AMP IPPSA 1st Draft RFP Question and Answer 5 DEC 2023.pdf

1ST DRAFT REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL - QUESTIONS/COMMENTS/FEEDBACK ON DRAFT RFP

# Document Page Number Reference Questions/Comments/Feedback from Potential offeror Government Response

Section G, Part 2

23 of 53 In the draft section on deviation from rates, the final sentence reads "Monthly average charged direct labor rates shall be no more than 5% of proposed negotiated rates." Did the government mean to say that the average direct labor rates shall be no more than 5% higher than the negotiated rates?

Section G, Paragraph 2 updated to reflect "Monthly charged direct labor rates shall be no more than 5% higher than the proposed/negotiated and approved rates at the time of award."

23 of 53 Level of Effort -

CPFF

Will the Level of Effort table provide specific LOE for each CLIN, and will the PI CLINS all be of equal LOE mix and durations?

USG anticipates CPFF LOE applying to Program Management CLINs only.

40 of 52 Draft RFP indicates work location as “Government Site” unless otherwise annotated. This has implications for both Pricing and Technical Approach.

Can the Government provide any insight into how many positions will be annotated otherwise, and how flexible this will be in execution?

Also, does the Government understand current challenges in predicting Direct Labor for fully on-site employees?

USG is taking consideration to work locations and will update the final RFP accordingly.

23 of 53 Deviation from Rates parts 1.a, b, c

What is the documentation requirement for Government approved or caused delay vs Contractor delay?

Will this require modifications each time? How resource intensive is this for both the Government and the Contractor?

USG intends to monitor delay IAW the QASP.

Can PI over/under run evaluations be considered in aggregate instead of by PI? Maybe by contract year?

The Government anticipates refining the requirements for the final RFP.

35 of 53 Element 1 Why is PWS 5.2 Task 2 called out as the task that does not need to be answered to the subsection level?

What about 5.3 and 5.4, do they have to be answered down to the subsection level?

Please see revisions provided under Draft RFP release dated 22 November 2023.

36 of 53 Contract or order period of performance, including option periods, shall be, at a minimum two

(2) years.

How will the 2 years be counted in an example like NP2 TO2? The TO POP is 18 months, but the IDIQ contract POP is 5 years…RMI TO 1 was one year, and was followed by TO 2, which is basically the same requirement, but also a 1 year TO.

If an IDIQ had two task orders that are different in nature, can we choose to use them individually, or as one reference?

Please see revisions provided under Draft RFP release dated 22 November 2023.

Are PSFT software licenses included in this effort? Will the Government provide software ODC plug numbers for Jira, CAMEO, EVMS, etc.?

Yes. And yes, the licenses Cost CLIN will be a normalized.

Will contract support personnel like BFMs or SFOs be included as direct labor or instead be included in wrap rates? CDRL, Fin Management, Staffing Onboarding

Question is unclear, USG is unable to provide a response.

PWS 5 What do you really want? Is the ultimate goal to get incremental rollouts of payroll populations to production?

The objective is to incrementally deliver AMP functionality.

PWS 5 Are the 5 main development/release categories for grouping purposes only and not meant as hard and fast release sequences?

As stated in the PWS, this is a notional depcition of funtionality, not intented to repressent a release plan.

PWS 16-17 PeopleSoft Global Payroll Systems Architect – how hard and fast is the requirement for: K: 5 or more years of experience with data modeling tools such as IBM System Architect, CAMEO, ARIS, and MagicDraw – can the System Architect experience be provided via a different person.

See final RFP for for requirement.

Draft RFP

W91CRB-

24-C-0003

36 Section L.2, Volume II:

Factor 2 – Corporate Experience

Subsection

(i.)

(contract informatio

n) and

Subsection (c.)

(minimum requiremen ts)

Subsections (i.) and (c.) request a percentage of the effort, based on the total cost of the work... , performed by the offeror.

Subsection (i.) defines work as "work in the proposed example," while Subsection (c.) defines work as that "required in the proposed contract or order." Is the proposed example and the proposed contract or order referring to the same thing? If they are referring to different things, please define the difference (e.g., what is the proposed example? sounds like it could be a scenario).

Yes. The final release will ensure consistent terminology.

Draft RFP

W91CRB-

24-C-0003

36 Section L.2, Volume II:

Factor 2 – Corporate Experience

Subsection

(n.)

(contract informatio n)

Subsection (n.) requests details regarding the length of time required to deliver working software. Will the Government explain what type of details would fulfill this request?

The Government anticipates refining the requirements for Agile Corporate Experience in the final RFP, please see subsection (n) for revision.

Attachment

1 AMP

PWS (Draft

– Oct. 27, 2023) -

W91CRB-

24-R-0003

6 Section 1.2.3, Army

Military Payroll

Description

Would the Army consider adding a sixth functional category for Financial System/General Ledger Integration given the significance of this function to the success of AMP? If added, this new category could house the “Accounting Integration” tasks embedded within the other categories (#6 within Assignments, #4 within Duty Participation, #7 within Payroll, #5 within Deductions/Collections) and Treasury Direct Disbursement.

USG will consider your proposal in accordance with the RFP.

