The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
Question 1
| Ref.: | RFP para. L.1.2, L.2.2, L.3.4.3 |
| Questions: | Paragraph L.1.2 directs offerors to submit proposals via email to the Contract Specialist with a copy to the Contracting Officer. Paragraph L.2.3 directs offerors to submit “one file entitled proposal zip using WinZip version 6.2 or later, or as separate uploads in their native format.” Paragraph directs offerors to submit one zipped file of the entire proposal. |
1. Paragraphs L.2.2 and L.3.4.3 appear to be in conflict. Are we correct that offeror need only submit a single, zipped file of the proposal (all volumes) and not separate files of the four volumes?
1. What is the file size limitation for email attachments, if any?
Answer 1: The Government wants separate volumes and also one combined file. Files totaling less than 25MB can be sent through email. Files over 25MB require submission through DoD SAFE.
Question 2
| Ref.: | RFP para. L.3.1.1 |
| Question: | This paragraph states, in part, “Offerors shall submit a technical and price proposal response to the first Task Order that includes the Offeror’s proposed level of effort using the provided format in Attachment 5.” |
Are we correct that offerors may provide LOE information in the Price volume (using Attachment 5) only, or should LOE information also be included in the Technical volume?
Answer 2: LOE may be included in the technical volume, but price information shall only be included in the Price volume.
Question 3
| Ref.: | RFP para. L.3.1.2 |
| Question: | This paragraph states, in part, “Resumes are required for the Project Manager, Senior Oracle DBA, System Engineer/Architect, Senior Forms Developer, Senior APEX or Java Developer and Senior Technical Writers. The Offeror shall submit letters of commitment for all key personnel.” |
To enable offerors to provide the most robust response and support the Government’s best value evaluation, would the Government be willing to exempt the resumes and/or LOCs from the overall 150-page limit for the Technical volume?
Answer 3: LOCs and resumes are exempt from the 150-page limit. Individual resumes should be limited to 5 pages.
Question 4
| Ref.: | RFP para. L.3.2.2 |
| Question: | This paragraph states, in part, “If Offeror has major subcontractors (defined as performing more than 15% of the total effort), past performance must be submitted for each major subcontractor.” This paragraph does not mention subcontractors that do not meet the definition of “major” subcontractor. |
Will the Government please confirm that the Government will not accept Past Performance examples from non-major subcontractors?
Answer 4: There is a requirement to submit Past Performance for major subcontractors. Submitting Past Performance of non-major subcontractors is permissive. Offers may submit that information if desired but it is not required.
Question 5
| Ref.: | RFP para. L.3.2.3 |
| Question: | This paragraph states, in part, “The Offeror shall provide a completed Contractor performance evaluation, whether annual or final, found in the Contractor Performance Assessment Rating System (www.cpars.gov).” |
If an offeror is submitting a completed contract as a Past Performance example, will the Government accept the most recent CPAR for that contract even if it is more than 1 year old?
Answer 5: CPARS older than 1 year are acceptable, however the past performance examples should only be submitted for contract performance within last three years.
Question 6
| Ref.: | RFP para. L.3.2.3, L.3.2.3.3, L.3.2.3.5 |
| Question: | Paragraph L.3.2.3 states, in part, “If a completed Contractor performance evaluation does not exist in CPARS (example, non-U.S. Government projects), the Offeror shall provide completed Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (see Attachment 3).” Paragraph L.3.2.3.3 states, in part, “A copy of the CPARS or PPQ must accompany the company effort submitted under Past Performance in paragraph 3.2.2.” Paragraph L.3.2.3.5 states, in part, “It is the Offeror’s responsibility to ensure that the project owner submits the PPQ and/or CPARS before the proposal due date.” |
Normally information contained in a PPQ or CPAR is considered proprietary by the contractor to whom it applies. As a result, subcontractors typically prefer to either submit their CPARs separately or, if they are requesting their customers to complete a PPQ, that customer typically would submit the completed PPQ directly to the CS/CO for the instant solicitation. The wording of paragraph L.3.2.3.3 implies that such CPARs or completed PPQs should be returned to the prime for inclusion in its proposal; the wording of L.3.2.3.5 implies that CPARs or PPQs should be submitted to the Government directly by the individuals responsible for completing them.
