FMS-ACES QAs - Official Announcement.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 24 KB Posted
- Attached to
- FMS-ACES Official Announcement
- Solicitation number
- W519TC-23-R-ACES
About this file
This document provides questions and responses related to a solicitation for the FMS-ACES program. The solicitation seeks proposals for the development and deployment of a case management system to support foreign military sales and security cooperation programs. Offerors must submit a white paper by October 13th, 2023 at 12:00 PM Eastern detailing their proposed solution, team structure, and cost estimate. The Army will select a small number of proposals to advance to Step 2 and provide $500,000 in funding for a six-month prototype development period. The selected offeror must demonstrate compliance with requirements for security, accessibility, and authorization under FedRAMP+. The Army intends to award a multi-year contract by October 2024 to incrementally deliver the FMS-ACES system into production.
View the file
Other files
Show all 12
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| W519TC-23-R-ACES | ||||||
| FMS-ACES Questions/Response | ||||||
| Item # | Government File Name or Attachment # | Page # | Para # | Question/Comment | Rationale | Government Response |
| 1 | Other Transaction (OT) Instructions and Evaluation Plan Final | 12 | 2.10 d | Paragraph 2.10 (d) instructs offerors to send a separate notification via e-mail to the Agreement POCs listed in section 2.4. Please confirm that the Agreement POCs are listed in 2.13 (Government Points of Contact) and not 2.4 (Step 4: Request for Prototype Proposal). | To confirm appropriate Agreement POCs. | Agreement POCs are listed in 2.13. Paragraph 2.10(d) has been corrected. |
| 2 | Other Transaction (OT) Instructions and Evaluation Plan Final | 17 | 3.1.1 b | Paragraph 3.1.1 (b) instructs offerors to prepare and submit a white paper by responding to the defined questions in section 3.1.2. Is there a preferred template for this white paper response? | To determine if the vendor should use a desired template when creating and submitting the white paper response. | There is no preferred template. Whitepaper submissions should follow the formatting requirements as depicted in paragraph 3.1.1 f |
| 3 | Other Transaction (OT) Instructions and Evaluation Plan Final | 17 | 3.1.1 b | Paragraph 3.1.1 (b) instructs offerors to prepare and submit a white paper that includes "a proposed product roadmap." Is the product roadmap included in the 28 page white paper page count? Does the government have a specific format vendors should use when submitting the roadmap? | To ensure the white paper meets the government's desired page count and determine if the vendor should use a template when creating and submitting the roadmap. | The notional product roadmap is included in the white paper page count. Offerors are free to use whichever format they deem best communicates their roadmap. |
| 4 | Attachment 004 - FMS-ACES Requirements Master List (RML) | 2 | Requirement ID 91 | Requirement statement states, "The system shall provide the ability to integrate with other common business applications (i.e. Outlook, Excel, etc.)." Does the government have a list of requirements for what is in scope with integration with common business applications? | To obtain a comprehensive list of common business applications the system will be expected to integrate with. The list off applications will assist with solutioning. | Common business applications are industry best practice software that support the DoD and Army IT Policies. |
| 5 | Attachment 004 - FMS-ACES Requirements Master List (RML) | 2 | Requirement ID 84 | Requirement statement states, "The system shall provide the ability to implement system‐configurable parameter changes based on changes to and in support of applicable laws, regulations, policies, and directives (LRPDs)." Does the government have examples of what kind of LRPDs have historically impacted the Army FMS process and how? | To gain an awareness and understanding of historical LRPDs, and how they may impact solutioning. |
The list of LPRDs that impact the Army FMS business process are listed in LPRDs tab of Attachment 004.