Attachment

1 AMP

PWS (Draft

– Oct. 27, 2023) -

W91CRB-

24-R-0003

6 Section 1.2.3, Army

Military Payroll

Description

How does the Government intend to handle Pay related HR dependencies from a scope perspective? Is this work deemed to be within the scope of Capability Support, or does the Government consider this to be within the scope of the AMP contract? For example, Assignment functionality is listed in AMP but is currently in the scope of the Capabilities Support Contract that is active today and we recommend it remains in Capabilities Support as it is HCM functionality versus Pay.

See PWS Reference 004, AMP Functional Requirements List, in the AMP final RFP, for AMP requirements to be delivered.

Attachment

1 AMP

PWS (Draft

– Oct. 27, 2023) -

W91CRB-

24-R-0003

6 Section 1.2.3, Army

Military Payroll

Description

Is the Government considering adding the 1 week Retrospective/Inspect and Adapt week to the CLIN structure to better align with the 13 week PI Interval (six 2-week Sprints, plus 1 week of Inspect and Adapt) defined within the Notional PI Plan?

No. Final RFP will reflect revisions to the CLIN structure and PI, as necessary.

Attachment

1 AMP

PWS (Draft

– Oct. 27, 2023) -

W91CRB-

24-R-0003

37 Section 5.5, Task 5

Governme nt Software

Reuse Integration

Our understanding is that Task 5 allows the Government to evaluate Government available payroll solutions deemed compatible with PeopleSoft Global Payroll implementation for reuse into the AMP solution to accelerate solution delivery. Can the Government clarify how this task integrates with the other tasks defined within the PWS, and how the Government plans to evaluate Offeror’s proposed approaches to Government Software Reuse Integration?

The Contractor is being asked to evaluate Government available payroll solutions as part of their PI Planning and Sprint Execution efforts during post-award contract execution in conjunction with Tasks 2 and 3 aligned with the Program Roadmap being executed by the Contractor.

Attachment

1 AMP

PWS (Draft

– Oct. 27, 2023) -

W91CRB-

24-R-0003

27 Section 5.2, Task 2

Is the Government intending to rename "value streams" to "feature groups" so that bidders' solutions align to Agile terminology?

Question is unclear. The term "value stream" was used as an "example" under PWS Section 5.2, Task 2.

2 QASP

5.0 - Governme nt Surveillanc e - Table 1

Would the Government consider changing the Planned vs.

Completed thresholds to be based on a '+' or '-' variance threshold as opposed to a straight calculation to incentivize the Pay vendor to be more transparent with respect to planned activities.

No, the Government does not believe that a + or - variance is conducive to achieving a quality product.

Attachment

2 QASP

5.0 - Governme nt Surveillanc e - Table 1

Where is the Government drawing the line from the perspective of measuring Planned vs. Completed story points? Will this be measured at the PI/ART level or the Sprint level? We would recommend measuring Planned vs.

Completed at the Sprint level given that level of estimation during Sprint Planning would be at the granular story point level, as opposed to at the PI Planning level (features which are less refined).

The final RFP QASP Attachment will provide measurement processes.

Attachment

1 AMP

PWS (Draft

– Oct. 27, 2023) -

W91CRB-

24-R-0003

Section 1.6, Contract Structure

Is the Government considering adding the 1 week Retrospective/Inspect and Adapt week to the CLIN structure to better align with the 13 week PI Interval (six 2-week Sprints, plus 1 week of Inspect and Adapt) defined within the Notional PI Plan?

No. Final RFP will reflect revisions to the CLIN structure and PI, as necessary.

Attachment

2 QASP

5.0 - Governme nt Surveillanc e - Table 1

Will the Government consider modifying the Defect Count measure that tracks the % of defects per lines of code given that it will be difficult to compute this value for PeopleSoft/PeopleCode given the proprietary nature of the language?

Yes. This measure is under review and will not use lines of code as a data point. The final RFP QASP will reflect the revision.

1 AMP

PWS (Draft

– Oct. 27, 2023) -

W91CRB-

24-R-0003

40 Section L.2, Volume IV: Factor

4 - Cost/Price

Would the Government consider requiring only Major Subcontractors , those providing critical services or whose subcontract is more than 10% of the estimated contract ceiling, to provide sealed (unsanitized) subcontractor price and cost volume proposals?

Each offeror may have multiple subcontractors to support the overall proposed technical solution. The subcontractor participations in the technical proposal may vary in size from 1 employee to many, based upon the technical expertise they provide.

Requiring each subcontractor, of less than 10% of the estimated contract ceiling, to prepare sealed (unsanitized) to include a cost volume and pricing proposal may be extremely onerous on the subcontractors, as well as the government evaluation.

Each offeror utilizing subcontractors is required to do a price analysis of all subcontractor's submitted rates (FAR 15.404- 3(b)) hi l i i

No.

Draft RFP

W91CRB-

24-C-0003;

Attachment

1 AMP

PWS (Draft

– Oct. 27, 2023) -

W91CRB-

24-R-0003

Page 35;

Section L.2, Volume I Factor 1

Element 3-- Manageme nt Plan, page 35;

AMP PWS

(Draft – Oct. 27, 2023) -

W91CRB-

24-R-0003, Section 1.7.9, page

Will the Government consider having each bidder propose key personnel from their entire team (inclusive of subcontractors) based on the Prime's solution?

No.

Draft RFP

W91CRB-

24-C-0003;

Attachment

1 AMP

PWS (Draft

– Oct. 27, 2023) -

W91CRB-

24-R-0003

Page 35;

Section L.2, Volume I Factor 1

Element 3-- Manageme nt Plan, page 35;

AMP PWS

(Draft – Oct. 27, 2023) -

W91CRB-

24-R-0003, Section 1.7.9, page

Will the Government consider allowing the pool of key personnel talent come from the Prime and the Prime's subcontractors?

The Prime or Sub-contractor has the autonomy to select personnel based on business discretion and is not directed by USG, however the Prime or Sub-contractors are not required or limited to KP being selected from current personnel or onboarded from industry. The KP are required to be proposed IAW the RFP.

Draft RFP

W91CRB-

24-C-0003 Section L.2

Orals

Page 34 Section L.2, Volume I Factor 1

Element 3-- Manageme nt Plan, We recommend that Phase 1 be limited to the Orals Technical Presentation (Volume V: Factor 5 - Oral Presentation) and the Written Proposal (Volumes I, II, III, IV, VI) be included in Phase II of the two-phase acquisition strategy.

No response to recommendation.

Draft RFP

W91CRB-

24-C-0003 Section L.2

Orals

Page 34 Section L.2, Volume I Factor 1

Element 3-- Manageme nt Plan, Can the Government please provide the Orals scenario in the final RFP?

The Orals scenario will not be identified in the final RFP. It will be a Challenge identified during the Oral Demonstration.

Draft RFP

W91CRB-

24-C-0003 Section L.2

Orals

Page 34 Section L.2, Volume I Factor 1

Element 3-- Manageme nt Plan, Will the Government consider allowing the Orals Presenters to be defined by the Offeror?

No.

Draft RFP

W91CRB-

24-C-0003

Page 25;

TELEWO

RK, page

25; Section L.2, Volume I Factor 1

Element 3-- Manageme nt Plan, Given the importance and sensitivity, we recommend that all labor be required appropriately cleared CONUS personnel.

OCONUS-based personnel represent a potential risk to the Government.

No OCONUS Personnel are required IAW the RFP.

DRAFT RFP

W91CRB-24-

C-0003_ 27

OCT

2023.pdf

2-18 Section B Will the Government please clarify if the Army will train IPPS-A stakeholders on SAFe methodologies or if they require an optional SAFe Training CLIN to support IPPS-A in their SAFe transformation journey?

No, SAFe training is not a requirement for USG personnel or stakeholders, to be received from the offeror.

DRAFT RFP

W91CRB-24-

C-0003_ 27

OCT

2023.pdf

2-18, 39 B, L.2 The Draft RFP and PWS are inconsistent in their description of CLINs, CLIN types, and period of performance. We recommend the Government please make the CLIN and POP descriptions consistent across the Draft RFP and PWS to reflect a six-month base period and up to seven one-year Option Periods, aligning Task 1 as Firm Fixed Price (FFP), Tasks 2-4 as Firm Fixed Price (FFP) or Time & Materials (T&M), and Tasks 5-6 as CPFF. This change provides the Army with:

• Alignment to strategic objectives and roadmap providing greater confidence in delivery outcomes, incentivizing contractor to innovate

• Persistent capacity-based team aligned to program-level prioritized backlog and able to quickly respond to project priorities

• Minimal delays in staffing and enablement time due to reduced contract modifications

• Lower contract administration costs (up to 80% reduction in time executing contract mods)

USG acknowledges Suggestion for CLIN structure and type. USG will ensure CLIN, CLIN types and periods of performance/delivery dates are consistent in the final RFP.

DRAFT RFP

W91CRB-24-

C-0003_ 27

OCT

2023.pdf

32 L.1.2 Section L.1.2, paragraph 4, describes the proposal submission as one that should be conducted via "eBuy";

however, Section L.1.1 requires Offerors to submit proposals via email. Will the Government please confirm that this procurement will not use eBuy for proposal submissions?

Section L.1.2, paragraph 4, "Offerors shall not submit any assumptions, terms, conditions, caveats, or exceptions with their proposals. All concerns shall be addressed and resolved by submitting questions by the date specified in paragraph 2 above. No assumptions, terms, conditions, caveats or exceptions submitted with proposals in response to RFPs will be accepted or incorporated into the resulting award." remains to coincide with the required AMP submission through email as stated under Section L.1.1 and L1.2.

DRAFT RFP

W91CRB-24-

C-0003_ 27

OCT

2023.pdf

33 L.1.2 Section L.1.2 excludes "a table of contents, cover page, and glossary page" from the page limits. Will the Government please allow Offerors to also provide a Compliance Cross- Reference Matrix to aid in the identification and evaluation of a proposal, which would also be excluded from page limits?

Noted. The Government anticipates refining the requirement in the final RFP.

W91CRB-24-

C-0003_ 27

OCT

2023.pdf

34, 38-39 L.2 Section L.2 includes a table of contents for Phase 1 with notes on page limits. The Section L.2 Volume III instructions for Small Business Participation allude to a page count for the volume by stating that most of the content is excluded. Will the Government please confirm that there is no page limit for Volume III: Factor 3 - Small Business?

The Volume II, Factor 2 - SB Participation Plan is limited to 5 pages, but the substantiating documentation required in Section L, Factor 2, paragraph 1 is excluded from the page count.

Edited to reflect "Volume II, Factor 2 - SB Participation Plan", which will reflect under the final RFP.

