B08.03 Answers to Questions for NDC MATOC dated 2024.11.08.docx

Question 1: In order to facilitate proposal organization and ensure compliance, can offerors use the following notation?

Answer 1: To support the review of proposals, offerors are to include a key/legend to the notation that is used, and can use the format that works best for them, but are asked to be as specific as possible when referencing pages/content of government-furnished documents.

Question 2: Per page 32, Section 3.1, can a transmittal/cover letter be included with Volume 1 and excluded from page count?

Answer 2: The transmittal/cover letter is included in the page count.

Question 3: Per page 32, Section 3.1, please confirm if the cover for volumes 1 and 2 will be excluded from page count.

Answer 3: The coversheet with your business logo and points of contract is excluded from the page count.

Question 4: Can you please confirm what should be included in the letters of commitment?

Answer 4: The letters of commitment should ensure the key personnel will be available to perform the requirements of the contract. Beyond that, the remaining content in the letters of commitment is an internal business decision to where the Government cannot dictate content.

Question 5: Per RFP, page 33, Section 3.1.2, USACE is requiring letters of commitment for at the MATOC level, however most of these individuals will not be fully engaged until task orders are released. We respectfully recommend that only a letter of commitment for the PM be required for the MATOC, and that letters of commitment for the remaining key personnel be provided at the TO level.

Answer 5: Letters of commitment are required for all individuals listed as key personnel.

Question 6: Per the RFP page 31, Section 2.2, “No price information may be included in Volumes 1, 2, 3 or 5.”

Please confirm that this does not include past performance contract values and small business participation dollar values.

Answer 6: Past Performance contract values and small business participation dollar values are not price information for the anticipated MATOC, thus should be included in their respective sections for Factor 3 and Factor 4.

Question 7: Per the RFP page 32, Section 2.4, “When applicable, the Offeror shall cross reference to the solicitation by annotating the solicitation reference in parenthesis, (e.g., Sec C, para 4.0).” Please confirm in what circumstances, if any, cross references must be used. Can offerors use the following shorter format instead (C.4)?

Answer 7: To support the review of proposals, offerors are to include a key/legend to the notation that is used and can use the format that works best for them, but are asked to be as specific as possible when referencing pages/content of government-furnished documents. See Answer 1 above.

Question 8: Per the RFP page 32, Section 2.4, “Each file of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, Summary Section, and the Narrative discussion. - The Summary Section shall contain a brief abstract of the file.”

Please confirm if this requirement applies to Volumes 4 and 5. If so, how should the table of contents be provided for the Price Sheet attachment?

Answer 8: This requirement does not apply to Volumes 4 and 5.

Question 9: Which labor category would Data Scientist fall under?

Answer 9:

While Data Scientist is understood to be a discrete skillset, the role of data scientist could be fulfilled by a Scientist, Engineer, Software Engineer, Artificial Intelligence Engineer, or others depending on the skills, capabilities, experiences, and seniority of the individual. Offerors are encouraged to highlight data science skills and experiences of key staff to demonstrate capacity to assign data science expertise in fulfillment of task orders that might require such expertise.

Question 10: Per the RFP page 39, Section 3.4, “Offeror’s labor rate price schedule must be submitted in the format of Attachment 5. The binding schedule must be signed as a PDF. The excel spreadsheet from Attachment 5 must be included to aid the price review team.”

Please confirm that the “binding schedule” is referring to a signed PDF copy of the Attachment 5, in addition to the Excel version of Attachment 5.

Answer 10: The signed PDF is binding. The Excel sheet should match the PDF. The Excel sheet is to aid the Price Evaluation Team. In the event of a difference between the PDF and the Excel, the PDF would govern.

Question 11: The Solicitation, p. 11 of 50, Price Schedule – Labor Rates: “The Price for each task order will be negotiated prior to issuance in accordance with the labor categories and the fully burdened labor rates as stated in the price schedule.” Should fully burdened rates include profit or will profit be negotiated on a task order basis?

Answer 11: Prices for each labor category should include profit.

Question 12: Please clarify whether Small Business Subcontracting Plans should be submitted upon notification of a successful offer, or with the offeror’s proposal. RFP page 36 of 50, Section L, Submission Instructions, subsection 3.3.1 states that: “Small business subcontracting plans will be required following notification to apparent successful offers that are other than small businesses.” However, this instruction contradicts Section I, Contract Clauses, that incorporates by reference FAR 52.219-9, Alternate II (Nov 2016). FAR 52.219-9, Alternate II (Nov 2016) states that: “(c)(1) Proposals submitted in response to this solicitation shall include a subcontracting plan…..Failure to submit and negotiate a subcontracting plan shall make the Offeror ineligible for award of a contract.”