| 6 | Other Transaction (OT) Instructions and Evaluation Plan Final | 17 | 3.1.1 b | Paragraph 3.1.1 (b) instructs offerors to provide "a Fixed Price/Cost Rough Order Magnitude (ROM) estimate inclusive of your estimated production phase". For Step-1, can the Government confirm vendors only need to submit an overall ROM cost (ie, a single number) or do vendors also need to submit attachment 2 with supporting cost built out? | To confirm ROM submission expectations. | See response #35. |
| 7 | Attachment 003 - Statement of Objectives | 16 | 1 FMS-ACES Objective | Will current Case Management Application (CMA) and Common Operating Picture (COP) business logic be provided? | Current business logic may benefit vendors when solutioning. | The government intends to incorporate business logic from legacy modules into user story acceptance criteria as applicable |
| 8 | Attachment 004 - FMS-ACES Requirements Master List (RML) | 8 | Attachment 004 - RML - Interface Details | Will an application that encompasses some case execution functions such as WebSDR, Web RoR, SNAP, etc. be integrated as part of FMS ACES? Or, will they remain standalone applications that require FMS ACES interfaces? | To gain a further understanding of the FMS ACES solution expectations. | Solution requirements are to support Army Case Execution and to support an agile implementation with continuous modernization. Through discovery and development, the Governement expects the solution can grow and adapt to FMS and any modernization requirements put forth. |
| 9 | Attachment 004 - FMS-ACES Requirements Master List (RML) | 8 | Attachment 004 - RML - Interface Details | For the list of interfaces referenced on page 8, is there a current structure/system that centralizes communications and routes information to the various interfaces? | To provide further context on the expected number of direct interfaces the FMS ACES solution will utilize. | No, there is no system or process in place that currently centralizes communications and routes for the various interfaces |
| 10 | Attachment 004 - FMS-ACES Requirements Master List (RML) | 8 | Attachment 004 - RML - Interface Details | For the list of interfaces referenced on page 8, do these systems utilize Procurement Data Standard (PDS)? If yes, would this data standard be an expectation for the solution? | To provide further context when solutioning and gain an understanding of the expected data standard. | No. None of the systems utilize PDS |
| 11 | Attachment 002 - FMS-ACES COST ROM Template | N/A | Hosting Costs | Within the COST ROM Template, the Hosting Costs tab has entry fields for costs for "Hosting: Operational System / Software and Data". Industry Day documents (e.g., FMS-ACES Strategic Product Roadmap) and "Attachment 001 - FMS-ACES Product Roadmap" reference the operational ACES system being hosted within cArmy. Does the contractor need to include the cArmy hosting costs in our pricing? | To further define ROM submission expectations. | "Government owns the cARMY infrastructure/licensing. If vendor proposal requires use of cARMY, the Government will facilitate the use and cArmy specific costs will be treated as Government Furnished Property (GFP). The Government expects that solution components which are intended by the offeror to be hosted in cArmy should be included in the cost worksheet." |
| 12 | Attachment 003 - Statement of Objectives | 7 | 1.1 High-Level Outcomes | Will additional information be released on the structure of the legacy data? Will the legacy data come from the interfaces referenced on page 8 of Attachment 004 - FMS-ACES RML? | To gain a better understanding of data structures and where the data will be provided from. | Aside from data provided for Steps 3 and 5, the government does not intend to release the full information about the structure of legacy data, or legacy data elements before the conclusion of Step 5. |
| 13 | Other Transaction (OT) Instructions and Evaluation Plan Final | 21 | 3.1.2.d | Can a subcontractor team member switch affiliations with a prime contractor after Step 1? | Trying to better understand teaming arrangement options for subcontractors under this OTA. | Changes to subcontractors and status of business type can be made at any step. Vendor must provide updated Appendix A if changes are made. |
| 14 | Other Transaction (OT) Instructions and Evaluation Plan Final | 21 | 3.1.2.d | Can a subcontractor join a team in Step 2 if they were not part of a team during Step 1? | Trying to better understand teaming arrangement options for subcontractors under this OTA. | See answer to question 13. |
