NAMA-17-R-0001_Amendment_002_FINAL.doc

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

PAGE OF PAGES

amendment of solicitation/modification of contract

Attn: James Philiposian (Contractor Support)

8601 Adelphi Road - Room 3340

College Park, MD 20740

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

03/17/2017

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE

FACILITY CODE

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

[ X ]The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers Error! Reference source not found. [ ] is extended, [X] Error! Reference source not found.is not extended.

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning __01__ copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS,

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

a. this change order is issued pursuant to: (Specify authority) the changes set forth in item 14 are made in the contract order no. in item 10a.

b. the above numbered contract/order is modified to reflect the administrative changes (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) set forth in item 14, pursuant to the authority of far 43.103(b).

c. this supplemental agreement is entered into pursuant to authority of:

d. other (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor [ ] Error! Reference source not found.is not, Error! Reference source not found. [ ] is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. description of amendment/modification (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

Solicitation: NAMA-17-R-0001, Internal Collaboration Network and History Hub:

1. The RFP is hereby amended as follows: See Attached, RFP Questions and Answers.

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

PREVIOUS EDITION UNUSABLE

30-105

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

1. QUESTION: I am wondering if an incumbent exists for the potential requirement: Internal Collaboration Network and History Hub outlined under NAMA-17-R-0001. If so, could you please provide the following information?:

Vendor name Contract number Value Date of award Expiration date ANSWER: This is a new requirement.

Internal Collaboration Network:

Vendor Name: Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service (NTIS) and Carney, Inc. (Joint Venture partner);

Contract Number: Interagency Agreement, Not Applicable;

Value: Submit a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request;

Date of Award: Submit a FOIA Request;

Expiration Date: Submit a FOIA Request.

History Hub:

Vendor Name: Submit a FOIA Request;

Contract Number: Submit a FOIA Request;

Value: Submit a FOIA Request;

Date of Award: Submit a FOIA Request; and Expiration Date: Submit a FOIA Request.

RFP CHANGE: NONE

2. QUESTION: Reference: Attachment 1, Schedule of Prices paragraph 1(c). Are Development, Test, Integration Environments GFE [Government Furnished Equipment]?

ANSWER: No. See Attachment 1, Schedule of Prices Contract Line Item Number (CLIN)s 0004, 0008, 0024, 0031, 0040, 0047, 0056, 0063, 0072, and 0079 for the Test Instances, Internal Collaboration Network and History Hub. See Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) paragraph 7.2.1.

RFP CHANGE: In Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) delete paragraph 7.2.1, CAT Environment and replace it with the following:

“7.2.1 CAT Environment. The Contractor shall provide and support the development, integration, and customer acceptance test (CAT) environment to support all CAT activities throughout the term of this contract, for each system. These environments shall emulate, as close as possible, the production environment and be configured in such a way that, when validated, features, configuration, and data can populate in the production system. The CAT environment will be available to test all new releases prior to deployment.”

3. QUESTION: Reference: Attachment 1, Schedule of Prices paragraph 1(c). Does acceptance of work necessary to deploy the system to production mean completed configuration and installation or the plans for the work to be done?

ANSWER: Completed configuration and installation. See Attachment 6, Additional NARA Terms and Conditions, paragraph 5, Invoicing Frequency.

RFP CHANGE: In Attachment 1, Schedule of Prices, delete paragraph 1(c) and replace it with the following:

“(c) Base Year, SaaS -- License Term Production Instance Subscriptions (ICN and HH (250,000 page views/users per month)). The Base Year, SaaS License Term Production Instance Subscriptions shall only begin upon successful completion and Government acceptance of the Contractor’s deployment of these systems to production.”;

Delete paragraph (d) Base Year, SaaS – Hosting and Operations and Maintenance (ICN and HH), if separately priced and replace it with the following:

“(d) Base Year, SaaS -- Hosting and Operations and Maintenance (ICN and HH), if separately priced. The Base Year SaaS -- Hosting and Operations and Maintenance shall only begin upon successful completion and Government acceptance of the Contractor’s deployment of these systems to production.”;

Delete paragraph (e) Base Year, Ideation Module for ICN and replace it with the following:

“(e) Base Year, Ideation Module for ICN, shall only begin upon successful completion and Government acceptance of the Contractor’s deployment of these systems to production.”