Answer 12: All offerors must submit a small business participation plan for evaluation. This is distinct from a small business subcontracting plan. The participation plan is for factor evaluation for the Small Business Participation.

The subcontracting plan is binding within the contract. If an offeror is told they will receive an award and fails to provide an acceptable small business subcontracting plan, they would not be awarded a contract. A small business subcontracting plan is only required from other than small businesses. A small business subcontracting plan is required prior to award.

The FAR 52,219-9 Alt II provision does not conflict with this at all. The participation plan and subcontracting plan are used for different purposes. To provide uniformity of proposal requirements, all other than small businesses that submit proposals may defer submission of the subcontracting plan until after receiving notice they are one of the successful offerors. Only the small business participation plan is required for evaluation of the proposals.

Question 13: On RFP page 36 vs page 47, can USACE please clarify the difference in subcontracting percentages between the Small Business Plan template (30%), and the RFP evaluation criteria (20%)?

Answer 13: The Small Business Plan template is exactly that. It is a template that should be edited as needed to meet the requirements in the solicitation.

Further, the 20% goal relates to total contract value is for Small Business Participation Plan, which is a distinctly different metric than the 30% of subcontracted dollars [only] for the Small Business Subcontracting Plan. All offerors must submit a Small Business Participation Plan. Only the awardees that are other than small businesses must submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

Note the difference in metrics between the two documents.

The Small Business Participation Plan is a projection of anticipated small business participation in relation to the total contract value (please use the government specified maximum values as detailed on the SF 33) and is used for proposal evaluations. All offerors must submit a Small Business Participation Plan. See also Answer 12 above.

A Small Business Subcontracting Plan is only required of other than small businesses and compares to both the total contract value and also to the subcontracted dollars only. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan binding and is included in the contract.

Question 14: On RFP page 36 vs page 47, should the Small Business Subcontracting Plan to be submitted with the proposal (per 3.3.1) or after award (per 3.3.5)?

Answer 14: A Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be required of selected other than small business awardees (apparent successful offerors) only and must be approved prior to contract award. In the event an apparent successful offeror cannot provide an acceptable Small Business Subcontracting Plan they would not be eligible for award.

Small Businesses awardees are not required to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan. They are only required to submit a Small Business Participation Plan. See also Answers 12 and 13 above.

Question 15: Per the RFP page 33, Section 3.1.2, USACE is requesting “information on how the Offeror will maintain the functions outlined in the PWS (Attachment 1).”

Please confirm that the term ‘functions’ is referring to the mission support functions listed in PWS Section 3:

The incorporation of CW water resources mission support functions may include, but are not limited to the following:

Answer 15: The phrase ‘maintain the functions’ refers to sustainment of ability to successfully perform the functions described in Section 3 of the PWS.

Question 16: Per the PWS page 5, Section 3, related to “Modernization and Migration of Software for Operation from On-premise and/or Cloud Environments.”

Can USACE share its current roadmap for modernization, including specific priorities and timelines for cloud migration and software modernization efforts?

Answer 16: Priorities and timelines for modernization and migration of software for operation from on-premise and/or cloud environments will be determined as authorized and funded, and described in task order request for proposals.

Question 17: Per PWS pages 9-11, Section 5, do offerors need to include detailed responses to all requirements found in PWS Section 5 – General Requirements, or is a simple statement that the offeror will fully comply with all PWS Section 5 requirements sufficient?

Answer 17: The offeror needs to demonstrate their understanding of the requirements with which the offeror might express commitment to fully comply. Simply stating you will comply with the PWS requirements is not an adequate demonstration. Section 5 largely tends to feed into Factors 1 and 2.

Question 18: Per PWS pages 11-16, Section 6, do offerors need to include detailed responses to all requirements found in PWS Section 6 - Security and Safety Requirements, or is a simple statement that the offeror will fully comply with all PWS Section 6 requirements sufficient?

Answer 18: Offerors must confirm their understanding of the requirements and express their commitment to fully comply. A simple statement is sufficient for Section 6 of the PWS.

Question 19: Per PWS pages 16-19, Section 7, do offerors need to include detailed responses to all requirements found in PWS Section 7 - Special Requirements, or is a simple statement that the offeror will fully comply with all PWS Section 7 requirements sufficient?

Answer 19: Offerors must confirm their understanding of the requirements and express their commitment to fully comply. A simple statement is sufficient for Section 7 of the PWS with the exception of quality control. The offeror’s quality control processes should be demonstrated in the proposal.

Question 20: Per PWS pages 19-21, Section 8, do offerors need to include detailed responses to all requirements found in PWS Section 8 - Deliverables, or is a simple statement that the offeror will fully comply with all PWS Section 8 requirements sufficient?

Answer 20: Offerors must confirm their understanding of the requirements and express their commitment to fully comply. A simple statement is sufficient for Section 8 of the PWS.

