Solicitation N6471026Q0016 AMD 0003 Questions and Answers.pdf

Solicitation N6471026Q0016 AMD 0003 Questions and Answers

1. Deliverable D.6 requires generation of two distinct templated document types. Will the Government provide the current forms or templates to be replicated? If they are not available prior to quote submission, may offerors price to a stated assumption?

Answer: The two documents required to be populated are customized to local needs. They will both be provided at the time of discovery/kickoff. The more complex document out of the two (NAVMC 10576) has a generic version that can be found online and used as a reference, if such is needed for pricing an offer.

2. Will the Government provide the two required document templates and associated business rules, or is the contractor expected to develop the templates and define their content and layout?

Answer: The two documents required to be populated are customized to local needs. They will both be provided at the time of discovery/kickoff.

3. Are sample Word/PDF templates for the two automated document types available, or should the offeror propose standard templates for Government approval during design?

4. Deliverable D.6 requires two distinct templated document types. Will the Government provide the existing templates or output samples from the legacy Access system prior to development?

5. Data access for design and discovery (SOW Sections 2.2 and 6.0). Section 2.2 states the vendor will not be provided access to live data and must evaluate the legacy Access 2003 database structure to propose a target architecture. Section 6.0 states that data exported from the SWFPAC environment will be scrubbed of CUI prior to vendor receipt, which suggests some exported data may be provided to the vendor. Could the Government clarify whether the vendor will receive any schema-level artifact (e.g., a blank database export, table/field listing, or equivalent structural documentation) to inform the System Architecture & Design Plan

(Deliverable D.1), or whether the vendor is expected to design the target architecture solely from the entity descriptions provided in the SOW?

Answer: After award, the Government will provide the vendor with sufficient structural information from the legacy Access 2003 database to enable evaluation of the existing design and development of the proposed target architecture. This may include the database file itself, a scrubbed schema export, and/or other structural documentation, as determined appropriate by the Government. Live production data will not be provided. The material will be furnished during project initiation/kickoff or shortly thereafter.

6. Approval routing scope (Deliverable D.5). The SOW requires an automated workflow requiring designated approvals for specific assignment transactions, with notification mechanisms, but does not specify which transaction types require approval or who the designated approvers are. Can the Government provide additional detail on which transaction types require approval routing, and the intended approver role(s), or confirm that this will be defined collaboratively with the vendor during the System Architecture & Design Plan phase (D.1)?

Answer: For proposal purposes, offerors should assume a single approval level for transactions that affect inventory status, custody, or assignment. The Government currently anticipates one primary approver role for such transactions. Specific transaction types requiring approval and any refinements to approver roles or routing logic will be confirmed with the Government during discovery/kickoff.

7. Archival retention period (SOW Section 2.2). Section 2.2 requires that inactive core records (e.g., separated personnel, retired inventory) be archived and securely maintained for a specified timeframe to meet audit requirements prior to permanent deletion, but does not state that timeframe. Can the Government specify the required retention period for archived records, or confirm that the vendor should propose a retention period for Government approval as part of D.1?

Answer: The SOW does not prescribe a fixed archive retention period in Section 2.2 because periods are not universally identical between lists/data sets. Offerors should propose a configurable archive/retention approach and identify any assumptions used in preparing their quote.

8. The solicitation states that interested vendors must hold Microsoft certifications in Microsoft 365 and SharePoint Online and submit certification documentation with the quote. However, the solicitation does not identify a specific certification title or credential. Could you please confirm whether current Microsoft certifications held by personnel who will perform the work are acceptable, or whether an organizational Microsoft certification or partner designation is required of the offeror? If personnel certifications are acceptable, please also confirm whether the Government requires any specific Microsoft 365 or SharePoint Online certification.

Answer: The Government acknowledges that Microsoft does not currently offer a standalone SharePoint Online certification. For purposes of this solicitation, the Microsoft 365 / SharePoint Online certification requirement may be satisfied by a current Microsoft 365 certification that demonstrates relevant administration or solution support capability for SharePoint Online. The Government may also consider relevant legacy Microsoft SharePoint-related certifications earned prior to retirement as supporting evidence of experience. Power Platform certifications such as PL-200 or PL-400 may be submitted as additional evidence of relevant technical capability for this requirement, but they do not, by themselves, replace the Microsoft 365 certification element. In lieu of formal certification documentation, the Government will also accept documented equivalent technical experience demonstrating comparable competency in Microsoft 365 and SharePoint Online, provided the quote clearly identifies the proposed personnel, describes the relevant work performed, and includes supporting references.