DRAFT RFP

W91CRB-24-

C-0003_ 27

OCT

2023.pdf

35 L.2, Factor 1, Element 1

In the Section L.2 instructions for Volume I, Element 1, Offerors required to address Tasks 2–4 from the PWS. Tasks 5, 6 and 8 do not appear to be included in any of the Draft RFP Section L elements. Will the Government please consider adding these additional tasks and their related PWS sections to one of the Draft RFP Section L elements along with appropriate page count?

The second Draft RFP revised this Factor.

DRAFT RFP

W91CRB-24-

C-0003_ 27

OCT

2023.pdf

35 L.2, Factor 1, Element 3

The Government's PWS requirements for Key Personnel exceed three pages and contain extensive requirements for years of experience. The only reference to Key Personnel within the Draft RFP is the requirement for Offerors to include a "skills and experience profile for each Key Personnel" within the 30-page Technical Volume. To allow Offerors the page count to provide a compliant and complete response, will the Government please confirm that KP Skills and Experience Profiles can be included as an appendix excluded from the 30-page limit for Factor 1?

The second Draft RFP revised this Factor.

W91CRB-24-

C-0003_ 27

OCT

2023.pdf

35 L.2, Factor

"Offerors shall submit three (3) examples of contracts or task to demonstrate experience with executing requirements of a similar size and scope to those required in the PWS with focus on the following areas:

1. Developing solutions with PeopleSoft HCM and Global Payroll

2. DoD Military Payroll and it’s critical interfaces (e.g., DJMS, TRANSPOC, RLAS, GFEBS, Treasury) and business rules relative to Laws, Policies, Regulations (LPRs))

3. Implementing a Develops environment

4. Implementing a CI/CD pipeline to automate the build, testing, and deployment of software."

Will the Government please clarify how the four Corporate Experience "focus" areas align to minimum requirements under the Government's evaluation? We agree that focus areas 1 and 2 are critical for all relevant Corporate Experience examples. We recommend focus areas 3 and 4, while important, be considered complimentary and not as stand-alone evaluation factors. Specifically, for the

Noted.

DRAFT RFP

W91CRB-24-

C-0003_ 27

OCT

2023.pdf

36 L.2, Factor 2.e

The Section L.2 instructions for Volume II require the Offeror to provide the "Requiring Activity or Customer" within each Corporate Experience example. Will the Government please confirm that Offerors should list the name of the "Ordering Entity" in this field? If this is not correct, please clarify what Offerors should provide in response to this requirement.

USG will accept "ordering entity" in addition to "Requiring activity or Customer".

W91CRB-24-

C-0003_ 27

OCT

2023.pdf

36 L.2, Factor 2.h-i

The Section L.2 instructions for Volume II require Offerors to provide the "relationship to the Prime Offeror" and a "percent of effort" based on work performed "as...subcontractor" within each Corporate Experience example. These requirements appear to be directed at subcontractors.

There is also a related restriction that Offerors "shall NOT propose corporate experience examples of subcontractors or teammates." In addition to the current minimum requirements of (a) through (e), will the Government please confirm that each Corporate Experience example must also be a contract or order performed by the Offeror in their capacity as the prime contractor?

Noted. The Government anticipates refining this in the final RFP.

DRAFT RFP

W91CRB-24-

C-0003_ 27

OCT

2023.pdf

36 L.2, Factor

The Section L.2 instructions for Volume II include the following sentence: "Submission requirements in accordance with L.15.2.3 are not included in the page limitations for L.15.2.1." Sections L.15.2.1 and L.15.2.3 were not included in the Draft RFP. Will the Government please update the references or provide Sections L.15.2.1 and L.15.2.3 to allow Offerors to comply with these instructions and page limitations?

Noted. The Government anticipates refining this in the final RFP.

DRAFT RFP

W91CRB-24-

C-0003_ 27

OCT

2023.pdf

38 L.2, Factor

The Section L.2 instructions for Volume III require all Offerors to "submit a Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) as outlined in Attachment 000X – SBPCD." Will the Government please provide the SBPCD attachment to allow industry to review and prepare for submission?

The Government will include the attachment in the final RFP.

DRAFT RFP

W91CRB-24-

C-0003_ 27

OCT

2023.pdf

38 L.2, Factor

The Section L.2 instructions for Volume III include a reference to "Volume IV – Past Performance."

Will the Government please confirm that these instructions should refer to Volume II: Factor 2 - Corporate Experience? If this assumption is incorrect, will the Government please provide instructions and evaluation criteria for Volume IV – Past Performance?

Noted. The Government anticipates refining this in the final RFP.

W91CRB-24-

C-0003_ 27

OCT

2023.pdf

39 L.2, Factor

The Section L.2 instructions for Volume IV require each "OFFEROR AND SUBCONTRACTOR [to] complete the Cost Model found within Attachment XX in its entirety (xxxxCOSTxxxx.xlsx)." Later in the same paragraph, the Cost Model is referred to as "(Attachment 3)", which is currently the DD Form 254. Will the Government please provide the Cost Model and update all references to it?

Noted. The Government anticipates refining this in the final RFP.

DRAFT RFP

W91CRB-24-

C-0003_ 27

OCT

2023.pdf

40 L.2, Factor

The Section L.2 instructions for Volume IV require Offerors to "disclose the location (Government site or the Contractor site per the PWS) of each proposed labor category’s performance in their respective cost proposal(s);" however, a disclaimer follows that states, "unless otherwise annotated all positions will be performed at a Government site." Will the Government please confirm that Offerors are required to provide rates for both Government and Contractor sites?