AND

Delete paragraph (f) Base Year License Term Production Instance, History Hub Next Tier – 1,000,000 page views/users per month and replace it with the following:

“(f) Base Year, License Term Production Instance Subscription, History Hub Next Tier – 1,000,000 page views/users per month, shall only be applicable upon successful completion and Government acceptance of the Contractor’s deployment of History Hub to production.”

4. QUESTION: Reference: Attachment 1, Schedule of Prices paragraph 1(f). Section 1b and 1f call out 1M hits per month while Section 2 CLINS and Section 8.4.5 put the limit of hits to 250,000 per month. Which of these should be priced?

ANSWER: Both must be priced. See Attachment 1, Schedule of Prices, paragraph 4(f). The History Hub is a public facing website, see https://historyhub.history.gov/welcome. Anyone can register, generate, upload, or view the content. Therefore, there is no way to predict, with any reliable degree of accuracy, how many page views/users per month will be needed. NARA included CLINs 0014, 0029, 0045, 0061, and 0077 to account for the contingent liability and, if necessary, to move the History Hub License Term Subscription up to the next Tier. See Attachment 6, Additional NARA Terms and Conditions paragraphs 5(14), Invoicing Frequency and paragraph 14, Tiered Optional Items.

RFP CHANGE: In Attachment 1, Schedule of Prices delete paragraph 1(b) and replace it with the following:

“(b) Firm-Fixed Price (FFP). The Contractor is required to furnish all the work that can be identified in advance, both in sufficient detail, and for which a fair and reasonable price can be obtained. The FFP must include the fully burdened cost for delivering the services required by this contract. All work in Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) is considered firm-fixed price work, except for the: Base Year, SaaS -- License Term Production Instance Subscriptions (ICN and HH (250,000 page views/users per month)); Base Year, SaaS -- Hosting and Operations and Maintenance (ICN and HH); Base Year, Ideation Module, ICN; Base Year, SaaS – License Term Subscription HH, Next Tier – 1,000,000 page views/users per month; and Additional Services.”

AND

In Attachment 2, PWS delete paragraph 1.3 and replace it with the following:

“1.3 Additionally, in 2015, NARA implemented an external collaboration network pilot entitled, History Hub (HH), to serve as a platform for NARA staff and public researchers who register accounts to create and share content (https://historyhub.history.gov/welcome). The content consists of user groups, profiles, discussion forums, tagging, blogs, collaborative documents, file-sharing, polls, and announcements. This content is publicly viewable via the web to non-account holding users. During the pilot, NARA’s page views/users per month averaged 37,312, with no outreach or promotion. NARA anticipates expanding outreach if HH is taken to production. HH is currently hosted within Jive’s public cloud and it is based on Jive-x SBS version 8.0.2.0.”

5. QUESTION: RFP indicates in several places that HH is optional but in other places indicates that it is deployed with ICN. Is it NARA's intent to deploy HH concurrently with ICN or an option to be exercised separately (i.e., [Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement] Section 2.4.4 and 2.5)?

ANSWER: HH is considered an optional item to be exercised at NARA’s discretion. See RFP Change below.

RFP CHANGE: In Attachment 2, PWS delete paragraph 2.4.4 and replace it with the following:

“2.4.4 Data from the existing ICN and HH must be migrated to the new ICN and HH system and each system must be live, in production, by no later than September 11, 2017. But, see Attachment 2, Performance Work Statement (PWS) paragraph 2.5 concerning HH.”

AND

In Attachment 2, PWS delete paragraph 2.5 and replace it with the following:

“2.5 HH is considered an “Optional Item”. If NARA exercises this “Optional Item” at time of award, then the deadline for system setup, configuration, integration, data migration, and deployment of HH shall be as stated in Attachment 2, PWS paragraph 2.4.4. Alternatively, if NARA exercises its option for HH in Option Years I, II, III, or IV:”

6. QUESTION: Reference: Attachment 1, Schedule of Prices Table (k)1. Do the quantities listed in the table represent Users or Modules?

ANSWER: The quantities represent page views/users per month, not modules.