To ensure protection of proprietary information of subcontractors, would the Government please confirm that CPARs or PPQs for Past Performance examples of Past Performance by subcontractors should be submitted directly to the Contract Specialist/Contracting Officer for this acquisition by the individuals responsible for completing them?
Answer 6: Subcontractors may submit Past Performance directly to the CS/CO.
Question 7
| Ref.: | RFP para. L.3.3 |
| Question: | This paragraph makes no mention of a Price narrative. Our experience is that a narrative can provide important context and detail for the Government’s Price evaluation, thereby leading to a more well-grounded Best Value determination. |
Would the Government please confirm that offerors may submit a Price narrative in support of their Price proposal?
Answer 7: A short Price narrative of no more than one page of text may be included.
Question 8
| Ref.: | RFP para. L.3.1.1 |
| Question: | With regard to Level of Effort, under the current contract a Full Time Equivalent (FTE) is considered to be 1,880 hours per year. Given the recent addition of an 11th Federal Holiday (Juneteenth), will the Government stipulate that for evaluation purposes for this acquisition, a standard FTE equates to 1,872 hours? |
| Answer 8: | FTEs are considered 1,880 hours. It is well known there is variance in PTO packages, etc. thus including an additional holiday would not significantly change the calculus. |
Question 9
| Ref.: | RFP para. L.3.2.1, L.3.2.3.1 |
| Questions: | Paragraph L.3.2.1 instructs Offerors to submit “...each single task order project on a separate data sheet. Do not combine task orders and present them as one entire project.” In paragraph 3.2.3.1, the Government instructs the Offeror to submit evidence of the quality of its past performance. |
a) Are we correct that each task order submitted counts as one of the 3-to-5 past performance citations?
b) In situations where there is only a CPAR at the IDIQ level, not at the task order level, are we correct that the IDIQ-level CPAR will be acceptable for each task order under that same IDIQ?
c) In this circumstance, would it be acceptable to submit just one copy of the IDIQ-level CPAR rather than a separate copy for each task order?
| Answer 9a: | Each task order submitted counts are one of the 3 to 5 past performance citations. |
| Answer 9b: | That is acceptable. |
| Answer 9c: | That is acceptable. |
Question 10
| Ref.: | L.3.1.1 |
| Question: | Many of the PWS requirements appear in more than PWS paragraph. To avoid repetition, would the Government confirm that offerors may cross-reference other paragraphs within the Factor 1 response? |
| Answer 10: | Cross-referencing is allowed. |
Question 11
| Ref.: | L.3.3 |
| Question: | This paragraph states, in part, “The labor rates proposed for Task Order #1 shall be the rates proposed for the labor schedule that will be used to populate the rate schedule in Section B.” Will the Government please confirm that the labor rates proposed for Task Order #1 should NOT be discounted from the labor rates proposed for the SATOC? |
| Answer 11: | Labor rates for Task Order #1 should not be discounted. |
Question 12
| Ref.: | SATOC PWS and TO 1 PWS 3.0 |
| Question: | What current Oracle Financial Systems and products is USACE using on CEFMS? |
| Answer 12: | This is documented in PWS 1.2 and 4.4.3. All products are being used in development or production. |
Question 13:
| Ref.: | SATOC PWS and TO 1 PWS 4.1, 4.3 |
| Question: | Can the Government provide the server resources details of CEFMS II IT infrastructure? |
| Answer 13: | UFC cannot provide an answer to this question due to vagueness and potential IT security issues. |
Question 14:
| Ref.: | SATOC PWS and TO 1 PWS 4.2.3, 4.3.6 |
| Question: | Does USACE have a preferred testing site or do you want us to provide testing facilities (test network either hardware or cloud based)? |
| Answer 14: | UFC has a test environment for CEFMS II. |
Question 15:
| Ref.: | SATOC PWS and TO 1 PWS 4.4 |
| Question: | What are the current Oracle licensed products and what version? |
| Answer 15: | Products are documented in PWS 1.2 and 4.4.3. CEFMS II is on the current supported versions of all products. |
Question 16:
| Ref.: | SATOC PWS and TO 1 PWS 4.4 |
| Question: | Can the Government share the CEFMS Tech framework/architecture to provide additional details on the Oracle tech stack? |
| Answer 16: | UFC will not provide due to security risks. PWS has provided information on Oracle Products sufficient to respond to RFP. |
Question 17:
| Ref.: | SATOC PWS and TO 1 PWS 4.8 |
| Question: | Does CEFMS use any specific Configuration Management tools to manage the configurations across DEV, TEST, and PROD environments? |
| Answer 17: | PVCS is used for Configuration Management. |
Question 18:
| Ref.: | SATOC PWS and TO 1 PWS 4.11 |
| Question: | Can the Government provide the timeline for SQR and Oracle reports migration into Oracle Analytics Server? |
| Answer 18: | UFC estimates completing in FY25. |
Question 19:
| Ref.: | SATOC PWS and TO 1 PWS 4.11 |
| Question: | Is Golden gate being actively used in PROD environment, or is it ONLY limited to TEST & DEV environment? |
| Answer 19: | CEFMS II is not using Golden Gate in PRODUCTION. Golden Gate is currently being used in Development/Test environments. |
Question 20:
| Ref.: | SATOC PWS and TO 1 PWS 4.14 |
| Question: | Please provide additional clarification regarding 4.14 Mobile Applications. Is this for mobile app development? Is it for support? Is it for infrastructure? Is it an API? Please advise. |
| Answer 20: | Task is for mobile application development for selected CEFMS II modules. |
Question 21:
| Ref.: | SATOC PWS and TO 1 PWS 6.3 |
| Question: | States, “The primary place of performance will be at the USACE Finance Center, Millington, TN. The Government requires that the Project Manager and at a minimum of 20% of Contractor’s development staff be located on-site at USACE Finance Center, Millington, TN.” What is the Government’s rationale for the 20% on-site requirement? Considering the staffing requirements in Millington, we recommend that the Government allow a greater percentage of off-site personnel to increase performance stability. |
| Answer 21: | On-site staff helps to facilitate agile methodologies and complex design efforts. |
Question 22:
| Ref.: | SATOC PWS and TO 1 PWS 6.3 |
| Question: | States, “The primary place of performance will be at the USACE Finance Center, Millington, TN. The Government requires that the Project Manager and at a minimum of 20% of Contractor’s development staff be located on-site at USACE Finance Center, Millington, TN. Other Contractor staff may perform work at the Contractor’s Facility. Contractor facility must be available for Government inspection within 24 hours’ notice.” Will the Government allow remote personnel not at the contractor facility (e.g., we know that there are personnel currently in Huntsville)? Will the Government allow a smaller than 80% number of personnel at the contractor’s Millington site? |
| Answer 22: | The requirement if for 20% of staff to be located at USACE Finance Center, Millington. The remaining 80% can be remote within the Continental US only. |
Question 23:
| Ref.: | SATOC PWS and TO 1 PWS 6.3 |
| Question: | States, “Other Contractor staff may perform work at the Contractor’s Facility.” Is remote/ telework allowed outside the Contractor’s Facility? |
| Answer 23: | Yes, if within the Continental US. |
Question 24:
| Ref.: | Section B, L.3.3 |
| Question: | L.3.3 states, “Offerors shall submit proposed labor rates for each labor category listed above in Section B.” However, Section B reads: |
ITEM NO - SUPPLIES/SERVICES - MAX QUANTITY - UNIT - UNIT PRICE - MAX AMOUNT; then, 1 – Project - CEFMS Support Services: Base Year – FFP
Contractor shall provide all labor, management, and supervision necessary to perform custom programming support services for the Corps of Engineers Financial Management System (CEFMS) as defined in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) for the Base Year of the Period of Performance (POP). This CLIN includes the Phase-In Period from 1 May 2023 to 1 November 2023 in accordance with PWS Paragraph 6.4 "Phase-In" The full period of performance for this CLIN is 1 May 2023 to 30 April 2024.
FOB: Destination
PSC CD: DA01
MAX
NET AMT
There is no place to list each labor category per CLIN. How does the Government want Offerors to submit proposed labor rates per CLIN?
Answer 24: There is a table in Section B below the CLINs that is for labor rates. (see page 11 and 12 of the SF33) The rates are per labor category. The CLINs are for the contract ceiling amounts.
Question 25:
| Ref.: | Section B |
| Question: | There is a CLIN for Travel each year; however, where does the Government want the offeror to show the support for the travel cost? Or does the Government have a plug number (if so, please provide)? |
| Answer 25: | The “plug number” is the maximum amount specified in the CLINs in Section B. There is a Not To Exceed amount specified on the CLINs ending in “02”. (CLINs 0002, et. seq. 4002). If travel is requested for the first task order it should be proposed with the information in Factor 1 and cells mat be added to Attachment 5 if needed for travel. |
Question 26:
| Ref.: | Section B, Attachment 5 |
| Question: | Section B states, "The Contractor shall propose labor rates for each labor category on Attachment 5." Are Offerors allowed to add Labor Categories we believe to be appropriate to the list we propose? |
| Answer 26: | UFC will not allow additional labor categories, |
Question 27:
| Ref.: | L 2.2 |
| Question: | L 2.2 states, “Each file of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, Summary Section, and the Narrative discussion.” Are files to be submitted for each Volume or for each Factor? That is, four files (Volumes I through IV) or six files (Factors 1 through 5, plus Administrative Requirements)? |
| Answer 27: | One file per volume is required and one zipped file that combines everything. |
Question 28:
| Ref.: | L 2.2 |
| Question: | Does the Government want Offerors to provide acronym lists, and, if so, are such lists excluded from page count (as is the case for title pages and tables of contents)? |
| Answer 28: | Offerors should provide acronym lists. These lists are excluded from the page count. |
Question 29:
| Ref.: | L 3.1.3 |
| Question: | L 3.1.3 states, “Offerors shall submit a written narrative proposal which describes and demonstrates the Offeror’s technical understanding and approach to satisfy the support needs of the CEFMS II program as outlined in the SATOC PWS (Attachment 1).” Is this information to be included within Tab A and Tab B? Or is this demonstration of technical understanding a separate section prior to discussing Tab A and Tab B? |
| Answer 29: | Describe your understanding of the approach. Tab A is for the overall management approach and Tab B is for a required transition plan. Each tab is a required component of the offeror’s technical understanding and approach to the SATOC PWS. More may be added before or after the tabs; the information in the tabs shall be included. |
Question 30:
| Ref.: | L 3.1.1 |
| Question: | States, “Offerors shall submit a technical and price proposal response to the first Task Order that includes the Offeror’s proposed level of effort using the provided format in Attachment 5, and the Offeror’s technical approach to performing the requirement as described in the Task Order PWS.” Are Offerors required to address every PWS element, including down to the third and fourth levels? |
| Answer 30: | Yes. The proposal should address every PWS element. |
Question 31:
| Ref.: | L 3.1.2 |
| Question: | Are Resumes required with the letters of commitment? |
| Answer 31: | Resumes are required. |
Question 32:
| Ref.: | L 3.2.3.5 |
| Question: | States, “Offeror shall submit PPQs and/or CPARS with their proposals.” Considering the proprietary nature of CPARs and PPQs, please allow teammates to submit CPARs and PPQs directly to the Government. If so, please provide the email address to which they can send this material. |
| Answer 32: | The CPARs and PPQs shall be submitted to the Points of Contact listed in the SAM announcement. Mr. David A. Kaplan at email: David.A.Kaplan@usace.army.mil and a copy furnished to Mrs. Sally M. Williams at email: Sally.M.Williams@usace.army.mil. |
Question 33:
| Ref.: | SF33 |
| Question: | Due to the extensive requirements, including up to 150 pages for the Technical volume, please consider extending the deadline by 3 weeks to give all Offerors a better opportunity to fully describe their solutions. |
| Answer 33: | Proposals will be due Thursday, 29 December 2022 at 1630 (430pm), EST. |
| Question 34: | Is this a new requirement or is there an incumbent? If existing, can you please provide the contract number and if the incumbent can re-compete? |
| Answer 34: | The contract number is W912HQ18D0007. The incumbent is eligible to re-compete. |
| Question 35: | Please specify the challenges of existing tools and technologies used. |
| Answer 35: | Question is too vague for Government to answer. |
| Question 36: | What is the average duration for building new interfaces? |
| Answer 36: | There is no average. The interface duration varies based on data exchange and complexity of the interface requirements. |
Question 37: How often modifications of the existing interfaces are required to adjust to meet the federal mandates?