Question 21: Per the RFP page 33, Section 3.2, “Past Performance and must not exceed 30 pages, excluding the Past Performance Questionnaire Forms” Please confirm that CPARs will also be excluded from page count if provided in lieu of a PPQ.

Answer 21: CPARS are excluded from the page count if provided in lieu of PPQs. See also Answer 22 below.

Question 22: The USACE Past Performance Questionnaire, included as Attachment 2, is provided for the offeror to submit to the client for each contract the Offeror includes in its proposal for this Factor. Can the Government confirm that a PPQ does not have to be completed if a CPARS record is available for the reference?

Answer 22: CPARS are required when available, thus a PPQ for the same past performance example would become redundant and is not required.

Question 23: The Offeror shall provide a completed Contractor performance evaluation, whether annual or final, found in the Contractor Performance Assessment Rating System at website: www.cpars.gov. Can the Government confirm that CPAR records are excluded from the 30-page limit for Volume 2 – Factor 3: Past Performance?

Answer 23: CPARS records are excluded from the page count. See also Answer 22 above.

Question 24: Offerors shall propose the Key Personnel identified by the Government for this requirement and submit resumes demonstrating the appropriate education, knowledge, and experience. Can the Government confirm that resumes and letters of commitment are excluded from the page count for Volume I – Technical?

Answer 24: Letters of commitment are excluded from the page count. Resumes are excluded in the page count. Resumes may not exceed 2 pages each.

Question 25: Per RFP page 32, Section 3.1, Please confirm that resumes will be excluded from the Volume 1 page limitation.

Answer 25: See answer to 24 above.

Question 26: Offerors shall propose a minimum of 1 Key Person for the following categories: Senior Principal Investigator, Program/Project Manager, Software Engineer, Cybersecurity Engineer, Data Scientist, Engineer, Scientist, for this requirement with adequate education (including certifications) and experience as detailed in the MATOC PWS. Can the Government confirm that for Key Personnel the Program Manager and a Project Manager are two separate positions as depicted in the PWS and must include a resume and LOC provided for each?

Answer 26: The key Program/Project Manager may be two separate individuals -or- be a single individual if the individual is demonstrated to be capable of fulfilling both Program Management and Project Management roles (if needed).

Question 27: Offerors shall propose a minimum of 1 Key Person for the following categories: Senior Principal Investigator, Program/Project Manager, Software Engineer, Cybersecurity Engineer, Data Scientist, Engineer, Scientist, for this requirement with adequate education (including certifications) and experience as detailed in the MATOC PWS. The key personnel list depicts the “Program / Project Manager,” as one position. However, the MATOC PWS has separate requirements for each role. Do we submit a resume fulfilling either of the requirements for this position?

Answer 27: The KEY Program/Project Manager may two separate individuals -or- be a single individual if the individual is demonstrated to be capable of fulfilling both Program Management and Project Management roles (of needed). As such resumes submitted for the individual(s) identified to serve the roles of Program Manager and/or Project Manager should reflect requirements for the position(s) to be filled.

Question 28: Offerors shall propose the Key Personnel identified by the Government for this requirement and submit resumes demonstrating the appropriate education, knowledge, and experience. Are additional years of relevant experience in lieu of a bachelor’s degree acceptable for Key Personnel?

Answer 28: For consideration, where degrees are required by law or policy to perform specific functions/roles, no substitution is permitted. Absent such requirement a combination of education and specialized experience (equivalent to that obtained through a degree program) directly related to the position may be substituted. A minimum of 6 years of specialized experience directly related to the position may be substituted for a bachelors degree, and 8 years of specialized experience directly-related to the position may be substituted for a master’s degree.

Question 29: Since this MATOC is a partial small business set-aside, can the government provide clarification regarding how many awards will be set-aside for small businesses?

Answer 29: There is no predetermined number as the answer depends on the quantity and quality of the proposals received. It is anticipated that 2 or 3 contract awards will be made for the small business set-aside portion of the MATOC PWS.

Question 30: The Offeror that signs the SF33 shall provide its past performance information regarding recent and relevant efforts and the quality of those efforts to demonstrate accomplishments and capabilities to successfully perform and accomplish the effort required by this RFP. Can the Government confirm that subcontractor past performance references can be used as part of the proposal response for Volume 2 – Past Performance?

Answer 30: Yes, but this would tend to cover the past performance of a major subcontractor or subcontractor, thus the prime must have their own independent past performance examples. The examples for the prime can be from their own performance as a prime contractor or as a subcontractor.

Question 31: There are three different lists of staff types in the solicitation:

a) Appendix B Descriptions,

b) Pricing Spreadsheet,

c) Factor 2 Key Personnel

Most of the staff types line up across all three lists, but there are some inconsistencies. To help us be compliant and complete with the proposal requirements, please consider the following:

For Key Personnel, the solicitation requests a resume for Program/Project manager. Please clarify which labor category(ies) is (are) being sought (e.g. program manager, project manager, or one of each)

For Key Personnel, the solicitation requests a resume for Data Scientist. This is not found in the other two lists. Please clarify the requirements of this staff category similar to what is seen for the other categories in Appendix B Descriptions.

Answer 31: While Data Scientist is understood to be a discrete skillset, the role of data scientist could be fulfilled by a Scientist, Engineer, Software Engineer, or Artificial Intelligence Engineer depending on the skills, capabilities, and experiences of the individual. Offerors are encouraged to highlight data science skills and experiences of key staff to demonstrate capacity to assign data science expertise in fulfillment of task orders that might require such expertise.

Question 32: On page 27 PWS – Item (o) is not an AIS service and does not appear to align with the rest of Section 3.5. Is it perhaps misplaced or a typo? Please clarify.

Answer 32: Item (o) is misplaced in the PWS. Item (o) summarizes a scope of sought services described in Section 4 of the PWS.

Question 33: On page 36 solicitation, paragraph 3.3 - which states a mandatory goal for the Small Business Subcontracting Plan of 30% of the subcontracted amount going to small businesses. Please confirm that a large business may use a small business subcontracting goal that is greater than 30%. Thus, the language would be a “minimum” goal.

Answer 33: This a mandatory minimum of subcontracted dollars only as distinguished from total contract value. See also Answer 12 above.

Question 34: On page 33 solicitation – First sentence under 3.1.2 looks very similar to the sentence shown under 3.1.1. Is it perhaps misplaced or a typo? Please clarify.

Answer 34: : This was a typo, the written narrative for Factor 2 as detailed in paragraph 3.1.2 must demonstrate the offerors Organizational Management, Structure and Key Personnel Availability that will support the requirements in the PWS. The SF 33 Section 3.0 Evaluation Factors, paragraph 3.1.2 is amended accordingly.

Question 35: The Price Schedule – Labor Rates table on page 11 does not include the Administrative/Clerical, Software Senior Engineer, Software Engineer, Information Technology System Engineer, and Cloud System Engineer labor categories, could the government add them to the table?

Answer 35: The SF 33 section B was amended accordingly. All labor categories were matched to the MATOC PWS Appendix 1a

Question 36: On pages 32-33 Factor 2 – Organizational Management, Structure, and Key Personnel Availability requires a written narrative that describes and demonstrates the technical understanding and approach to satisfy support needs of USACE IWR as outlined in the PWS.

This appears to be duplicative of the requirements for Factor 1 – Technical Understanding and Approach. Can USACE please confirm if this requirement is located in the correct Factor?

Answer 36: This was a typo, the written narrative for Factor 2 as detailed in paragraph 3.1.2 must demonstrate the offerors Organizational Management, Structure and Key Personnel Availability that will support the requirements in the PWS. The SF 33 Section 3.0 Evaluation Factors, paragraph 3.1.2 is amended accordingly. See also Answer 34 above.

Question 37: Per the RFP on pages 32-33, “The offeror shall submit documentation detailing the capabilities to be made available via the Offeror’s multi-disciplinary staffing plan and their alignment with the Government’s expressed needs.”

The RFP appears to be asking for staffing plans in both Factor 1 and Factor 2.

Can USACE please clarify that staffing should only be addressed in Factor 2?

Answer 37: Staffing should be addressed in Factor 2.

Question 38: On page 33, in section 3.1.2: Factor 2 – Organizational Management, Structure and Key Personnel Availability, paragraph 3, can the government remove the Data Scientist from the Key Personnel requirements as it is not listed in Appendix A; the cost excel workbook; or the Price Schedule – Labor Rates table on page 11.

Answer 38: While Data Scientist is understood to be a discrete skillset, the role of data scientist could be fulfilled by a Scientist, Engineer, Software Engineer, or Artificial Intelligence Engineer depending on the skills, capabilities, and experiences of the individual. Offerors are encouraged to highlight data science skills and experiences of key staff to demonstrate capacity to assign Data Science expertise in fulfillment of task orders that might require such expertise. See also Answer 31 above.

Question 39: Per RFP page 33, Section 3.1.2, please confirm which Labor Category corresponds with Data Scientist key role identified in the RFP.

Answer 39: The role of data scientist could be fulfilled by a Scientist, Engineer, Software Engineer, or Artificial Intelligence Engineer depending on the skills, capabilities, and experiences of the individual and the requirements of the task order. See also Answer 31 and 38 above.

Question 40: RFP page 33, Section 3.1.2, can offerors submit a single candidate for more than one key role?

Answer 40: Yes.

