Amendment 0004 - W81XWH20R0029 Questions and Answers.pdf

APLIS Questions 6

Reference Question Answer Please identify the incumbent contractor and the contract number for this work

Cerner Corporation - W81XWH-19-P-0034

Please identify the place of performance for this solicitation. Is it on the contractor site?

Place of performance is at contractor location/site.

Reference: W81XWH-20-R-0029.pdf, page 1 Please clarify the correct time standard for submission date. Amendment 0003 updated the proposal submittal time.

Reference: W81XWH-20-R-0029.pdf, page 3 of 136; B08_- _Attachment_C_-_Excel_Price_Template.xls – Tab RFP Attachment C

The Government’s Excel model differs from the RFP. The RFP says 9 months for CLIN 0001 while the model say 12 months. The upgrade task is priced as 1 Job in the RFP and 12 months in the model. Please reconcile.

The pricing excel sheet has been updated to reflect 9 months. The award CLINs will be issued as a quantity of months for all FFP services.

Reference: W81XWH-20-R-0029, 9.57 Deliverables, pgs. 134-135 Deliverables 35 through 52 point to an incorrect paragraph in the PWS. It seems that they should point to a previous main section (e.g.

those pointing to 9.47.1 should point to 9.46.1, an so forth). Please clarify.

The PWS and deliverable table has been updated.

Reference: W81XWH-20-R-0029.pdf, page 70 "The Government understands that use of APLIS (CoPath Plus), including upgrades and new releases, is subject to Contractor’s end user license agreement." Is it the Contractor's responsibility to provide/obtain an End User License or will the Government provude licenses as GFI/GFE?

It is the contractor's responsibility to provide/obtain an End User License.

PWS 9.10,9.45, 9.47 It is difficult for a non-incumbent to propose a firm-fixed price without historical workload data or level of effort estimates.

Please provide the following: number of user account management transactions over time (PWS 9.10), the number of system development tasks (PWS 9.45), and the number of training courses(PWS 9.47).

There are currently 1170 user accounts, but that number can increase There are 5 system development tasks There are 4 training course, two for train the trainer, 2 for system admin

B08_-_Attachment_C_-_Excel_Price_Template,CLIN 0016 - Equipment Refresh

Providing pricing quotes for the hardware required by CLIN 4003 for five years in the future is extremely problematic. Would the Government consider a plug number for ODCs of this type?

No. The Government views these items as fixed price and reguraly awards multi-year contracts for commercial supply type items with no issues.

B08_-_Attachment_C_-_Excel_Price_Template,Event Sentry CLINS Projecting Event Sentry license 5 years in the future is extremely problematic. Very few vendors are willing to extend pricing terms or even to guarantee device availability that far in the future. Would the Government consider a plug number for ODCs of this type.

No. The Government views these items as fixed price and reguraly awards multi-year contracts for commercial supply type items with no issues.

Reference: W81XWH-20-R-0029.pdf, page 28

The requirement that an individual with the title of "System Engineer" responsible for managing hardware and/or software systems, have a Project Management Professional (PMP) certification, is quite unusual. The certificate in question seem to be more in line with project management tasks. Is the key personnel requirement correct?

This references having desired and/or similar experiences - this will ensure overall understanding of software development and sustainment; the information is correct

Reference: W81XWH-20-R-0029.pdf, page 28

The requirement that an individual with the title of "System Administrator" and responsibility for managing hardware and/or software systems, planning and implementing system rollout, contract management, establishing and maintaining interoperability via interfaces between IT systems, have an Agile project management certification (i.e. Scrum Master, PMIACP, Certified Agile Project Manager, or similar). The certificates in question seem to be more in line with development related activities Is the key personnel requirement correct?

This references having desired and/or similar experiences - this will ensure overall understanding of software development and sustainment; the information is correct

Reference: W81XWH-20-R-0029.pdf, page 28

The requirement that an individual with the title "Program Manager/Task Manager" have experience in software development, systems engineering, establishing and maintaining interoperability via interfaces between IT systems with no mention of contract management or possession of a Project Management Professional (PMP) certification, is quite unusual. Is the requirement correct.

