SOURCES SOUGHT
B -- DSCA Security Case Assistance Execution Systems
- Notice Date
- 12/10/2004
- Notice Type
- Sources Sought
- NAICS
- 541512
— Computer Systems Design Services
- Contracting Office
- Other Defense Agencies, Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Defense Budget and Contracts, 201 12th Street Suite 203, Arlington, VA, 22202-5408
- ZIP Code
- 22202-5408
- Solicitation Number
- HQ-SS-05-12-10-04
- Response Due
- 12/15/2004
- Archive Date
- 12/30/2004
- Description
- This sources sought is a request for information prior to drafting and releasing any resultant solicitation. The information contained in this sources sought notification is based on the best and most current information available to date, is subject to change and is not binding on the Government. Any significant changes will be provided in a subsequent synopsis, if required. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) is seeking potential sources capable of providing the service of conducting a study to understand the technical feasibility and historical success of the re-host process and the technical feasibility and complexity involved in potentially expanding SCIP and DSAMS (2 of DSCA's systems) to include the requirements in the ORD. The following is a sampling of questions that DSCA would like for each prospective industry partner to address in such a study: Part 1: Confirm Re-Host information and answer lingering questions/issues about feasibility and cost 1. How much of the Re-Host process can be done using ?automated? tools---and how much will have to be done manually? 2. What is the estimated cost to do the ?automated? portion of the Re-Host and what is the estimated cost to do the ?manual? portion? 3. How long would the Re-Host process take to go from 4-to-4 and then 4-to-1??and when would we see a finished product that is ready for use by the Military Departments (MILDEPs)? Any improvements to the business process will not likely take place until the Modernization phase, so this is a key question. 4. Is there any business benefit to Re-Hosting the systems other than positioning ourselves ultimately for the Modernization phase? 5. How different would the finished product look from the legacy systems? Would there be a huge learning curve for the users? 6. Can any standardization be done during the 4-to-1 process? There have been conflicting opinions on this. 7. After the 4-to-1 Re-Host, do we really have a single system, or do we still have 4 different systems within a larger system?----which might mean we still have to make changes in 4 different parts of the larger system? 8. How do you test to ensure the new system matches the old system functionality one-for-one? 9. What are the pros/cons of doing a pilot to test the Re-Host process before committing to all 4 systems? 10. What happens to the legacy systems while these conversions are taking place? Can they still be used in their current state?---we must be able to continue requisition and financial processing during the 4-to-4 and 4-to-1 phases. Do we have to make a ?copy? of the legacy systems for this to work? If so, do we have to convert data to ?catch-up? the new versions of the systems with the processing that takes place after the copies are made? 11. Once the conversion takes place, would it be possible (and prudent) to do parallel processing until we have confidence that the Re-Hosted systems work as intended? 12. What happens to SCIP while these conversions are taking place?---we will continue to need daily extractions of data to ensure SCIP stays current. What happens to SCIP after they are completed, assuming a successful Re-Host?---extractions will need to be done from the newly Re-Hosted systems into SCIP. 13. What is industry doing with major automation systems that they need to update? 13.a. Is industry using Re-Host initiatives? 13.b. What is industry learning about the promises vice delivery (reality) on Re-host projects---meaning is the 80% automated and 20% manual prediction proving to be accurate? 13.c. For automated conversion, what is the industry success record for various languages ? specifically with the multiple different languages that we have? 13.d. Is industry consolidating into large systems? Can we do some benchmarking with industry regarding system size and advantages/disadvantages of having separate, smaller Service systems vice a single, large consolidated system? 13.e. Is there any rough costing data from industry? What does this data mean and how does it compare to any case studies that have been done for Re-Host? 14. Are there examples where Re-Host has been done successfully in the past on similar government systems? 15. What experiences have customers had with maintainability of code after a Re-Host operation? Specifically, do most clients manage to master and evolve the new code in-house? Or are the clients forever dependent on the Re-Host vendor for post-Re-Host maintenance? Do most clients keep the Re-Hosted code stable and try not to change it---or do most ultimately abandon it for something more maintainable? 