| 15 | Other Transaction (OT) Instructions and Evaluation Plan Final | 21 | 3.1.2.d | Can a subcontractor be part of multiple teams on Step 1? | Trying to better understand teaming arrangement options for subcontractors under this OTA. | Yes, a vendor can be a subcontractor for multiple vendors. The Government will not be responsible for any OCI related issues. |
| 16 | General | General | General | For the CAC/PKI, does the cARMY environment have a service or does its boundary automatically parse the NPKE_UPN from the provided certificate on the CAC? | EAMS-A only has PKE capability for parsing certs. NPKE handling is a future capability that will not be delivered during the FMS-ACES timeline. The Government is interested in industry's solutions for FMS-ACES certifying and authenticating machine-to-machine connections with external interfaces until EAMS-A delivers capabilities. | |
| 17 | General | General | General | Is additional supporting documentation allowed to be provided outside of the Attachment 2 - Cost ROM to further support the proposed costs or does everything have to be provided on Attachment 2? | Will change how documentation gets presented and the expectation of supporting documents. | Vendors are welcome to provide supporting documtation in their Whitepaper submission for their ROM pricing. Vendors will also be allowed to provide additional supporting documentation with proposal files in step 4. |
| 18 | Attachment 2 - COST ROM | Instructions Tab | It is understood that this is an FFP; however, other than the breakout of anything COTS based and/or Software/Hosting requirements, is there an expectation of any other additional costs being broken out? | Will change how documentation gets presented and to ensure compliance. | The Government requires the ability to understand the whole picture for short term and long term costs associated to the solution. See response to #35 for additional info. | |
| 19 | Other Transaction (OT) Instructions and Evaluation Plan Final | 11 | 2.7 | Per instructions to find the due the date / time specified in the announcement posted to SAM.gov, will the Government please confirm that 1200 Eastern / 12PM is the correct time Step 1 submissions are due? |
SAM.gov provides two different times for offers due.
The field "Original Date Offers Due" specifies "Oct 13, 2023 12:00 am EDT" (0000). The Opportunity Description states "The submission date for White Papers is October 13, 2023, 1200 Eastern."
| Whitepaper submission date is no later than 13OCT2023, 1200 Eastern time. SAM.GOV has been updated. | ||||||
| 20 | Other Transaction (OT) Instructions and Evaluation Plan Final | 11 | 2.7 | Will the Government consider extending the Step 1 due date by one week to October 20, 2023? | The AUSA Annual Meeting & Expo is the week of 9 - 11 October and causes resource constraints for attendees working on simultaneous development of the FMS-ACES response. | The government does not intend to extend the date and feels that ample time has been provided considering the draft documents were posted to SAM.gov in August |
| 21 | Attachment 003 | 7 | 1.1 | Does CISIL use a local filesystem on the server, or is there a database that backs the system? If so, what type of database is used? | We understand that CISIL uses COBOL for its programing language, but would like to know how data and transactions are stored. | CISIL does not have a database. Data are stored in 75 masterfiles distributed across 305 sectors stored and accessed on a mainframe |
| 22 | Attachment 003 | 19 | 5 | Does CISIL have any existing interfaces for external systems to interact with it? | We understand SFG is available for systems lacking API capability, but would like to know if anything else is currently used. | No. |
| 23 | Attachment 004 - FMS-ACES Requirements Master List (RML) | Page 3-6 | NA | It appears the PDF file provided was partially cut off, therefore a portion of the content involving the requirement statements was incomplete. Will an updated version be provided? | NA | Content has been provided as an Excel file available in SAM.gov. |
| 24 | Other Transaction Instructions and Evaluation Plan | 2.1 | Will the government extend the due date from Oct 13, 2023 to October 27, 2023? | This will allow industry to provide the government with a more detailed and comprehensive solution allowing them to fully vet the offerors technical capabilities and ability to deliver | See response #20 | |
| 25 | Other Transaction Instructions and Evaluation Plan | 1.5.1 | Will the government please provide the point of contact information for the three contractors that require proprietary agreements with the Offeror? | Required for submission | CITES |
Dave Lambrecht, david.lambrecht@chenegaites.com, 571-422-2919