9. In reviewing the solicitation's contract clauses, specifically DFARS 252.204-7021 — Contractor Compliance with the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification Level Requirements

— we note the requirement for the contractor to "have and maintain for the duration of the contract" a current CMMC Level 1 (Self) status for all information systems used in performance of the contract that process, store, or transmit FCI or CUI. Must CMMC Level 1 Self- Assessment results and the corresponding Senior Official Affirmation be posted and current in SPRS at the time of quote submission (September 8, 2026), or is it sufficient for CMMC Level 1 status to be posted and current in SPRS prior to contract award? (We are in process of CMMC Level 1 Self-Assessment currently in our GCC High environment)

Answer: The vendor will not be provided access to live data, nor will they have on-site access to the Government facility, therefore, a FCL is not required and CUI or classified information will not be provided to the vendor. This requirement requires the contractor to have a Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) Level 1 (self) or higher status for the duration of the contract, per DFARS 252.204-7021 found within the solicitation. CMMC status must be reflected in the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) at time of award.

10. Given that the place of performance is 100% remote and SWFPAC personnel will scrub all data of Controlled Unclassified Information prior to vendor receipt, please confirm whether the

CMMC Level 1 requirement applies to contractor information systems handling Federal Contract Information (FCI) only, or whether CUI handling is also anticipated during performance of this contract.

Answer: The vendor will not be provided access to live data, nor will they have on-site access to the Government facility, therefore, a FCL is not required and CUI or classified information will not be provided to the vendor. This requirement requires the contractor to have a Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) Level 1 (self) or higher status for the duration of the contract, per DFARS 252.204-7021 found within the solicitation. CMMC status must be reflected in the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) at time of award.

11. Section G, Item 6 – Brand Name Statement/Requirement

The solicitation states, "Interested vendors must hold Microsoft certifications in Microsoft 365 and SharePoint Online. Certification documentation is required to be submitted with quotes."

Please clarify the specific Microsoft certification(s) the Government requires. If the requirement is for corporate certifications, please identify the acceptable certification type(s).

Answer: The Government acknowledges that Microsoft does not currently offer a standalone SharePoint Online certification. For purposes of this solicitation, the Microsoft 365 / SharePoint Online certification requirement may be satisfied by a current Microsoft 365 certification that demonstrates relevant administration or solution support capability for SharePoint Online. The Government may also consider relevant legacy Microsoft SharePoint-related certifications earned prior to retirement as supporting evidence of experience. Power Platform certifications such as PL-200 or PL-400 may be submitted as additional evidence of relevant technical capability for this requirement, but they do not, by themselves, replace the Microsoft 365 certification element. In lieu of formal certification documentation, the Government will also accept documented equivalent technical experience demonstrating comparable competency in Microsoft 365 and

12. Section G, Item 6 – Brand Name Statement/Requirement

Please identify the specific Microsoft certification(s) that will satisfy the Microsoft 365 certification requirement. If personnel certifications are acceptable, would certifications such as Microsoft 365 Fundamentals (MS-900), Microsoft 365 Administrator Expert (MS-102), Microsoft 365 Developer Associate (MS-600), Power Platform Fundamentals (PL-900), or equivalent certifications satisfy this requirement?

Answer: The Government will accept certifications held by proposed personnel. The Government acknowledges that Microsoft does not currently offer a standalone SharePoint Online certification. The Microsoft 365 / SharePoint Online requirement may be satisfied by a current Microsoft 365 certification demonstrating relevant SharePoint Online administration or solution support capability. PL-900 does not satisfy the requirement because it is a fundamentals-level certification. Power Platform certifications such as PL- 200 or PL-400 may be submitted as additional evidence of relevant capability but do not, by themselves, replace the Microsoft 365 certification element. Equivalent documented technical experience may also be submitted in lieu of formal certification.

13. Section G, Item 6 – Brand Name Statement/Requirement

Microsoft no longer offers standalone SharePoint certifications. Please clarify what certification(s) the Government considers acceptable to demonstrate compliance with the SharePoint Online certification requirement.

Answer: The Government acknowledges that Microsoft does not currently offer a standalone SharePoint Online certification. For purposes of this solicitation, the Microsoft 365 / SharePoint Online certification requirement may be satisfied by a current Microsoft 365 certification that demonstrates relevant administration or solution support capability for SharePoint Online. The Government may also consider relevant legacy Microsoft SharePoint-related certifications earned prior to retirement as supporting evidence of experience. Power Platform certifications such as PL-200 or PL-400 may be submitted as additional evidence of relevant technical capability for this requirement, but they do not, by themselves, replace the Microsoft 365 certification element. In lieu of formal certification documentation, the Government will also accept documented equivalent technical experience demonstrating comparable competency in Microsoft 365 and

14. SOW Section 2.1 - Vendor Competency Requirements

Will the Government consider project experience involving SharePoint Online solution development, workflow automation, database modernization, data conversion, and data migration activities as demonstrating technical competency when direct Microsoft Access to Microsoft 365/Power Platform migration experience is not explicitly documented?

