See Q&A at bottom of this solicitation. This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial items in accordance with the format in FAR Subpart 12.6 as supplemented with additional information included in this notice. This announcement constitutes the only solicitation; proposals are being requested, and a written solicitation will not be issued. Pursuant to Far Subpart 19.502-2(b) this acquisition is set aside for small business. The Government contemplates award of a firm fixed price purchase order for a commercial, off-the-shelf software capability and training services. The Government intends to award without discussions with Offerors. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if discussions are later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary. Requirements: (1) The vendor must provide re-usable, commercial, off the shelf software product(s); (2) that provides a team of business analysts i.e., at the enterprise level, with on-demand, automated methods to identify and catalog business logic incorporated into Unisys ClearPath; MCP COBOL74 & COBOL 85 source programs, Unisys ClearPath Master Control Program (MCP) Workflow Language (WFL) jobs, and Unisys ClearPath MCP DMS II database schemas. (3) The product must also support the aggregation of the identified business logic into business rule descriptions which are linked, in a traceable manner, to business requirements contained in an IBM Rational RequisitePro database. Additional MANDATORY features: (4) Repository - multi user; (5) Repository – import/export; (6) business logic identification; (7) business logic cataloging; (8) business logic aggregation into business rule; (9) business rule linkage to business requirement using IBM Rational RequisitePro (a tool already in use on the system); (10) Support for ClearPath MCP COBOL74 and COBOL85; (11) Support for ClearPath MCP WFL; and (12) Artifacts – Source listing, Logic flow, call History, Object References. (12) Warranty, minimum through 9/30/2006. (13) Maintenance and upgrades, minimum 2 years. (14) Product User manuals and documentation, hard copy. (15) Help Desk assistance, via both an email address and a staffed telephone number. Vendor must provide feedback and resolution on the internal and external technical issues impacting its software solution, and documentation and other artifacts support for fixes, enhancements and changes etc. (16) Vendor’s must describe if their product complies with Section 508 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794d). (17) On-site training, minimum 10 days for audience of 10 to 15 people. The Offeror’s proposal(s) shall be submitted in two volumes: The Proposal Transmittal Letter shall formally transmit the complete proposal and include the following items: Introduction – showing corporate capabilities and overall approach to the statement of work. DUNNS Number. Federal Tax Identification Number POC email, phone, and fax number. Volume 1: technical, maximum 20 pages, single space, font size 12, 81/2x11, single sided. Volume 1 shall address Factor 1 and Factor 2. Volume 2: price, maximum 3 pages, single space, font size 12, 81/2x11, single sided. FAR Clause 52.212-2 Evaluation—Commercial Items applies: (a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The Government intends to award on the basis of best value to the Government, price and other factors considered. The Technical Evaluation factors equal in Importance. Factor 1: Technical Capability. Factor 2: Past Performance. Factor 3: Demonstration of Software Capability. Technical Evaluation Factors (taken in their entirety) are more important than price; however, between proposals that are evaluated as technically equal in quality, price will become a major consideration in selecting the successful offeror. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). (c) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer’s specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award. Technical Factor 1 shall be evaluated according to following adjectival scale: Excellent, Vendor’s proposal is complete and thorough. To receive this rating, vendor meets or exceeds mandatory requirements with little or no perceived risk. Example: Vendor provides additional functional capabilities and/or training, and/or helpdesk services not identified in the mandatory requirements cited above. There are no weaknesses and no deficiencies. Good, Substantial response to each of the areas. Vendor’s product meets mandatory requirements described above. There are no significant weaknesses and no deficiencies. Average: Vendor’s proposal is responsive to requirements. It may be weak in substantiation of information or data presented. There may be one or more significant weaknesses and no deficiencies. Poor: A proposal may receive a rating of Poor for any of