Solicitation N6471026Q0016 AMD 0004 Questions and Answers.pdf

Solicitation N6471026Q0016 AMD 0004 Questions and Answers

1. For SOW 2.1, may documented relevant experience of proposed key personnel or a proposed subcontractor satisfy the past-performance requirement, or must the evidence be for projects completed by the prime company itself? If the solicitation already resolves this point, a reference to the applicable section or Q&A item would be appreciated.

Answer: Yes, the Government will accept past performance factors through a subcontractor or teaming partner, 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.

2. General. Is there an incumbent performing under this contract? If so, what is the contract number and value?

Answer: This is a new requirement.

3. General. Is the incumbent eligible to recompete for this requirement?

Answer: This is a new requirement.

4. General. Is there an estimated level of effort required to fulfill the scope of this contract?

Answer: The Government has not prescribed a specific level of effort for this requirement.

Offerors shall propose the staffing and level of effort they determine necessary to satisfy the SOW within the firm-fixed-price structure and period of performance.

5. SOW Section C, 2. Scope of Work, 2.1, Pg 5. Could the Government please confirm the number of past performance references required for the evaluation and the allowable period of performance?

Answer: There are no limits or restrictions on references provided the quoted experience demonstrates comparable scope, complexity, and relevance to the requirement.

6. SOW Section C, 2. Scope of Work, 2.1, Pg 5. Are we allowed to include CPARS in lieu of our PPQ evaluation?

Answer: Yes. Offerors may provide relevant CPARS evaluations in lieu of Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs), provided the CPARS reports are for recent and relevant work comparable in scope, magnitude, and complexity to this requirement.

7. SOW Section C, 2. Scope of Work, 2.1, Pg 5. How many key personnel are required or recommended for the successful execution of this contract? Can you please specify the position names?

Answer: The solicitation does not prescribe a required number of Key Personnel or specific position titles. Offerors shall propose the personnel and labor mix they determine necessary to successfully perform the requirement.

8. SOW Section C, 2. Scope of Work, 2.1, Pg 5. Can the government confirm if a resume has to be submitted for each proposed Key Personnel, and if so, is there any page limit for each resume?

Answer:

OPTION 1: There are no limits, restrictions, or specifications on references provided the quoted experience demonstrates comparable scope, complexity, and relevance to the requirement. The Government will evaluate all provided references to determine if the proposed personnel are believed capable of completing the scope of the requirement.

9. SOW Section C, 2. Scope of Work, 2.1, Pg 5. Are the proposed Key Personnel required to be U.S. citizens?

Answer: No. The SOW does not state that proposed Key Personnel must be U.S. citizens.

The effort is to be performed 100% remotely at the vendor’s facility, with no base access or on-site presence authorized; SWFPAC will scrub exported data of CUI before providing it to the vendor.

10. SOW Section C, 2. Scope of Work, 2.1, Pg 5. Could the Government please provide the specific educational qualifications, required years and types of experience, and any other minimum qualifications for each Key Personnel position?

Answer: There are no limits, restrictions, or specifications on references provided the quoted experience demonstrates comparable scope, complexity, and relevance to the

11. SOW Section C, 2. Scope of Work, 2.1, Pg 5. For the proposed Key Personnel, is it mandatory that they be current employees of the Offeror at the time of proposal submission, or may the Offeror propose contingent hires or personnel who will be onboarded upon contract award?

Answer: The Government will accept past performance factors through a subcontractor or teaming partner, 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.

12. General. Could you kindly confirm whether the proposal submission needs to be in compliance with Section 508 accessibility standards?

Answer: The Government requires the delivered application to comply with applicable DoD Section 508 accessibility requirements. This requirement does not necessarily extend to printed output formats generated by the solution unless otherwise specified.

13. General. Can the Government please confirm the required validity period for this proposal?

Answer: The solicitation does not specify a required proposal validity period.

14. General. Would the Government consider extending the submission deadline for this opportunity, given the scope and the time required for a thorough response?

Answer: The Government has extended the offer due date to 14 September 2026 at 5:00

PM PST.

15. SOW Section C, 2. Scope of Work, 2.1, Pg 5. Could the Government please confirm whether a formal cover letter is required or recommended as part of the proposal submission package?