Question 41: On page 35, Section 3.2.3 Quality, paragraph 1, it references Attachment 3, which is the Small Business Participation Plan, could the government confirm this is the correct attachment reference?

Answer 41: This is a typo. The PPQ is Attachment 2. On the SF33, section 3.2.3 quality was also renumbered to 3.2.4 given that there were two 3.2.3’s.

Question 42: In section 7.6 Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) the government references the QASP in Appendix B in which the Contractor’s Task Order Performance will be measured against. However, there is no Appendix B or referenced QASP in the solicitation documents. Can the Government provide the QASP?

Answer 42: The Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) is included with the amendment 002 to the solicitation as Attachment 6.

Question 43: Many of the labor categories minimum qualifications include a requirement for years of experience “working on large or complex water resources projects”. This type of requirement restricts the pool of qualified candidates and minimizes competition. Will the government consider amending this language to be “water resources or expertise within the PWS related tasks”, which would allow for broader experience in working on complex, multi-agency projects?

Answer 43: The language in the PWS was amended accordingly.

Question 44: Within the cost excel workbook, the following labor categories are missing: Software Senior Engineer, Software Engineer, Information Technology System Engineer, and Cloud System Engineer labor categories, could the government add these labor categories to the workbook and redistribute the total current number of hours, which is set at 68,500 hours, to maintain a reasonable/realistic average hourly labor rate.

Answer: 44: These numbers were estimates only. Those labor categories can be added to the Excel workbook and redistributed per the offeror’s understanding of the requirement. See also Answer 46 below.

Question 45: Will the government confirm that the 3% escalation rate is government directed or can the offeror propose a different escalation rate that is more in line with Bureau of Labor Standards (BLS) data?

Answer 45: The 3% is a placeholder to ensure the formulas in Excel were working.

Question 46: Will the government confirm that the level of effort show in Attachment 5 is only an estimate of hours and the offeror can propose their own level of effort based on how they would execute the PWS requirements?

Answer 46: The quantity of hours is an estimate only. Offerors may redistribute per their understanding of the requirements in the PWS. See also Answer 44 above.

Question 47: Please confirm that the Small Business Subcontracting Plan only needs to contain Small Business Commitment Goals for the Total Contract Value for the complete period of performance. If Small Business Commitment Goals are required for each option year in addition to the complete period of performance, please provide the contract value per option year to be used to calculate the Small Business Commitment Goals.

Answer 47: The Small Business Subcontracting Plan needs values per option year and for the total contract value. Values are found in section B of the SF33 for the maximum order size per each CLIN series. i.e. 000x are base year; 100x are option year 1, and so forth.

Question 48: Is the Government or Contractor going to provide the DEV environment for this project or task orders?

• I.E. in the RFP it specifically notates the CWBI DevSecOps, could you please provide the type of build this CWBI DevSecOps is? Also, is there any instances were development hasn’t occurred previously within this environment, and under what circumstances does that occur?

Answer 48: AWS Cloud TEST and PROD environments are available for many of the systems that the contractors would be supporting. The contractors would be requested to perm all TEST and PROD activity in the existing TEST and PROD environments. Contractors should have access to their own cloud DEV environment to allow for delivery of any development support. The government is planning to have an AWS DEV environment available within the next year. As such contractors should be prepared to switch from their DEV environment to the government’s DEV environment once the government’s environment is available.

Question 49: It appears that the current system is not very GIS intensive, do you anticipate incorporating more GIS functionality into the system in the future?

Answer 49: Yes.

Question 50: Please provide a list of the server architecture, database(s) and programming languages currently used in each of the systems:

Answer 50: Specifics of server architecture, database(s) and programming languages used for each of the systems will be provided at time of task order request for proposals. Offerors are encouraged to refer to provided and publicly available information. LPMS, TOWS, and NTNI are all hosted on the same Oracle RDS separated by schema. LPMS utilizes an APEX front end. NTNI utilizes ORDS data services to drive a JavaScript front end. TOWS and its subcomponents utilize a variety of front ends that are containerized with Docker, with the exception of ORDS:

MD+ uses APEX Foreign (Census, Lloyds, VMS, etc.) uses JavaScript front ends and also have Java components The API uses GraphQL Our routing approve/interface uses JavaScript frameworks DIS is hosted separately in a PostgreSQL RDS, with a JavaScript framework front end deployed using AWS Lambda.

Question 51: Per RFP Section 2.5, page 44, in order to provide a comprehensive understanding of requirements and a detailed approach related the AIS/data systems listed: Lock Performance Monitoring System; Dredging Information System; Notices to Navigation Interest Information System; Transportation Operations and Waterborne Statistics System.

Please provide architect diagrams, technology stacks, technical reference models, data flow diagrams, integration points, and data sources and types. This data is especially important to non-incumbents when developing the best technical solutions for USACE.

Answer 51: Specifics of server architecture, database(s) and programming languages used for each of the systems will be provided at time of task order request for proposals. Offerors are encouraged to refer to provided and publicly available information.

Question 52: Do any of these systems currently employ real-time monitoring, computer vision, or any other “remotely sensed” data as inputs to the system?

Answer 52: Use of real-time automated data fees is presently limited, but of interest (subject to availability of funding to implement further exploitation of capabilities). LPMS receives real-time data vessel position data, via Automatic Identification System signal, for some locks and is in the process of expanding the capability of locks to automatically report some vessel statistics in real time.

Question 53: Will offerors be provided with access to the source code and system configuration information as part of the task order bid process?

Answer 53: Information about source code and system configuration would be shared as part of the task order bid/award process.

Question 54: Does USACE rely on an outside source for AIS data? If so, whom is your current vendor?

Answer 54: Offerors are encouraged to refer to furnished and publicly available information.

Question 55: In addition to the technical support there are several other SME’s that are requested that will vary widely in rates: Climate Change; Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis and Engineering; Integrated Water Resources Management; Sediment Management; and Asset Management/USACE Infrastructure Strategy/Public Private Partnerships/Financing. Do you anticipate a blended rate?

Answer 55: The government anticipates the SME’s labor rate would be commensurate with a labor category that best describes the specific role to be served by the SME for a particular task order.

Question 56: What is the rate escalation process over the five-year contract?

Answer 56: Escalation should be built into the labor rates proposed for each labor category.

Question 57: Is the user support anticipated to be 24/7/365? Or will it be more software ticketing and bug reporting?

Answer 57: The nature of user support will be determined at time of task order request or proposal. Such support will include software ticketing, bug reporting, and remedy delivery. Such support may include up to 24/7/365 user support subject to individual task order requirements.

Question 58: Is in-person training anticipated under this contract?

Answer 58: The nature of user support will be determined at time of task order request or proposal. Modes of delivery may include development of web-based content, remote instruction, and in-person instruction.

Question 59: Does USACE currently have a preferred training platform/process?

Answer 59: Offerors are encouraged to refer to furnished and publicly available information.

Question 60: The solicitation mentions professional conferences, exhibitions, etc., is it anticipated that the contractor would make these presentations or provide content for USACE staff to present?

Answer 60: The nature of user support will be determined at time of task order request or proposal. Offerors are encouraged to refer to furnished and publicly available information.

Question 61: How many projects awarded under the MATOC in the last five years required CAC cards, Government Furnished Equipment? Will Contractor employees receive a CAC to run through the five-year contract period?

Answer 61: The majority of task orders involving support on AISs have required provision of contractors with government-furnished equipment (and CACs) for the duration of the task order. If needed for the task order, contractors will be provided government-furnished equipment (and CACs) for the duration of the task order.

Question 62: Are there other certifications that may be required that are not included in the RFP, that are anticipated to certify the technology stack, either current or future, existing upgrade or transformation work?

Answer 62: Offerors are encouraged to refer to furnished and publicly available information.

Question 63: Twelve of the Twenty (12 of 20) labor category descriptions list the position as being a subject matter expert (SME). An SME is a typically a senior staff with many years of experience. Based on the descriptions and the hours presented in price template spreadsheet, most of the task orders will be staffed by senior-level staff. Is it the intention that task orders would primarily be staffed by senior-level staff?

Answer 63: The work is intended to be staffed by individuals capable of fulfilling the required roles with greatest value to the government (combination of cost and value-added). Subject matter experts are expected to possess sufficient expertise over the domain of the roles/responsibilities assigned to the individual for a specific task order.

Question 64: The price template spreadsheet combines the multiple positions into the same rate (e.g., IT, AIS, Cloud, and IS engineers are combined). Is it the intention that all of these positions would use the same rate?

Answer 64: Where multiple titles are lumped into a single labor category, the estimated hours per year are applied to the group as a whole, though the individual labor rates may vary by title.

Question 65: Reviewing the estimated hours in the price template, the staff labor rates will have to be really low to meet the overall contract value. This would only allow for limited use of mid-level or senior-level staff. Would IWR consider lowering the estimated hours/year so the labor rates could better reflect current market conditions?

Answer 65: See Answers 44 and 46 above.

Question 66: This is a two-part question, please provide the technology stack for the named programs mentioned within the RFP, also, could you please discuss how far a long that USACE IWR is, in regard to the cloud migration and transformation, as it states to specific programs mentioned in this RFP?

Answer 66: Specifics of server architecture, database(s) and programming languages used for each of the systems will be provided at time of task order request for proposals. Offerors are encouraged to refer to provided and publicly available information.

