FMS-ACES RFI Response to Industry RFI Questions 11102022.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 23 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W519TC-23-R-ACES
View the file
Other files
Show all 16
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
| Item # | Question/Comment | Government Response |
| 1 | With CISIL in a brown-out state since 1996, is there a native capability in CISIL that allows to extract data in a specific format to support data migration/conversion from CISIL into FMS-ACES? Will Army perform data reconciliation and cleansing of extracted data prior to data conversion (Mock, Go-Live)? | No, there is no native capability in CISIL to support extract, transform, and load (ETL) of data from the CISIL flat file format to a structured format. There will be a data model and data definition made available in the request for proposal (RFP) to facilitate ETL efforts. |
Additionally, the Army will not reconcile or cleanse data prior to data conversion. The Government looking for the ETL transformation processes to standardize and remedy data during transition from CISIL to FMS-ACES.
| 2 | With 10 years of retention requirements after final FMS case closure, are all subsequent data (orders, financials, logistics) also archived/purged? How many cases exist today that are final closed <10 years ago? | All CISIL cases (active, closed, or already archived) and their supporting data will need to be ETL’ed into FMS-ACES to ensure archived records can be easily recovered in FMS-ACES. There are currently 18,710 open cases or cases closed but still within 10 years. |
| 3 | Is the Army interested in (does Army's FMS business process support) in a big bang data migration process or will it follow the staggered approach? | The Army has no preferences with respect to the migration strategy and is soliciting input from industry regarding the best approach. The Army requires that all data for open cases are migrated to FMS-ACES prior to Production Deployment and Go-Live. |
| 4 | Will there be an access available to the legacy system to install migration agents ? | No, industry will not have access to CISIL to install migration agents. The Government will provide flat files to support migration. |
| 5 | Is there a dedicated networking capacity to move significant amount of data (8 TB?) or physical media transfer needs to be considered ? | It is safe to assume Defense Information System Network (DISN) has sufficient bandwidth to move significant data. As CISIL data is stored in flat files, the Government would consider a one time transfer of data using SAFE. |
| 6 | If it is a staggered approach, is there a requirement to operate a CISIL environment simultaneously with new solution until the full migration of the data takes place? | There cannot be a break in operations for FMS; therefore, if a staggered delivery approach is used, there is a requirement to simultaneously run both FMS-ACES and CISIL and ensure consistency in data in both systems. |
| 7 | If it is a staggered approach how the 26 integrated systems envisioned to be integrated with new solution while still connected to the legacy system? | If the vendor proposes a staggered approach to deployment, the Government expects the vendor to provide a solution for ensuring the interface partners receive the correct information the first time and without duplication regardless of where the data are stored. |
| 8 | Majority of the business rules that reside on the CISIL system will need to be applied to a new system – are they well documented and available to be developed on the new system, or will there be an ability to connect to a legacy system (with tools like Blue Age or similar) to convert these into PIM (process independent model) and further convert them to PSM (process specific model) to be applied on the new system | The current business rules are well documented as shown in the "Business Rules" tab within the "Attach006-FMS-ACES RFI - Requirements Master List.xlsx" file. The list provided is not meant to be a complete list but does represent a majority of the overall business rules that will need to be implemented in the new system at a minimum. In addition, the Government is performing Business Process Reengineering (BPR) as part of the Department of Defense (DoD) acquisition process and anticipates updates to business rules currently implemented in CISIL to align with changes in laws, policies, regulations, and directives that have not been implemented in CISIL given CISIL limitations. |
CISIL will not be able to host transfer agents.
| 9 | Can the government clarify if cArmy is the only allowable cloud host or if other government approved cloud hosting environments are allowed? | cArmy is the directed hosting environment for PaaS and IaaS design patterns. However, for SaaS design patterns, other cloud hosting environments are allowed, but users must be securely connected through cArmy. |
| 10 | Per RFI, only in-flight cases and their data as well as <10 years retention period. Is the vendor responsible for data conversion of these data? Does Army require migration of summary data into ACES for greater than 10 years data? | For all CISIL cases (active, closed, or already archived) and their supporting data will need to be migrated into FMS-ACES, to include any required data conversions, to ensure archived records can be easily recovered in FMS-ACES. There are currently 18,710 open cases or cases closed but still within 10 years. |
| 11 | The pricing sheet has columns for up to 10 years, are they expecting ten years total including sustainment and license costs? | Yes, the response should include 10 years of cost information to include development, sustainment, and licensing costs. |
| 12 | The pricing sheet has row for help desk cost. Can the Government please confirm if the contractor will be expected to provide Tier 1 (Help Desk Intake, Triage, and Assignment), Tier 2 (Application Triage & Coordination), and Tier 3 (Vendor Coordination) support? | The Contractor will be expected to provide Tier 2 and Tier 3 support as well as troubleshooting guidance and materials for Tier 1 personnel. |
| 13 | Will Army prefer to use GFEBS as Financial system of record for FMS transactions? | Yes, as of today General Fund Enterprise Business System (GFEBS) is the Financial System of Record for United States Army Security Assistance Command (USASAC). |
| 14 | Will DIFS system in DFAS continue to track customer’s initial deposit, cash collections, provide Expenditure Authority and generate Customer billing? | Yes, as of today DIFS will be used within FMS-ACES as it was with CISIL. |
| 15 | Is Army looking implement Expenditure Authority requirements in accordance with DSCA SAMM? | Yes, EA implementation is done in accordance with DSCA SAMM and will be in the future. |