Answer: There is no specified quote format or length.

16. SOW Section C, 2. Scope of Work, Section 2.2, Pg 5. The SOW states the vendor will not be provided access to live data and must evaluate the legacy Access 2003 database structure to propose an optimized target architecture. Will the Government provide the vendor with a data schema export, table definitions, or entity-relationship documentation from the existing Access

2003 database to support this evaluation, or is the vendor expected to propose a target architecture without visibility into the source schema?

Answer: 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.

17. SOW Section C, 3. Deliverables D.6, Pg 6. Deliverable D.6 requires the system to generate two (2) distinct types of templated documents based on list data and assignment conditions, with both automatic (condition-based) and manual trigger options. Can the Government describe or provide examples of these two document types (e.g., gear issue receipts, assignment orders), including their content fields, formatting requirements, and intended recipients, so vendors can accurately scope the Power Automate and document generation effort?

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.

18. SOW Section C, 2.3, Pg 5-6. The SOW requires all work to be delivered within the Navy's existing Microsoft 365 / SharePoint Online "Flank Speed" environment. Will the Government provision a dedicated development/test SharePoint site collection and Power Platform environment within Flank Speed for the vendor's use during the 180-day period of performance, or is the vendor expected to develop in a separate commercial M365 tenant and migrate to Flank Speed at delivery? Additionally, are there known Power Platform licensing constraints (e.g., per-user vs. per-app plans, Dataverse restrictions) within Flank Speed that vendors should account for in their pricing?

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. 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.

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.

19. Regarding Section 2.1, Vendor Competency Requirements, may an offeror satisfy the required past performance and technical competency through the experience of a proposed subcontractor or teaming partner that will perform the Microsoft 365/Power Platform technical work?

Answer: The Government will accept past performance factors through a subcontractor or teaming partner, 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.

20. Development environment. The Statement of Work states that the vendor shall construct the SharePoint Online architecture and develop the Power Apps and Power Automate components, while also stating that the vendor will not be provided access to live data. Will the contractor be issued Flank Speed accounts to build directly in the Government tenant, or is the contractor expected to develop in its own Microsoft 365 tenant and deliver packaged solutions and templates for Government deployment? If Government tenant access is provided, what is the anticipated provisioning process and timeline following award?

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. 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.

21. Legacy database structure. Section 2.2 requires the vendor to evaluate the existing Access 2003 database structure and propose an optimized target architecture. Will the Government make a sanitized schema available to quoters before the closing date, including table definitions, relationships, field lists, and approximate record counts, or will that information be provided after award? Absent that information, quoters must estimate the design effort.

Answer: 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.

22. Licensing and user count. If development occurs in the Government tenant, will the Government provide Power Apps and Power Automate premium licenses for both the contractor's development accounts and the end users of the delivered application? Approximately how many end users will use the Power App?

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.

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.

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.

23. Test environment. Deliverable D.2 requires constructing the SharePoint Online architecture populated with vendor generated test data for User Acceptance Testing. Will the Government provide a dedicated development or test site collection in Flank Speed for UAT, or is UAT to be conducted in the contractor's own environment?

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.

24. Microsoft certification evidence. Amendment 0001 states that interested vendors must hold Microsoft certifications in Microsoft 365 and SharePoint Online, with certification documentation submitted with quotes. Will company level Microsoft Solution Partner

Designations satisfy this requirement, or does the Government require individual personnel certifications, or both? If individual certifications are required, are there specific certifications the Government considers responsive?

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.

25. CMMC status timing. DFARS 252.204-7021 is included with CMMC Level 1 (Self) inserted at paragraph (d)(1)(i). Please confirm that the required CMMC status must be current at time of award rather than at time of quote submission.

Answer: 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.

26. Past performance. Section M lists past performance as an evaluation factor, but Section L does not prescribe a format. How many past performance references does the Government wish to receive, over what period of recency, and what information should each reference include?

Answer: There are no limits, restrictions, or specifications on references provided the quoted experience demonstrates comparable scope, complexity, and relevance to the

27. Quote format and schedule. Are there page limits, a required volume structure, or preferred file formats for the technical and price portions of the quote? Is there an anticipated award date?

