Loren Data's SAM Daily™

FBO DAILY ISSUE OF AUGUST 28, 2003 FBO #0637
MODIFICATION

D -- Web-Based Farm and Home Plan Commercial Off-The-Shelf Package

Notice Date

8/26/2003
 

Notice Type

Modification
 

Contracting Office

Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, Acquisition Management Branch, Special Projects Section, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 0567, Washington, DC, 20250-0567
 

ZIP Code

20250-0567
 

Solicitation Number

FSA-R-25-03DC
 

Response Due

8/29/2003
 

Archive Date

9/13/2003
 

Point of Contact

Brad Bumgarner, Contract Specialist, Phone 202-720-9464, Fax 202-690-0689, - Sandra Garland, Section Head, Phone 202-720-7335, Fax 202-690-0698,
 

E-Mail Address

bradley_bumgarner@usda.gov, sandra_garland@wdc.usda.gov
 

Description

This combined synopsis/solicitation is hereby amended to incorporate all questions and answers made up to August 25, 2003. Acknowledge receipt of amendment in each copy of your proposal. Question: How does the proposed USDA system relate to the FFS-MIS? Answer: Currently there are no plans to integrate the proposed system with FFS-MIS. However data from these systems may be exchanged in the future. Question: The FFS-MIS requirements are incomplete. What is the process for establishing complete requirements for the USDA system? Answer: The requirements for the USDA system should be contained in the RFP. Question: Does data model for the proposed system exist? Answer: The Data model for this system will be the model used by the COTS application. The FLPIDS data model is currently being developed and the COTS application will need to supply data to the FLPIDS data store. There may be data elements identified by the USDA that need to be added to the COTS application data model. Question: What are the types of users of the system? How many of each user? Can you tell us the number of users for each of the following groups who will be using the software product in this Solicitation: Management, Technical Users, End Users? Answer: Approximately 1800 USDA employee?s at Service Centers, State and National levels, and potentially 100,000 customers. Question: What are the security requirements? Answer: Security requirements are stated in the Statement of Work in Section 3.9. Question: Could you provide a use case to describe how the legacy FHP system is used today? Answer: Not at this time. Question: If this RFP is not a small business set-aside, why is there a not to exceed $21m size standard? Does the $21,000,000 mean the bid shall not exceed this amount or is it a small business requirement that Contractor assets do not exceed this amount to be eligible to respond to the solicitation? Answer: A small business code and standard is required for all contracts regardless of whether or not we set-aside any portion of the contract specifically for small business. This code and standard applies only to small businesses; it does not refer to bid amounts. Question: Addendum 3, 3.7, pg. 14 of 46 - Is the contractor to provide the supporting documentation in the RFP response, at the time of the TD or upon contract award? Answer: Upon contract award. However, in Addendum 6 - General Instructions to Vendors it states that "two complete sets of user and operations documentation in hard copy form pertaining to all software being proposed" be submitted. It also states in the same section that "Additional technical information, equipment specifications, operating documentation of a detailed nature, and similar material not specifically requested, may be submitted as appendices to the proposal at the Vendor's option." Question: Addendum 3, 3.7.2 and 3.7.4, pg. 15 of 46 - The Contractor understands the following interfacing responsibilities to be true: FSA: Exports data from existing DB2 Operational Database in COTS ASCII Delimited format. Contractor: Imports FSA ASCII Delimited data into the COTS system. Contractor: Exports FSA-specific data fields from COTS in XML format. FSA: Imports COTS XML data into DB2 Operational Database. If this information is not true, the Contractor must have all applicable interfacing requirements provided ASAP for effective bidding of project. Answer: The example given is correct. There may also be scenarios where the FSA provides XML data to the Contractor and the Contractor imports FSA XML data into the COTS system. Question: Addendum 3, 3.7.5, pg. 15 of 46 - Training for all COTS users in FSA county offices nationwide is not addressed. Where should the Contractor address a bid for this training, i.e., include as an addendum to the RFP response, bid it as a multiple offer or award under 52.212-1 items (e ? pg. 28 of 46) or (h ? pg. 29 of 46)? Answer: Training requirements have been identified in Addendum 3 - Statement of Work, in the RFP. Training for the FSA county offices is not required, but may be submitted as an addendum. Question: Addendum 8, 8.0.1, pg. 39 of 46 - Is the Contractor to provide hardware (server) for testing and production operations? Or is FSA providing hardware for the test demonstration and production operations at NITC or the FSA Web Farm? Answer: FSA will provide the hardware for acceptance testing and the production system. We will need information from the Contractor on recommended sizing go the server. Question: Addendum 8, 8.0.5a, pg. 40 of 46 - States offerors will receive test cases 10 days before the scheduled TD date. Addendum 6, 6.1.4 (pg. 32 of 46) states offerors will receive test cases 5 days prior to presentation. Which is correct? Answer: 10 days. Question: Addendum 6, 6.0.2, pg. 32 of 46 - Refers to Section B for format and instructions for total estimated costs. There is no Section B. Should the reference be to Section 2 - Schedule of Supplies/Services (CLIN List -- Pg. 10 of 46)? Answer: References to Section B should be revised to state "Addendum 2 - Schedule" Question: Addendum 6, 6.2.a, pg. 33 of 46 - The evaluation factor table shows a total of 100 technical points. Ratings further down in the paragraph refer to 1000 technical points. Which is correct? Answer: The total number of Technical Points available is 100, NOT 1000. The ratings should now reflect the following: Outstanding = 90-100% (90-100 points); Exceeds Acceptable = 80-89% (80-89 points); Acceptable = 70-79% (70-79 points); Unacceptable = 0-69% (0-69 points). Question: Addendum 7, Performance Questionnaire, pg. 36 of 46 - The date in paragraph two indicates this is to be filled out and returned via email no later than 08-23-2003. According to the solicitation modification released on 08-19-2003, however, the proposal due date is 08-29-2003. Does the PQ due date need to be adjusted? Answer: The Performance Questionnaires are due by August 29, 2003. Question: There is a reference to the GSA Schedule in the RFP, is this procurement being solicited via the GSA Schedule, if so, which one, and does the software and support services need to be available on the GSA Schedule? Answer: This procurement is not being solicited solely from the GSA Schedule. Addendum 6 merely states that if a contractor offers the same product under the GSA Schedule, then they should adhere to that format (i.e. use the same CLINs to identify that item. Question: Has the RFP been issued to selected firms, if so, who, and if not, who has requested the RFP? Answer: The RFP has not been issued to selected firms. An RFP has been issued to the following: Computer Science Corporation, ECI, SBC Global, Agrilogic, ABSS Inc., INPUT, Headstrong, Corporate Radar, MTC Integration, Masai-Tech, and Deloitte & Touche. Question: Section 3.7 indicates the software must be installed at 2 or more customer sites, the evaluation criteria in Section 7.2.2 says it must be operational in 3 separate financial institutions. Please clarify. If we are proposing a new product that has been operational in a financial institution for over 90 days, does it have to be installed in multiple institutions? Answer: The evaluation criteria in Section 7.2.2 is correct. The software must be installed, implemented, and operational at a minimum of three separate agricultural credit and or financial institutions. Yes, all proposed products must meet the mature product evaluation criteria detailed in Addendum 7.2.2 of FSA-R-25-03DC. Question: Since USDA will have several hundred offices and lenders using this system is there a requirement for a demonstrated ability to support a very large number of lenders/loan offices using the system over the Web? Answer: No. Question: Section 3.7, please clarify that new and improved software releases are exempt from the requirement of being operational at three financial institutions? Would new products be exempt from this requirement as well. Answer: This refers to new and improved software releases of an established product. No, all proposed products must meet the mature product evaluation criteria detailed in Addendum 7.2.2 of FSA-R-25-03DC. Question: Clause 3.7.4 does recognize that no system will meet all of FSA?s requirements and that some customization to data base design, screens, algorithms, processes, interfaces, and conversion of data will be required. The RFP states that the time to complete this effort is 45 days. Would the USDA consider allowing vendors to propose alternate timeframes necessary to complete these tasks? Answer: No, the timeframe for implementation of the production software is critical. Question: Please clarify how is the contractor to be paid for the customization work. There is no provision in Schedule B (Addendum 2) for software customization and development. Answer: Estimated costs for customization should be included in CLIN 0001. Question: There is no mention of the preferred architecture of the product, isn?t USDA moving to a Portal Based environment like all other agencies with eGov projects, and wouldn?t you prefer a Portal Based product with an open architecture? Answer: We will use standard CCE hardware to support the package. From a software architecture standpoint a Portal Based environment is not necessary for this package. Question: Has the USDA reviewed documentation or seen a demonstration of a system that complies with the requirements of this RFP? Answer: Yes, based on responses to the RFI. Question: Will the USDA sign a commercial license for the software product, including a maintenance agreement? Answer: Based on the requirements of this solicitation, it should be understood that an unlimited user license is required in the Offeror?s proposal. Maintenance is included under CLINs 0002, 0004, and 0005. Question: Due to the fact that the USDA wasn?t able to upload the SOW to FBO, the USDA?s e-mail has been down due to viruses, and bidder?s didn?t receive the SOW until 8/21, we request that the USDA grant an extension of at least two weeks to receive answers to our questions and adequately prepare our proposal responses. Answer: The FBO announcement was published on 8/14/03. Several vendors received the RFP on 8/15/03. Alternative methods of contact, i.e. phone and fax, were available during the e-mail problem (problems began on or about 8/20/03). An additional 2 weeks is not feasible. Extension denied. Question: Would USDA consider holding a bidder?s conference so that we can have dialogue with USDA and ask additional questions? Answer: No. Question: Does the fact that a contractor?s current system would require significant amounts of customization preclude it from being considered? Can we bid if our solution requires some modification? Answer: Not in and of itself. Some modifications will be necessary.
 

Place of Performance

Address: USDA-FSA Site, 6501 Beacon, Kansas City, Missouri

Zip Code: 64133

Country: US
 

Record

SN00412436-W 20030828/030827074212 (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 |