| 16 | Will the FMS-ACES serve as a Single Sign on solution for FMS users or is Army plan on using existing Army Portal or use DSCA SCIP Portal? | All users for FMS-ACES must be signed into the NIPRNet, and will then log into FMS-ACES using CAC authentication. |
| 17 | Per RFI, only CONUS users are using CISIL today. With Army FMS solution consolidating under FMS-ACES, will there be need for OCONUS customers to access FMS-ACES for reporting or other activities? | Currently there are no OCONUS users, but in the future, there may be a need for OCONUS users to access the system. In that case they will be accessing the system through the SIPRNet via direct connection or VPN and will use CAC authentication. |
| 18 | Will the Army provide existing Help Desk Ticketing and Enhancement System(s) to leverage for Sustainment? | Yes, the Army will make an existing help desk ticketing system available to the FMS-ACES sustainment team. |
| 19 | Since the solution will be hosted in cArmy - can we assume that Networking and Common Services be provided by cArmy? | Yes, industry may assume that their solution may subscribe to existing cArmy services. |
| 18 | Is there a requirement for all personnel to hold a Secret clearance? | Yes. Contractors working on the FMS-ACES program will be required to hold a SECRET clearance. |
| 19 | Does the government have a timeline, after contract award, when they would want the FMS ACES system to be accredited and operational? | No, the Government does not have a specified timeline for accreditation and going operational. The Government is soliciting input from industry on the time it will take to implement the requirements. |
| 20 | Does the government have a preference for a custom solution versus a COTS-based solution? | No, the Government does not have a preference and is seeking input from industry regarding custom solutions vs COTS-based solutions |
| 21 | Would the government have any interest in retaining key business rules found within the legacy code? If so, has a refactoring effort been considered? | The current business rules are well documented as shown in the "Business Rules" tab within the "Attach006-FMS-ACES RFI - Requirements Master List.xlsx" file. The list provided is not meant to be a complete list but does represent a majority of the overall business rules that will need to be implemented in the new system at a minimum. In addition, the Government is performing Business Process Reengineering (BPR) as part of the Department of Defense (DoD) acquisition process and anticipates updates to business rules currently implemented in CISIL to align with changes in laws, policies, regulations, and directives that have not been implemented in CISIL given CISIL limitations. |
The Government is looking to optimize business rules implementation within the FMS-ACES solution; and is open to considering all means in which to accomplish the business rules implementation.
Note that CISIL will not be able to host transfer agents.
22 Some of the requirements within the Disaster Recovery category depend on both the software the vendor provides for the Army's FMS ACES and also the underlying infrastructure specified in the RFI (e.g., cArmy). Should industry assume that the underlying infrastructure in cArmy will meet these SLAs?
Examples include:
1. The system shall provide a backup and disaster recovery ability. (line 184 of the RTM tab in Attachment 6 - Requirements Master List)
| 2. The system shall provide recovery of full capabilities within 24 hours of the official declaration of a disaster (e.g. loss of the primary data center), to include reestablishment of critical system interfaces, to a state not more than 4 hours prior to disaster Recovery Point Objective (RPO). (line 185 of the RTM tab in Attachment 6 - Requirements Master List) | Industry should assume that the underlying infrastructure in cArmy can meet the SLAs in the requirements. However, there is a dependency on the system architecture and design to adhere to standards and performance parameters to ensure correct alignment with the infrastructure. | ||
| 23 | As stated in the US Army Cloud Plan published October 2022 on page 2, "For all Software as a Service (SaaS) design patterns, cARMY serves as the broker of connectivity." Based on this reference, can Army please verify that commercially-hosted SaaS do not need to be hosted in cArmy but rather need to securely connect to cArmy as illustrated in Figure 1: Army Cloud Ecosystem Vision on page 3 of the US Army Cloud Plan? https://api.army.mil/e2/c/downloads/2022/10/14/106b220e/army-cloud-plan-2022.pdf | Verified; SaaS solutions operating on their own FedRAMP compliant infrastructure with a DISA granted IL4 Provisional Authorization (PA) need only to securely connect to cArmy. | |
| 24 | Since IAL is relevant to proofing of an identity and CAC authentication is required per Section 5.0 of the RFI, can Army please confirm that IAL3 will inherently be provided by DoD per DoD identity proofing processes and that the FMS-ACES will not be delivering this capability? | Confirmed; DoD identity proofing processes for issuing CAC cards is conducted at IAL3, and use of CAC Authentication to access FMS-ACES inherits IAL3 from DoD processes. | |
| 25 | With regard to this reference, can Army confirm that Classified Information is not relevant to this procurement? | Confirmed; there is no classified data in CISIL and none planned for FMS-ACES. CISIL will contain CUI data as will FMS-ACES. | |
| 26 | CJCSI 6211.02C was replaced by CJCSI 6211.02D in 2012(https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Library/Instructions/6211_02a.pdf?ver=8bMV82SselA3OKn4VscKhw%3d%3d). Per the DoD Cloud Connection Process Guide (https://www.disa.mil/~/media/Files/DISA/Services/DISN-Connect/References/CCPG.pdf) this is only applicable for IL2 CSOs where users connect directly via the Internet. Since there is an IL4 requirement for this procurement, will the Army remove this requirement or clarify how it would apply? | Confirmed; CJCSI 6211.02D is the most current version of DISN Responsibilities and the guidance within this document applies to all information impact levels as well as the NIPRNet. |
Enclosure D, Section 9 of CJCSI 6211.02D is applicable to this RFI as the Army is allowing for hosting environment other than cArmy for SaaS solutions. These solutions would be required to conform to the guidance provided in CJCSI6211.02D, the Cloud Connection Process Guide, and the US Army Cloud Plan.
27 There appear to be multiple outdated references throughout the RFI (e.g. multiple DIACAP references). Could Army validate the applicability and recency of the cited references? The RTM is being updated to correct or remove outdated references.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .