SOLICITATION NOTICE
D -- Technical debugging support
- Notice Date
- 6/3/2009
- Notice Type
- Presolicitation
- Contracting Office
- Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Acquisition Management, EPA/Headquarters, Environmental Protection Agency, National Procurement Contract Service Center, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Nw 3803r, Washington, DC 20460
- ZIP Code
- 20460
- Solicitation Number
- RFQ-DC-09-00208
- Response Due
- 6/18/2009
- Archive Date
- 7/18/2009
- Point of Contact
- Point of Contact, Harold Honegger, Purchasing Agent, Phone (202) 564-6234<br />
- E-Mail Address
-
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(Honegger.Harold@epamail.epa.gov)
- Small Business Set-Aside
- N/A
- Description
- NAICS Code: 541511 The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Office of Acquisition Management, intends to award a sole source purchase order to Battelle PNNL to complete a critically needed code debugging/enhancement step that will complete work initially started underContract # EP-C-04-027. Due to the nature of software debugging work envisioned here, the learning curve necessary to understand and evaluate the FRAMES 1.x/2.x code systems in order to complete tasking is prohibitive to meeting project goals. The estimated sum of resources needed to complete the level of effort would be expended by a new, unfamiliar contractor just to bring their group up to speed with this extremely large, complex, integrated software system. It is estimated the learning curve time needed to understand associated problems with actual software bugs and enhancements would be in the range of 250 to 500 hours of work, which is outside the current resources available to complete the work plan. It is, thus, unlikely any substantive progress could be made by an alternative contractor on actual software debugging and enhancement work needed. Based on this information, it is in the best interest of the Government to award this purchase order to the original contractor in order for them to complete this critically needed code debugging/enhancement step and bring the original envisioned effort to completion. Background The Framework for Risk Analysis in Multimedia Environmental Systems (FRAMES) - Multimedia, Multipathway, Multireceptor Risk Analysis (3MRA) software system is an integrated multimedia modeling system for assessing exposure and risks from the release of hazardous materials placed into a variety of land-based waste management units. The FRAMES 3MRA Version 1.0 (FRAMES 3MRA 1.0) software system was constructed to perform risk analyses for the USEPA Office of Solid Waste to help establish constituent-specific "exit" (e.g., safe disposal) levels for low risk solid wastes. In the design of FRAMES 3MRA, the component-based approach provides for 1) standardized tools and techniques that are typically used in the assessment process, and 2) capabilities for new functionality to be added. The FRAMES 3MRA 1.0 was originally designed to run on a single PC computer system. It was found that parallel execution across a number of machines would be valuable, helping to expedite simulation experiments needed for large, national-scale studies and various uncertainty and sensitivity analysis studies. The FRAMES 3MRA 1.x version of the software was designed and built to allow for, among other capabilities, parallel execution of the FRAMES 3MRA 1.0 modeling system across multiple machines. FRAMES 3MRA Version 2.0 software components, covered under this scope as well, represents a further, significantly enhanced software technology that replaces the system user interface with a more generic user interface concept. To successfully control and implement the FRAMES 3MRA 1.x system so multiple (e.g., millions) runs can be simultaneously executed and tracked on the 400+ machines, a number of software tools have and are being developed to help manage the operation of the system, as well track files, warnings, and errors.Tasks: The following tasks list the specific work required. Task 1: Project Management The objective of this task is to provide for timely reporting from the contractor regarding progress of project tasking. Deliverables and Schedule: 1. Monthly reports: The contractor shall provide monthly reports describing technical progress and related resource status. Due date: The contractor shall provide a monthly report on or before the 10th of each month during execution of the assigned work. Task 2: Maintenance and Enhancement of SuperMUSE 1.0 and 3MRA 1.X Software The objective of this task is to provide software maintenance and enhancement support for the SuperMUSE 1.0 and FRAMES 3MRA 1.X/2.X software systems. General Tasking to be Performed Software maintenance tasking to be performed by the contractor will include: "Telephone or email communications with the Technical Project Officer or Project Officer."Troubleshooting and resolution of bugs identified by EPA, and those bugs that arise out of testing and evaluation performed by the contractor, "Development and/or revision of spreadsheet-based test plans, and "Execution of test plans. Software enhancement tasking to be performed by the contractor will include: "Telephone or email communications with the Technical Project Officer or Project Officer."Modification of existing software to address new requirements specified by EPA, "Troubleshooting and resolution of bugs identified by EPA during subsequent testing, and those bugs that arise out of testing and evaluation performed by the contractor, "Development and/or revision of spreadsheet-based test plans, and "Execution of test plans. Software documentation and test plans, currently located on USDA's COLAB Development Environment (https://colab.sc.egov.usda.gov/cb/workspace.do; 3MRA FRAMES V2 Project Area) will be the basis for evaluation of existing software requirements and functionality. Additional software requirements associated with component enhancements will be specified by EPA through Technical Directives associated with this statement of work. Development, modification and/or enhancement of existing documentation (i.e., the formal documents which include sections on descriptions, requirements, design, and