LPMS, TOWS, and NTNI are all hosted on the same Oracle RDS separated by schema. LPMS utilizes an APEX front end. NTNI utilizes ORDS data services to drive a JavaScript front end. TOWS and its subcomponents utilize a variety of front ends that are containerized with Docker, with the exception of ORDS:

MD+ uses APEX Foreign (Census, Lloyds, VMS, etc.) uses JavaScript front ends and also have Java components The API uses GraphQL Our routing approve/interface uses JavaScript frameworks DIS is hosted separately in a PostgreSQL RDS, with a JavaScript framework front end deployed using AWS Lambda.

The DIS, LPMS, and NTNI data systems are operated in an AWS cloud environment. A cloud version of TOWS is in development with some components under development, some being tested, and some operating from an AWS cloud environment. A legacy version of the TOWS system remains operating from the USACE Central Processing Center until such time that the cloud TOWS becomes operational (Slated to be DEC-2025).

Question 67: Artificial Intelligence Disclosure:

• What are the specific requirements for disclosing the use of artificial intelligence in the development, testing, and delivery of services and products?

Answer 67: The Government needs to see how this impacts cybersecurity.

Question 68: Security Protocols:

Answer 68: AT Level 1 is the requirement for anyone working on this contract with a CAC. Background checks required for obtaining a CAC will be performed by Government Security Officer for task orders requiring CACs. The contractor is required to furnish the government with required information and documentation in accordance with provided timelines. If/As needed for individual task orders, the contractor will assign staff possessing required clearances, and statuses of required clearances will be verified by Government Security Office.

Question 69: System Maintenance and Development:

Answer 69: Expectations will vary. Most applications referenced in the PWS are operated from an AWS cloud environment. Some USACE applications are operating from a MS Azure cloud environment. The government anticipates seeking support with updates to data entry, management, reporting, publication, and visualization environments and interfaces. Offerors are encouraged to refer to furnished and publicly available information for more detail about the scope of support.

Question 70: Data Management and Cybersecurity:

Answer 70: Offerors are encouraged to refer to furnished and publicly-available information concerning roles/responsibilities associated with Risk Management Framework, Information System Security Officer services, and required training and certifications. Offerors are expected to possess understandings of such requirements.

Question 71: How will the government handle changes in personnel or subcontractors during the contract period?

Answer 71: Notification is made to the Contracting Officer and reviewed by the technical points of contract. Usually, no objection is made if replacement personnel are adequately qualified.

Question 72: Scope and Objectives:

Answer 72: The majority of task orders involving support on AISs have required provision of contractors with government-furnished equipment (and CACs) for the duration of the task order. If needed for the task order, contractors will be provided government-furnished equipment (and CACs) for the duration of the task order.

Question 73: Section 508:

• For All 508 compliant materials, could you provide the current processes and software USACE and IWR utilize to comply with this, do you have a preferred set of tools or software utilized to comply with Section 508?

Answer 73: Our public websites are scanned by USACE CIO/G-6 for 508 compliance. We are provided scan results, but not access to their toolset. Any toolset that can scan for 508 compliance can be evaluated for acceptance within the execution of a given task order. In the past this was handled through browser extensions, but these are largely disabled in 2024.

Question 74: We respectfully request an extension to the current delivery date of this RFP to November 22, 2024, the RAIs are not due until afternoon of October 24, 2024, whereas, the timeline for receipt or clarification, or to incorporate any amended changes to the RFP, may hinder the ability to appropriate align based on Government responses.

Answers 74: The RFP was extended via amendment 001 and is extended further via amendment 002.

Question 75: Is there a file size limit for email submissions?

Answer 75: The file size limit per email is 25MB. Files may be sent in separate emails or via DOD Safe.

Question 76: The Evaluation Criteria appear to have some overlap in required information under Factor 1 and Factor 2. Can USACE provide some additional clarification on the difference in technical understanding and approach required under each of the Factors as well as the multi-disciplinary staffing plan (Factor 1) versus the staffing details required under Factor 2?

For example, Factor 1 requires the offerors to provide a narrative for their “Technical Understanding and Approach to satisfy the full scope of the support needs of IWR…”. Factor 2, also requires that “Offerors shall submit a written narrative in their proposal which describes and demonstrates the Offer’s technical understanding and approach to satisfy the support needs of the USACE IWR…” . Similarly, Factor 1 requires offerors to submit a detailed “multi-disciplinary staffing plan” while Factor 2 requires “detailed information as to their approach to effectively staff, manage and oversee quality of work…” as well as information on staff capabilities, time and personnel requirements, and information on how Offerors will meet programmatic deadlines…”.

Answer 76: See Answers 34 and 36 above.

Question 77: Per the PWS page 7, Section 4, can USACE provide a comprehensive list of all current analytical, decision-support, and data management tools in use today?

Answer 77: Offerors are encouraged to refer to furnished and publicly available information.