Answer: There is no specified quote format. Award will be made prior to 30 September 2026.

28. Section G, Para. 4; Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award. Please identify the specific technical evaluation criteria/subfactors and evaluation methodology the Government will apply under the Technical factor, including whether Technical will be assessed solely for compliance/acceptability with the SOW or comparatively for relative merit.

Answer: The Government will evaluate quotations in accordance with the evaluation factors stated in the solicitation. Offerors should provide a technical submission sufficient to demonstrate understanding of the requirement and the ability to successfully perform the SOW. Any additional evaluation detail or methodology, if provided, will be issued by amendment or formal clarification.

29. SOW §2.1 – Vendor Competency Requirements; Section M – Past Performance. The Amendment 0002 Q&A clarifies acceptable sources and relevance of past performance but does not specify a recency period or a minimum/maximum number of references. Please confirm whether there is no prescribed recency period and no minimum/maximum number of past performance references; if limits apply, please identify them and any required reference data fields.

Answer: There are no limits, restrictions, or specifications on references provided the quoted experience demonstrates comparable scope, complexity, and relevance to the

30. SOW §2.2 – Data Architecture, Test Environment, & Migration Support; Deliverable D.1.

To support Firm-Fixed-Price sizing of the discovery and architecture effort, please provide the approximate number of legacy Microsoft Access objects, including tables, queries, forms, reports, macros/VBA modules, and relationships. Please also identify any material custom calculations or business logic that must be analyzed as part of Deliverable D.1.

Answer: The legacy solution was built by a non-IT developer, and its existing tables, forms, queries, reports, macros, and VBA should not be assumed to represent the desired target design. Offerors should base their proposal on the required functional outcomes, core entity relationships, and deliverables identified in the SOW. The vendor will be provided sufficient structural information after award to evaluate the legacy system for assessment purposes, but the Government does not require automatic recreation of every legacy Access component unless necessary to satisfy the SOW requirements.

The Government’s current understanding is that the legacy Access database contains approximately 18 tables that are expected to be relevant to migration. 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.

31. SOW §2.2 – Data Architecture; Core Situational Entities; Deliverable D.8. The SOW states that core datasets range from fewer than 500 to approximately 3,000 records. Please provide the approximate current record count for each core entity, together with the approximate volume of historical/transaction data to be retained or migrated and anticipated annual growth, to support SharePoint Online architecture, archival, and performance design.

Answer: The legacy solution was built by a non-IT developer, and its existing tables, forms, queries, reports, macros, and VBA should not be assumed to represent the desired target design. The Government’s current understanding is that the legacy Access database contains approximately 18 tables that are expected to be relevant to migration. 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.

32. SOW §2.2; §2.3; Deliverable D.1 – System Architecture & Design Plan. Please identify any mandatory Navy/SWFPAC Flank Speed or Power Platform governance standards that must be incorporated into Deliverable D.1 and the implemented solution, including applicable DLP, environment/solution packaging or ALM, naming, SharePoint list/library, connector, retention, and security constraints. If documented standards apply, please provide or identify them.

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. 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.

33. Deliverable D.6 – Automated & Manual Document Generation. Will the Government provide the two source document templates and the associated data mappings/business rules for Deliverable D.6, or is the contractor expected to design the templates? Please also identify the required output format(s), such as Word, PDF, or both.

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.

34. Deliverable D.8 – Transaction Logging, Audit Views & Comprehensive Archival. Please clarify whether native SharePoint Online/Power Platform versioning and auditing capabilities may be used as part of the comprehensive change history required by Deliverable D.8, or whether the Government requires a separate tamper-resistant transaction logging store or ledger.

Please identify any minimum logging events or data fields required beyond those expressly stated in D.8.

Answer: Offerors may propose use of native SharePoint Online and Power Platform versioning/auditing capabilities as part of the transaction logging approach, provided the proposed solution satisfies the D.8 requirement for comprehensive transaction logging, audit views, and archival support. The solicitation does not currently require a separate tamper-resistant logging store or ledger. Any additional logging events or data elements beyond the SOW may be proposed by the offeror and refined with the Government during discovery/kickoff.