Answer: The Government will accept documented equivalent technical experience demonstrating comparable competency in Microsoft 365 and SharePoint Online, provided the quote clearly identifies the proposed personnel, describes the relevant work performed, and includes supporting references.

15. Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

Since Technical is an evaluation factor, please clarify the expected technical submission content and format, including any recommended topics, page limitations, or supporting documentation the Government would like offerors to provide for Technical evaluation.

Answer: The technical submission should clearly explain the proposed approach to meeting the SOW requirements. Offerors may use a clear and organized format. The Government will accept relevant commercial past performance, not just federal prime contract experience, provided the quoted experience demonstrates comparable scope, complexity, and relevance to the requirement.

16. Please provide the estimated value or magnitude of this requirement, if available.

Answer: The Government does not disclose this information.

17. Is this requirement currently being performed under an existing contract? If yes, please provide the incumbent contractor name and contract number, if releasable.

Answer: This is a new requirement.

18. Are there any Flank Speed restrictions, approved app catalogs, DLP policies, Power Platform governance controls, or Power Automate limitations that could impact the proposed architecture?

Answer: The required target environment for the delivered solution is the Navy’s M365 environment which is an IL5 environment. Offerors should assume that Flank Speed-specific service availability, connector availability, and tenant restrictions may apply. The Government team can assist in validating feature availability and compatibility within Flank Speed during design, testing, and deployment. Offerors should not assume that commercial Microsoft 365 behavior is fully representative of the Government environment.

19. What is the expected number of end users and user roles? Please provide:

* Total number of users

* Administrators

* Supervisors/Approvers

* General users

* Read-only/audit users

Answer: For proposal purposes, the Government anticipates fewer than 15 users with direct access to the solution. This includes approximately 6 general users, 2 to 3 approvers, Government IT/support personnel with administrative or support access, and limited read-only/audit access as needed.

20. What Flank Speed licenses are currently available to support this solution? Please identify:

* Power Apps licensing

* Power Automate licensing

* Premium connector availability

* AI Builder availability (if any)

Answer: The Government’s current end-user licensing includes Microsoft 365 G5 - DoD, which includes Power Apps and Power Automate capabilities available under that license level. Premium licensing is not currently available for this requirement. AI Builder is not expected to be achievable in the current environment. If a proposed solution depends on premium licensing, premium connectors, Dataverse, AI Builder, or other non-standard capabilities, the offeror shall clearly identify those requirements in the proposal.

21. Will the solution be deployed in standard Flank Speed SPO lists, or is Dataverse available and approved for use?

Answer: Offerors should base their proposal on SharePoint Online as the primary data repository, with Microsoft Power Platform for interfaces, workflows, and document generation. Dataverse is not established as the required or assumed platform for this requirement. If an offeror proposes Dataverse or another additional dependency, it must be clearly identified along with any licensing and environment implications.

22. Can the Government provide a complete data dictionary and table relationships from the Access 2003 database? Including:

* Tables

* Fields

* Field types

* Primary keys

* Existing relationships

* Sample records (sanitized if necessary)

Answer: Yes. After award, the Government will provide the vendor with sufficient structural information from the legacy Access 2003 database to enable evaluation of the existing design and development of the proposed target architecture. This may include the database file itself, a scrubbed schema export, and/or other structural documentation, as determined appropriate by the Government. Live production data will not be provided.

The material will be furnished during project initiation/kickoff or shortly thereafter.

23. How many tables currently exist in the Access database? Please provide:

* Required tables for migration

* Optional tables

* Historical/archive tables

Answer: The Government’s current understanding is that the legacy Access database contains approximately 18 tables that are expected to be relevant to migration. Some optional or legacy roll-up tables may exist; the Government has asked the data owner to remove tables that are no longer needed, but final confirmation will occur during discovery. Historical/archive-related data is expected to be represented primarily through transaction-related tables that are included within the required migration scope.

24. Are attachments, images, PDFs, or embedded files stored within the Access database? If yes:

* Quantity

* Size

* Required retention period

Answer: The Government’s current understanding is that the legacy Access database contains a limited number of embedded images, primarily for branding purposes, such as logos. The Government does not currently believe that attachments, stored PDFs, or retained generated forms are maintained within the database; rather, forms are populated and printed as needed. Final confirmation of the presence and extent of any embedded files or images will occur during discovery. For planning purposes, the data owner has identified a retention need of at least five (5) years.

