GFEBS_Portfolio_RFI_20161213.docx

GFEBS Portfolio Services Request for Information

Information Requested (RFI Questions)

This is a Request for Information (RFI), as defined in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.201(e).

This is not a request for proposal, request for quotation, or an invitation for bid, nor does its issuance obligate or restrict the Government to an eventual acquisition approach. This RFI does not obligate the Government to issue a solicitation. This RFI is being conducted solely for information and planning purposes and does not constitute a solicitation. Neither unsolicited proposal nor any other kinds of offers will be considered in response to this request or accepted by the Government to form a binding contract. Contractors are solely responsible for all expenses associated with participating in this RFI, and will not be notified of the outcome of the information received.

A. Purpose

The purpose of this RFI is to gather market research data to 1) assist development of Acquisition Strategy, and 2) assist development of Contracting Plan, 3) assess capabilities of small businesses to develop the small business approach.

Specifically, the Government is gathering information to develop a portfolio strategy for obtaining Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems development and sustainment services for the Army’s General Fund Enterprise Business System (GFEBS); and researching industry capabilities to support the full scope of GFEBS services that include engineering, development, implementation, and sustainment. As part of this research, the Government is seeking information regarding corporate capabilities and experience related to providing SAP systems integration services. GFEBS capabilities are being procured as a performance-based acquisition to provide additional capabilities to support Army Functional users.

ORGANIZATIONS SUBMITTING RFI RESPONSES SHOULD HAVE EXPERIENCE WITHIN THE PAST 3 YEARS WITH SAP ERP SYSTEM PROJECTS IN THE FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT DOMAIN.

Increment I Background Army’s GFEBS is an integrated, Army-wide business management system that enables General Fund financial and real property management capabilities including funds distribution, execution, reporting, and accounting, as well as real property accountability, maintenance, and asset accounting. GFEBS is not an update of legacy systems. Rather, it replaces legacy systems with SAP’s Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) software solution.

GFEBS is the key system for the Army achieving audit readiness by Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 as directed by the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2010. GFEBS complies with financial and real property management requirements including Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996 (FFMIA), Federal Information System Controls Audit Manual (FISCAM), Department of Defense (DoD) Real Property Information Model (RPIM) and DoD Financial Management Regulation (FMR). In total, GFEBS complies with some 5,500 requirements, standards, attributes, and business rules. It supports net-centric military operations with a web-based solution that capitalizes on modern ERP technology and operates over the Non-classified Internet Protocol Router Network (NIPRNet), which protects non-classified data.

GFEBS provides a world-class financial and cost accounting system that is transforming the way the Army does business by integrating financial and performance data, providing accurate and timely data, producing reliable cost information for decision making, better leveraging of current resources in day-to-day operations, and supporting clean financial audits. In addition, GFEBS is the Army’s core ERP for consolidating General Fund data from the Army's ERPs, Global Combat Support System-Army (GCSS-Army) and Logistics Modernization Program (LMP), Integrated Personnel & Pay System (IPPS-A) and GFEBS-Sensitive Activities (GFEBS-SA).

Increment II Summary GFEBS INC II scope currently includes three Problem Statements: Integrated Resource Management (IRM) - approved 15 December 2014; Standard Labor Time Tracking (SLTT) - approved 5 November 2014; and Enhanced Financial Integration (EFI) – to be approved March 2017. Alternative of Analysis (AoA) activities are underway for IRM and SLTT. AoAs are estimated to be completed: IRM – February 2017 and SLTT – September 2017.

IRM – The purpose of this problem statement is to efficiently reconcile budget execution against program & strategic plans, create forward looking predictive cost analytics, and efficiently manage its Table of Distribution and Allowances (TDA) structures (without costly manual processes) to provide full visibility into data across Army Commands supporting the manning and budget execution planning & programming processes.

SLTT – The purpose of this problem statement is to create a single, efficient and effective capability for associating and allocating labor hours of civilian, military, and contractors with tasks and work output in order to provide timely and accurate input for resource decisions regarding business operations to determine the full cost for products and services.

EFI - The scope of this problem statement includes enterprise capability gaps spanning the Army’s activities that fall into three identified capability gaps: Financial Compliance and Accountability, Financial Reporting and Business Intelligence (BI), and End-to-End Business Operations and Data Integrity.

Portfolio Summary

The objective of creating the resulting contract using feedback from this RFI is to encompass future GFEBS increment development efforts and future sustainment support for the GFEBS portfolio.

B. Company Information Provide the following information about your company. If submitting a team response, please include this information for all companies on the team.

Company Name Point of Contact Address Phone Number Business Type (e.g., Other than Small Business, Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, 8(a), HUBZone, Woman-owned Small Business, Service Disabled Veteran-owned Small Business, Veteran-owned Small Business)

C. Capabilities/Experience Using the template below in an Excel file, provide the requested information for a total of up to three ERP systems integration projects your company/team has successfully performed for the government within the past three years. Complete one set of tables per project. Respondents are not required to submit three projects – the Government is more interested in the relevance to the GFEBS Portfolio Task Descriptions of past performance projects (size, scope, and complexity).

For each project referenced in your organizational response, indicate the scope areas performed by placing an X in the appropriate cell of the table below (complete one of these tables for each project referenced). The attached Task Descriptions file is provided for a better understanding of task and subtask areas listed below. For the purposes of this RFI, the referenced “wave” as used in the attached Task Description file is equivalent to a “Build” as referenced in Model 3: Incrementally Deployed Software Intensive Program of DoDI 5000.02, dated January 7, 2015. Feedback to the Task Descriptions file is not solicited.

D. Technical Questions

1. Given the details provided in attached IRM Problem Statement (redacted) and associated draft Requirements Traceability Matrix (RTM) Level 3 (extract), the EFI Problem Statement (redacted) and associated sample capability statement, and SLTT Problem Statement (redacted) and associated draft RTM Level 3 (extract) information, please answer the following:

a) Do these documents provide enough detail for industry to clearly understand Government requirements to create a design and submit a cost proposal?

b) If not, please identify what additional details need to be included in the RTMs and/or Sample Capability Description documents.

2. Does your organization have significant experience with a project where an incumbent contractor (or Government organization) developed an ERP system and documentation, and then was transitioned to your organization for sustainment and/or future development?

a) If so, please briefly describe major impacts related to this type of handoff between contractors, and how risk is minimized.

b) What is the minimum program documentation required to effectively transition sustainment and/or future development from an incumbent ERP SAP contractor to a successor ERP SAP contractor?

3. The Government estimates GFEBS INC II development and deployment will follow “Model 3: Incrementally Deployed Software Intensive Program” in DoDI 5000.02, dated January 7, 2015. With this understanding, GFEBS INC II is currently planning to provide the development contractor a prioritized list of all requirements at the beginning of each DoDI 5000.02 “Build”, which begins with a Risk Reduction Phase. (For the purpose of this RFI, estimate two months for the Requirements Analysis stage and four months for the Analyze (PDR) stage.) During the Risk Reduction phase (see attached Risk Reduction Phase Diagram), the development contractor will be tasked to create two high-level engineering solutions from which the Government will choose the “Build” solution before engaging in Preliminary Design Report (PDR) support activities. The first engineering solution strictly uses the highest Government priorities; and the second engineering solution uses all available GFEBS development requirements (not just the highest priorities) to provide the most cost-effective and efficient engineering solution for that Build from an increment development and life cycle point of view.

a. Using the attached increment development schedule as an example, please define the maximum amount of Build development (see Development Phase in Task Description) hours that can be engineered using two months for the Requirements Analysis stage and four months for the Analyze (PDR) stage.

b. When selecting GFEBS ERP SAP development requirements to be grouped in the second engineering solution above, what process will your organization use to reduce redundancy and lower the risk level?

c. Provide key labor categories required to complete the tasks and deliverables associated with the Risk Reduction phase.

4. Using the attached increment development schedule as an example, please provide feedback on why or why not this schedule offers the contractor the greatest ability to provide quality deliverables.

5. The Government’s goal is for the contractor to use an incremental development strategy that provides a continuous level of contractor resources, with the belief that leveling resources throughout the development allows maximum retention of project contractor personnel with GFEBS experience.

a) Do you agree with this goal and rationale?

b) If not, please explain.

6. Provide a diagram with text that describes your organization’s recommended SAP software break/fix process. What are the criteria and parameters your organization recommends using to discriminate between which items are break/fix that need to be incorporated into out-of-cycle releases versus the items that can wait to be engineered into the next Build’s Risk Reduction phase?