| 26 | Other Transaction Instructions and Evaluation Plan | 1.5.2 | Will the government please confirm if the proprietary agreements need to be submitted with Step 1 submissions? | Required for submission | Agreements shall be submitted with Whitepaper submissions. Proprietary agreements are not included in the 28 page count limitations. Paragraph 1.5.2 has been updated. |
| 27 | Other Transaction Instructions and Evaluation Plan | 3.1.2.iv | There are two approaches to obtaining a FedRAMP Authorization, a provisional authorization through the Joint Authorization Board (JAB) or an authorization through an agency - If a FedRAMP+ Authorization is required for solution components, which approach should the contractor seek approval through? | This will allow the contractor to understand the level of effort, strategy and timeline required for pursuing a FedRAMP authorization | The proposed solution is required to meet the specifications in section 3.1.2. a. iv. which includes a "plan to obtain FedRAMP+ authorization by Step 5". Per Section 4 of the SOO, the solution must meet IL4 requirements. |
| 28 | Attachment+003+-+FMS-ACES+Statement+of+Objectives+(SOO)+Signed.pdf | 4 | "FMS-ACES functionality will be incrementally delivered into production over the duration of the Other Transaction Agreement (OTA). " |
| Is the intention of the government to release functionality into production during "Step 5: Competitive Prototype" ? | Need to understand if the FMS-ACES will be delivered into production prior to post Step 6. | Per SOO section 9.1, the step 5 prototype is part of the DoDI 5000.87 Planning phase and is not intended to be released into a production environment. DoDI 5000.87 requires that the first release to a production environment is when the MVCR is achieved, no longer than one year after the execution phase (Step 6) begins. | ||
| 29 | Attachment+003+-+FMS-ACES+Statement+of+Objectives+(SOO)+Signed.pdf | 9.1 | "User acceptance testing will be the responsibility of USASAC and DSCA" |
| Who is responsible for creating the UAT test plan, scripts and data? | Need to clarify responsible party | Per SOO section 9.5 ("test plan that addresses testing at each sprint"), section 2.6, and section 9.1 the responsibility to conduct user acceptance testing is the operational community's, with planning and preparation being a shared effort as development progresses | |
| 30 | Attachment+004+-+FMS-ACES+Requirements+Master+List+(RML).pdf | "Future state FMS‐ACES will leverage real‐time or near real‐time interface exchanges to the extent possible." |
| Who will be responsible for any new interface development (on the existing applications side) required for data exchange with the 26 partner systems? | Need to clarify responsible party | The Government will facilitate the interactions and requirements needed from the partner systems to the solution provider. | ||
| 31 | Attachment+003+-+FMS-ACES+Statement+of+Objectives+(SOO)+Signed.pdf | 9.5 | "Able to support 1000 concurrent users" |
| Will the government please define the number provisioned users, active users, and concurrent users that FMS-ACES needs to support? | Need to understand for purposes of ROM development | See SOO section 2.1 | |||||
| 32 | Other Transaction (OT) Instructions and Evaluation Plan Final, Section 3.1.1, f.ii | 17 | Limited to TWENTY-EIGHT (28) pages maximum (Cover page not included) | Does the Front matter (i.e. Table of Contents, cover page, disclaimers, etc) count against the total 28 pages? | The Table of Contents, disclaimers, etc will consume several pages to show how each section maps to the Step 1 OTA questions; Requet that front matter not count against the 28-page limit. | Per 3.1.1. f. ii. The cover page, Table of Contents, list of acroynms and reference matirx are not included in the page count. | |
| 33 | Other Transaction (OT) Instructions and Evaluation Plan Final, Appendix A | 41 | Signature Block | Is a digital signature acceptable for Appendix A? | YES | ||
| 34 | Other Transaction (OT) Instructions and Evaluation Plan Final, Section 3.1.2, e | 21 | Include a Fixed Price/Cost Rough Order Magnitude (ROM) estimate inclusive of your estimated production phase (Step 1) | Does Section 3.1.2.e require the delivery of a ROM using Attachment 002? If yes, please allow a ROM submission consistent with a non-traditional defense contractor and a COTS solutation and implementation. | Allow COTS providers and non-traditional defense contractors to submit a ROM consistent with commercial practices. | See response #35. | |
| 35 | Other Transaction (OT) Instructions and Evaluation Plan Final, Section 3.1.2, e | 21 | Include a Fixed Price/Cost Rough Order Magnitude (ROM) estimate inclusive of your estimated production phase | Many of the cost elements included in the ROM spreadsheet are not applicable to non-traditional defense contractors and COTS solutions and implementations. Recommend that responders can provide an alternative CLIN (cost elements) structure that aligns with non-traditinal defense contractors and proven COTS solution implementations for legacy system modernization programs. | COTS solution providers have defined and repeteable Agile Implementation Methodologies to deliver cost effective and low risk implementation and production operations of their products. Also allows COTS providers and non-traditional defense contractors to submit a FFP proposal consistent with commercial practices. | The Government is amenable to receive a different template that represents the same functions/aspects as defined within Attachment 002. Specifically, the government must be able to have a clear understanding of hosting and licensing costs, and team structure and experience levels being proposed to support a level of capacity. The Government must also be able to determine a seperate price/cost of each phase (Prototype and production phases). | |
| 36 | Other Transaction (OT) Instructions and Evaluation Plan Final.pdf | 21 | a | Will the ROM pricing submitted with the Step 1 White Paper be a factor inlcuded in the Basis of Selection for Step 2? | Planning | Per Figure 1 and 3.1.2. e. Affordability is an evaluation criteria | |
| 37 | Other Transaction (OT) Instructions and Evaluation Plan Final.pdf | 17 | 3.1 b | Are Offerors required to use Attachment 0002-FMS-ACES Cost ROM Template.xlsx for ROM pricing submittals for the Step 1 White Paper? As written, the submission of Attachment 0002 is required in Step 4 per the OT Instructions. | Planning/Clarity | See response #35. | |
| 38 | Other Transaction (OT) Instructions and Evaluation Plan Final.pdf | 8 | Figure 1 | For Year 1, should Offerors assume a Production start date of 1 October 2024 given the Prototype is complete Solicitation Release date + 371 days? | Planning | This is a reasonable assumption. No part of the step 5 work will deploy to a production environment at the end of step 5. See question 28 for additional context. | |
| 39 | Other Transaction (OT) Instructions and Evaluation Plan Final.pdf | 21, 31 | f. | For Step 1, can the Government provide the Basis of Selection criteria for the past experiences? As written, the criteria for past experience in Step 1 is identical to demonstrated experience criteria for Step 4. | Compliance | The information provided in 3.1.2. f. states the Government will be looking for examples vendors experience and success of Management, Technical approach and risk strategy. | |
| 40 | Other Transaction (OT) Instructions and Evaluation Plan Final.pdf | 35 | 3.5(d) | In the DoD Other Transactions Guide, Version 2.0, the default position is generally at 50-50 resource share between the Government and Offerors under prototype development for an OTA. Recommend the Army increase to $1M from the current $500k the amount provided to each offeror awarded an initial competitive prototype agreement in Step 5 to assist with costs associated with the competitive prototype. This is based on our assessment of development costs and the associated OTA timeline using final Army requirements provided on 22 September. | Planning | The Government will not be adjusting the provided dollar amount for step 5 at this time. The Government asked for feedback during the Industry Day and the feedback received is a direct correlation of the provided amount. |
In addition, this action is being conducted under the authority of 10 USC 4022, Prototype Projects which does not have default cost sharing position. The 50/50 cost share referenced in the question is IAW 10 USC 4021 - Research Projects which is not being used for this action.
| 41 | Other Transaction (OT) Instructions and Evaluation Plan Final.pdf | 17 | 3.1.f (iii) | Can the Government reduce the font size/restrictions for graphics and tables to allow for less than 11pt font? | Compliance | Text, Table, and graphic minimum font size remains at 11pt. |
| 42 | Sam.gov FMS-ACES Official Announcement | N/A | N/A | The General Information section of the announcement on Sam.gov says, "Original Date Offers Due: Oct 13, 2023 12:00 am EDT," and the Description section says, "The submission date for White Papers is October 13, 2023, 1200 Eastern." |
| Is it the government's intent for Offerors to submit White Papers no later than 12 a.m. on Oct. 13 (which occurs one minute after 11:59 p.m. on Oct. 12)? Or should the date be 12 p.m. (noon) on Oct. 13? | We want to be sure to submit our response on time. | Whitepaper submission date is no later than 13OCT2023, 1200 Eastern time. SAM.GOV has been updated. | |||
