Questions and Answers in Response to Solicitation N0018925Q0159.pdf

Questions and Answers in Response to Solicitation N0018925Q0159

1. Given the nature of this project and its connection to the Department of the Navy, could you please confirm whether offshore support is allowed, or if all personnel involved must be U.S.-based or U.S.

citizens?

All personnel involved must be U.S.-based and must be citizens of the U.S.

2. Can the Govt share the incumbent info with Contract Number, Contractor Name, Total Contract Value for the entire period of performance?

This is a new requirement, and there is not an incumbent performing the PowerApp Development work currently.

3. What was the incumbent Period of Performance?

4. We have noticed that the Govt requires Total of 2 KP. Do we need to share resumes at this stage or after the award?

Resumes are not required to be included in the quote. However, the Government will accept narrative statements to detail the qualifications of the proposed contractor employees.

5. Is the level of effort the same for the incumbent?

6. Are incumbents eligible to re – bid?

7. Any pain points with the previous contract?

8. Do we need to provide live resumes or sample resumes?

9. Are there any listed holidays?

All Federal holidays as posted by OPM.gov are observed. The SOW has been revised to include the Holidays.

10. What is the maximum ceiling value?

It is up to the contractor to determine was the price will be for these service.

11. Can the Govt. share the details of current spending?

This is a new requirement, therefore there is no current spending.

12. Can the Govt. confirm the annual hours for both the key personnel? Will it be 1920 or 1880 hours?

The annual hours for PowerApp developer will be 1920 hours. The annual hours for the PowerApps architect will be 320 hours.

13. What is the estimated award date?

The estimated award date is 01 May 2025.

14. Can we replace the candidates after the award?

Key personnel can be replaced during the POP with 30 day notice.

15. Are these positions for full time?

Only the developer position will be full time.

16. We understand that there are 2 Key Personnel parts of this project, that is One (1) Supervisory

Microsoft Power Apps Architect and One (1) Microsoft Power Apps Developer (with 10 or more years’ experience) for remote Microsoft Power Apps support. Please confirm?

We can confirm the requirement for both positions.

17. Per the given template in solicitation we noticed that we need to provide monthly unit price and total.

Does that include both the key personnel or do we need to add one more row and provide for both?

All pricing will be provided on the single CLIN. Quoters must provide a breakdown of their price in relation to labor category and hourly rates.

18. Will the Govt provide any separate pricing template for this?

Yes, the Government has revised the 52.212-1 addendum to include this information.

19. Can the Govt confirm the annual hours for both the key personnel?

The annual hours for PowerApp developer will be 1920 hours. The annual hours for the PowerApps architect will be 320 hours.

20. Can the Govt provide clarity on Section VIII & IX with Section e under page 5 of 54 of Travel?

Travel will not be required.

21. Are resumes for personnel required to be included in the quote to demonstrate that they meet the requirements in the SOW?

22. Will the government require a page limit for this proposal?

The Past Performance quote will be limited to twelve pages.

23. Will the government require a pricing volume beyond the SF1449?

Yes, the Government has revised the 52.212-1 addendum to include this information.

24. Is past performance required for this proposal to demonstrate the vendor meets the requirements in the SOW?

Three past performance references with a timeframe of the past five years.

25. Is previous experience developing in Navy Flankspeed or another cloud environment with the Navy required to perform the work?

Previous experience developing Navy Flankspeed or other cloud environment is recommended as the quotes will be evaluated from a Past Performance and Price standpoint.

26. Will the vendor be required to be a Microsoft Solution Partner and/or Azure Government Cloud

Reseller to perform the work?

Vendor shall be a Microsoft Solution Partner.

27. Will the vendor be required to have a Microsoft GCC High environment to maintain development/UAT?

Vendors are not required to have a Microsoft GCC High environment but this will be viewed favorably.

28. Will previous experience delivering Power Platform or SharePoint training be required for this contract?

Previous experience delivering Power Platform or SharePoint training is recommended as the quotes will be evaluated from a Past Performance and Price standpoint.

29. Will the government please clarify if travel will be required for this contract? As Section V.d.2 states

"Ability to travel to remote CONUS OJAG offices to evaluate, recommend and implement any required upgrades or if needed to maintain NMCI Account Access." However, Section IX.TRAVEL.

states "1. Not Required".

30. Can the government confirm the 2 identified FTEs are full-time resources (1912 hours)?

Only the developer position will be full time.

31. Is there an incumbent contractor? If so, can you please provide the incumbents contract number?

This scope is considered a new requirement, There is not an incumbent performing this PowerApp Development work currently.

32. Under Section V, bullet d), it states: Ability to travel to remote CONUS OJAG offices to evaluate, recommend and implement any required upgrades or if needed to maintain NMCI Account Access.

However, Section XI states travel is not required. Can you advise on if travel is required or not, please?

33. Are there any additional compliance or security requirements beyond the standard Microsoft

Government Cloud regulations (FlankSpeed)?

Data is classified as PII and must be protected as such.

34. Will there be any integration with third-party systems beyond Microsoft 365 and SharePoint for the migration process?

There will be no third-party systems integrations.

35. Does the JAGLINK system require offline access or mobile-friendly optimizations?

These requirements aren’t anticipated.

36. Are there any user experience improvements or new features expected by end-users in the updated

JAGLINK system?

Improvements and new features may be necessary, depending on stakeholder requirements.

37. Does this requirement have an incumbent or a vendor performing similar services to the Office of the

Judge Advocate General (OJAG) and Commander, Naval Legal Service Command (CNLSC)? If yes, who is the incumbent or vendor?

38. The Contract type states FFP. Typically reporting on hours worked is not required for FFP engagements. Can the Government please confirm this reporting requirement?

The reporting requirement is valid for this contract.

39. Please provide clarification if Travel is or is not required. If travel is required, will the Government include CLIN 002 for travel?

40. Based on the assumption and access required, please confirm if GFE is or is not required.

GFE will not be required.

41. Is there a specific format or structure required for the technical proposal submission?

The Government has revised the solicitation to include this information.

42. Are we required to submit hourly rates as part of the cost proposal?

The price quote should include a breakdown of the hourly rates.

43. Should the cost proposal be submitted as a separate document, or is it acceptable to include both technical and cost information in a single file?

The price quote should be a separate document under Volume 2.

44. Are you seeking only federal past performance examples, or is state and commercial experience also acceptable?

Federal is preferred, but State and Commercial are acceptable.

45. How many past performance references are required, and is there a specified timeframe (e.g., within the past 3 or 5 years) for these references?

Three past performance references with a timeframe of the past five years.

46. Can you please clarify the evaluation criteria and their relative importance?

The Government has revised the solicitation to include this information under 52.212-2 and its addendum.

47. Is contractor coordination with the AbilityOne Program support contractor a requirement throughout the contract, or is their involvement limited to government-directed closeout support?

AbilityOne involvement is limited to only the closeout process.

48. Ability to travel to remote CONUS OJAG offices to evaluate, recommend and implement any required upgrades or if needed to maintain NMCI Account Access." refers to travel that may be required. Should the contractor include a CLIN to support travel costs?

49. The PWS (Page 4, Section IV) emphasizes maintaining JAGLINK’s current functionality during migration. Does the government have a preference for how operational continuity is ensured (e.g., parallel environments) to meet this requirement, and is this approach acceptable within the Firm Fixed Price (FFP) structure per Section L (Page 43, I.1.2)?

The current environment will be available and should be maintained until the end of FY25.

50. The PWS (Page 5, V.b) requires Power Apps expertise for key personnel. Does the government have specific criteria or documentation preferences for demonstrating this capability in the proposal, particularly in relation to Section M’s potential evaluation of past performance (Page 10, 52.212-2)?

The Government has revised the 52.212-2 to include additional details on past performance.

51. Section L (Page 43, I.1.1) requests “a completed SF 1449 with the total price filled in block 17,” and

Section M (Page 10) evaluates price as the primary factor. Is a detailed price breakdown (e.g., labor categories, rates, estimated hours) required or permitted in addition to the total FFP, or should offerors provide only the total price?

The Government has revised the solicitation to include this information.

52. The PWS (Page 5, X) does not mandate specific tools beyond Power Apps. Are offerors allowed to propose additional tools (e.g., for analytics or monitoring) to enhance the operations and maintenance phase (Page 5, X.9), and would this be favorably considered under Section L (Page 43, I.1.2)?

Tool selection is dictated by FlankSpeed administrators and may not be selectable.

53. The RFP (Page 5, V.b) references T1 background investigations but does not detail FlankSpeed-specific security controls. Should offerors assume a particular compliance standard (e.g., FedRAMP Moderate) when addressing the migration requirements in Section X (Page 5), or will additional guidance be provided?

There are no specific requirements that must be held in flankSpeed other than the T1 background investigation. FlankSpeed requires a CAC and a Navy account.

54. PWS Section X.6 (Page 5) mandates maintaining JAGLINK’s current style and functionality in

Power Apps. Given potential differences between SharePoint and Power Apps interfaces, does the government have a preferred method or design type (e.g., specific app format) for achieving this, which should be reflected in the technical narrative (Page 43, I.1.2)?

Stakeholder needs may drive the design requirements.

55. Section M (Page 10, 52.212-2) reserves the right to consider past performance without specifying criteria or quantity. If evaluated, will it be based on factors such as recency, relevance to PWS tasks (Pages 4-6), or other metrics, and is there a preferred number of past performance examples (e.g., 3,

5) offerors should provide to support this assessment?

Recency and relevance to PWS will be factors to the evaluation. Three past performance references with a timeframe of the past five years.

56. Section L (Pages 43-44) does not specify page count restrictions for the technical approach portion of the proposal (I.1.2). Are there any limitations offerors should adhere to, and if so, could you specify the maximum number of pages allowed?

The proposal submitted should be limited to 12 pages.

57. The PWS (Page 5, V.b) outlines qualifications for the Supervisory Microsoft Power Apps Architect and Microsoft Power Apps Developer. How should offerors present these qualifications in the proposal (e.g., resumes, narrative summaries) to demonstrate compliance with Section L (Page 43, I.1.2)?

58. PWS Section X.3 (Page 5) tasks the contractor to “test and/or develop methods for migrating data from the existing JAGLINK site to Microsoft Power Apps.” Could the government provide additional details on the expected volume and structure of data to be migrated to inform our technical approach?

Volume of data is expected to be moderate, 2900 records containing 1-2 MB each.

59. Section M (Page 10, 52.212-2) identifies price as the primary factor but states the award will be “most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.” Are there specific non-price factors (e.g., technical approach quality) that will influence the best value determination, and how are they prioritized relative to price?

The solicitation has been revised to include more information.

60. PWS Section X.9 (Page 5) mandates ongoing enhancements after migration. Is there a preferred process or frequency (e.g., ad-hoc, scheduled releases) for implementing these enhancements that offerors should incorporate into their proposal?

There are no specific milestones for enhancements after migration at this point.

61. PWS Section V.d (Page 5) mentions “occasional CONUS travel” for key personnel. Could the government clarify the anticipated frequency, locations, or purpose of this travel to ensure accurate pricing and planning in our proposal?

62. The period of performance is May 4, 2025, to May 3, 2026 (Page 6, XI), but the timing of the migration cutover to Power Apps is not specified. Is there a preferred milestone or timeframe for the go-live that offerors should reflect in their technical approach (Section L, Page 43, I.1.2)?

Timeframe for go-live should be end of FY25, 30 September 2025.

63. As JAGLINK appears to be a custom-built application, can the government provide access to technical documentation such as architecture, database schema, and storage details?

Technical documentation will be provided after award.

64. Is this effort a continuation of an existing project or the initial phase of a new development initiative?

65. Will development environments and access to the FlankSpeed tenant be provisioned at the start of the contract, or should we anticipate any onboarding lead time?

Access requirements may require a brief lead time.

66. Will stakeholders be available throughout the performance period for requirements gathering, demonstrations, and testing?

The stakeholders will be available for the duration of the performance period.

67. Per the PWS the quote validity on page 44 (II. Requirements for Quote Content Section 2) and POP start date in (Section XI. Period of Performance Pg 6) are both on 04 May 2025 (Sunday). Can the Government clarify the period of performance and quote validity date? The POP start date is on a Sunday and, it’s the same date that the quote is valid through, so we want to confirm the dates.

The POP will be 05 May 2025 and the proposal validity date will be 15 May 2025.

68. The PWS states that the Wage Determination is attached however, the PWS is the only document located on the Solicitation in SAM. Can the Government provide the wage determination?

The wage determination has been provided as an attachment to the solicitation.

69. Can the Government please confirm that the requirements listed for the SharePoint Architect

(Supervisory position) and the SharePoint Developer are the same?

Both positions should require the same duration of experience with SharePoint and PowerApps.

70. A detailed of how the vendor intends to meet the requirements listed within the Performance Work

Statement (PWS). Can the government clarify what should be detailed?

The Government has revised this portion of the solicitation.

71. On Page 5 and page 6, there is a list of 10 deliverables; however, the list notes "3." twice detailing two different deliverables. Can the government confirm whether these should be listed as one deliverable or two separate ones?

They should be treated as two separate deliverables. The numbers have been updated

72. The POP section indicates "One (1) Supervisory Microsoft Power Apps Architect and One (1)

Microsoft Power Apps Developer (with 10 or more years’ experience)". Can the government clarify if both roles require 10 or more years of experience or just the Developer?

Both roles require 10 or more years of experience.