This references having desired and/or similar experiences - this will ensure overall understanding of software development and sustainment; the information is correct

Reference: W81XWH-20-R-0029.pdf, PWS 9.12 and page 28 PWS 9.1.2 Requires that the "Contractor shall designate a single TM ...The TM shall coordinate as necessary with the Contractor Program Manager". The Key personnel includes a "Program Manager/Task Manager". Are these two indivudals or one?

One individual.

W81XWH-20-R-0029.pdf, PWS 9.9.4 and PWS 9.17 Will the hardware, software and networking components of the model office at the Contractor location and the nonproduction APLIS instance in the Training Service Environment.be provided as GFE?

Contractor shall have access to all government owned hardware, software and networking components included in the TSE.

The Government does not maintain the TSE.

W81XWH-20-R-0029.pdf, PWS 1.1.1 and PWS 9.9.6 How does the requirement to provide "Tier III support provided 24/7 with 99% availability" work with "Normal business hours are Monday through Friday 8 AM-5 PM (except Federal holidays); however, unanticipated issues may require the Contractor to work either before or after those hours, and in exceptional cases, on weekends, when directed to do so by the Contracting Officer Representative (COR)"?

What percentage of tickets arrive after hours?

In the last 6 months we have recived 54 tickets after hours

W81XWH-20-R-0029.pdf, page 4 of 136; B08_-_Attachment_C_- _Excel_Price_Template.xls – Tab RFP Attachment C

Event Sentry Software is identified as an optional CLIN in the Excel worksheet for the Base Period it is not so indicated in the RFP, Section SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET. Please clarify.

This is listed as an optional CLIN to allow for execution when needed during the period of performance.

How has CoPathPlus been customized/modified/ammended for APLIS.

For example:

- how many windows exist? Were these created with the GUI builder (e.g., Window Painter) or custom code?

- how many reports exist? Were these created with a GUI builder or custom code?

- how are the interfaces with other systems and peripherals linked up?

Is this via COTS software settings in CoPathPlus or 3rd party middleware? Or was this custom code?

- how much custom code exists and what programming language(s) is it in?

- any other significant areas of customization?

CoPathPlus has been customized/modified/ammended for APLIS.

The software is proprietary and the Government is not authorized to provide this information.

Are the CoPathPlus customizations (e.g., windows, reports, dictionaries, interfaces, custom code) the same across all production installs/sites? If not, how do they differ?

Yes, they are all the same. The only thing that may be different at each site may be certain permission or ways to sign out cases

PWS PWS 6.0 What kind of compiled and uncompiled source code (including all versions, maintenance updates and patches) is owned by the Government to be provided as GFI? How is it currently stored? Is this all in a version control system that the incoming contractor will be given ownership of? Or does the contract include setting up a new version control system and importing these existing artifacts into it?

None, the CoPathPlus code is proprietory and not owned by the Government. Currently stored at regional MAAG sites

PWS 9.1 How many test, training, and production environments exist? Do the environments all mirror one another? If not, how do they differ?

Three (3) separate environments, Production, ITC (test/pre-prod), Training. The training and ITC enviornments may not have all of the same windows patches applied to them

PWS 9.1 What is involved in installation of a new environment? Are all of the anticipated environments already installed/configured? If not, how frequently will new environments be installed/setup as part of this contract?

No, all anticipated environments are already installed.

PWS 9.13 What are the 133 virtual servers used for? Are those running APLIS instances? What is the contractor's responsibility for those virtual servers?

The virtual servers include: print servers, file servers, database servers, interface/agent servers, XenApp servers. The contractor is responsible for the maintenace, patching, review, availability, and all general maintenance. We utilize an Infrastructure as a Service hosting solution, as such all sever maintence/updates/upgrades are responsibility of the vendor

PWS 9.9.3 What is meant by "The Contractor can expect the following areas to require a level of effort (varies by month)?" What is the level of effort that we should we plan for?