16. Does the Re-Host option make sense for the Forte conversion Can the Re-Host strategy be used to convert the Case Development Module (CDM) portion of DSAMS? When could that be started in relation to deployment of the training module (in other words would we have to wait to convert CDM until the Training Module is deployed)? What are the pros/cons of doing the Forte conversion on the CDM earlier if that is possible? Part 2: Determine feasibility of building incrementally using SCIP and DSAMS 1. SCIP was originally designed as a system that merely displays information that has been processed by other systems. We have expanded that concept to include some functionality on SCIP that is independent of the legacy systems (e.g., End-Use Monitoring). How far can we go with SCIP in terms of adding functionality to it? Would this require additional hardware/server/software/etc.? Can SCIP take the number of concurrent users that might use a more robust system that included more case execution functionality? 2. Is it technically feasible to meet the Operational Requirements Document (ORD) by building on SCIP and DSAMS? 3. Can portions of the legacy systems be turned off as functionality is added to SCIP and DSAMS? 4. If we develop a sample list of projects/functionality to start with, can we estimate how much each of those projects would cost and develop a projected timeline for each? Can we estimate the extent of changes that would need to be made to the legacy systems for some of these projects? 5. One proposal (referred to as ?Case Execution Management Information System (CEMIS) Now?) for where to begin is with a new requisition database built into SCIP that would take all existing requisition fields from all of the case execution legacy systems; add to that the new fields needed for Defense Logistics Management Standards (DLMS) compliance; and add a translator to allow requisitions to process from this database through the legacy systems for further processing in the domestic systems. This could essentially be the first part of the incremental build and might utilize some aspects of Re-Hosting, Best of Breed, and New Build. What is the technical feasibility of this, the potential cost, and the expected timeline for completion? 6. Can we estimate annual sustainment costs needed to build incrementally on SCIP while continuing to maintain the legacy systems still in ?Brown Out? mode? 7. What would this proposal mean in terms of DSADC resources? If you are interested in competing for this requirement, please indicate your interest by sending an e-mail no later than 15 December at 2:00 P.M. EDT to Mrs. Beth Baker, Email: Beth.Baker@dsca.mil, Mark.Scher@dsca.mil, and Mrs. Toye Latimore, Email: Toye.Latimore@dsca.mil. The e-mail shall contain the following subject line, ?Sources Sought, Study for Security Assistance Case Execution Systems?. Use of any other subject line may delay your entry. All valid e-mail responses from prospective sources must provide the return e-mail address, company name, mailing address, telephone number, facsimile number, and point of contact within the body of their response. In addition, to assist in the acquisition strategy development, please respond to the following questions: 1) Is your business a large business or small business [Small Disadvantaged, Woman-Owned, Service Disabled Veteran Owned, etc.]? (For the purpose of determining your business size, the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), 541512 with a size standard of $21.0 M average annual receipts over the past three years, will be utilized for this acquisition). 2) Provide a list of customers (Government/non-Government) within the past 5-years highlighting similar work performed. Include contract numbers, contract type, dollar value of each procurement, and point of contact/addresses/and phone numbers and brief description of the work performed. 3) Provide information relative to past performance that demonstrates the ability to provide ALL capabilities noted above and below that includes, but is not limited to: Rehosting a system, automated tooling, Rehosting Process, benefits to rehosting, difference between legacy system and rehosting system, standardization, testing of a new system, pros & cons of a pilot to test the re-host process, conversions, current commercial practices with automated systesm that need to be updated, rehost initiatives, industry success record, consolidation of large systems, costing data, success stories of rehosting, maintainability of code after a reh-host operation, re-host in comparison to forte conversion, and feasibility of building incrementally using SCIP and DSAMS. a) E-mail responses without the aforementioned information will not be recognized as valid. ALL PROSPECTIVE OFFERORS MUST RESPOND TO THIS SYNOPSIS VIA E-MAIL. TELEPHONE REQUESTS FOR SOLICITATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED OR RETURNED. Submit responses no later than 15 December 2004 2:00 P.M. EDT. Your response is limited to 30 pages. NO SOLICITATION EXISTS AT THIS TIME. The government reserves the right to conduct oral capabilities demonstrations that will be scheduled at a later date. This is not a commitment on the part of the Government to award a contract as a result of this notice or to pay for any information received.
- Place of Performance
- Address: Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), 201 12th Street South, Ste 203, Arlington, VA
- Zip Code: 22202-5408
- Country: USA
- Zip Code: 22202-5408
- Record
- SN00720073-W 20041212/041210212214 (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps.gov Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |