Loren Data's SAM Daily™

FBO DAILY ISSUE OF JANUARY 01, 2009 FBO #2593
SOLICITATION NOTICE

D -- Amendment 2 Questions and Answers.

Notice Date

12/30/2008
 

Notice Type

Modification/Amendment
 

NAICS

541512 — Computer Systems Design Services
 

Contracting Office

ACA, ITEC4, Directorate of Contracting , 2461 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22331-0700
 

ZIP Code

22331-0700
 

Solicitation Number

W91QUZ-09-R-EFT1
 

Response Due

1/12/2009
 

Archive Date

3/13/2009
 

Point of Contact

Kathleen Jones, 703-325-1723<br />
 

Small Business Set-Aside

Total Small Business
 

Description

Question 1: Can you please give us list of the following systems to be covered under EFD, as per PWS? A: Existing Funding Distribution System B. Component ERP Systems Answer 1: EFD is required to replace a series of stove-piped applications and manual funds distribution efforts currently operating (Release I). EFD is required to interface with current Military Department and Defense Agency funds distribution systems including but not limited to PBIS (Navy), AFM (Air Force), and PBAS (Defense Agencies and Army) in Releases I and II. Finally EFD will eventually replace PBAS for Defense Agency use (Release III). Question 2: Please clarify release schedule dates as mentioned in Table 1 (EFD Releases) in item 11.1 of PWS. Dates mentioned in Table 1 dont match with the release schedule information provided in delivery matrix item 11.2. Please clarify. Answer 2: The release schedule dates in Table I (EFD Releases) are consistent with the information provided in delivery matrix item. Table I specifies 12 months for Release I. Calendar Days after TO Start in delivery matrix item 11.2 specifies five PWS tasks scheduled to take 30 days each. Since no other delivery schedule dates or time-lines are explicit in item 11.2 it is incorrect to say that item 11.2 and Table I do not match. Item 11.2 is a delivery schedule matrix that outlines required tasks; it is not necessarily in sequential order. Release I tasks are to be completed before Release II tasks, followed by tasks associated with Release III. Question 3: In item 11.1 of PWS mention is made of Additional Releases. Are these Additional Releases over and above the Releases mentioned in Table 1 of item 11.1? Answer 3: The Additional Releases mentioned in item 11.1 of the PWS are not over and above the Releases mentioned in Table 1 of item 11.1. Question 4: Section 12 of the PWS states that all contractor support personnel are required to secure a valid DD For 254 as outlined within the Contract Security Classification Specification. The DD Form 254 was not provided. Is a security clearance required to work on this effort? If yes, what level? Is U.S. Citizenship required to work on this effort? Answer 4: Backround checks are required. Contractor personnel are required to secure a valid DD-Form 254. Question 5: Demonstration scripts are incomplete. When does the Government intend to provide completed scenario scripts, as this directly affects configuration, demonstration and response pricing. There is no Fair and Open method to price an incomplete specification. Answer 5: We do not agree that the current demonstration scripts are incomplete. The current scripts are complete and should be helpful to vendors if they are selected to demonstrate. Vendors that offer the highest qualifying COTS solution may be selected to provide demonstrations; others will not. Demonstrations may occur after vendors have been down- selected based on responses to the Requirements Matrix and the other requirements outlined in the PWS. Vendors selected to demonstrate a COTS solution will be provided Government furnished Information (GFI) up to two weeks in advance of any scheduled demonstration. Question 6: Terms of Failure during demonstration are not defined, therefore, respondent has no fair gauge by which to judge adequacy of solution in response, or how to price solution configurations. Does the Government intend to provide Fair and Clear Test Standards prior to submission deadline? Answer 6: Vendors down-selected for demonstration will be selected based on the technical features of the COTS solution and other specification outlined in the PWS. Vendors selected for demonstration are not expected to fail any one of the scenarios outlined in the EFD End to End Scenario document. These scenarios are chosen because they are standard, routine, and expected occurrences that DoD funds distribution systems handle. Demonstrations provide the opportunity to show the relative ease in which these tasks are handled. Question 7: Does the Government consider customization of an inherent system capability compliant as a mandatory function? Answer 7: The government is seeking to purchase a COTS solution for EFD. Thus, any customization to a COTS solution potentially diminishes its efficiency. However, customization, within a COTS solution (an inherent system capability), is compliant as a mandatory function. Customization costs are to be reflected in the Vendor cost proposal. Question 8: How many total users are anticipated by the Government across all phases? Answer 8: to RFP questions released on 12/23 indicate vastly different ranges according to which question was being answered. It is critical the Government provide End User, Administrator and Super User quantities by phase/date in order to facilitate fair licensing quotations and best value for the Government. End User, Administrator and Super User quantities by phase/date Estimates: Phase IPhase II/II End-Users50-100100-500 Administrator/ Super User5-1010-25 Question 9: What is the estimated throughput, in number of documents, during peak processing? Answer 9: Estimated throughput, during peak processing (in number of documents) Phase IPhase II/II Documents150-200500-1,000 Question 10a: Will the Government provide server hardware for the solution, or is the offeror required to deliver the required hardware? The HCI fully hosted solution pricing varies significantly based on use of Government Provided Servers, or the more economical/better value and scalable hosted environment for this solution. Answer 10a: The Government will provide server hardware for the solution. Question 10b. Is a fully managed/hosted environment, its inherent added value and reduced TCO of interest to the government for this solution? Answer 10b: The Government is not interested in a fully managed/hosted environment for this solution. Question 11: The Government has not defined any terminology within the mandatory capability matrix. Respondents are left to suppose proper responses for each requirement. Does the Government intend to publish a Fair Standard Set of Instructions for completion of the solution matrix? Answer 11: The Government uses common financial management terminology within the mandatory capability matrix. Your specific questions on terminology and phrasing are addressed in question 8 below. The Government does not intend to publish additional instructions for completion of the solution matrix. Question 12: Configuration requirements in the SOW, RFP and Demonstration Scenarios are not clearly defined. Does the Government intend to publish a Fair and Complete Set of Systems requirements prior to RFP submission due date. Examples of incomplete configuration data: Question 12a: IE Are configuration items expected to be directly input into a productive systems or will these items go through regular SLDC stages of DEV/QA/Test? Answer 12a: Since the government is looking for a COTS solution configuration items are expected to be directly input into a productive systems. Question 12b: Is the term configuration referring to production data that provides foundational information that is utilized by the transactional flow and is relatively stable but is still client operational data and not traditional configuration data? Answer 12b: Yes. The term configuration is referring to production data that provides foundational information that is utilized by the transactional flow and is relatively stable but is still client operational data. Question 12c: Configurability Can business rules be administered in the solution without making changes to the application code. This is dependent on the business rules in question and what is considered application code Answer 12c: The desirable COTS solution would be flexible enough to handle generic business rules without customizing the COTS product to be purchased by the government. Question 12d: Usability Can administration of functional data (e.g., Reprogramming thresholds, work flows, appropriations, etc.) be delegated to functional analyst verse technical personnel. As I classify functional analyst this would be one of their main functions within the system but clarity in definitions is necessary. Answer 12d: This refers to the government person responsible for funds distribution (functional analyst) being able to administer data as opposed to having to rely on an IT specialist for routine administration functions. Question 12e: Scalability Can the system efficiently process the large number of appropriations managed by OSD. Answer 12e: Scaling data was requested and provided in questions 4 and 5 above. Question 12f: Interoperability How efficiently can the system be integrated with other budget and execution systems. The 64.00 question- it absolutely depends but all ERP are more or less open and the big costs are data and organizational related not technical. Answer 12f: Vendor response to interoperability should address the technical aspects of interacting with other DoD budget and execution systems. Question 12g: Extensibility Can the system be deployed for agencies with no funds distribution capability to support lower level funds management capability and can the system be extended to accommodate unique requirements (e.g., Limits). Within the configuration of SAP and to an extent Oracle this is achievable but truly unique requirements may require customization. Answer 12g: Agree. The government is looking for a COTS funds distribution product. Customization is to be minimized and necessary only in extraordinary requirements. Question 12h: Auditability How transparent are the records for changes to documents and transactions. SAP can be set up to provide a granular level of traceability but it must be part of the overall GRC plan. Answer 12h: Agree. Question 13: What are the elements of workflow as the term is being used in this proposal? Does it include the manual triggers, manually generated elements, the interface driven elements, and if so can these be simulated with assumed data and events or will these elements be provided to the offerors? Answer 13: The elements of workflow includes but is not limited to document distribution, coordination, and approval both internal and external to a funds distribution organization; and the process by which an organization chooses to control its funds distribution process within its own organization. Question 14: In the area of security will the client provide a SOD matrix or a role matrix? Answer 14: Security specification is not applicable to this action at this time since contractor will not have any interface with any classified data. Question 15: Will the offerors be able to assume best practices and accepted standards for SOD, integrated security roles are acceptable if they are from an organization such as the ISACA (Previously known as the Information Systems Audit and Control Association, ISACA now goes by its acronym only)? Answer 15: Yes. Question 16: Considering the lack of clear and concise instructions regarding completed demonstration scripts, systems requirements, configuration requirements, security requirements, hardware availability (or requirements for vendor provided hardware) and the incomplete demonstration scenarios without standards for pass/fail and levels of quality, will the Government consider revising the solicitation and extending the demonstration date windows through late February to allow venders a reasonable period to a complete an effective and fair demonstration of capabilities for the Government? Answer 16: The government has addressed each of your questions related to instructions, demonstration scripts, systems requirements, configuration requirements, security requirements, hardware availability and demonstration scenarios. The government has already extended the solicitation period and will not extend it further. Question 17. The answer to question #17 states all work will be performed in the Washington, DC area but does not specify Contractor site or Government site. a.Can development (e.g., interface or report development) be performed at a contractor site within the Washington, DC area? b.For work to be performed at Government site, what are the clearance requirements? Will everyone working the project have to be U.S. Citizens? If the development work can be performed at the Contractor site, are there different security requirements? Answer 17a: a) No. The contractor should plan to work at a government site. Answer 17b: b) The system and data will be operated in an unclassified site; and data may be labeled For Official Use Only. U.S. citizenship may be required. Question 18. The answer to question #33 states that EFD will be hosted in the Washington, DC area. Will this be at a government site? Is the system expected to be unclassified when deployed? Answer 18: Yes. EFD will be hosted at a government site. The system is expected to be unclassified for the foreseeable future. Question 19. Given the response to question #62, is it correct to assume that whether the work is performed at government or contractor site, the government will provide the hardware to support the development and test environments as well as the production environment? Answer 19: Yes.
 

Web Link

FedBizOpps Complete View
(https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=74eee50b6e378e177e3b2782573062fd&tab=core&_cview=1)
 

Place of Performance

Address: BTA 1851 S Bell St Crystal City VA<br />

Zip Code: 22202<br />
 

Record

SN01725259-W 20090101/081230214632-74eee50b6e378e177e3b2782573062fd (fbodaily.com)
 

Source

FedBizOpps Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)

---

| FSG Index  |  This Issue's Index  |  Today's FBO Daily Index Page |