The level of effort refers to remediating trouble tickets each month, and those tickets can be expected to involve the following categories: - Action Items

- Configuration Item

- Software Defect

- HBSS

- System Enhancement

PWS 9.10.1 "The Contractor shall provide a mechanism to track new/user modified user account submissions…" Is there already an existing system in place for us to use? Or will the Contractor be creating a new system for this as part of the contract?

Currently, Remedy GSC is the only system used for tickets.

PWS 9.12.1 "Software updates include the publishing of bug/defect/fixes via patches and updates/upgrades…" / "The Contractor shall provide software updates for the product..." Are these patches and updates/upgrades that are developed by the Contractor? If not, where do they come from?

These patchess, updates/upgrades, refer to fixes developed by the contractor to address CoPathPlus defficinecies/bugs, or upgrades.

PWS 9.12.1 Can you clarify what is meant by "no-charge support?" In other words, what user blogs/discussion forusm/hosted chat rooms/etc is this referring to?

If there are portals that software information is shared, updates would be included as part of the contract

PWS 9.16 "The Contractor shall also provide… Anatomical Pathology expertise" Is this expected to be a full time position or a SME on retainer? What would be the scope of their responsibility?

This is not expected to be a separate full-time position or SME on retainer, but a level of expertise with Anatomical Pathology is expected to be had by the Offeror, either in past performance, personnel being proposed, etc.

PWS 9.18 and 9.21 Are app management and monitoring systems (including remote monitoring) already in place? Or does the contract include creating these systems?

Yes this is remote, and monitored every morning and perform daily reboots.

Currently, hosted on AVHE.

PWS 9.21 Do label printing and cassette engraving workflow diagram(s) already exist? Or will the Contractor be creating them as new items as part of the contract?

No, all DODAFs and diagrams already exisist.

PWS 9.24 "The contractor will upgrade APLIS to the latest compatible versions as they become available" Is this referring to the latest compatible versions of the underlying COTS (CoPathPlus)? Or new versions of APLIS itself (e.g., the customizations specific to APLIS)? If the latter -where are these latest versions coming from? And how often are updates expected?

A new 2019 version is anticipated to be released by the manufacturer in QT3.

PWS 9.28 (2nd to last paragraph) What is the contractor's level of responsibility if the "must-fix" vulnerabilities are in the COTS (CoPathPlus)?

The Contractor is responsible to ensure corrections with the software vendor.

PWS 9.45 Who will be responsible for government requested custom development to APLIS and how will they interface with the contractor/what responsibilities does the contractor have in relation to this new custom development? (e.g., how are the new development efforts coordinated with the contractor? if there are issues in APLIS, how is it determined if they're from new development or existing? If from new developent, who provides support for them?)

If the custom development is the goeverment responsibility, then it would be accompished via a request for modification to accomplish the task.

PWS 9.46.8 Do unit, integration, and regression/functional tests already exist for the system? If so, are they comprehensive? And what format do they exist in (e.g., automated, manual scripts, etc.)? If they're not comprehensive, does the contract include creating new tests to fill the gap for existing functionality?

Yes, this already exists using verndor testing and independent testing with our functional team; if recommendations are made for testing approach, they can be considered

PWS 9.46.8 Have comprehensive use cases been documented for the current system? If not, does the contract include documenting missing use cases for existing functionality?

Yes, use cases have been documented.

PWS 9.47 How many training sessions? Are they all virtual? (9.47.1 states "each course will be scheduled biannually" but not clear how many courses and is that separate from Train the Trainer? Are the training sessions limited to APLIS updates? Or do they cover all of APLIS?

The training sessions cover all of APLIS. There are 2 trainings for "train the trainer" and 2 trainings for "system admin". Please note that 1 train the trainer and 1 system admin training needs to be for the OCONUS sites during their duty days/times.

B08 – Attachment C – Excel Price Template, RFP Attachment C:

CLIN 0001

CLIN 0005

CLIN0008

CLIN 0011

CLIN 0014

Is it the government’s intent that the Sustainment Services CLINs shall include pricing for the purchase of additional Licensed Software, additional Sublicensed Software and, Hardware and Sublicensed Software maintenance for existing 3rd

No.