Noted. The Government anticipates refining this in the final RFP.

DRAFT RFP

W91CRB-24-

C-0003_ 27

OCT

2023.pdf

40 L.2, Factor

The Section L.2 instructions for Volume IV allow Offerors to support proposed Direct Labor Rates with FPRAs or FPRRs. Will the Government please confirm that Offerors can also use FPRPs to support Direct Labor Rates, as is permitted for supporting Indirect Labor Rates on page 41 of the RFP?

Yes, if the FPRPs are submitted to DCAA/DCMA and pending review, the FPRP is allowable to support offeror rates.

W91CRB-24-

C-0003_ 27

OCT

2023.pdf

43 L.2, Factor

"After down selecting the Offerors based on the evaluation results of Factor 1 - Technical Approach and Factor 2 Corporate experience in Phase 1, Oral Presentations/Demonstration presentations will be scheduled with the remaining Offerors."

Will the Government please provide additional information regarding Oral Presentation logistics and evaluation including: personnel limits;

timeframe; virtual vs. in-person;

expected format and content including interactive Q&A; and evaluation criteria?

We recommend in person Oral Presentations that consist of two elements: Element 1 – Oral Presentation, Element 2 – Scenario Response.

Element 1 – Oral Presentation:

Contractors will provide a conceptual approach and articulate technical understanding of the requirement. The oral presentation shall articulate the contractor’s successful experience implementation Payroll solutions. In addition, the presentation should

DRAFT RFP

W91CRB-24-

C-0003_ 27

OCT

2023.pdf

44 L.2, Volume

VI

Please note that the Section L.2 instructions for Volume VI - General include several references and statements that do not appear to be relevant to this solicitation. For example, L.2, Volume VI, Element 1, paragraph d refers to a nonexistent Section L.15.4.2.5. Will the Government please provide updated instructions to allow Offerors to comply and meet the expectations of the Source Selection Team?

Noted. The Government anticipates refining this in the final RFP.

DRAFT RFP

W91CRB-24-

C-0003_ 27

OCT

2023.pdf

45 L.2, Volume VI, Element

The Section L.2 instructions for Volume VI, Element 3, Subcontracting refer to Offerors who plan to "subcontract more than 70 percent of the total cost of work."

This appears to be unrelated to this solicitation. Will the Government please confirm that Element 3 does not apply and will be removed from the Volume VI - General instructions?

W91CRB-24-

C-0003_ 27

OCT

2023.pdf

45 L.2, Volume VI, Element

The Section L.2 instructions for Volume VI, Element 3, Subcontracting require Offerors to "identify in its technical proposal...the amount of the Offeror’s indirect costs and profit/fee applicable to the work…". This instruction contradicts several statements that prohibit Offerors from including cost information in the Technical Proposal.

Will the Government please confirm that Offerors are not to include cost information in the Technical Volume?

Offeror shall not include cost information under any Factor or Volume with exception of Vol III - Factor 3 - Cost/price

DRAFT RFP

W91CRB-24-

C-0003_ 27

OCT

2023.pdf

45 L.2, Volume VI, Element

The Section L.2 instructions for Volume VI, Element 4, Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) Declaration/Mitigation Plan requires Offerors to "include a statement affirming that there are no known actual or potential OCIs within its xxxxOCIxxxx.docx." This instruction is listed under Volume VI - General.

Since there is already a document dedicated for this volume (xxxxGENERALxxxx.docx) and the OCI statement is already required in Element 1, Cover Letter, will the Government please confirm that no additional submissions are required of Offerors when "no known actual or potential OCIs" exist?

Noted. The Government anticipates refining directions for OCI submission in the final RFP.

DRAFT RFP

W91CRB-24-

C-0003_ 27

OCT

2023.pdf

47 M.A Will the Government please clarify, based on the Basis of Award in Section M, whether or not Volume III:

Factor 3 is what will be use to evaluate whether an Offeror is "rated acceptable for Small Business Participation"?

Volume II - Factor 2 Small Business Participation will be evaluated IAW the final RFP. Edited to reflect "Volume II, Factor 2 - SB Participation Plan", which will reflect under the final RFP.

DRAFT RFP

W91CRB-24-

C-0003_ 27

OCT

2023.pdf

47 M.A Will the Government please clarify, based on the Basis of Award in Section M, whether Factor 1 Technical and Factor 2 Corporate Experience will be evaluated with one collective score or scored separately, as is typical?

The final RFP will revise factors and removes Factor 1 - Technical.

DRAFT RFP

W91CRB-24-

C-0003_ 27

OCT

2023.pdf

47 M.A Will the Government please confirm, based on the Basis of Award in Section M, that Volume VI General will not be evaluated?

Volume IV - General will be evaluated IAW the final RFP.

W91CRB-24-

C-0003_ 27

OCT

2023.pdf

48, 53 M.B; M.C, Volume VII

Section L refers to Volume VI - General but Section M refers to Volume VII - General and Volume VII - Compliance. Will the Government please confirm the references to Volume VII - General and Volume VII - Compliance in Section M are typos and do not indicate excluded or skipped volumes from Section L?

The second Draft RFP revised this reference.

DRAFT RFP

W91CRB-24-

C-0003_ 27

OCT

2023.pdf

48 M.C The Evaluation Approach in Section M states the following: "For the purposes of the evaluation, the term “Offeror” refers to the Offeror and all major subcontractors." Will the Government please clarify what constitutes a "major" subcontractor?