25. What is the expected archival retention period for inactive personnel and inventory records? The RFP references archiving requirements but does not specify:

* Retention period

* Disposal process

* Records management requirements

Answer: The SOW does not prescribe any fixed archive retention periods as they are not universally identical between lists/data sets. The required retention approach and timeframes will be finalized with the Government during discovery/kickoff based on business, audit, and records-management needs. Offerors should propose a configurable archive/retention approach and identify any assumptions used in preparing their quote.

26. Are there existing Navy records management or retention policies that the solution must follow? Examples:

* DON Records Management

* NARA requirements

* Command-specific retention policies

Answer: The Government has identified a minimum business need to retain relevant data for at least five (5) years. The SOW does not currently prescribe specific records-management policy implementation requirements as a mandatory deliverable. Additional retention or disposition requirements will be addressed during discovery/kickoff. Offerors should propose a configurable archive/retention approach and identify any assumptions used in preparing their quote.

27. What are the two document types required for automated document generation? Please provide:

* Sample templates

* Approximate complexity

* Required signatures/approvals

* Output format requirements (Word or PDF)

Answer: The two documents required to be populated are customized to local needs. Both templates will be provided at the time of discovery/kickoff. The more complex document out of the two (NAVMC 10576) has a generic version that can be found online and used as a reference, if such is needed for pricing an offer. Documents are preferred to be in PDF or other non-editable format.

28. What events should trigger automatic document generation? Examples:

* Inventory issue

* Inventory return

* Personnel assignment

* Equipment transfer

* Approval completion

Answer: Document generation shall be based on list data and assignment conditions associated with the required workflow logic. Specific trigger conditions will be confirmed during discovery/kickoff.

29. How are approvals expected to work? Please clarify:

* Single-level approval

* Multi-level approval

* Delegation requirements

* Escalation requirements

* Rejection workflow requirements

Answer: For proposal purposes, offerors should assume a single approval level for transactions that affect inventory status, custody, or assignment. The Government currently anticipates one primary approver role for such transactions. Specific transaction

30. What security model is expected?

Answer: Offerors should assume a limited role-based security model aligned to approved permission groupings across SharePoint Online lists, document libraries, and Power Platform interfaces. Access shall be limited to the minimum necessary for each role.

31. Please provide anticipated user groups such as:

* Administrators

* Warehouse Managers

* Supervisors

* Auditors

* General Users

Answer: For proposal purposes, the Government anticipates a small end-user population of fewer than 15 users with direct access to the application and related SharePoint Online components. This includes approximately 6 users who will enter and manage data, a small approval group of approximately 2 to 3 users for transaction review/approval, and Government IT/support personnel who may require administrative or support access.

Personnel records tracked by the system may number in the thousands; however, those individuals are not expected to have direct access to the application. Offerors should assume a limited role structure with distinct permissions for general users/data entry, approvers, and administrative/support personnel.

32. Are item-level permissions required? For example:

* Can users see only their assigned inventory?

* Can supervisors see only their division?

* Can auditors see everything?

Answer: The SOW requires appropriate permission restrictions and user groupings but does not currently prescribe detailed item-level visibility rules. Offerors should propose a practical permission model consistent with the stated role-based access intent.

33. Are there performance or volume expectations beyond the stated 500–3,000 records?

Specifically:

* Expected annual growth

* Maximum inventory count

* Expected transaction volume

* Monthly assignment activity

Answer: The Government does not anticipate significant annual growth beyond the record ranges identified in the SOW. Inventory levels are expected to remain generally stable absent external mission-driven changes. For planning purposes, expected transaction log activity is estimated at approximately 16,000 entries per month. The solution must support generation of monthly reporting, but no additional complex reporting volume assumptions are established in the solicitation.

34. What constitutes successful User Acceptance Testing (UAT)? Please define:

* Number of testing cycles

* Acceptance criteria

* Bug severity definitions

* Government signoff process

Answer: For proposal purposes, the Government anticipates a minimum of two (2) formal UAT cycles following delivery of the initial testable solution baseline. Rework required to correct defects, ensure conformance with the approved System Architecture & Design Plan (D.1), and satisfy stated SOW requirements identified during those UAT cycles shall be included in the firm-fixed-price effort. Requests that introduce new functionality, materially revise previously approved requirements, or otherwise expand scope beyond the approved design and SOW baseline will not be treated as routine rework and must be addressed directly with the Contracting Officer. If development occurs outside the production site, additional UAT cycles may be needed and can be requested by the contractor to specifically test compatibility with the Flank Speed environment at significant development milestones.

35. Is this a new requirement, or does it continue or replace N6471026Q0004 (Nintex Automation Migration Services, April 2026)? If that solicitation resulted in an award, what is its current status?

Answer: This is a new requirement. Solicitation N6471026Q0004 was cancelled and not awarded due to a change in Government requirements.