RFP CHANGE: In Attachment 1, Schedule of Prices Table (k)1 by deleting the text above the table and replacing it with the following:

“(k) History Hub, Next Tier (1,000,000 page views/users per month). Full Price Per Month”

7. QUESTION: Reference Attachment 2, PWS paragraph 5.1.1. Is Multi-Factor only required for privileged users on HH?

ANSWER: Yes. See Attachment 2, PWS paragraph 5.1.1 and PWS paragraph 6.3, Multi-factor Authentication and Single Sign-on (SSO).

RFP CHANGE: NONE

8. QUESTION: Reference: Attachment 2, PWS paragraphs 6.3, Multi-factor Authentication and Single Sign-on (SSO). Will NARA supply SecureAuth enabled with PIV capability?

ANSWER: Yes. See Attachment 2, PWS paragraph 5.1.1; 6.3, Multi-factor Authentication and Single Sign-on (SSO); and 12.0, Government Furnished Equipment.

RFP CHANGE: NONE

9. QUESTION: Reference: Attachment 2, PWS paragraph 6.5.1.1. Is the remediation for both Low and Medium Risk POAMs 60 days?

ANSWER: Yes.

RFP Change: NONE

10. QUESTION: Reference: Attachment 2, PWS paragraph 6.6. Does HH host sensitive information?

ANSWER: No. It is a public website.

RFP CHANGE: NONE

11. QUESTION: Reference: Attachment 2, PWS paragraph 8.3.1.3. What are Support hours?

ANSWER: See Attachment 2, PWS paragraphs 2.7 and 8.1.

RFP CHANGE: NONE

12. QUESTION: Reference: Attachment 2: 8.5.2.1. Can data only be provided in electronic format?

ANSWER: Yes.

RFP CHANGE: In Attachment 2, PWS delete paragraph 8.5.2.1 and replace it with the following:

“8.5.2.1 Upon NARA’s request, the Contractor shall provide a full copy of all of the ICN and HH system data. The delivery of the ICN and HH system data may be requested in electronic open data standards formats, and shall be provided to NARA within 30 days of the COR issuing a request and furnishing the device upon which the data must loaded (e.g. Universal Serial Bus (USB) or external Serial Advanced Technology Attachment (eSATA) drive).”

13. QUESTION: At a minimum, the systems shall be hosted on an IaaS which is FedRAMP in process. (Attachment B[8, FedRAMP Terms and Conditions for Hosted Solutions and Cloud Computing Services] page 68) Does the software have to be FedRAMP in process by day of proposal submission, contract award, or system deployment?

ANSWER: No, the software-as-a-service does not need to be FedRAMP in process. See Attachment 2, PWS paragraph 6.5.1 and Attachment 8, FedRAMP Terms and Conditions, paragraph 2.

RFP CHANGE: NONE

14. QUESTION: Relevant past performances. Is there a page limit for each past performance submitted?

ANSWER: No. See Attachment 9, Proposal Submission Instructions, paragraph 2. Relevant Past Performance Information.

RFP CHANGE: NONE

15. QUESTION: Relevant past performance. Is there minimum number of past performances?

ANSWER: No. See Attachment 9, Proposal Submission Instructions, paragraph 2. Relevant Past Performance Information.

RFP CHANGE: NONE

16. QUESTION: How many of the relevant past performances submissions need to be from the subcontractor, if a subcontractor is proposed as part of the solution?

ANSWER: See Attachment 9, Proposal Submission Instructions, paragraph 2(a)(vi)

RFP CHANGE: NONE

17. QUESTION: For the stakeholder user requirements for the ICN, can you specify what data you want in the individual reports capability?

ANSWER: Yes. See Attachment 2, PWS paragraph 8.5.1.

RFP CHANGE: NONE

18. QUESTION: Section 1.2 (page 15) The current iteration of the ICN is implemented using Jive Software, Inc. (Jive) SBS Internal Edition and is hosted, externally, through the Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Services (DOC-NTIS). Is Jive the incumbent or is there another reseller of the software that has primed this contract?

ANSWER: See the Answer to Question 1.

RFP CHANGE: In Attachment 2, PWS delete paragraph 1.2 and replace it with the following:

“1.2 In order to further its mission, NARA is seeking a cost effective, flexible, and adaptable system to address the needs for NARA employees that are dispersed throughout the nation to exchange information and share knowledge through the use of a cloud hosted, Internal Collaboration Network (ICN) platform. The current iteration of the ICN was implemented using Jive Software, Inc. (Jive) SBS Internal Edition and is hosted, externally, through the Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service (DOC-NTIS) and its Joint Venture (JV) partner, Carney, Inc. Through its use, the ICN allows NARA to preserve and capture the expertise of its long-serving staff; create a centralized location where information is searchable and accessible; and, most importantly, it builds a network amongst staff who serve as subject matter experts throughout the agency. The ICN has enabled NARA employees to collaborate in a way that provides tangible benefits to the agency, while facilitating achievement of agency objectives since 2012.”

19. QUESTION: Section 1.2 (page 15) What features, functionality or services of the Jive software and services has NARA been unhappy with or could be improved upon?

ANSWER: That information is not available.

RFP CHANGE: NONE

20. QUESTION: Section 1.2 (page 15) What challenges have you experienced previously implementing both the ICN and History Hub?

ANSWER: That information is not available.

RFP CHANGE: NONE

21. QUESTION: Section 1.2 (page 15) How long has the ICN been implemented at NARA?

ANSWER: Attachment 2, PWS paragraph 1.2.

RFP CHANGE: NONE

22. QUESTION: Section 1.2 (page 15) If these are not requirements for the same ICN since 2012, why is the contract being recompeted?

ANSWER: See Attachment 2, PWS paragraphs 1.0, Background and 2.0, Scope.

RFP CHANGE: NONE

23. QUESTION: Section 1.3 (page 15) HH is currently hosted within Jive’s environment. Is that on-premise or cloud service provided by Jive?

ANSWER: HH is currently hosted in Jive’s Public Cloud SaaS currently, as opposed to, its Government cloud, which is FedRAMP in process.

RFP CHANGE: See RFP Change in Question 4.

24. QUESTION: Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4. (Pages 3-14) The cost for system setup and data migration services for a new software provider to obtain current data from Jive SBS Internal Edition and Jive-x SBS versions 8.0.2.0 puts any competitor to Jive at a disadvantage, especially for the History Hub task since that is already “hosted within Jive’s environment”. We recommend to the government to remove the system setup and migration services costs from the evaluation process. (For evaluation purposes remove: Base Year CLINs 0001, 0002, 0005, 0006; Option Year 1 CLINS: 0025, 0026; Option Year 2 CLINS: 0041, 0042; Option Year 3 CLINS: 00057, 0058; Option Year 4 CLINS: 0073,0074) ANSWER: Contractors must comply with the requirements of this solicitation.

RFP CHANGE: NONE

25. QUESTION: Section 2.5 (page 17) Why is HH considered an “optional item”?

ANSWER: HH is considered an “optional item” because, there is a degree of uncertainty regarding Government appropriations.

RFP CHANGE: NONE

26. QUESTION: Section 2.5 (page 17). Are you currently not getting enough views/users per month?

ANSWER: See the Answers to Questions 4.

RFP CHANGE: NONE

27. QUESTION: Section 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 (page 18) With solutions meeting all “MUST” and “SHOULD” capabilities as defined in Attachment 3 and 4 be ranked higher than a solution meeting all “MUST” capabilities only?

ANSWER: See Attachment 10, Evaluation Factors for Award.

RFP CHANGE: NONE

28. QUESTION: Section 3.1.3.1. (Page 18) Are the same standards applicable to user posted content?

ANSWER: No.

RFP CHANGE: In Attachment 2, PWS delete paragraph 3.1.3, Section 508 Accessibility Standards and replace it with the following:

“3.1.3 Section 508 Accessibility Standards. The following Section 508 Accessibility Standard(s) (Technical Standards and Functional Performance Criteria) are applicable (if box is checked) to the SaaS and not user generated content.”

29. QUESTION: Section 3.1.3.1. (Page 18). Do you expect the contractor to provide full community management and content policing to 508 standards?

ANSWER: No.

RFP CHANGE: NONE

30. QUESTION: Section 3.1.3.1. (Page 18). If so, do we roll this service into the CLINS associated with SaaS Hosting and Operations and Maintenance Support, e.g. CLIN 0012?

ANSWER: No. See Answers to Questions 28 and 29.