| 43 | Other Transaction (OT) Instructions and Evaluation Plan Final | 17 | 3.1.1.f.ii | The solicitation states that the submission is "Limited to TWENTY-EIGHT (28) pages maximum (Cover page not included)." |
| Would the government please consider also excluding from the page limit other front matter intended to assist evaluators (e.g., table of contents, list of acronyms)? | We would like to provide items such as a table of contents, list of figures, list of acronyms, and response matrix to help evaluators navigate the document without impacting our ability to fully and completely answer the questions for the White Paper. | The Government does not intend to change the allowed number of pages. Per 3.1.1. f. ii. The cover page, Table of Contents, list of acronyms and reference matrix are not included in the page count. | |||
| 44 | Other Transaction (OT) Instructions and Evaluation Plan Final | 18-19 | 3.1.2.a | Section 3.1.2.a.i and Section 3.1.2.a.iii both ask for "a description of the proposed solution components." Section 3.1.2.a.i specifies "their purpose, service model(s), and license cost/cost model (e.g., term, subscription, per user, enterprise agreement) with supporting rationale for selection," while Section 3.1.2.a.iii says to "note which are Low Code (LC); No Code (NC) or custom code (CC) and any third-party tools that are integrated into the solution." |
| Is it the government's intent for Section 3.1.2.a.i to include the full description of all components and for Section 3.1.2.a.iii to only discuss the LC/NC/CC and third-party tool integrations? If not, please clarify the information desired in each section. | We want to be sure we are providing the requested information in the order and format requested. | The Government's intent is that all topics are covered while describing the proposed solution components | |||
| 45 | Attachment 003- Statement of Objectives (SOO) | 11 | 2.4 | The text refers to DSCA Case Execution Modernization Initiative (CEMI) standards and principles. |
| Would the government please specify the relevant DSCA CEMI standards to ensure that all offerors meet the requirement? | We would like to ensure that our response meets the government's requirements. | CEMI standards have been integrated into the FMS-ACES RML as applicable | |||||
| 46 | Attachment 004- FMS-ACES Requirements Master List (RML) | 1 | N/A | The requirements statements for Requirement ID 7, 12, 13, 14, 16, 19, 21, 23, 31, 36, 37, 42, 47, 49, and 56-60 have incomplete statements. Can the government please provide the complete statements for these requirements? | We would like to ensure that our response meets the government's requirements. | See answer to question 23. | |
| 47 | Attachment 004- FMS-ACES Requirements Master List (RML) | 2 | N/A | The requirements statements for Requirement ID 65, 67-69, and 73-75 have incomplete statements. Can the government please provide the complete statements for these requirements? | We would like to ensure that our response meets the government's requirements. | See answer to question 23. | |
| 48 | Attachment 004- FMS-ACES Requirements Master List (RML) | 3 | N/A | The requirements statement for Requirement ID 129 is an incomplete statement. Can the government please provide the complete statement for this requirement? | We would like to ensure that our response meets the government's requirements. | See answer to question 23. | |
| 49 | Attachment 004- FMS-ACES Requirements Master List (RML) | N/A | N/A | Would the government please consider an extension to 19 Oct to allow Offerors to receive and address the complete requirements (mentioned above) into responses? | We would like to be sure there is enough time to fully and completely address all requirements. | The government does not intend to extend the date and feels that ample time has been provided considering the draft documents were posted to SAM.gov in August | |
| 50 | Other Transaction (OT) Instructions and Evaluation Plan Final.pdf | 7 | 1.5.5 | Can the USG clarify that by declaring no OCI in the Offer Letter, that they mean in the Cover Letter? | Clarification | Yes, OCI statement should be included in the Cover Letter. | |
| 51 | Other Transaction (OT) Instructions and Evaluation Plan Final.pdf | 13 | 2.11 | Does the USG require that the cover letter for the Step 1 response (white paper) include the statement that the response is valid for a minimum of 365 days from the date submitted? | Clarification | Yes, all responses shall be valid for a minium of 365 days from the date submitted. See 2.11 | |
| 52 | Other Transaction (OT) Instructions and Evaluation Plan Final.pdf | 17 | 3.1 a. | Can the Offeror's Questionnaire (Appendix A) be included within the White Paper document or does it need to be a separate file? | Clarification | The Offeror's Questionnaire is intended to be a separate file. | |