specifications) will be the responsibility of EPA. In addition to revision, execution, and documentation of test plans, the contractor will also be responsible for providing brief summary descriptions (using notation and/or file management features of COLAB) on changes to design and specifications sections as may be needed to maintain and/or enhance software (e.g., brief statements indicating information that may need addition/modification, dictionary and/or database table structure definitions that may need addition/modification, etc). Specific Technical DirectivesThe Agency will provide a written description of each bug resolution request for work to be completed on specific software components, and the required schedule. These requests will be referred to as Technical Directives and will generally indicate: a) the software component(s) to be tested, de-bugged and/or enhanced, b) initial formulations of any new or modified software requirements, and c) a not-to-exceed number of hours of Senior Software Engineer (e.g., software development) time and Software Engineer (i.e. software testing) time that may be expended by the contractor on the given request. EPA will be responsible for posting an initial set of bugs to COLAB. New requirements desired by the Agency will each be posted to COLAB as a bug, with an indicator that the bug is associated with a new requirement.It is anticipated that several components may be associated with a given request, where work on individual components may or may not be directly related. It is also anticipated that more than one technical directive may need to be active at a given time to address new issues that may arise in bringing closure to an existing request.Because a given bug cannot always be immediately associated with a given component, it is anticipated some components will be specified in the request that ultimately do not need modification.While fulfilling a given Technical Directive, in the event an additional component(s) is identified by the contractor as needing enhancement or modification to achieve the original request, the contractor shall: a) post associated bugs on COLAB; and b) notify the Technical Project Officer. As determined by the Technical Project Officer, a new or modified request will be issued to handle associated software enhancements or modifications of the newly identified component. The contractor may evaluate any existing SuperMUSE 1.0 and 3MRA 1.X/2.X software codes for any component at anytime as needed to execute a given request (including execution of informal software testing by the developer), but shall not post enhanced or modified codes to COLAB, or conduct formal testing of any component, unless that component has been identified in a specific request. Contractor Response to Specific Technical DirectivesPrior to initiation of actual bug resolution or enhancement through software development efforts, the contractor will first:"Review the request, "As needed review associated codes for components specified in the request, and "Consult the Technical Project Officer via telephone to discuss technical content of the request (e.g., to review and modify if necessary newly stated requirements, to discuss current software behaviors needing resolution, and to discuss initial technical approach to be taken to achieve software enhancement or modification). For each request the contractor shall then execute the required enhancement/modification/testing, and deliver the resulting source code, software, test plans, and summary notations on design and specifications to the Agency via the COLAB development environment. During execution of the project, the contractor shall:"Attempt to hold phone discussions with the Technical Project Officer approximately biweekly to discuss technical progress on all active requests. "Notify the EPA Technical Project Officer and Project Officer via direct email or other automated COLAB email-based communication when a successfully executed test plan (less Agency approval) for a given component has been posted to COLAB. In closing out a given request, the contractor shall provide a Summary Technical Progress Report in email form to the Technical Project Officer and the Project Officer if one or more components were not completed due technical difficulties. In this case, the contractor shall briefly summarize (e.g., in simple table format) which deliverables were not completed for each component. Processing and Documentation of Software BugsFor each component, until successfully executed test plan (with Agency approval) status has been reached, it is anticipated that the Agency and the contractor may post new bugs that are identified during review and testing associated with a given request. All detailed notations on specific bugs to be resolved and bug resolution will be conducted via COLAB by both EPA and the contractor. Any new bug identified by the contractor during execution of this WA, which substantially changes existing specifications and design shall be posted to COLAB and appropriate notations provided (i.e., the Agency requires that all substantial changes made to the software are documented through COLAB bugs and COLAB notations for component design and specifications). Any bug identified but not resolved by the contractor during execution of this WA, which substantially affects attainment of the component's stated software requirements, shall also be posted to COLAB (i.e., the Agency requires that all known remaining software deficiencies identified by the contractor during testing be documented in COLAB). Minor bugs that are resolved during evaluation, modification, enhancement or testing that do no substantially affect existing design and specifications documentation need not to be notated in COLAB.Total Tasking Level of EffortFor purposes of estimating resources for this task the contractor shall assume an overall level of effort of approximately 268 hours total of software development, software testing, and project management which will be split across the two tasks and associated Technical Directives. Deliverables and Schedule:Specific SuperMUSE 1.0 and 3MRA 1.X/2.X Software components to be worked on by the contractor, and associated schedule, will be determined during execution of the project. In evaluating content and acceptance criteria for deliverables, the following will generally apply: CSuccessfully executed test plan status (less Agency approval) for a given software component requires that: 1.Specific requirements related to the functionality of the software must be documented (as provided by the Technical Project Officer within the Technical Directives); 2.All identified software bugs have been resolved by the contractor or reconciled as future work to be completed by the Agency (e.g., some bugs may not be able to be resolved at this time within current resources); 3.Summary notations on modifications and additions to design and specifications sections of formal documentation have been posted to COLAB by the contractor; 4.Executed and notated test plans have been posted to COLAB by the contractor which satisfy all component requirements; and 5.Source code and compiled software codes have been posted to COLAB. CSuccessfully executed test plan status (with Agency approval) for a given software component requires that: 1.Successfully executed test plan status (less Agency approval) has been attained by the contractor for the given software component; 2.The Agency has reviewed and approved the executed test plan (via email notification to the contactor). Completion Status for a Specific Technical Directive A specific Technical Directive will be deemed completed and no additional efforts should be expended by the contractor on the given request when either: 1. Currently approved hours associated with a given Technical Directive have been expended by the contractor and the contractor has provided a Summary Technical Progress Report for all components not completed, a. Based upon the Technical Project Officer assessment of degree of completion, the Technical Project Officer may reauthorize the existing technical directive by adding additional hours to further complete the specific request. Alternatively, the Technical Project Officer may also either choose to not expend additional effort, or otherwise roll some part or all of remaining tasking still to be completed into a new technical directive. b. In the event that the existing technical directive is re-authorized, the Technical Project Officer will notify the contractor and EPA's Project Officer by re-issuing and notating the original technical directive, indicating both the previous authorized level already expended. or 2. Successfully executed test plan status (with Agency approval) has been attained for all components identified in the request.Special Conditions1.All requests related to execution of the technical support described within this SOW shall be coordinated through the EPA Technical Project Officer. 2.The contractor shall not respond to requests or inquiries made by others individuals except where made by the technical project officer approved by the contractor officer.3.It is the responsibility of the contractor to ensure that a Summary Technical Progress Report for all components can be completed for a given request and delivered to the Technical Project Officer or the Project Officer. Management Controls The following management controls are adequate to ensure that Agency officials remain accountable and retain control over the contractor's product. In summary, this contract will utilize these management controls to assure that the proposed contractor services will not place EPA in a vulnerable position and will ensure that Government policy is not being created by or unduly influenced by contractors, and that contractor employees will not be assumed to be EPA employees. The project officer is responsible for assuring compliance. 1.All work will be off-site. The contractor will take care to ensure that it has no conflict of interest in the performance of this work. The contractor is responsible for identifying any known or apparent conflict of interest and reporting it to the Technical Project Officer for resolution.2.The Technical Project Officer will monitor the deliverable schedule and review the deliverables to ensure that the content and quality are responsive to the requirements of the SOW. Under this fixed price vehicle, the Technical Project Officer may not provide technical directions to the Contractor which would have the effect of adding or deleting items required under the contract, changing the deliverable schedule or deleting or substantially changing the content of a deliverable. Any problems with deliverables or the contract schedule will be addressed to the Contractor only through the Contracting Officer. Technical communication between the technical project officer and contractor for the purpose of clarification or preliminary advisement of issues or problems is permissible as is adjustment of the deliverable schedule to accommodate possible delays on the side of EPA. 3.The Contractor will submit all drafts and final deliverables to the Technical Project Officer. These documents will be secured per records control management protocols.4.The contractor shall clearly identify itself as an EPA contractor when acting in fulfillment of this contract. No decision-making activities relating to Agency policy, enforcement or future contracting will take place if the contractor is present. If the contractor has a need to meet with Federal employees onsite, then the Contractor personnel shall visibly wear identification in performance of this contract while on-site which will be issued by the Government upon arrival to the Federal facility.5.EPA shall be mentioned as the funding source, with appropriate and standard EPA disclaimers, for all subsequent articles and publications that arise as a result of the work products of this contract, its result and products, and subsequent work stemming from these products after the contract is completed. As stated above, EPA intends to award this procurement on a sole source basis. Ne
- Web Link
-
FBO.gov Permalink
(https://www.fbo.gov/spg/EPA/OAM/HQ/RFQ-DC-09-00208/listing.html)
- Record
- SN01835281-W 20090605/090603235840-43d6c3730447765422ade47a3628bb67 (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 |