We recommend a major subcontractor be required to provide a minimum of 50% of the total subcontracted work.

Noted. The Government anticipates refining this in the final RFP.

DRAFT RFP

W91CRB-24-

C-0003_ 27

OCT

2023.pdf

48 M.C The Evaluation Approach in Section M states the following: "For the purposes of the evaluation, the term “Offeror” refers to the Offeror and all major subcontractors." Will the Government please clarify whether or not, based on this statement, non-major subcontractors are to be considered part of the "Offeror" and how the contributions of non-major subcontractors will factor into evaluation of Small Business Participation?

Noted. The Government anticipates refining this in the final RFP.

DRAFT RFP

W91CRB-24-

C-0003_ 27

OCT

2023.pdf

50 M.C, Factor

Within the Section M Evaluation Approach for Factor 1 - Technical, the Government says they "will evaluate the proposed labor categories, hours, and mix in Element 3: Management Plan with any narratives provided to justify the additional labor categories and hours for realism to support the cost realism analysis." Such narratives are not requested in Section L and typically contain cost information.

Section L states explicitly "cost information shall not appear in the Technical proposal." Will the Government please confirm that any narratives to justify additional LCATS and hours for realism to support cost realism analysis should be provided as part of Volume IV - Factor 4, separate from the page and content restrictions of Volume I?

Final RFP, "Factor 1 - Technical" is removed.

W91CRB-24-

C-0003_ 27

OCT

2023.pdf

53 M.C, Volume VII

Within the requirements for Volume VII - General in Section M, the Government refers to a "Volume III - OCI/Declaration/Mitigation Plan."

Section L.2 lists Volume III as Factor 3 - Small Business and has the OCI document included as a part of Volume VI - General. Will the Government please confirm that OCI is to be included within Volume VI - General and not as a separate Volume

III?

Final RFP, Volume IV: General includes OCI submission requirements.

Attachment

1 - IPPS-A

Army Military Payroll PWS

- DRAFT -

27 OCT

2023.pdf

1, 2 1.1 We recommend the Government please consider including scope for the Offeror to perform data profiling in support of Government data cleansing throughout the implementation.

Noted. The Government anticipates refining this in the final RFP.

Attachment

1 - IPPS-A

Army Military Payroll PWS

- DRAFT -

27 OCT

2023.pdf

6 1.2.3 PWS 1.2.3 lists "payroll capabilities [that] have been implemented and are included in the production baseline:

22 pay triggers, 4500+ Pay business rules, 178 Pay elements defined in PeopleSoft Global Pay, 369 total Pay elements defined, 90 Pay scenarios."

Will the Government please clarify if these capabilities are already designed, and if so, will the Government please provide the design documentation?

Statement has been updated. They have not been designed within the current production baseline

Attachment

1 - IPPS-A

Army Military Payroll PWS

- DRAFT -

27 OCT

2023.pdf

6 1.2.3 PWS 1.2.3 lists "payroll capabilities [that] have been implemented and are included in the production baseline."

Will the Government please clarify whether a development inventory already exists for these capabilities, and if the capabilities have been tested and verified against existing DJMS rules?

These have not been developed; just identified.

A development inventory does not exist.

1 - IPPS-A

Army Military Payroll PWS

- DRAFT -

27 OCT

2023.pdf

15-19 1.7.9 The PWS requires specific certifications and types of degrees for Key Personnel roles. These requirements are restrictive and limit highly qualified candidates from participating in this effort despite possessing equivalent certifications or years of experience. We recommend the Government please allow years of experience and/or comparable certifications as equivalent for required degrees and certifications for all Key Personnel roles, to prevent the exclusion of otherwise highly qualified and experienced candidates.

Noted. The Government anticipates refining this in the final RFP.

Attachment

1 - IPPS-A

Army Military Payroll PWS

- DRAFT -

27 OCT

2023.pdf

15-19 1.7.9 The Chief Scrum Master role, as described in PWS 1.7.9.3.a, requires "10 or more years of acquired knowledge applying agile processes and tools on multiple large-scale IT-related development programs." We recommend the Government please acknowledged the importance and difference in applying Agile specifically to ERP systems by changing this requirement to "5 or more years' of experience applying Agile processes and tools to ERP programs."

Noted. The Government will revise the requirement to be "5 or more years' of experience applying Agile processes and tools to ERP programs."

Attachment

1 - IPPS-A

Army Military Payroll PWS

- DRAFT -

27 OCT

2023.pdf

15-19 1.7.9 The Draft RFP allows inclusion of state, local, international, and non-governmental awards for the Corporate Experience volume, yet the PWS 1.7.9.1i-j requirements for the Program Manager role require 10 or more years of experience specifically in the Federal, DoD, Army, or Intelligence Community (IC) spaces.

We recommend the Government please allow state, local, international, and non-government experience to be equivalent for all Key Personnel requirements specific to Federal, DoD, Army, or IC. This change would prevent the exclusion of otherwise highly qualified and experienced candidates and be consistent with Corporate Experience requirements.

Noted. The Government will revise the requirement to be "10 or more years of experience specifically in the Federal, DoD, Army, or Intelligence Community (IC), and State spaces;

10 or more years of experience specifically in the Federal, DoD, Army, or Intelligence Community (IC) spaces preferred.