| 53 | Other Transaction (OT) Instructions and Evaluation Plan Final.pdf | 21 | 3.1.2 f. | Is the mininum or maximum number of Past Experiences allowed? | Clarification | The requirement is up to the discretion of the offeror | |
| 54 | Other Transaction (OT) Instructions and Evaluation Plan Final.pdf | 24 | 3.2.1 g. | Is format for the Vulnerability Assessment Summary Report the offerer's choice? (reference FAQ row 52) | Clarification | Yes | |
| 55 | General | n/a | n/a | Would the USG consider adding that the offerer must be ISO 9001:2015 certified? | ISO 9001:2015 certification provides for added quality and timely deliverables through and proven Quality Mangement System (QMS) processes. | No | |
| 56 | Other Transaction (OT) Instructions and Evaluation Plan Final.pdf and Attachment 002 - FMS-ACES Cost Rom Template | 16 | 2.15 f. | Based on the instructions for Attachment 002 - FMS-ACES Cost Rom Template, should there be instructions for Step 4 as well? | Clarification | Any additional instructions for Step 4 will be provided with the upward invite. | |
| 57 | Attachment 004 - FMS-ACES Requirements Master List (RML) | n/a | n/a | Can the USG explain or provide a mapping or correlation of the process maps to the Rquirements and the OVs? Is there a master cross reference list? | Clarification | Refer to Attachment 001. | |
| 58 | Attachment 003 - FMS-ACES Statement of Objectives (SOO) Signed | General | n/a | Will Vendors be able to ask additional clarification questions around solicitation during each upward step? | Clarification | At this time, the Government does not intend to provide an opportunity for additional questions after each step. However, the Government does reserve the right to open up questions/clarifications with each upward invite. | |
| 59 | Attachment 003 - FMS-ACES Statement of Objectives (SOO) Signed | 22-25 | 9.1 | Can the Army provide the version and capabilities and features enabled within the government-provided Jira/confluence instances? For example, is there a Requirements Traceability or Test Case Capabilities add-ons? | Clarification | For Step 5, the Government will utilize the standard set up of Jira with no add-ons. The Government will work with the offeror selected for Step 6 to identify additional add-ons that may be procured. | |
| 60 | Attachment 003 - FMS-ACES Statement of Objectives (SOO) Signed | 25 | 9.3 | Can the Army provide existing Tier 1 – Help Desk; Tier 2 – Technical Support; Tier 3 – Expert Product and Service Support; Tier 4 – External Support) that is currently being fielded with the existing system? | Clarification | Incumbent support for the legacy system is General Dynamics Information Technology (GDIT). | |
| 61 | Attachment 003 - FMS-ACES Statement of Objectives (SOO) Signed | 25-27 | 9.4 | Deliverable: System Test Plan. Would the Army consider a change to the deliverable requirement to mirror the other deliverables where the requirement states "30 days prior to epic delivery"? | This provides flexibility during early phases of a release to still be somewhat flexible on contents of a release and solidifies the contents of the release. Each user story should come with their own Test Cases within JIRA. This request will reduce costs of ongoing re-deliveries of the CDRL item. | No. The Government expects that the test plan is a holistic plan that covers how continuous testing will be accomplished at each level of delivery, from sprint to release, for all facets of a given increment | |
| 62 | Attachment 003 - FMS-ACES Statement of Objectives (SOO) Signed | 26 | 9.4 | Deliverable: All. Are these actual .pdf documents the Army wants delivered? Or are these living items within the Army's Create environment (Jira and Confluence) that will be constantly updated to have a true live up-to-date repository based on each sprint. | |||
| Clarification | The Government is open for the agile live up-to-date respoitory with agreed upon terms for configuration management of content. | ||||||
| 63 | Other Transaction (OT) Instructions and Evaluation Plan Final.pdf | 6 | 1.5.2 | Will the USG confirm that the proprietary agreements shall be submitted with Step 1? | Clarification | See question 26 | |
| 64 | Other Transaction (OT) Instructions and Evaluation Plan Final.pdf | General | Based on the the solicitation date, will the USG confirm that the Step 1 White Papers are due no later than 12 PM ET on 13 Oct, 2023? | Clarification | Whitepaper submission date is no later than 13OCT2023, 1200 Eastern time. SAM.GOV has been updated. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .