ePS_RFP_Questions_2017_08_27.pdf

No. Source Document Page

Number Section/P ara No.

Question/Comment Response

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-

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.”

3 Attachment 15 - Gate Form:

Requirements Self- Certification

NA SMR-84,

89, and

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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).

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.

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

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.

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 controlled or classified data contained in attachments, which may require advanced clearance.

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,

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.

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 Instrumen t

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)(1). 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.

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 Sustainme nt 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 Cryptogra phy

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 Organizati on 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.

Sheet1