36. Will artifacts from any prior effort against this database be furnished to the awardee — data dictionary, table and relationship schema, form specifications, or workflow definitions?

Answer: After contract award, the Government will provide the vendor with sufficient structural information from the legacy Access 2003 database to enable evaluation of the existing design and development of the proposed target architecture. This may include the database file itself, a scrubbed schema export, and/or other structural documentation, as

37. Are the Transactions, SL-3 Gains/Transfers, and Form 10576 forms identified in the prior notice within the scope of this requirement?

Answer: If those forms correspond to the document generation and workflow functionality identified in the SOW, they are within scope. The Government will provide available examples to support design and validation at time of discovery/kickoff.

38. Can the Government provide the current Microsoft Access 2003 database schema and an inventory of all tables, queries, forms, reports, macros/VBA modules, and external data connections?

Answer: After contract award, the Government will provide the vendor with sufficient structural information from the legacy Access 2003 database to enable evaluation of the existing design and development of the proposed target architecture. This may include the database file itself, a scrubbed schema export, and/or other structural documentation, as

39. Approximately how much data is currently stored in the Access database, including the number of records, database/file size, attachments, and historical/archive data that must be migrated?

Answer: The Government’s current understanding is that the legacy solution contains four core entities with datasets ranging from under 500 to approximately 3,000 records. Legacy Access backup files reviewed by the Government are approximately 2.1 GB for the primary/backend database and approximately 1.17 GB for the front-end database. The Government does not currently identify significant attachment storage within the Access database itself; known embedded content appears limited and primarily branding-related.

More detailed structural information and migration-relevant data will be provided after award for assessment and planning purposes.

40. Does the Government expect all existing Access functionality, including forms, reports, queries, business rules, macros, and VBA, to be recreated in SharePoint Online, Power Apps, and Power Automate, or only specifically identified functions?

Answer: Only the functionality and deliverables expressly identified in the SOW should be considered the required scope baseline. Additional legacy functionality is not automatically required unless subsequently approved by the Government.

41. Will the Government provide the selected contractor access to the SWFPAC Flank Speed/Microsoft 365 development and production environments, including the SharePoint, Power Apps, and Power Automate permissions/licenses required to perform the work?

Answer: The Government does not guarantee direct vendor access to the Flank Speed tenant as part of this requirement. Offerors should assume they may need to develop and demonstrate solution components in their own environment and support deployment, testing, and validation in the Government’s Flank Speed environment. If vendor access to Flank Speed is later determined necessary and approved, it will be provisioned through applicable Government sponsorship, account request, and security approval processes in effect at the time of performance. Any access granted will be limited to the minimum level necessary for contract performance. Offerors should not assume tenant-administrator access or any specific access mechanism unless subsequently authorized by the Government.

42. Are premium Power Platform connectors, Dataverse, custom connectors, third-party components, or other capabilities outside standard Flank Speed licensing permitted, or must the solution use only standard SharePoint Online, Power Apps, and Power Automate capabilities available within the Government tenant?

Answer: Offerors should base their proposal on standard capabilities available within the Government’s Flank Speed environment under current licensing. Premium connectors, Dataverse, custom connectors, AI Builder, third-party components, or other non-standard dependencies are not assumed to be available. If an offeror believes such capabilities are necessary or beneficial, they must be clearly identified and justified in the proposal along with any licensing or approval implications.

43. Please identify the expected number and types of users, including administrators, warehouse personnel, read-only users, concurrent users, and any distinct user roles or permission groups.

Answer: For proposal purposes, the Government anticipates a small end-user population of fewer than 15 users with direct access to the application and related SharePoint Online components. This includes approximately 6 users who will enter and manage data, a small approval group of approximately 2 to 3 users for transaction review/approval, and Government IT/support personnel who may require administrative or support access.

Personnel records tracked by the system may number in the thousands; however, those individuals are not expected to have direct access to the application. Offerors should

44. What constitutes Government acceptance of the completed solution, and are there defined acceptance criteria, test cases, performance thresholds, or a formal UAT process the contractor must satisfy?

Answer: For proposal purposes, the Government anticipates a minimum of two (2) formal UAT cycles following delivery of the initial testable solution baseline. Rework required to correct defects, ensure conformance with the approved System Architecture & Design Plan (D.1), and satisfy stated SOW requirements identified during those UAT cycles shall be included in the firm-fixed-price effort. Requests that introduce new functionality, materially revise previously approved requirements, or otherwise expand scope beyond the approved design and SOW baseline will not be treated as routine rework and must be addressed directly with the Contracting Officer. If development occurs outside the production site, additional UAT cycles may be needed and can be requested by the

45. How many rounds of Government review, UAT feedback, and remediation should contractors assume, and what Government review/approval turnaround time should be incorporated into the 180-calendar-day period of performance?