1 - IPPS-A

Army Military Payroll PWS

- DRAFT -

27 OCT

2023.pdf

17 1.7.9.2.n The PWS 1.7.9.2 PeopleSoft Global Payroll Systems Architect role requires a technical degree "plus 10 years’ relevant experience with PeopleSoft HCM 9.2 implementation experience." PeopleSoft HCM 9.2 was released in 2013. As written, a compliant candidate must have continuous experience with the software since its launch along with a specific type of degree. These requirements are restrictive and limit highly qualified candidates from participating in this effort. We recommend the Government please change this requirement to read "plus 10 years' relevant experience with Oracle/PeopleSoft inclusive of PeopleSoft HCM 9.2."

Noted. The Government anticipates refining this in the final RFP.

Attachment

1 - IPPS-A

Army Military Payroll PWS

- DRAFT -

27 OCT

2023.pdf

17 1.7.9.3.b-f The PWS 1.7.9.3.b-d and f requirements for the Chief Scrum Master role require five or more years of relevant experience. PWS 1.7.9.3.e, however, requires a minimum of two IT development programs as Agile Scrum Master. This requirement implies that a candidate with five or more years of Agile Scrum Master experience, but only on one program, would be deemed noncompliant despite having equivalent years' of experience as a candidate with two programs. Will the Government please confirm that highly qualified Agile Scrum Master candidates who have been on one program only will still be considered compliant if they meet the years' of experience requirements?

Noted. The Government will revise the requirements to be one program; two programs preferred.

Attachment

1 - IPPS-A

Army Military Payroll PWS

- DRAFT -

27 OCT

2023.pdf

21 3.1 PWS 3.1 states that the "Government will provide computer equipment (primarily laptops)" with LAN/WAN access to "NIPRNet and SIPRNet." In response to an Industry Day question, the Government indicated that they "do plan on including SA for AMP in the period of performance." Will the Government please confirm that two IPPS-A MP solutions are required:

one in the Army's NIPRNet and one in the Army's SIPRNet?

Confirmed

1 - IPPS-A

Army Military Payroll PWS

- DRAFT -

27 OCT

2023.pdf

27 5.2 Will the Government please confirm that DoD acquisition phase-gate milestones (SRR, PDR, CDR, TRR, OTRR, ORR, etc.) are not in scope for this opportunity, and that IPPS-A will use key SAFe milestones as replacements for phase-gate milestones?

The Contractor is required to propose the methodology to be applied, including gates.

Attachment

1 - IPPS-A

Army Military Payroll PWS

- DRAFT -

27 OCT

2023.pdf

39 5.8 PWS 5.8 requires the Offeror deliver training to the AMP user community, but does not specify whether the training should be in person or virtual.

Will the Government please clarify whether there is a minimum percentage of training that must be in-person or virtual? For in-person training, will the Government please clarify how many training locations there are and where?

The following will be added to the PWS: The training audience consists of 42K HR Professionals, an additional 100K commanders / leaders, and 1.1M self – service users.

The Contractor shall make recommendations to the Government on which training should be delivered face to face, online, or self- paced based on the complexity of any functionality delivered to the end user population.

Attachment

1 - IPPS-A

Army Military Payroll PWS

- DRAFT -

27 OCT

2023.pdf

41, 42, 45 6.2 The Deliverables Schedule in PWS

6.2 labels the Program Management Plan, Transition In Plan, Agile Software Development Plan, and Transition Out Plan as "due with proposal submission." The Draft RFP, however, does not mention these deliverables, does not provide further detail on their requirements, and does not clarify whether they are required as part of proposal submission. We recommend the Government please change the due date for these plans to be post-award as part of the Transition- In CLIN.

The noted products will not be required for proposal submission.

Attachment

2 - IPPS-A

AMP QASP -

DRAFT - 25

OCT

2023.pdf

11 5 Within Soldier Satisfaction for the AMP Performance Standards row in QASP Table 1, the Government indicates Offerors must measure "Soldier satisfaction with the Payroll Process" and achieve a Performance Standard of 95% or higher. Will the Government please confirm the Offeror will not be evaluated on the Army's end-to-end Payroll process, but rather the accuracy and timeliness of pay? Will the Government please consider replacing "Payroll Process" with "Payroll Accuracy and Timeliness"?

The Offeror will not be evaluated on the Army's end-to-end Payroll process, but rather the accuracy and timeliness of pay.

Consideration of name change noted.

3 - IPPS-A

AMP DD

Form 254 - Final (23

OCT

2023).pdf

1-2 1B, 11C If the intent is to support SA, will the Government please update the DD 254 with the additional performance locations?

If an update is required, it will be released with the solicitation.

Reference

001-IPPS-A

Software Baseline Applications and Tools-26

OCT

2023.xlsx

Reference

005-IPPS-A

AMP

Business Process Maps - Interfaces - Pay Data-26

OCT

2023.zip, Pay Elements_23 Oct2023.xlsx

Reference

008-IPPS-A

Architecture Products-26

OCT

2023.zip, IPPS-A INC

II Rel 3 OVs-

OV1-OV2-

Please note that several spreadsheets in the solicitation package have hidden tabs. Will the Government please confirm if hidden tabs need to be actioned by Offerors?

The hidden tabs will be removed for the final solicitation.

Reference

001-IPPS-A

Software Baseline Applications and Tools-26

OCT

2023.xlsx

Will the Government please clarify which patches have been applied via PUM to the current PeopleSoft instance?

Currently on PUM 32. Plan is to upgrade to PUM 47.

