTB smart attachment capability that requires a user action to update, this would meet the business need and allow the use of a COTS tool without customization. Implementation-specific requirement that would result in undesirable functionality in some cases. | No RFP Change. | |
| Intent is to reduce the user-driven actions needed to update /refresh Smart Attachments. Updates of this information must be aligned to the source instrument up until the time of execution (signature) when no further changes are allowed. | Suggest revision. Intent is to reduce the user-driven actions needed to update /refresh Smart Attachments. Updates of this information must be aligned to the source instrument up until the time of execution (signature) when no further changes are allowed. | |||||
| 61 | Attachment 15 - Gate Form: Requirements Self-Certification | NA | IC-SAD-011, CAC-21 | Requirement IC-SAD-011“CLINs, SLINs, and ELINs may not have a negative unit price or negative extended value.” Conflicts with CAC-21 “The system shall provide the capability to execute (i.e., sign) a modification which contains a line item with a negative unit price and/or a negative extended cost amount in order to reclaim value (e.g., for scrapping line items).” Our recommendation is to remove requirement CAC-21. Negative line items do not communicate well across the DoD enterprise as they are not supported in most financial systems. These can be represented as negative adjustments to existing positive CLINs to offset the value. Implementing CAC-21 would be costly, and would not function in an integrated DoD enterprise business environment. | RFP Changed. |
Requirement for "scrapping" is valid. Required by NAVSUP.CAC-21 is the exception that should be allowed and is required for "scrapping" purposes.
IC-SAD-001 - IC-SAD-014 have been removed from Attachment 2 (SRS). Reference to DPAP Internal Controls provided in the SRS section 4.4.
| Pursuing discussions with functional communities, and Policy for processes that involve money received by the Government (e.g., scrapping, FMS, and overpayments.) Additional time needed to clarify response. | ||||||
| 62 | Attachment 15 - Gate Form: Requirements Self-Certification | NA | IC-OBL-001 | This requirement reads “The accounting system shall identify contract obligations by the funding appropriation and shall reference the combination of the PIID, the SPIID, the CLIN (or the SLIN or ELIN, if applicable), and the dollar amount.”. This is fundamentally an accounting system requirement. The requirement should be rewritten from the perspective of what the procurement system should do to facilitate this. For example: “The system shall transmit contract obligations to the financial system, including data on the funding appropriation, the PIID, the SPIID, the CLIN (or the SLIN or ELIN, if applicable), and the dollar amount.” As written, the requirement could not be validated in the ePS solution. | RFP Changed. | |
| See response to Questions #50. | Concur. Request comment from FMP Team (Quentin/Ann) regarding these controls. | |||||
| 63 | Attachment 15 - Gate Form: Requirements Self-Certification | NA | NA | There are no PWS tasks (or associated CLINs) for migration out of the cloud facility, at the conclusion of the last exercised option, and for transition services to the subsequent O&M contractor. For subscription-based infrastructure or software, a best practice is to identify and receive pricing for what happens at the conclusion of the subscription term. We recommend that the Government include evaluation of the ability of the solution to be transitioned to another provider at the conclusion of the contract. Proprietary hosting solutions that cannot easily be moved can lock the Navy in to unfavorable pricing after the contract. | No RFP Change. |
Attachment 27 paragraph 4.8, and the XX47 series CLINs cover hosting migration. Sections L-10.4(a)(3) and M-3.4(d) has been revised to include a sub-paragraph for cloud hosting migration.
64 Attachment 15 - Gate Form: Requirements Self-Certification NA SMG-16 Can you please clarify what types of system processes this requirement would apply to? For certain procurement processes, this would seem in conflict with other requirements that require initiating tasks or documents. RFP Changed.