RFP CHANGE: NONE

31. QUESTION: Section 5.3 (page 21) Can we get a copy of the current Configuration Management Database document so we can evaluate the data migration tasks?

ANSWER: NARA does not have those documents.

RFP CHANGE: NONE

32. QUESTION: Section 10.1 (page 34) Please confirm that deliverable 7.1.1 Test Results/report is due five (5) business days AFTER and not Before Customer Acceptance Testing.

ANSWER: The Contractor must provide its Test Results/Report to NARA prior to NARA conducting Customer Acceptance Testing (CAT) unless otherwise directed by the COR. See Attachment 2, PWS paragraph 7.4.3.

RFP CHANGE: NONE

33. QUESTION: Given the FedRAMP requirements in the RFP, a SAAS application not FedRAMPed cannot be deployed even in a pre-existing FedRAMP environment. How does this requirement not pertain only to the incumbent and preclude other software providers from bidding on this opportunity?

ANSWER: See the Answer to Question 13.

RFP CHANGE: NONE

34. QUESTION: On page 79, it states that “failure to submit the required past performance questionnaire by the due date and time may result in rejection of the proposal…”. How can a contractor’s response be held accountable for the actions, or inactions, of the government requested to complete the questionnaire?

ANSWER: NARA will not hold contractors responsible for past performance references not submitting questionnaires. See RFP Change below.

RFP CHANGE: In Attachment 9, Proposal Submission Instructions, paragraph 2(b) delete the “Note:” and replace it with the following:

“Note: Failure to submit the required Relevant Past Performance Volume by the due date and time may result in rejection of the proposal unless the contractor has certified that it has no relevant, directly related or similar past performance experience. If a contractor has no relevant past performance it MUST submit a statement affirming it has no relevant past performance.”

35. QUESTION: Attachment 10. Section 1. What is the scoring rubric to assess the contractor’s demonstrated technical knowledge and competence, understanding of and approach to the work, and adequate techniques and approaches?

ANSWER: See FAR 15.304(d).

RFP CHANGE: NONE

36. QUESTION: Attachment 10. Section 3. With companies submitting all 5 versus say 3 be ranked higher?

ANSWER: See the Answer to Question 35.

RFP CHANGE: NONE

37. QUESTION: Attachment 10. Section 3. What is the scoring rubric for the past performance evaluation criteria, considering each response could be submitting a different number of relevant examples?

ANSWER: See the Answer to Question 35.

RFP CHANGE: NONE

38. QUESTION: The “solicitation” document starts with Attachment 1. Is there anything missing?

ANSWER: No. This is a Combined Synopsis Solicitation (CSS). The “solicitation” document you refer to is a continuation of the CSS text posted to www.fbo.gov.

RFP CHANGE: NONE

39. QUESTION: Reference: Attachment 1, page 3 and page 32, [Attachment 2, PWS] 9.0 Additional Services. Are there specific services the government intends to acquire under this CLIN? Please provide more examples of what kind of additional services may be funded under this contract, and what those services are intended to achieve.

ANSWER: See Attachment 2, PWS paragraph 9.2 for the scope of services which, may be ordered.

RFP CHANGE: NONE

40. QUESTION: Reference: Attachment 1, page 3 and page 32, [Attachment 2, PWS] 9.0 Additional Services. 9.2 Please provide a complete list of potential labor categories for the additional services, so that all contractors propose equivalent labor categories.

ANSWER: See Attachment 1, Schedule of Prices paragraph 4(g) and Attachment 2, PWS paragraph 9.2. See the Answer to Question 39.

RFP CHANGE: NONE

41. QUESTION: Reference: Attachment 1, page 3 and page 32, [Attachment 2, PWS] 9.0 Additional Services. 9.3 Is funding currently obligated for the Additional Services?

ANSWER: No. There is no contract award which, obligates funding.

RFP CHANGE: NONE

42. QUESTION: The pricing schedule on page 7 and 8 shows 9 months for various operating licenses – rather than a full year. Is it the government’s intention to continue to operate the system for three months using existing licenses, while data is migrated to the new system?

ANSWER: Yes, through September 12, 2017.

RFP CHANGE: NONE

43. QUESTION: Attachment 1, page 78, section vi. “Contractors must submit similar past performance information on proposed significant or critical subcontractors”. Can we assume the government wants a total of five past performances from the prime and subcontractor combined?