Answer 37: Historical data on this has not been tracked.
Question 38: How often implementation of “to be” processes is required as a result of Business Process Reengineering (BPR) for GPRAMA compliance?
Answer 38: UFC is continually evaluating CEFMS II for improvements in business processes each year for “to be” processes. These could be for GPRAMA compliance or compliance with various new public laws, regulations, and policy.
| Question 39: | Please specify the number of existing processes and interfaces. |
| Answer 39: | CEFMS II has 32 interfaces. The question on processes is too vague. CEFMS II has a multitude of processes. |
| Question 40: | Please specify the number of existing Stored Procedures and Microservices. |
| Answer 40: | This question cannot be answered in timeline for the RFP responses. This would require an analysis by technical personnel to provide. |
| Question 41: | Please specify the number of existing Roles, Groups, Authorization Items, and Users. |
| Answer 41: | Approximately 36,000 users. The available application user roles are 285. |
| Question 42: | Does the existing mobile interface using web interface or native mobile apps are used for Apple/Androids? Also, do they support the internationalization of country-specific languages? |
| Answer 42: | CEFMS II does not have any mobile applications. |
| Question 43: | What key-improvements the government intent to achieve with the exiting SLA? |
| Answer 43: | This question is unclear and cannot be answered. |
| Question 44: | Please clarify if the government is looking to use multi-cloud or want to use only one cloud for achieving high performance computing. |
| Answer 44: | One Cloud environment which has been decided by USACE CIO. |
| Question 45: | Please clarify if the government is looking to leverage ARM processor and migrating from X86. |
| Answer 45: | Yes, we are migrating for Solaris Operating System to Red Hat Linux. |
| Question 46: | Please clarify if the government is looking to leverage spot instances lower down cost while ensuring no data loss for achieving high performance computing. |
| Answer 46: | The cloud capabilities have been procured and will be managed by USACE CIO. |
| Question 47: | Please specify the cloud that the government intent to use for the high-performance computing such as AWS GovCloud, Azure, Google, Oracle cloud etc. |
| Answer 47: | CEFMS II will be migrating to the USACE Hybrid Cloud Solution that has been procured. |
| Question 48: | Would the government rate higher for CMMI/Dev III, ISO 9001:2015, ISO/IEC 27001:2013, and ISO/IEC 20000:2011 to provide quality work? |
| Answer 48: | Not a requirement per the RFP. |
| Question 49: | Would the government rate higher for DCAA-approved accounting systems to support Cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) contract that provides flexibility for unplanned work? |
| Answer 49: | This contract is Firm Fixed-Price. No CPFF task orders will be issued. |
| Question 50: | If an innovative solution can allow using heterogeneous technologies in a process, improve return on investment (ROI) of existing IT assets, minimizes the delay of the building required IT processes, and is instrumental in integrating third-party applications for improving the FITARA score, would the government rate higher vendors with such capabilities? |
| Answer 50: | No, the requirement is for IT support of a GOTS System, CEFMS II. |
| Question 51: | If a solution can eliminate the need for mapping data which is warranted by the WYSIWYG Forms Designer tools such as Skelta, UiPath, Appian, etc. and auto map forms data to downstream process while persisting the data under the hood, would the government rate higher vendors with such capabilities? |
| Answer 51: | No, this is not a requirement of the RFP. |
| Question 52: | If a vendor has experience working with a 3PAO and FedRAMP PMO office to get the ATO high data impact level (IL5) and submitted CMMC Level 3 (Self appraised) DoD SPRS system, would the government rate higher vendors who can bring CMMC and FedRAMP cyber security expertise? |
| Answer 52: | No, this is not a requirement of the RFP. |
| Question 53: | As security cannot be achieved just with ISO/IEC 27001 procedures, CMMC standards, or FedRAMP controls if the classified information, especially processing logic is revealed to IT experts. IT experts become the biggest insider-threat. As no-code automation can reduce the dissemination of sensitive/classified information, would the government rate higher vendors who can provide a no-code solution that lessens the dissemination of sensitive/classified information? |