Question 78: Per the PWS page 6, Section 3.5, How does USACE provision and manage its cloud infrastructure for the AIS/Data Systems?

Is this directly provisioned and managed with this team or are services requested and provisioned by another team?

If it is provisioned by another team, who and what is the process for requesting and provisioning cloud services for the AIS system?

If another team is responsible for cloud infrastructure, will they also handle the security, monitoring, and maintenance of this infrastructure?

Answer 78: Services are requested an provisioned by another team within the Civil Works Business Intelligence (CWBI) group. At the time of writing, services are setup and managed by Zivaro, and RMF accreditation of that infrastructure is managed by Paragone Solutions Inc., both of whom are contracted with CWBI.

Service requests are initiated through JIRA ticketing within CWBI’s Platform One project. Workflows within JIRA have been established to ensure correct authorizations and approvals are in place before any actions occur on such tickets.

The team in charge of the cloud infrastructure is in charge of security and maintenance of the infrastructure itself. If a task order is written for O&M of a specific module, it is expected that the awardee will provide monitoring, security, and maintenance for that module. The distinction being that optimizations and fixes for the application can exist outside of hardware or operating system changes.

Question 79: Per the PWS page 8, Section 4.1.3, how is end user support, training, and system help documentation developed and delivered today? Is this centralized for all AISs/data systems or decentralized by individual AIS/data system?

Answer 79: Development of training has been compartmentalized and specific to the individual AIS/system due to sources, levels of funding, and specific needs of user’s communities. Training on systems operated/maintained by the NDC is centralized.

Question 80: Per the PWS page 8, Section 4.2.1, does USACE have specific data privacy or security requirements for data used within AI/ML models or analytical methods?

Answer 80: Privacy and security requirements that are applicable to a specific module and its data, which should be identified by the Confidentiality/Integrity/Availability (CIA) assessment, would also be applicable to any analysis of said data, with or without AI/ML models.

These requirements would be incorporated into each task order, but the following documents are likely to apply:

USACE

ER 25-1-112

Information Technology Architecture

33 USC 555 and its implementing regulation 33 CFR 207.800 for the collection of Navigation Statsitics

18 USC 1905 and 33 CFR 209.320 for the protection of commercial data

Question 81: Per the PWS page 8, Section 4.3.1, if offerors are required to provide training, what are the preferred delivery methods for training content? Is there a preferred balance between virtual, in-person, and self-paced e-learning modules?

Answer 81: The preferred delivery methods will be identified in Task Order Request for Proposal based on context-specific requirements, but may include virtual, in-person, and self-paced options (including publication-ready manuals, instructional materials, videos, and e-leaning modules).

Question 82: Per PWS page 8, Section 4.1, offerors must “Develop, modify, and/or present materials for training courses on topics including (but not limited to) data collection and management, data analysis, economic analysis, and decision analysis and decision making.”

Can USACE confirm if offerors will be providing the training itself or only the materials for the training?

Answer 82: The requirements will be defined in task order request for proposal and may include delivery of the training material and/or provision of materials to be presented by USACE. See also response to question 81.

Question 83: Per the PWS page 8, Section 4.3.2, For professional conferences and exhibitions, are there specific formats or exhibit types that have been most successful, and are there preferred platforms for virtual exhibitions?

Answer 83: Specific formats/requirements will be defined in task order request for proposal. The USACE has pivoted to using MS Teams for most virtual engagements.

Question 84: On page 44, Section 2.5 the following is listed as an evaluation criterion: “Artificial Intelligence and their government-internal and public-facing applications.”

Please provide context regarding what this means relative to the proposal evaluation.

In addition, please identify where this applies in the PWS.

Answer 84: The government will be looking for awareness of how artificial intelligence is being or could be applied by the government (USACE in particular) in support of data system operations, data management, data analysis, and data visualization/communication. Offerors are free to identify which capabilities and requirements might benefit from artificial intelligence.

Question 85: Per page 44, Section 2.5, Does USACE have a vision or roadmap which can be shared showing what it would like to achieve with AI relative to the PWS?

Answer 85: Offerors are encouraged to refer to furnished and publicly available information.

Question 86: On page 44, the Evaluation Criteria for Factor 1 states “Offeror’s proposal must include a comprehensive discussion of understanding of the PWS requirements, and provide a detailed description of the Offeror’s approach to addressing each that demonstrates an understanding of the technical expectations listed in the PWS regarding, but not limited to, the following: [LPMS; DIS; NTNI; TOWS;] Automated Information Systems; Artificial Intelligence and their government-internal and public-facing applications.”

• Artificial Intelligence is not described in the PWS but it is an evaluation criteria. Can USACE please clarify that Offerors need to demonstrate our understanding and approach to AI under Factor 1?

Answer 86: The government…