Answer: For proposal purposes, the Government anticipates a minimum of two (2) formal UAT cycles following delivery of the initial testable solution baseline. If development occurs outside the production site, additional UAT cycles may be needed and can be requested by the contractor to specifically test compatibility with the Flank Speed environment at significant development milestones. Turnaround times for reviews will fluctuate depending on size of the deliverable to be reviewed; however, review response should not exceed ten

(10) business days.

46. Regarding the required Microsoft 365/SharePoint Online certification documentation, please identify the specific certifications that satisfy the requirement and clarify whether certifications must be held by the company, proposed key personnel, or both.

Answer: The Government will accept certifications held by the individual personnel proposed to perform the work. An organizational-level Microsoft designation or partner status is not required to satisfy this certification requirement. The Government acknowledges that Microsoft does not currently offer a standalone SharePoint Online certification. For purposes of this solicitation, the Microsoft 365 / SharePoint Online certification requirement may be satisfied by a current Microsoft 365 certification that demonstrates relevant administration or solution support capability for SharePoint Online.

The Government may also consider relevant legacy Microsoft SharePoint-related certifications earned prior to retirement as supporting evidence of experience. Power Platform certifications such as PL-200 or PL-400 may be submitted as additional evidence of relevant technical capability for this requirement, but they do not, by themselves, replace the Microsoft 365 certification element. In lieu of formal certification documentation, the

Government will also accept documented equivalent technical experience demonstrating comparable competency in Microsoft 365 and SharePoint Online, provided the quote clearly identifies the proposed personnel, describes the relevant work performed, and includes supporting references.

47. For past performance, will the Government consider projects involving comparable Microsoft 365, SharePoint Online, Power Apps, Power Automate, database modernization, or document/data migration work even if the project did not specifically involve migration from Microsoft Access?

Answer: The Government will accept past performance factors provided they demonstrate relevant experience in designing, deploying, and supporting migrations from legacy Microsoft Access or comparable systems to Microsoft 365 and/or Power Platform environments.

48. Is there a current or prior contractor or internal team that has maintained the Access database, and is any existing technical documentation, entity-relationship diagram, or data dictionary available beyond what a schema export would show?

Answer: The Government has internal staff with working knowledge of the legacy database; however, that knowledge is based largely on reverse engineering rather than original development. Available structural information and documentation will be provided after award as appropriate.

49. DFARS 252.204-7021 (CMMC) is included in the solicitation, but the required CMMC level is not specified. Given that Section C.6 states all data will be scrubbed of Controlled Unclassified Information before the vendor receives it, does CMMC apply to this effort, and if so, at what level?

Answer: Yes. This requirement requires the contractor to have a Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) Level 1 (self) or higher status for the duration of the contract, per DFARS 252.204-7021 found within the solicitation. CMMC status must be reflected in the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) at time of award.

50. How many past performance references, and covering what recency window, does the Government expect to be submitted with the quote?

Answer: The Government will accept any relevant commercial past performance, not just federal prime contract experience, provided the quoted experience demonstrates comparable scope, complexity, and relevance to the requirement.

51. Beyond the required SF 1449, SF 30, and pricing continuation sheet, is a separate technical approach narrative expected, and if so, is there a preferred format or length?

Answer: There is no specified quote format or length.

52. How many tables, forms, queries, reports, and macros or VBA modules exist in the legacy Access 2003 solution?

Answer: The Government does not currently provide a complete quantified inventory of legacy tables, forms, queries, reports, macros, or VBA modules in the solicitation. The legacy solution was built by a non-IT developer, and existing tables, macros, or VBA modules should not be assumed to represent the desired target design. Offerors should base their proposal on the required functional outcomes and entity relationships identified in the SOW, with detailed legacy structural information to be provided after award for assessment purposes only.

53. Will the exported schema and form and workflow specifications be released before the closing date, or only to the awardee after award?

Answer: After contract award, the Government will provide the vendor with sufficient structural information from the legacy Access 2003 database to enable evaluation of the existing design and development of the proposed target architecture. This may include the database file itself, a scrubbed schema export, and/or other structural documentation, as

54. SOW 2.2 gives a range of under 500 to 3,000 records across the four entities. What is the approximate count for each entity?

Answer: The solicitation does not currently provide final record counts by entity. More detailed structural information will be provided after award to support design and migration planning.

55. How many assignment transaction types and how many approval routing paths must be supported? (D.4, D.5)

Answer: For proposal purposes, offerors should assume a single approval level for transactions that affect inventory status, custody, or assignment. The Government currently anticipates one primary approver role for such transactions. Specific transaction

56. How many end users, and how many distinct permission groupings or roles? (D.3, D.7)

Answer: For proposal purposes, the Government anticipates a small end-user population of fewer than 15 users with direct access to the application and related SharePoint Online components. This includes approximately 6 users who will enter and manage data, a small approval group of approximately 2 to 3 users for transaction review/approval, and Government IT/support personnel who may require administrative or support access.

Personnel records tracked by the system may number in the thousands; however, those individuals are not expected to have direct access to the application. Offerors should

57. Will the Government furnish the two document templates, in what format, and what conditions trigger automatic generation? (D.6)

Answer: The Government will provide available examples of the current templated document types. Automatic generation is expected to be based on list data and assignment conditions associated with the required workflow logic. Specific triggers will be refined during discovery/kickoff.

58. What retention period applies to archived transactional data and inactive core records?

SOW 2.2 and D.8 reference "a specified timeframe" that is not defined.

Answer: The SOW does not prescribe any fixed archive retention periods as they are not universally identical between lists/data sets. The required retention approach and timeframes will be finalized with the Government during discovery/kickoff based on business, audit, and records-management needs. Offerors should propose a configurable archive/retention approach and identify any assumptions used in preparing their quote.

59. What is the Government's review and approval turnaround for the System Architecture and Design Plan? (D.1)

Answer: Turnaround times for reviews will fluctuate depending on size of the deliverable to be reviewed; however, review response should not exceed ten (10) business days.

60. Will the 180-day period of performance be extended for delays caused by Government review cycles or personnel availability?

Answer: The vendor’s support obligation extends through the contract’s stated 180 calendar day period of performance. The Government anticipates that the internal team’s live migration activity will occur within that timeframe. The contractor shall be liable for any nonperformance outside of the required 180 calendar day period of performance. If the contractor cannot meet the required deliverables within the period of performance, the contractor must notify the Contracting Officer in writing immediately and only excusable delays as outlined in FAR clause 52.212-4(f) may be authorized.

61. How many User Acceptance Testing cycles does the Government anticipate, and is there a limit on rework iterations? (SOW 2.2)

Answer: For proposal purposes, the Government anticipates a minimum of two (2) formal UAT cycles following delivery of the initial testable solution baseline. Rework required to correct defects, ensure conformance with the approved System Architecture & Design Plan (D.1), and satisfy stated SOW requirements identified during those UAT cycles shall be included in the firm-fixed-price effort. Requests that introduce new functionality, materially revise previously approved requirements, or otherwise expand scope beyond the approved design and SOW baseline will not be treated as routine rework and must be addressed directly with the Contracting Officer. If development occurs outside the production site, additional UAT cycles may be needed and can be requested by the

62. When will the internal team perform the live data migration, and will it occur within the 180-day period? D.10 obligates the vendor to support that phase.

Answer: The vendor’s support obligation under Deliverable D.10 extends through the contract’s stated 180 calendar day period of performance. The Government anticipates that the internal team’s live migration activity will occur within that timeframe. The contractor shall be liable for any nonperformance outside of the required 180 calendar day period of performance. If the contractor cannot meet the required deliverables within the period of performance, the contractor must notify the Contracting Officer in writing immediately and only excusable delays as outlined in FAR clause 52.212-4(f) may be authorized.

63. Sections E and F list the technical POC as TBD. Please provide the name and email address, since D.1 requires that POC's approval.

Answer: The Government will provide a technical Point of Contact at time of contract award.

64. How will the awardee be granted access to the Government's Microsoft 365 and SharePoint Online environment, and how long after award should access be expected?

Answer: The Government does not guarantee direct vendor access to the Flank Speed tenant as part of this requirement. Offerors should assume they may need to develop and demonstrate solution components in their own environment and support deployment, testing, and validation in the Government’s Flank Speed environment. If vendor access to Flank Speed is later determined necessary and approved, it will be provisioned through applicable Government sponsorship, account request, and security approval processes in effect at the time of performance. Any access granted will be limited to the minimum level necessary for contract performance. Offerors should not assume tenant-administrator access or any specific access mechanism unless subsequently authorized by the

65. Will Power Apps and Power Automate licenses, including any premium tier required for premium connectors, be Government furnished?

Answer: The required target environment for the delivered solution is the Navy’s M365 (Flank Speed) environment. Offerors should assume that Flank Speed-specific service availability, connector availability, and tenant restrictions may apply. The Government team can assist in validating feature availability and compatibility within Flank Speed during design, testing, and deployment. Offerors should clearly identify in their quote any premium licensing, premium connectors, or other non-standard licensing dependencies required by their proposed solution.