7. Provide a diagram with text that describes your organization’s engineering process used to minimize the amount of new and modified SAP Objects required to engineer, develop and deploy newly developed SAP capabilities. Specifically, what process does your organization use to maximize use of SAP object configuration solutions, and minimize SAP object customization and/or creation of new SAP objects?

8. With the goal of reducing Government life cycle sustainment costs, provide a diagram with text that describes your organizational process to remove existing customized SAP Objects and replace with SAP Objects configuration based upon recent SAP software releases.

E. Contracting Questions

1. If your organization has experience working in a multi-contractor environment (in particular, where different contractors were responsible for delivering different capabilities against the same baseline software solution), please provide contract numbers, samples of contracts (or excerpts), or contract clauses related to multiple contractors working on a single program/project baseline.

2. Relative to this potential contract competition streamlining techniques (consistent with FAR 16.5), what has your organization seen successfully used or would your organization recommend?

3. Beyond the typical evaluation factors (e.g., Past Performance, Small Business Participation), what specific Technical and/or Management evaluation criteria does your organization recommend the Government evaluate as “discriminators” (beyond corporate experience) based on the scope of services described in this RFI and attachments?

4. Given the Task Descriptions (see attached), identify the recommended contract type and fee structure to provide the contractor the most incentive to meet all development requirements within cost and schedule. Describe the rationale for recommending the contract type and fee structure.

F. Socio Economic Questions (Small Business Strategy)

1. Please provide your recommended Small Business participation approach and strategy for the potential acquisition associated with this RFI.

2. What opportunities exist to increase Small Business participation on this potential acquisition (e.g., set-aside, reserve, subcontractor participation tracking and incentives)?

Submittal Instructions Participation or not in response to this RFI will not preclude any vendor from responding to future acquisitions, either individually or as part of a team.

Marketing brochures will not be considered adequate information in response to this RFI.

Questions regarding this RFI shall be submitted via e-mail to david.a.gannon.civ@mail.mil no later than 1700 ET 16 December 2016. Questions that are answered will be distributed to all participating contractors on a non-attribution basis.

Contractor responses shall be no more than 20 pages total with a font type of Arial and a minimum font size of 11pt (8pt for tables and figures).

Files greater than 10MB in size will not be accepted. Only one set of responses per organization/contractor is allowed. Please submit your organizational responses electronically by 1700 ET 4 January 2017 to david.a.gannon.civ@mail.mil in a Microsoft Word compatible file.

Page limitations shall be treated as maximums.

A page is defined as each face of an 8.5 x 11 inches sheet of paper containing information.

All pages shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date, and RFI number in the header and/or footer. The cover page and table of contents are excluded from the page limitations.

Adobe Acrobat (.pdf file extensions) and Microsoft Word (.doc or .docx file extensions) files shall use the following page set-up parameters:

Margins (Top, Bottom, Left, Right) = 1.0 inch Gutter = 0 inches From Edge Header, Footer = 0.5 inches Paragraphs = Separated by at least 6 point spacing Microsoft Excel (.xls or .xlsx file extensions) files shall use the following page set-up parameters:

Margins (Top, Bottom, Left, Right) = 1.0 inch Gutter = 0 inches From Edge Header, Footer = 0.5 inches Page limitations shall be calculated as though the document were printed as a hard copy proposal.

Tracking, kerning and leading values shall not be changed from the default values of the word processing or page layout software. Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume.

If the Government has additional questions or a need for information following the review of your organization’s response, your organization may be contacted and asked to provide that information.

Disclaimer: THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT INTEND TO AWARD A CONTRACT ON THE BASIS OF THIS RFI OR REIMBURSE ANY COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PREPARATION OF RESPONSES.

This announcement is issued solely for information and planning purposes and does not constitute a solicitation. Proprietary information and trade secrets, if any, must be clearly marked on all materials. All information received that is marked Proprietary will be handled accordingly. Responses will not be returned nor will the Government confirm receipt. Whatever information is provided will be used to assess tradeoffs and alternatives available for determining how to proceed in the acquisition process. In accordance with FAR 15.201(e), responses are not offers and cannot be accepted by the Government to form a binding contract. All Government and Contractor personnel reviewing responses will have signed non-disclosure agreements and understand their responsibility for proper use and protection from unauthorized disclosure of proprietary information as described in 41 USC 423. The Government shall not be liable for or suffer any consequential damages for any proprietary information not properly identified. Proprietary information will be safeguarded in accordance with the applicable Government regulations.

image1.emf image2.emf