| Answer 54: | No, this is not a requirement to support the CEFMS II application. |
| Question 55: | Despite capabilities provided by machine learning/artificial intelligence, an end-user requires an advanced understanding to implement them. Like a trained human, if a solution can leverage ML/AI under the hood and does not require its users to learn them. https://adventbusiness.com/try-it-now/. Would the government rate higher vendors who can provide an innovation beyond Ml/AI? |
| Answer 55: | No, this is not a requirement to support the CEFMS II application. |
| Question 56: | Do the existing workflows use or comply with Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN)? |
| Answer 56: | Not applicable to the CEFMS II requirement. |
| Question 57: | When the business process designers/business analysts perform a what-if analysis to find the best solution, does the incumbent require deploying the workflow process on each revision? |
| Answer 57: | Not applicable to the CEFMS II requirement. |
| Question 58: | Does the current system allow scheduling execution of a process by non-technical, authorized government personnel with an organic scheduler user interface? |
| Answer 58: | No. |
| Question 59: | If a no-code solution can connect to any database (Oracle, SAP HANA, MySQL, MSQL, Sybase, PostgreSQL, MongoDB, DB2, etc.) to expose their functions and stored procedures into microservices instantly. Such a solution can pull the data from many heterogenous systems for building data analytics/reports and benefit the Government, would the government rate higher vendors who can bring such automation capabilities? |
| Answer 59: | No, this is not a requirement of PWS for support of CEFMS II. CEFMS II is a fully integrated, enterprise financial management system and has been key in USACE receiving unmodified audit opinions due the integration of processes in ONE financial system. |
| Question 60: | If a vendor has a video player solution and does not need YouTube to play videos, would the government rate higher vendors who can bring such video playback capabilities? |
| Answer 60: | No, this would not rate vendors higher. Videos are required deliverables for training of CEFMS II modules. Vendors should provide technical responses for how they will develop documentation for evaluation. Government does not currently use YouTube to play videos. |
| Question 61: | If a vendor can build PowerPoints pragmatically from a template and backend data and avoid manual effort required for building PowerPoint reports, would the government rate higher vendors who can bring such auto PowerPoint Slide building capabilities? |
| Answer 61: | No, this is not a requirement to support the CEFMS II application. |
| Question 62: | If a vendor has a No-Code solution for Extract, Transform, and Load (ETL) that can build interfaces from the requirement specifications provided in spreadsheets format. The solution ingests source system and target system's metadata and implement the transformation logic beating capabilities provided by ML/AI, would the government rate higher vendors who can bring such no-code interface building capabilities? |
| Answer 62: | This is not a requirement of the RFP due to complexity of CEFMS II interfaces. |
| Question 63: | If a vendor has a solution that allows visualizing data via graphs and charts (pie/donut, horizontal/vertical bar, line/area, heatmap, bubble, equation, combo, etc.). Unlike Tableau and MS Power Bi, the vendor’s solutions do not require technical expertise and allow non-technical users to set type, size, position, color style, etc., and personalize their look and feel on its web-based dashboard and/or native mobile apps for Apple and Android, would the government rate higher vendors who can bring such data visualization capabilities? |
| Answer 63: | No, USACE already has Oracle Analytics for data visualization. |
| Question 64: | If a vendor has a solution that auto-builds forms for manual tasks of an IT process and eliminates the need for front-end developers. The solution requires no HTML/CSS expertise to customize the forms, would the government rate higher vendors who can bring such form design capabilities? |
| Answer 64: | No, this is not a requirement of RFP to support the CEFMS II application. |