66. Is Microsoft Dataverse available within the environment?

Answer: The solicitation does not establish Dataverse as the required or assumed data repository for this effort. The finalized solution is intended to utilize SharePoint Online as the primary data repository. If an offeror believes Dataverse is necessary or beneficial, that dependency and its licensing and environment implications must be clearly identified in the proposal.

67. What rights will the awardee receive — site collection administrator, environment maker? Are separate development, test, and production environments available? Do tenant data loss prevention policies restrict any connectors?

Answer: The Government does not guarantee direct vendor access to the Flank Speed environment. If access is approved, it will be limited to the minimum level necessary for contract performance and is not expected to include tenant administrator privileges. The Government is not prescribing a specific development/test/production environment structure at this time. Offerors should assume Flank Speed-specific restrictions, including current licensing limitations, tenant policies, and connector restrictions, may apply.

68. Microsoft does not currently publish a standalone SharePoint Online certification, and the dedicated SharePoint certifications have been retired. Will a current Microsoft 365 administrator-track or developer-track certification, or a Microsoft Applied Skills credential covering SharePoint Online, satisfy that element? Will certifications held by individual personnel proposed for performance satisfy the requirement? (Section G, paragraph 6)

Answer: Yes. The Government acknowledges that Microsoft does not currently offer a standalone SharePoint Online certification. For purposes of this solicitation, the Microsoft 365 / SharePoint Online certification requirement may be satisfied by a current Microsoft 365 certification held by proposed personnel that demonstrates relevant administration or solution support capability for SharePoint Online, such as MS-102 or a comparable current Microsoft 365 role-based credential. Relevant legacy Microsoft SharePoint-related certifications earned prior to retirement may also be considered as evidence of relevant experience. Power Platform certifications such as PL-200 or PL-400 may be submitted as additional evidence of relevant technical capability for this requirement, but they do not, by themselves, replace the Microsoft 365 certification element. In lieu of formal certification documentation, the Government will also accept documented equivalent technical experience demonstrating comparable competency in Microsoft 365 and

69. Section M evaluates technical and past performance but prescribes no format. How many past performance references are desired, what page limit applies, and what file format is preferred?

Answer: There is no specified quote format.

70. The WAWF document type in DFARS 252.232-7006(f)(1) is not filled in. Which document type should be used, and is invoicing permitted upon acceptance of individual deliverables, or only upon final acceptance of all ten?

Answer: Invoices shall be submitted via Wide Area Workflow (WAWF) as a “Combo” invoice, not a 2in1.

71. The solicitation requires Microsoft 365 and SharePoint Online certifications. Microsoft has retired several of the certifications that historically covered SharePoint Online, including the Microsoft 365 Teamwork Administrator credential. Would the Government confirm whether the combination of the credentials listed above, together with documented Microsoft 365 and SharePoint Online experience, satisfies this requirement? If not, would the Government please identify the specific current Microsoft certification or credential it will accept for the Microsoft 365 and SharePoint Online certification requirements?

Answer: The Government acknowledges that Microsoft does not currently offer a standalone SharePoint Online certification. For purposes of this solicitation, the Microsoft 365 / SharePoint Online certification requirement may be satisfied by a current Microsoft 365 certification held by proposed personnel that demonstrates relevant administration or solution support capability for SharePoint Online, such as MS-102 or a comparable current Microsoft 365 role-based credential. Relevant legacy Microsoft SharePoint-related certifications earned prior to retirement may also be considered as evidence of relevant experience. Power Platform certifications such as PL-200 or PL-400 may be submitted as additional evidence of relevant technical capability for this requirement, but they do not, by themselves, replace the Microsoft 365 certification element. In lieu of formal certification documentation, the Government will also accept documented equivalent technical experience demonstrating comparable competency in Microsoft 365 and

72. The SF1449 appears to identify the acquisition as unrestricted, while other solicitation language references Women-Owned Small Business. Please confirm whether this acquisition is unrestricted or restricted to WOSB concerns.

Answer: Reference Page 1 of the SF1449, the acquisition is unrestricted.

73. For past performance, will the Government accept descriptions of relevant Microsoft Access modernization and migration work performed in Government Community Cloud environments when customer-identifying and system-specific information cannot be disclosed due to confidentiality or security restrictions?

Answer: Yes. The Government will accept descriptions of relevant Microsoft Access modernization and migration work performed in Government Community Cloud environments when customer-identifying or system-specific information cannot be disclosed for confidentiality or security reasons, provided the quote includes sufficient non-sensitive detail for the Government to evaluate scope, complexity, and relevance to this requirement.

74. Please confirm that the Government's internal team will remain responsible for extraction, transformation, and loading of the live production data, with the contractor responsible for target architecture, migration templates and guidance, testing support, and technical assistance…