W81XWH-20-R-0029

And B08 – Attachment C – Excel Price Template, CLIN 0001 And RFP Attachment C – CLIN 0001, Page 3

The solicitation states the duration of the Base Period is 9 months.

The Pricing Sheet lists the Base Period duration as 12 months.

Can the Government confirm which duration should be used by all bidders in their level-of-effort and pricing proposals?

The pricing sheet has been updated to reflect a base period of 9 months.

W81XWH-20-R-0029, CLIN 0003, CLIN 0006, CLIN 0009, CLIN 0012

CLIN 0015, Pages 4-8

During the course of the previous APLIS Sustainment contract, the APLIS PMO COR assumed ownership and management of the APLIS Event Sentry Software licensing, as it resides on the PARS server. The vendor, Netikus, required all licensing on the server to renew at the same time. Furthermore, the Event Sentry Software licensing is based on ‘per user’ license model. If the Government wants bidders’ pricing to include Event Sentry software licensing, can the Government provide the quantity of licenses to be purchased for each CLIN?

The Event Sentry license is required and has been added.

B08 – Attachment C – Excel Price Template, CLIN 0016 – Equipment Refresh tab, Page 9

The Equipment quantities indicated in the RFP do not reflect the quantities of hardware installed as part of APLIS deployment today.

Can the Government validate the quantities listed in the RFP are accurate or please provide a revision to these quantities?

The equipment now listed is accurate.

W81XWH-20-R-0029, Sequence of Events General Instructions Organization of Proposals, Table I – Proposal Volumes Volume I - Administrative, Pages 18-21

The solicitation makes multiple references to SF-33 (Solicitation, Offer and Award). For example, the General Instructions states: “Offers shall remain valid for 180 days after closing of the solicitation (this is the period of time over such the Offeror’s proposal should remain valid in order to provide the Government sufficient time to conduct the source selection process). The proposal acceptance period shall be specified in block 12 of the Standard Form 33.” However, SF-33 is not included in the Solicitation package. SF-1449 (Solicitation/Contract/Order for Commercial Items) has been provided instead. Please correct the references to SF-33

References to SF33 have been removed and replaced with SF1449.

W81XWH-20-R-0029, Volume III – Past Performance (Factor II), Page

The solicitation states: “By submission of past performance data, the offeror: . . . (2) constitutes consent from subcontractors/consultants .

. . to release past performance information to the Offeror in order for the Offeror to respond to such information . . .” See also Table I reference Pages 20-21 to “First Tier Subcontractor Letters of Consent.”

Can the Government confirm whether Letters of Consent are required for all subcontractors or just First Tier subcontractors, and provide a definition for what constitutes a First Tier Subcontractor and also what information the Government wishes to see in the Letters of Consent?

No letters of consent are required from subcontractors and Table I has been revised in the RFP.

W81XWH-20-R-0029, Volume III – Past Performance (Factor II), Page

Can the Government confirm the Letters of Consent are to be submitted in the Past Performance Volume (see reference to Table I, but no reference in Volume III – Past Performance)?

No letters of consent are required from subcontractors and Table I has been revised in the RFP.

W81XWH-20-R-0029, Volume III – Past Performance (Factor II), Page

Can the Government confirm if the Letters of Consent are included in Page count?

No letters of consent are required from subcontractors and Table I has been revised in the RFP.

W81XWH-20-R-0029, PWS 1.2.4.4, Page 74 This section requires the contractor to establish a record in JPAS for each individual. It further requires the contractor to enter the ADP requirement in JPAS and complete visit request. To establish a record in JPAS, the individual is required to have access at the National Security Level (Secret or Top Secret). The PWS does state a requirement for National Security Access and no DD-254 has been included. Can the government validate the stated JPAS requirement?

The need for information entered in JPAS to meet the security requrements to support the contract is correct. All required security verifications (even for Positions of Trust) for a contractor must go through the JPAS system. There is no secret level clearance required.

W81XWH-20-R-0029, PWS 1.2.6.6, Page 79 The Solicitation states: “See Attachment K for a full list of the anticipated ODCs under this contract.” However, Attachment K is the APLIS QASP draft. Will the Government provide an Attachment including the anticipated ODC list?

ODC references have been removed from the RFP as there are no ODC requirements.

W81XWH-20-R-0029, PWS 9.13, Page 98 The Solicitation states: “The required salient hardware characteristics are below (but are not limited to): - Ability to support N-tier distributed client/server architecture for thirty-nine (39) Military Treatment Facilities (MTFs) – CONUS and OCONUS - Ability to support Microsoft Windows Server Operating System 32Bit or 64Bit for one hundred thirty-three (133) virtual servers” However, APLIS is currently deployed to 38 MTFs, and 99 virtual servers are in use. Will the Government confirm that bidders are to provide pricing for the support of 39 MTFs and 133 virtual servers?

There are 38 sites and 93 production vms, 2 ITC, 3 TSE. The RFP has been updated.

9.17 The solicitation states:

“The Contractor shall maintain 3 non-production environments to allow the Government to review, change, and manage the Standard Configuration.”

We believe this might be in error because in the current environment there are only 2-non-production environments. The requirement to maintain 3 would suggest an additional environment must be created.

However, this is not indicated in the PWS. RECOMMENDED RESOLUTION: If the requirement is correct and 3 non-production environments shall be maintained, that would indicate a new non-production environment will have to be created. This new non-production environment would be maintained along with the two existing non-production environments, for a total of three. In this case, please modify the PWS to reflect that a new non-production environment must be created so that all bidders know that this is a task they must account for in their level-of-effort and pricing analysis.

May require a third site for functional testing to be established (totalling 3)

W81XWH-20-R-0029, PWS 9.24 Application Upgrade Services (Option), Page 102

The requirement list does not include the purchase of Appeon PowerBuilder software. Appeon is the new provider of the PowerBuilder software for CoPathPlus versions v2017 and v2019. A net new purchase of Appeon’s version of PowerBuilder is required to upgrade CoPathPlus. The Appeon licenses use an annual subscription pricing model. Based upon our understanding of the APLIS system architecture, 18 annual subscription licenses will be needed. Given this analysis, will the Government consider including a requirement to purchase this software in PWS section 9.24 and creating CLINs in B08- Attachment C – Excel Price Template.xlsx for the pricing? Will the Government also consider creating an optional CLIN for each year in the period of performance (1 for the base period and 1 for each optional year) to be exercised when the Government opts to upgrade?

Powerbuilder has been added to the RFP excel pricing sheet.

W81XWH-20-R-0029, PWS 9.37.1, Page 111 The Government previously removed the requirement for development of SvcV-1, SvcV-2, SvcV-6, SvcV-10c, OV-5b and SV-10c DoDAF views as it pertains to APLIS. Does the Government now want bidders to price in the development of these additional DoDAF views?

No all DoDAFS have been created

B08 – Attachment C – Excel Price Template, CLIN00016, CLIN 0016 – Equipment Refresh tab

The following sublicensed software products are currently categorized as optional equipment:

• Row 4 - Synoptic Reporting CAP Worksheets

• Row 5 - AccuSoft ImageGear Pro Client License

• Row 6 - CoPathPlus CORE Sublicensed Software (embedded)

• Row 7 - NiceLable Desktop Suite 5 User However, these products are required (i.e., not optional) sublicensed software that have an annual maintenance renewal requirement. Will the Government consider revising the Price Template, to include CLINS for the pricing of sublicensed required annual software maintenance renewals?

These are listed as optional to allow exercise as needed during the performance period.

B08 – Attachment C – Excel Price Template, CLIN00016, CLIN 0016 – Equipment Refresh tab

Currently, there is no entry for PS406U - Plustek Personal Scanner.

However, personal scanners are used to scan images of consultative Anatomic Pathology (AP) related documentation to be recorded in the patient record and there are 77 Plustek Personal Scanners installed as part of APLIS deployment. Will the Government consider adding this item to the CLIN?