the following reasons: Displays only a limited capability to meet requirements; lacks essential information to substantiate claims/data presented; or proposal omits required and pertinent information in major areas. Technical Factor 2: Past Performance. The Offeror must provide a Project Profile for at least 3 projects. Each Project Profile must represent work completed within the past 24 months. Minimally acceptable information includes: Name, Address, Telephone Number and Customer Point of Contact; Type of Customer (i.e., Federal Government, State/Local Government, or Commercial/Private Organization). Contract Number (if applicable). Total value of the Contract at time of Contract Award and Total Value of the Contract at time of Completion (value to date if an active contract). Provide a brief summary of the causes for any increase/decrease in contract value. Required Delivery Schedule/Period of Performance and Actual Delivery Schedule/Period of Performance. Description of services offered. The Offeror shall note that the Government may consider all information available on the Offeror’s experience and past performance. This may include information that is in addition to that which is provided to the Offeror. The Government may also consider information available to it through Government records, industry databases (e.g., Dunn an Bradstreet), and other sources. Technical Factor 2 shall be evaluated according to the following adjectival scale: Excellent: All survey responses were positive with regard to on-time and accurate delivery, cost control, responsiveness to customers and commitment to customer satisfaction. All references have and/or would return to vendor to satisfy future requirements based on positive experience. The vendor’s past performance history demonstrates no risk anticipated with delivery of quality products, on time, or any degradation of performance or lack of customer satisfaction (or cost growth if applicable). Good: All survey responses were positive with regard to on-time and accurate delivery, cost control, responsiveness to customers and commitment to customer satisfaction. Any concerns were minimal or isolated and were satisfactorily addressed by the vendor (in follow-up). All references have and/or would return to vendor to satisfy future requirements based on positive experience. The vendor’s past performance history demonstrates very little risk anticipated with delivery of quality products, on time, or any degradation of performance or lack of customer satisfaction (or cost growth if applicable). Neutral: No Prior Past Performance. Average: At least two of the three survey responses were marginal or unsatisfactory with regard to on-time and accurate delivery, cost control, responsiveness to customers and commitment to customer satisfaction, and/or overall performance. The offeror experienced periodic problems and/or was not consistently proactive in addressing issues or concerns. Some references not as likely to return to the vendor to satisfy future requirements. Some potential risk anticipated with delivery of quality product, on time, and of degradation or lack of customer satisfaction (or cost growth if applicable) based on the Offeror’s past performance. Poor: The Offeror’s past experiences are extremely weak, and/or inaccurate, and/or incomplete. There is insufficient evidence to show that the contractor could perform the requirements of the SOW. There are significant weaknesses and/or deficiencies. Factor 3: The Government shall require a Demonstration of Software Capability from the most highly qualified vendors. The Demonstration shall take place at the Government work location at 1901 South Bell Street, Arlington, VA. The Demonstration of Software Capability shall be consistent with the information provided in the Technical Proposal. The Demonstration shall begin with a 10-minute introduction of all parties. Following the Introduction, the Offeror shall have one hour to present their solution. Following the one-hour briefing, the Government may brake for 30-40 minutes. After the brake, the parties shall re-convene for questions and answers. During the one hour demonstration, the offeror must illustrate that the proposed solution is user-friendly and role-based, and meets the requirements described above. The provisions of: 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items; 52.212.-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications – Commercial Items; 52.212.-4, Contract Terms and Conditions; 52.212-5, Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders – Commercial Items and 52.212-2 apply. Three copies of each response must be hand delivered or sent via an overnight courier service to Holly Carr, GSA FSS CIO, 1901 South Bell Street, Arlington, VA 22202. Questions are to be received by nlt 11:00 a.m., est. July 6, 2005 . Only questions submitted in writing by the designated time to the Contracting Officer will be considered. A copy of the questions must be sent via E-mail to
[email protected] 1: HOW BIG IS YOUR CODE BASE: ANSWER: The Government contemplates award for a firm, fixed price COTS tool that is reusable any number of times. Therefore, there is not a definitive number of lines of code. QUESTION 2: Is your interest strickly to extract the business rules, or in-due course will be looking to migrate your application into another language such as java/J2EE or C#?. ANSWER: The specification is stated in the solicitation. QUESTION 3: Is it possible for you to send one of your COBOL programs, along with the referenced COPYFILES. ANSWER: The Government will distribute copies of the COBOL in accordance with this solicitation after proposals have been received. QUESTION 4: Approximately how much source code (module count, lines of code) are there of each of the following: a) MCP COBOL 74; b) MCP COBOL 85; c) MCP WFL; d) DMS II Database Schemas. ANSWER 4: FSS-19, Module, Lines of COBOL74 code: , FI, 6,942.00; , PM, 34,312.00; , OP,169,051.00; , IM, 214,942.00, , SD, 189,499.00; LM,174,125.00; , QC,157,284.00 ; , PR, 226,093.00; , Total lines of code, 1,172,248.00. FSS-19 Module, Lines of Cobol85: OP, 6,833; QC, 1,990, Total lines of code: 8, 823. FSS-19 GRAND TOTAL LINES OF CODE: 1,181,071. FSS-19 total lines of wfl code: 155,416. CSC, ,Module, Lines of COBOL74 code : CSC Batch 203,887.00; , CSC Online, 478,258.00; , CPSA Batch, 35,577.00; , CPSA Online,101,922.00; , Total CSC lines of code, 819,644.00, Grand Total lines of code, 819,644.00. CSC Total lines of wfl code: 17,000 est. QUESTION 5: Extraction of business rules is an extremely immature technology. We are considering proposing tools to help GSA understand the code better to enable business rule extraction, with an option to provide business rule extraction for a developing standard. This may run afoul of the phrase "offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced". Is direct extraction of business rules extremely important to GSA, and if so, would a proposal shaped like this be problematic? ANSWER 5 The Government requires a commercial off-the-shelf, reusable capability as described in the synopsis. The evaluation factors are also provided in the synopsis. We are interested in tools to enable business tools extraction from the systems. As the systems are very dynamic, it is important that we have the ability to re-review the systems and update business rules on a continuing basis. QUESTION 6: It appears that GSA is interested in Business Rule extraction really to support migation away from the ClearPath mainframe; can you clarify if this is the intended purpose, or is there another reason? However, extracting Business Rules and reimplementing is one way to do this, because of the BR immaturity, this is not a very practical path at the moment. Remarkably, it is possible to automatically migrate an existing application without extracting the business rules. While one can reasonably argue that the existing BRs need re-formulation, cleanup and change, and so migrating the code might not produce the ideal resulting application, one can also argue that surviving the migration and getting a running application is absolutely the first priorty, and that reengineering BRs after migration would decouple the two tasks and significantly reduce risk. Are GSAs long-term priorities to extract BRs and reimplement (at significantly higher cost and risk) or to migrate safely (lower cost, more effort later to modify business logic)? ANSWER 6: GSA does not want to migrate the existing applications to another hardware/software environment in the hopes of saving money on hardware, software, or developers. The applications being discussed interacts with the Department of Defense (DoD) supply system. The DoD supply system is undergoing a radical transformation. Here is a concise summary: 1. All inputs and outputs within the supply system must change from the traditional 80-character formats to EDI/XML transactions; 2. A large percentage of the data fields within the 80-character formats are being expanded, i.e. a field is being expanded from 5 positions to 10 positions; 3. New data fields are being defined for the EDI/XML transactions; 4. New Business Rules are being created for the expanded fields and the new fields. Selected parts, but not all, of the GSA applications being discussed must change to support these new DoD requirements. GSA does not intend to migrate away from the ClearPath mainframe. The Government’s requirement is described in the synopsis. QUESTION 7 The RFQ did not state a closing time on the 11th. Is it on or before close of business on the 11th? ANSWER 7: The closing time is 5:00 p.m. eastern standard time.