RFP_Attachment_9_-_QnA.docx

RFP No. USCA18R0093, Amendment 02 & 03 Question 1 - Our current solution may require customization. Is this a non-starter then?

Answer 1 - Contractors may propose an existing configurable ATS solution as the basis of their proposal. The government recognizes that some requirements detailed in the RFP may not be fully addressed by a COTS ATS solution. Contractors should identify options for augmentation to address gaps between ATS functionality and government requirements. Existing functionality in a configurable ATS solution is preferred over augmentation.

Q2 - Since July 4th is a federal holiday, please confirm the date and time to submit questions: are they due on July 13th or July 16th?

A2 - Questions are due before Monday July 16th 2018 at 5:00pm EDT.

Q3 - Whether companies from Outside USA can apply for this? (like,from India or Canada) A3 - Companies outside the United States may apply.

Q4 - Whether we need to come over there for meetings?

A4 - The selected contractor will be required to conduct the kickoff meeting at the government site. Additional on-site meeting may be proposed by contractors to as part of their project management and communication process.

Q5 - Can we perform the tasks (related to RFP) outside USA? (like, from India or Canada) A5 - All non-public NextGen OSCAR data must only be stored on servers physically located within the United States. Contractors proposing the performance of tasks outside the United States would need to describe how this requirement could be met. Communication and coordination tasks involving government staff would need to be conducted during normal business hours of the government facility in Washington, DC.

Q6 - Can we submit the proposals via email?

A6 - Only e-mail submissions will be accepted. Additional instructions are included in section L of the solicitation.

Q7 – Are there Small Business set asides for this procurement?

A7 – No.

Q8 - Can you clarify your expectations when it comes to SaaS?

A8 - Requirements for software, hosting, and support services is provided in RFP Attachment 1 – SOW_NextGen_OSCAR 2018.docx.

Q9 - Can you go into more detail on the need/request for automatic implementation of new feature development?

A9 - COTS software products are routinely updated to enhance security and update functionality in response to marketplace drivers.

Q10 - Your documentation notes a request for a system that can be implemented with limited training. Does this mean limited "hands-on" training by the administrative users of NextGen OSCAR? If so, what are the expectations of training needs provided by the vendor?

A10 - Refer to “Section V.1.5 Training” of RFP Attachment 1 – SOW_NextGen_OSCAR 2018.docx for this information.

Q11 - Please clarify the expectations of what is to be delivered at the 9-month mark should this be awarded.

A11 - Refer to “IV.4 Staged Delivery” of RFP Attachment 1 – SOW_NextGen_OSCAR 2018.docx for this information.

Q12 - Currently, The CMS page is open to the AO IT team to make design changes. Moving forward, will it be a requirement for the NextGen OSCAR system to match this design aesthetic?

A12 - No.

Q13 - Does the OSCAR team currently use any tools such as Tableau that NextGen OSCAR should integrate with?

A13 - Integration with 3rd party tools is not a requirement of this solicitation. Contractors who can provide integration with 3rd party tools via out of box functionality may briefly describe it.

Q14 - In the Appendix E, it says NextGen OSCAR must provide information beyond the range of active hiring. Please clarify… A14 - Please refer to section “4.3.1 Information Portal” of the “RFP Attachment 5 – Supplemental Information and Questions_2018” document and section “IV.1.1 Informational Website” of the “RFP_Attachment_1_-_SOW_NexGen_OSCAR_2018” document for guidance on the types of information that should be provided to users of the NextGen OSCAR system in addition to basic ATS functionality.

Q15 - Please specify example areas where OSCAR should not require custom coding for changes.

A15 - Contractors may propose an existing configurable ATS solution as the basis of their proposal. The government recognizes that some requirements detailed in the RFP may not be fully addressed by a COTS ATS solution. Contractors should identify options for augmentation to address gaps between ATS functionality and government requirements. Existing functionality in a configurable ATS solution is preferred over augmentation.

Q16 - What specific risks are most concerning regarding custom software development?

A16 - Risks inherent with custom software development include budget risk, functional deficiency risk, and schedule risk.

Q17 - Please confirm that the 5-page limit for the Price Submission Volume excludes the Offeror’s full Commercial price schedule and excludes Appendix G – Pricing Schedule? Will the government please confirm that this page limitation is only for the Price Narrative and Price Assumptions portion of the Price Submission?

A17 - Confirmed. The Commercial price schedule will not be counted in page limit.

Q18 - Upon review of the RFP there was not a section requesting Key Personnel or Resume submission with the proposal response. Will the government please confirm that there is no requirement for Key Personnel or Resume submission with the proposal response at this time?

A18 - Confirmed. There is no requirement for Key Personnel or Resume submission with the proposal response at this time.

Q19 - Will the government please confirm that the web-based presentation is not part of the 30 page Technical response?

A19 - Confirmed. The web-based presentation is not part of the 30 page Technical response?

Q20 - We request that the minimum system availability excluding maintenance periods be amended to 99.5%.

A20 - Accepted.

Q21 - Please confirm that the major subcontractor written consent letters and the major subcontractor letters of commitment can be the same letter and therefore submitted as one item in an Appendix not counted toward the Volume’s 25 page limit?

A21 - Confirmed.

Q22 - The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) that must be submitted is not referenced in the Solicitation. Please confirm whether the PPQs due to the government must align to required Past Performance write-up, referenced in L-0/Volume IV, Past Performance of the Solicitation or if they may be for different projects?

A22 - The PPQs due to the government must align to required Past Performance write-up, referenced in L-0/Volume IV, Past Performance of the Solicitation.

Q23 - The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) instructions state they are due on July 31st. However, the proposal due date per the original solicitation is July 30th, 2018. Please confirm the date for both the PPQs and the proposal response.

A23 - The due date for both the PPQs and the proposal response is: July 31, 2018 at 5pm Eastern.

Q24 - The due date for the proposal response on FedBizOps is stated as July 31st, 2018 at 1pm Eastern. The proposal due date per the original solicitation on Standard Form 33 is July 30th, 2018 at 5:00pm. Please confirm the date and time by which responses must be received.

A24 - The due date is EXTENDED TO: July 31, 2018 at 5pm Eastern.

Q25 - Amendment 0001 updated the page count in Section M but not in Section L. Given the amount of information requested in this volume, please confirm the page limit for Price (Volume V) is ten pages and not 5 pages as the instructions currently state.

A25 - The page limit for Price (Volume V) is ten pages.