Reference

001-IPPS-A

Software Baseline Applications and Tools-26

OCT

2023.xlsx

Will the Government please clarify whether they intend to upgrade to the latest patch level prior to starting AMP Payroll implementation?

The Government intends to upgrade to the latest patch level prior to starting AMP Payroll implementation.

Reference

001-IPPS-A

Software Baseline Applications and Tools-26

OCT

2023.xlsx

Will the Government please clarify if the existing batch scheduling tool Stonebranch is in place and operationally running jobs for IPPS-A Release 3?

The existing batch scheduling tool Stonebranch is in place and operationally running jobs for IPPS- A.

Reference

001-IPPS-A

Software Baseline Applications and Tools-26

OCT

2023.xlsx

If the Stonebranch batch scheduling tool is in place and operationally running jobs for IPPS-A Release 3, will the Government please clarify if the expectation is for the AMP requirement to add jobs to the existing schedule or will the Offeror need to build out and test a new batch schedule?

The Government is open to other considerations to meet the AMP and overall IPPS-A requirements.

Reference

004-IPPS-A

Functional Requirement s List-26

OCT

2023.xlsx

Will the Government please confirm that IPPS-A requires a separate PeopleSoft Global Pay solution in SIPR to address the requirements listed in Reference 004-IPPS-A Functional Requirements List-26 OCT 2023.xlsx for payroll data classified at the SECRET level?

Army Military Payroll functionality will need to be integrated into both the existing NIPRNet and SIPRNet instances of the IPPS-A baseline.

Note: The same IPPS-A baseline runs on both the NIPRNet and SIPRNet. The SIPNet will have additional pay processing unique to the SIPRNet side just as is done for the HR functionality.

Reference

004-IPPS-A

Functional Requirement s List-26

OCT

2023.xlsx

There are requirements within the Reference 004 spreadsheet flagged as "Yes" under Payroll, however, they appear to be HR Core functionality.

Will the Government please clarify if this contract's scope of work includes HR functions like soldier assignments or otherwise requires the Offeror to make changes to HCM Human Resources modules based on potential impacts of the IPPS Payroll capability?

The spreadsheet will be updated to contain only Army Military Payroll requirements.

The Offeror may need to make changes to HCM Human Resources modules based on potential impacts of the IPPS-A Payroll capability given the Offeror's implementation of the Army Military Payroll requirement.

Reference

004-IPPS-A

Functional Requirement s List-26

OCT

2023.xlsx

Will the Government please confirm which capability areas and functional capabilities in Reference 004-IPPS-A Functional Requirements List-26 OCT 2023 are in scope for AMP, specifically capability areas and functional capabilities such as

6.3.104.8 that are related to HR functions like retirement points and distribution?

The spreadsheet will be updated to contain only Army Military Payroll requirements.

DRAFT_RF

P_W91CRB-

24-C- 0003__27_O CT_2023.pdf

50 Section M - Volume II:

Factor 2 - Corporate

Experience

Would the government consider making an integrated confidence assessment across all corporate experiences submitted by an Offeror rather than individually rating each corporate experience submission.

Such an approach would promote competition because very few federal government contracts contain all of the PWS elements of IPPS-A AMP.

Noted. The Government anticipates refining the requirements for Agile Corporate Experience in the final RFP.

DRAFT_RF

P_W91CRB-

24-C- 0003__27_O CT_2023.pdf

37 Section L - Volume II:

Factor 2 - Corporate

Experience

Given there are only 9 pages allotted for Corporate Experience, can the government please clarify if the "Contract Performance and corrective action" requirement (last paragraph, page 37) requirement is part of the page count for this factor or outside of it?

Noted. The Government anticipates refining the requirements for Agile Corporate Experience in the final RFP.

DRAFT_RF

P_W91CRB-

24-C- 0003__27_O CT_2023.pdf

38 Factor 3 - Small

Business Participation

Can the government please clarify if there is a page count associated with Factor 3 - Small Business Participation?

Yes, 5 pages.

DRAFT_RF

P_W91CRB-

24-C- 0003__27_O CT_2023.pdf

32 Section L- Instructions, conditions and Notices to Bidders-

L.1.2

Would the government consider allowing basic assumptions/T&Cs to be submitted with proposals. Such approach would better enable the government to compare Offerors' proposals based on the size, scope and complexity of the IPPS-A AMP solicitation.

No.

DRAFT_RF

P_W91CRB-

24-C- 0003__27_O CT_2023.pdf

23 Section G - Contract

Administrati on Data - Level of Effort -

CPFF

Although the table in paragraph a in this section is not populated in the draft RFP, could the government please clarify if non-programmatic support personnel (i.e. contracts, admin, etc.), who are normally treated as direct charge personnel by the contractor, will be allowed to be included in the pricing build-up for the contractor and its subcontractors?

The question is unclear, however USG anticipates CPFF LOE applying to Transition and Program Management CLINs only.

DRAFT_RF

P_W91CRB-

24-C- 0003__27_O CT_2023.pdf

53 Section M - Factor 5 -

Cost/Price - Cost

Reasonable Requiremen ts 1.d

Section L does not require full cost breakdown of subcontractors proposals if reasonableness can be determined using price analysis methods described in 15.404-3b and the rates are properly negotiated using a certified purchasing system. Would the Government please consider removing the evaluation factor that requires full cost breakdown for subcontractors proposals?

No.

Sheet1