Requirement in Attachment 2 (SRS) and Attachment 15 (Gate Form) updated to "SMG-16 - The system shall provide the capability to allow for non-linear processes." For example, a Solicitation may be created without a PR and an Award may be created without an associated Solicitation or PR.
| Recommend revision/clarification. The meaning of the word "simultaneously" is unclear. But, the intent of this requirement is to allow for non-linear processes within the system. For example, a Solicitation may be created without a PR and an Award may be created without an associated Solicitation or PR. | ||||||
| 65 | Attachment 15 - Gate Form: Requirements Self-Certification | NA | SMR-54.01 and 54.03 | What is government considering the difference between retracting comments prior to saving (54.01) and deleting comments prior to saving (54.03)? | RFP Changed. | |
| Requirement SMR-54.01 has been deleted from Attachment 2 (SRS) and Attachment 15 (Gate Form) | History of requirement is unclear. Need additional discussion with Requirements Team. | |||||
| 66 | Attachment 15 - Gate Form: Requirements Self-Certification | NA | AUT-14.01 | This requirement seems to conflict with the new document numbering guidance as orders now receive their own PIID rather than a SPIIN. Please validate. The updated document numbering guidance changed this process. | RFP Changed. |
Requirement AUT-14.01 has been updated within Attachment 2 (SRS) and Attachment 15 (Gate Form) to:
| “The system shall automatically assign the Procurement Instrument Identifier (PIID) in accordance with FAR 4.16, DFARS 204.16, and NMCARS 5204.70 when an order is created automatically.” | Concur. Recommend Requirements Team ensure new PIID rules are represented throughout the document. | |||||
| 67 | Attachment 15 - Gate Form: Requirements Self-Certification | NA | AUT-25, 26, 27, 28 | The word “commitment” is used in each of these requirements, but they seem to be referring obligating documents. Is this meant to indicate an obligation or a commitment transaction? Or a simultaneous commitment and obligation in a single transaction? Need to better understand the requirements in order to properly implement. | RFP Changed. |
Requirements AUT-01.05, AUT-26, AUT 27, AUT 28 have been updated in Attachment 2 (SRS) and Attachment 15 (Gate Form).
AUT-01.05 The system shall automatically confirm that an inbound PR that can be processed as an order against an existing ordering vehicle has been received and validated from NAVY-ERP when it receives a PR transmitted by the NAVY-ERP AUT-26 The system shall record the appropriate funding status at the time of obligation in the procurement instrument.
AUT-27 The system shall record the fund cite at the time of obligation in the procurement instrument.
AUT-28 The system shall record accounting data at the time of obligation in the procurement instrument.
| Pursuing additional conversations with NAVSUP/SPAWAR regarding automation requirements for WCF. Need additional time to finalize response. | |||||
| 68 | Attachment 15 - Gate Form: Requirements Self-Certification | NA | AUT-53 | This requirement appears in the AUT grouping, however it does not state whether the modification should be automatically created (from an incremental funding PR. Is this meant to be an automated or manual process? Need to understand the requirement in order to understand how best to implement. | RFP Changed. |
Requirement AUT-53 has been updated in Attachment 2 (SRS) and Attachment 15 (Gate Form) to:
| "The system shall provide the capability to automatically generate modifications for incremental funding Purchase Requests (PRs)." | Suggest revision. The modification should automatically be generated provided the appropriate information (Award PIID and line item) are known. | |||||
| 69 | Attachment 15 - Gate Form: Requirements Self-Certification | NA | DCA-49 | Implementing this requirement would introduce a data integrity issue as the purpose of providing Data Lists is to enforce validation against the accepted data standards of PDS. PRDS, SAM and other source systems of record. Recommend removing this requirement or narrowing the scope to which fields should allow override (such as Point of Contact information, for example). Allowing this requirement jeopardizes data integrity and implementation of data standards. | RFP Changed. | |
| DCA-49 has been removed from Attachment 2 (SRS) and Attachment 15 (Gate Form). All data lists should be centrally managed. | Concur. Requirement should be removed. All data lists should be centrally managed. | |||||
| 70 | Attachment 15 - Gate Form: Requirements Self-Certification | NA | DCA-80, 81, 82, and 83 | What is the business process desired for establishing cumulative minimum and maximum constraints at the instrument level for individual contracts? How does this differ from the requirements for establishing minimum and maximum constraints at the instrument level for indefinite delivery contract types (DCA-76, 77)? If individual contracts are meant to represent “C” type or similar non-ordering instrument types, then what is being cumulatively accrued against the constraint? Need to understand the requirement in order to understand how best to implement. | No RFP Change. |
Under certain…
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it.