35. Deliverable D.10 – Knowledge Transfer & Handoff. Please identify the approximate number and technical proficiency of Government internal developers expected to receive knowledge transfer. Please also confirm whether one live remote training session with accompanying materials satisfies Deliverable D.10, or whether the Government expects a recording, multiple sessions, or a separate administrator/developer guide beyond the as-built documentation required under D.9.

Answer: The Government anticipates a small internal audience for knowledge transfer, consisting primarily of internal support/developer personnel with practical familiarity with the business process and limited-to-moderate technical experience supporting the solution.

One live remote training session with accompanying materials will satisfy Deliverable D.10, provided it is sufficient to support Government maintenance, future minor edits, and transition of the solution. Offerors may propose additional materials if beneficial.

36. Historical transaction record volume. Q39 states the four core entities range from under 500 to approximately 3,000 records, and Q33 estimates transaction log activity at approximately 16,000 entries per month. Q24 indicates historical data is represented primarily through transaction-related tables within the migration scope. The transaction tables therefore appear to fall outside the 500 to 3,000 range cited for the core entities. Can the Government provide the approximate row count and the date range of history held in the transaction-related tables that are in scope for migration? Migration volume in the low thousands and volume in the high hundreds of thousands drive materially different designs for the D.2 architecture, the D.8 archival approach, and the D.9 migration templates.

Answer: The Government does not currently provide a final quantified row count or date-range breakout for transaction-related historical tables in the solicitation. Offerors should assume that transaction-history volume may materially exceed the core entity record counts identified in SOW 2.2. More detailed structural information will be provided after award to support design, migration planning, and archival approach refinement.

37. Acceptance of the D.2 CLIN. Q80 establishes distinct CLINs to support partial invoicing subject to formal Government acceptance. Q41, Q64, and Q67 direct offerors to develop in their own environment without guaranteed Flank Speed access. Given that the contractor cannot execute deployment into Flank Speed, will the Government confirm that acceptance of the D.2 CLIN may be established upon delivery of a deployable Power Platform solution package, a SharePoint provisioning template capable of reconstructing the approved schema, a demonstrated working instance in the contractor's environment, and the associated documentation, with deployment into Flank Speed executed by the Government with contractor support?

Answer: The Government expects Deliverable D.2 acceptance to be based on delivery of the required SharePoint Online architecture, vendor-generated test data, and the Migration Support Guide in a form that supports Government deployment and validation in the target environment. If direct contractor deployment in Flank Speed is not available, the Government may consider acceptance based on delivery of deployable solution artifacts, provisioning/configuration materials, demonstrated functionality, and required documentation, subject to formal Government review and acceptance.

38. Question, on the representation at DFARS 252.239-7009(c), Representation of Use of Cloud Computing:

Amendment 0002, answer 7, contemplates that a vendor may develop and test in its own environment, and answer 32 states the Government will not accept a quote that relies on contractor provided cloud computing services for performance. Our approach follows both: the delivered solution will operate solely in the Government's Flank Speed environment, and we would use our own commercial Microsoft 365 tenant only for development and testing with synthetic data, with no Government data processed, stored, or transmitted in any contractor provided cloud service.

For that arrangement, should the offeror select "does anticipate" or "does not anticipate" in 252.239-7009(c)? Unless directed otherwise, we will select "does not anticipate" and state the arrangement above on our representations page.

Please advise on your thoughts for this. I understand it is a clause question, however, I do not know much about cloud computing.

Answer: The Government cannot advise offerors to select an inaccurate representation.

DFARS 252.239-7009 addresses whether the offeror anticipates use of cloud computing services in performance of the contract. If an offeror plans to use a contractor-provided cloud environment, including its own commercial Microsoft 365 tenant, for development or testing in performance of the contract, that may constitute anticipated use of cloud computing services even if Government data is not processed there. Offerors are responsible for the accuracy of their representations. If needed, offerors may explain the nature of the anticipated cloud use in their quotation or representations. The Government’s required delivered solution environment remains Flank Speed, and the Government will not accept a solution that relies on contractor-provided cloud computing services for operational performance.