No. The extended warranty period has expired and the repair/replacement of peripherals is the responsilibity of the site;

peripheral warranty SOP has been provided with process for sites

B08 – Attachment C – Excel Price Template.xlsx, RFP Attachment C Currently, there is no CLIN for the required annual extended warranty renewals for the peripheral hardware listed in CLIN 16. Will the Government consider revising the Price Template to include a CLIN for extended warranty renewal pricing, reflecting the currently deployed peripheral hardware quantities?

No. The extended warranty period has expired and the repair/replacement of peripherals is the responsilibity of the site;

peripheral warranty SOP has been provided with process for sites

W81XWH-20-R-0029, CLIN 003, Page 4 The Solicitation states:

“Contractor shall provide Event Sentry Software”. We believe this is a possible error because providing Event Sentry software has been outside of the scope of the APLIS Deployment and Sustainment contracts to-date. RATIONALE: During the course of the previous APLIS Sustainment contract, the APLIS PMO COR assumed ownership and management of the APLIS Event Sentry Software licensing, as it resides on the PARS server. The vendor, Netikus, required all licensing on the server to renew at the same time. RECOMMENDED RESOLUTION: Please remove the requirement and associated CLINS

Event Sentry license was added as a contract modification previously. It should be included in the PWS/scope and there is only one license required.

W81XWH-20-R-0029, Section 1.2.3 and 1.2.4, Page 73 Solicitation sections 1.2.3 and 1.2.4 require that Contractor personnel complete training for e-Qip system and submit investigation requirements via e-Qip. We believe this is a possible error as it indicates the contractor would be responsible for functions usually performed by the Government. RATIONALE: This indicates that the contractor would be processing the ADP2/IT2 designation investigations on behalf of DHA, which is usually not the case.

RECOMMENDED RESOLUTION: Please confirm that the contractor is required to perform this work.

Yes, the Contractor is required to perform this work as this is a required process for common Access Card (CAC).

W81XWH-20-R-0029, Section 1.2.6.6, Page 79 The Solicitation states:

“See Attachment K for a full list of the anticipated ODCs under this contract.”

We believe this is an error because attachment K is not the referenced document. RATIONALE: Attachment K is the APLIS QASP draft. No ODC listing provided in any attachment. In the previous solicitations for the APLIS Deployment and Sustainment, there were no ODCs.

RECOMMENDED RESOLUTION: If there are any ODCs for this solicitation, please provide an Attachment including the anticipated ODC list, and correct the reference to this attachment

All ODC references have been removed from the RFP.

W81XWH-20-R-0029, Section 6.0, Page 87

The Solicitation states:

“The Transition-In Plan shall include the following items:

• Transfer of compiled and un-compiled source code, to include all versions, maintenance updates and patches” We believe this is an error because CoPathPlus is a Commercial-off-the-Shelf (COTS) solution. RATIONALE: CoPathPlus is a proprietary COTS solution, and it is not reasonable to require a commercial off the shelf licensor to transfer source code. Transfer of CoPathPlus source code is not a requirement with which Cerner is able to comply.

RECOMMENDED RESOLUTION: Please remove this requirement or modify it to specify the transfer of GOTS source code only.

The PWS has been updated and information has been removed.

Agree with recommendatio it should only be Tier III+A60:C60 The solicitation states:

“The MPR document will include activities and accomplishments over the prior month, issues/risks and their mitigation, lessons learned, projected future milestones and the following metrics: number of GSC/ Remedy 7(Tier II/Tier III) tickets opened and closed per month.”

We believe the reference to Tier II is in error. RATIONALE: The APLIS Sustainment contractor currently does not have a mechanism to record and document the number of Tier II tickets. Tier II tickets are processed by Global Service Center-Tier II. Consequently, in the current environment the APLIS Integration/Sustainment would not be able to provide Tier II metrics. In the 5-year APLIS deployment contract and 1-year sustainment contracts, the reporting of ticket activity metrics in the MPR was limited to Tier III.

RCOMMENDED RESOLUTION: Please change the scope to the requirement to only Tier III tickets or add an explanation or how the contractor will have access to Tier II information.

PWS has been updated and Tier II removed.

W81XWH-20-R-0029, Section 9.7, Page 95 The solicitation states:

“The Transition-Out Plan shall include the following items:

• Transfer of hardware warranties and software licenses” We believe the requirement to transfer hardware warranties and software licenses to be in error. Third party warranties and software licenses are not transferable by the bidder (as stated in the End User License Agreement (EULA); transferability of warranties and licenses is at the discretion of the 3rd-party vendors for the hardware and software proposed by the bidder.

The licensing and warranties for the 3rd Party hardware warranties and software licenses is at the discretion of the Value-Added Reseller (VAR) agreements between a contractor and a vendor. Another contractor cannot provide licensing and services utilizing the incumbent’s VAR agreements.

RCOMMENDED RESOLUTION: Please remove the requirement.

PWS has been updated and information has been removed.

W81XWH-20-R-0029, Section 9.7, Page 95 The solicitation states:

“The Transition-Out Plan shall include the following items:

Transfer of compiled and uncompiled source code, to include all versions, maintenance updates and patches” We believe this is an error because CoPathPlus is a Commercial-off-the-Shelf (COTS) solution. RATIONALE: CoPathPlus is a proprietary COTS solution, and it is not reasonable to require the bidder to transfer source code. Transfer of CoPathPlus source code is not a requirement with which Cerner is able to comply.

RECOMMENDED RESOLUTION: Please remove the requirement or change the requirement to specify the transfer of GOTS products only.

PWS has been updated and information has been removed.

W81XWH-20-R-0029, Section 9.13, Page 98 The solicitation states:

“The required salient hardware characteristics are below (but are not limited to):

- Ability to support N-tier distributed client/server architecture for thirty-nine (39) MilitaryTreatment Facilities (MTFs) – CONUS and

OCONUS

- Ability to support Microsoft Windows Server Operating System 32Bit or 64Bit for one hundred thirty-three

(133) virtual servers” We believe the following figures are in error. Currently APLIS is deployed to 38 MTFs, not 39. In addition, there are currently only 99 virtual servers in use. RATIONALE: Currently APLIS is deployed to 38 MTFs, not 39. In addition, there are currently only 99 virtual servers in use. There is an LOE and pricing impact to this discrepancy.

RECOMMENDED RESOLUTION: If the Government wants bidder’s pricing to be for 39 MTFs, and 133 virtual servers, no change is needed. However, if the Government wants bidders to price to reflect currently deployed number of MTFs and virtual servers, please amend these figures accordingly.

There are 38 sites, 93 production vms, 2ITC, 3 TSE.

W81XWH-20-R-0029, Section 9.17, Page 100 The solicitation states:

“The Contractor shall maintain 3 non-production environments to allow the Government to review, change, and manage the Standard Configuration.”

We believe this might be in error because in the current environment there are only 2-non-production environments. The requirement to maintain 3 would suggest an additional environment must be created.

However, this is not indicated in the PWS. RECOMMENDED RESOLUTION: If the requirement is correct and 3 non-production environments shall be maintained, that would indicate a new non-production environment will have to be created. This new non-production environment would be maintained along with the two existing non-production environments, for a total of three. In this case, please modify the PWS to reflect that a new non-production environment must be created so that all bidders know that this is a task they must account for in their level-of-effort and pricing analysis.

Production Enviorments are 3: Production, ITC, TSE

B08 – Attachment C – Excel Price Template, CLIN00016, CLIN 0016 – Equipment Refresh tab

The following sublicensed software products are incorrectly categorized as optional equipment (because they are placed in an optional CLIN):

• Row 4 - Synoptic Reporting CAP Worksheets

• Row 5 - AccuSoft ImageGear Pro Client License

• Row 6 - CoPathPlus CORE Sublicensed Software (embedded)

• Row 7 - NiceLable Desktop Suite 5 User We believe this is in error because the products listed are sublicensed software that have an annual. RATIONALE: These sublicensed software products are not optional. And maintenance must be renewed annually.

RECOMMENDED RESOLUTION: please create new CLINS for pricing of sublicensed required annual software maintenance renewals.

These items are provided on an optional CLIN to allow for contract execution when funding is available rather than at contract award.

B08 – Attachment C – Excel Price Template, CLIN00016, CLIN 0016 – Equipment Refresh tab

PS406U - Plustek Personal Scanner is missing from the list.

We believe this is an omission because there were 77 Plustek Personal Scanner installed as part of APLIS deployment. RATIONALE: Personal scanners are used to scan images of consultative Anatomic Pathology (AP) related documentation to be recorded in the patient record.

RECOMMENDED RESOLUTION: if the Government intends to refresh this hardware, please add this item to the CLIN.

The government does not intend to refresh this equipment at this time.

B08 – Attachment C – Excel Price Template, CLIN00016, CLIN 0016 – Equipment Refresh tab

The Equipment quantities indicated in the solicitation do not reflect the actual quantities of hardware installed as part of APLIS deployment.

This may or may not be an error. The Government might be planning a consolidation effort that might result in a reduced number of peripheral devices. RECOMMENDED RESOLUTION: If the Government intends to refresh all the currently deployed peripheral hardware, please amend the quantities (per type of device) accordingly.

Otherwise a post-award funding mod will be required to meet DoD’s actual refresh needs.

The listed equipment and quantities is accurate.

B08 – Attachment C – Excel Price Template.xlsx, RFP Attachment C, Possible CLIN missing

There is no CLIN for the required annual extended warranty renewals for the peripheral hardware listed in CLIN 16.

This may or may not be anerror. RATIONALE: If there is no CLIN for annual extended warranty renewals, bidders will not be able to price this item.

Additionally, the peripheral hardware quantities indicated in CLIN 16 do not reflect currently installed peripheral hardware. If the Government wants to renew warranties for all currently installed peripheral hardware, please indicate the quantities corresponding to currently deployed peripheral hardware.

RECOMMENDED RESOLUTION: please create a CLIN for extended warranty renewal pricing, reflecting the currently deployed peripheral hardware quantities.

The extended warranty period has expired and the repair/replacement of peripherals is the responsilibity of the site; peripheral warranty SOP has been provided with process for sites

W81XWH-20-R-0029, 9.24 Application Upgrade Services (Option), The requirement list does not include the purchase of Appeon PowerBuilder software. Appeon is the new provider of the PowerBuilder software for CoPathPlus versions v2017 and v2019.

Appeon PowerBuilder software replaces the exiting SAP PowerBuilder software currently in use with CoPathPlus v2014. A net new purchase of Appeon’s version of PowerBuilder is required to upgrade CoPathPlus.

The Appeon licenses use an annual subscription pricing model. Based upon our understanding of the APLIS system architecture, 18 annual subscription licenses are needed.

RECOMMENDED RESOLUTION: Please include a requirement to purchase this software in PWS section 9.24 and create CLINs in B08- Attachment C – Excel Price Template.xlsx for the pricing. Consider an optional CLIN for each year in the period of performance (1 for the base period and 1 for each optional year) to be exercised if and when the Government decides to exercise the option to upgrade.

Powerbuilder has been added to the RFP excel pricing sheet.

W81XWH-20-R-0029, CLIN 0001, Page 3 There is an inconsistency in the length of the base year in the solicitation.

The quantity for Item 0001 (base year) is specified as 9 months in Page 3 of the Document titled W81XWH-20-R-0029. However, RFP Attachment C - Pricing Sheet- specifies the quantity for CLIN 0001 as 12 months. RECOMMENDED RESOLUTION: the inconsistency should be resolved so that all bidders have unambiguous instructions relating to the duration of the base year. This information is essential for pricing purposes.

The base period is 9 months and the option periods are 12 months each. The RFP has been revised to reflect these periods.

Sheet1