| Question 65: | If a vendor has a solution that auto maps the forms with backend database Functions/Stored Procedures/Queries built by PL/SQL developers, and no one has to implement the process, would the government rate higher vendors who can bring such mapping capabilities? |
| Answer 65: | No, this is not a requirement of RFP to support the CEFMS II application. |
| Question 66: | If a vendor has a solution that allows multiple form designers to work on the same form concurrently and refine its layout with real-time testing, would the government rate higher vendors who can bring such form design capabilities? |
| Answer 66: | No, this is not a requirement of RFP to support the CEFMS II application. |
| Question 67: | If a vendor has a solution that can auto-generate forms based on the data fields specified in the BPMN diagram and outperforms the industry leader, UiPath requires manual effort to customize forms to handle human-in-a-loop automation, would the government rate higher vendors who can bring such auto GUI development capabilities? |
| Answer 67: | No, this is not a requirement of RFP to support the CEFMS II application. |
| Question 68: | If a vendor has a solution that can auto implement User-Friendly-Microservice* from any executable (Database Functions, Stored Procedures, C, C++, C#, Java, Python, JavaScript, Pertl, .Net, Ruby, COBOL, etc.) |
| Answer 68: | No, this is not a requirement of RFP to support the CEFMS II application. |
| Question 69: | Microservices developed with current industry standards are not user-friendly and require high technical expertise to use them. Therefore, Advent innovated User-Friendly-Microservice. With User-Friendly-Microservice, there is no need to know the technical complexity of restful services or get the expertise of the 3 C's of microservice - componentize, collaborate, and connect. Advent believes a user with basic business analysis skills (without knowing any coding) should be able to use Microservices to build models and automate workflow, would the government rate higher vendors who can bring such User-Friendly- Microservice auto implementation capabilities? |
| Answer 69: | No, this is not a requirement of RFP to support the CEFMS II application. |
| Question 70: | If a vendor has a solution that can provide Istio capabilities for an executable immediately after registering into the solution's repository. The solution secures the executable with TLS 1.2 encryption, zero trust authentication, authorization, load balance traffic, enables retries/failovers, applies rate limits and quotas, generates audit metrics, logs input/output for ingress and egress within a cluster container environment without requiring using Istio. Would the government rate higher vendors who can bring capabilities without using Istio? |
| Answer 70: | No, this is not a requirement of RFP to support the CEFMS II application. |
| Question 71: | Please confirm if the government considering making an exception to review demo of our innovation Enablement |
| Answer 71: | No one-on-one meetings are being scheduled for this requirement. The Government is not going to review a demonstration. |
| Question 72: | Can the government provide the actual number of staffed positions by labor category to allow vendors the ability to effectively price the firm fixed price effort? |
| Answer 72: | No. This is a business decision for individual offerors. Offerors should propose labor categories and staff based their understanding of the PWS requirements. |
| Question 73: | Can the government provide the SLA for system support and what is the target for the modernized system? |
| Answer 73: | Contractor is evaluated based on QASP. The target date to complete Modernization is FY27 |
| Question 74: | How many current tickets are in the CEFMS II Problem reporting system and what is the monthly average count of actions required? |
| Answer 74: | There are 310 open tickets currently. |
| Question 75: | Can the government clarify what is intended by this statement "The Contractor shall use the software development industry standards and industry best agile practices for providing the products and services required by the contract in the absence of specific contract requirements." |
| Answer 76: | This is self-explanatory. Please use the best industry standards for software development and agile methodologies where appropriate in the absence of a prescribed standard or method. |
| Question 76: | The Contractor shall provide a dedicated team beginning on the last day of the fiscal year to support the year end closing and resolve issues immediately until all USACE databases are closed and open for the new fiscal year business. Will the government share the issues that occurred during the FY22 close out to allow the vendors to appropriately plan for similar challenges in FY23 closeout? |
| Answer 76: | The government begins planning/testing for Year End (YE) in June prior to YE closeout to prepare for any issues that may be encountered. FY22 YE closeout process did not encounter any significant issues. |
| Question 77: | The Contractor shall provide support for data calls from Headquarters, auditors, and other external agencies. Can the government provide the number of FTEs expected to support this requirement based on FY22 data calls? |
| Answer 77: | The request varies each year. There are no FTEs solely dedicated to data calls. |
| Question 78: | To allow for fair competition, can the government provide the modernization schedule in order for all bidders? |
| Answer 78: | On average, approximately 5 modules have been modernized per year in each of the past 5 years and it is anticipated this schedule will remain consistent. |
| Question 79: | Is "Each disc shall be externally labeled with the volume number, date, and the offeror’s name." an error since all files are to be zipped and submitted via e-mail? If so, should offerors assume the Government means each volume shall be labeled with the volume number, date, and the offeror’s name? |
| Answer 79: | No discs are required. All submissions are electronic in the file formats specified. All volumes should be labelled with the volume number, date and offeror’s name. |
| Question 80: | One zipped file of the entire proposal is required per section 3.4.3. Can offerors break out submissions to keep e-mail submission below 10MB? |
| Answer 80: | Offerors may provide files individually if needed. Multiple emails to the POCs are allowed if needed. USACE emails can accept up to 25MB per email. The SF33 was amended accordingly in Section L 2.2. |
| Question 81: | Please share the governments timeline of when it wants to migrate the CEFMS II system to the cloud? |
| Answer 81: | Fiscal Year 2024 is when this migration is anticipated. |
| Question 82: | In order to provide fair competition, has the government identified the “selected CEFMS II functionality and Oracle forms” it wants to migrate to the cloud? |
| Answer 82: | All modules will be migrated. |
| Question 83: | Please provide a list of the 31 system interfaces using various connection methods used by the CEFMS II system? |
| Answer 83: | Please see Attachment 6 to the RFP. |
Question 84: The government states, "Volume I shall not exceed 150 pages." Volume I is comprised of three sections: - Response to First Task Order Project Technical Approach
- Experience
- Management Approach and Transition Plan
To ensure consistency of response structure and evaluation of content between offerors proposals would the government consider prescribing the page breakdown across the Volume I sections listed above.
Answer 84: The Government wants to provide offerors maximum flexibility in preparing proposals. Page limits would defeat that purpose.
| Question 85: | In Attachment 3, the government states, "NAVFAC REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO NAVFAC WITH THEIR PROPOSAL. However, proposal instructions on page 41 of the RFP, Section 1.0 General Instructions, state proposals shall be submitted to USACE POCs: Mr. David A. Kaplan at David.A.Kaplan@usace.army.mil and Mrs. Sally M. Williams at: Sally.M.Williams@usace.army.mil. Can the government confirm that the PPQs should be submitted only to the POCs referenced in RFP page 41. |
| Answer 85: | USACE and NAVFAC share a jointly used PPQ form. Submission is to the USACE personnel specified in the RFP. Attachment 3 was amended to remove references to NAVFAC and input references to USACE. |
| Question 86: | Project Manager and at a minimum of 20% of Contractor’s development staff be located on-site at USACE Finance Center, Millington, TN. Are the development staff and PM expected to be on-site 100% of the time? |
| Answer 86: | No. Currently, the 20% is on-site one day per week. |
| Question 87: | If the development staff and PM are not expected to be on-site 100% of the time, please provide the percentage of time the Program Manager and the rest of the development staff are expected to be on-site. |
| Answer 87: | Currently, the 20% is on-site one day per week. |