ANSWER: No. The limitation applies to the Prime Contractor and each Subcontractor proposed (i.e. no more than five (5) references for the prime contractor and no more than five (5) references for the proposed Subcontractor(s)).

RFP CHANGE: In Attachment 9, Proposal Submission Instructions delete paragraph 2(a), Relevant Past Performance (Volume II) and replace it with the following:

“a. Relevant Past Performance (Volume II). The Contractor shall submit no more than five (5) references for relevant past performance during the last five (5) years for the prime contractor and no more than five (5) references for relevant past performance during the last five (5) years for each proposed subcontractor.

The proposal must describe the Contractor’s recent and relevant corporate performance on contracts related to the description of services. Relevant contracts are those contracts that are for work of similar size, scope, magnitude, nature, and complexity. The Contractor’s relevant past performance information must include the following:”

44. QUESTION: Reference: Attachment 6, Additional NARA Terms and Conditions, paragraph 10. Internet Protocol -- Aug. 2016. The current Internet is almost entirely IPv4 and there are definitely "barriers to entry" that would need to be overcome before the IPv4-to-IPv6 usage ratio tips in the opposite direction.

Assumption: If customers are switching to run only IPv6, then they need to consider options like "NAT64+DNS64". It can expose IPv4 at the edge while running only IPv6 within their network: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_transition_mechanisms#NAT64 .

It is assumed this is achieved via DISA using a translation mechanism to translate IPv6 to IPv4.

Will NARA be willing to accept this assumption?

ANSWER: Contractors must comply with Attachment 6, Additional NARA Terms and Conditions, paragraph 10, Internet Protocol – Aug. 2016, NARA will not tell Contractors how to do it.

RFP CHANGE: NONE

45. QUESTION: Reference: Attachment 1, Schedules of Prices. History Hub, Full Price Per Month – Next Tier (1,000,000 page views/users per month). (OPTIONAL INCREASE). Would you be able to elaborate with regards to this requirement?

ANSWER: See the Answers to Questions 4 and 6.

RFP CHANGE: NONE

46. QUESTION: Reference: Attachment 1, Schedules of Prices. History Hub, Full Price Per Month – Next Tier (1,000,000 page views/users per month). (OPTIONAL INCREASE). Are the 1 Million page views for authenticated or unauthenticated users of the History Hub?

ANSWER: Unauthenticated.

RFP CHANGE: NONE

47. QUESTION: Reference: Attachment 1, Schedules of Prices. History Hub, Full Price Per Month – Next Tier (1,000,000 page views/users per month). (OPTIONAL INCREASE). If it is an authenticated user, can we assume the user will only a single page view?

ANSWER: See the Answer to Question 46.

RFP CHANGE: NONE

48. QUESTION: Reference: Attachment 1, Schedules of Prices. Table Base Year – Months 1-12 – CLIN 0010 SaaS – License Term Production Instance Subscription for Internal Collaboration Network, 3,500 Internal Users. Quantity 9 MAX. Does this table row means you need 3500 internal users for Production for just 9 months of the year?

ANSWER: See the Answer to Question 42.

RFP CHANGE: NONE

49. QUESTION: Reference: Attachment 1, Schedules of Prices. Table Option Year III – Months 37 - 48 – CLIN 0062 SaaS – Hosting and Operations and Maintenance for History Hub (if separately priced), IAW PWS paragraph 8.0. (OPTIONAL ITEM) Quantity 112 MAX. Is the 112 a typo and it should say 12?

ANSWER: Yes, it should say “12 MAX”.

RFP CHANGE: In Attachment 1, Schedule of Prices, Table Option Year III: Months 37 - 48, CLIN 0062 delete the “QTY” and replace it with the following: “12 MAX”.

50. QUESTION: Reference: Attachment 2, PWS paragraph 8.5.1. Would you please provide the user count for the Administrators of the system? We will assume this is in addition to the 3500 internal users.

ANSWER: Yes. See Attachment 2, PWS paragraphs 2.2, 5.1, 5.4.1, and 6.3. ICN is only accessible by NARA staff. Of the total 3,500 ICN users, 10 will have Application Administrator Roles for both the ICN and HH.

RFP CHANGE: NONE