Description
The following questions were received and answers are being provided. Q1: Is there a missing row for ‘Unit price for 1 disconnected license' under CLINs 0003 and 0005 or is the offeror to assume that the Government is not interested in quantity one purchases and will initially purchase two (2) licenses? A1: Correct. The Government is not interested in quantity one purchases of disconnected licenses and will initially purchase a minimum of two disconnected licenses under CLIN 0003 if/when the requirement for a disconnected license arises. *NOTE* One disconnected license will be provided under CLIN 0001 per the revised CLIN description. Q2: Using the current matrix, how does the offeror provide a price break for more than 4 networks? A2: The Total Evaluated Price Worksheet is setup to reflect anticipated Government requirements. Offerors shall submit pricing on the worksheet per paragraph L.2.3.1 of Attachment 6, ASAE 52.212-1 Addendum. Q3: Using the current matrix, how does the offeror provide a price break for additional locations? A3: The Total Evaluated Price Worksheet is setup to reflect anticipated Government requirements. Offerors shall submit pricing on the worksheet per paragraph L.2.3.1 of Attachment 6, ASAE 52.212-1 Addendum. Q4: How can an offeror be compliant in terms of properly completing the matrix while simultaneously offering the most cost effective solution to the Government? A4: The Government has determined that per location, per network pricing meets the requirement. Alternate pricing arrangements will not be evaluated. Q5: Will an all-electronic submission for this RFP be accepted? A5: Per L.1.10, hard copies of each volume will be required so an all-electronic submission will not be accepted. Q6: Reference Attachment 6, ASAE_52.212-1_Addendum (Section L), L.1.10 Proposal Submission Requirements, Table 1. Volume Requirements and L.2.1 Volume 1 - Factor 1 - Technical: Table 1 indicates that the 20 page limit of Volume 1 does not include the Cross Reference Matrix (CRM) or any reference documentation. L.2.1 includes instructions for two written components: Subfactor 1, the Requirements CRM and Reference documentation, and Subfactor 4, the Implementation Plan. Is it the Government's intent that the Implementation Plan be submitted in this 20 pages, or will the Implementation Plan be requested only after an offeror successfully completes Subfactors 2 and 3 Demonstrations? A6: A complete proposal to include an Implementation Plan is due at proposal submission. Q7: Does the Government have a preference for receiving software pricing as a perpetual license or a subscription license? A7: Preference is perpetual. Q8: Will the Government allow modification of the Pricing template and Attachment 8 to allow the offeror to present both pricing alternatives for the Government to consider and evaluate? Should the offeror submit 2 versions of attachment 8 clearly labeled as alternate options? A8: Offerors shall submit pricing on the worksheet per paragraph L.2.3.1 of Attachment 6, ASAE 52.212-1 Addendum. Alternate pricing arrangements will not be evaluated. Q9: If the offeror's ASAE tool is comprised of multiple software modules, how does the Government require the breakdown of those individual module costs be shown in Attachment 8 and the SF-1449? May the offeror add more rows as needed in Attachment 8 to show the breakdown of individual software components for each unit price, or does the Government prefer a separate Bill of Materials with individual software modules be provided? A9: No breakdown is required. The Government expects one cost for the solution per the Total Evaluated Price Worksheet. Q10: May the offeror provide an additional descriptive information tab to Attachment 8 to provide clarifying information, such as demonstrating any discount from software list price, or assumptions, which would normally appear in a cost volume narrative? A10: Yes. Q11: Reference Attachment 3, Demonstration Plan, criteria for the Usability Demonstration 2: Phase 2 criteria for 2.a, 2.c, 2.e, 2.g, and 2.i seem to have a positive connotation to a high score of 5 or "strongly agree". In the same section, the criteria for 2.b, 2.d, 2.f, 2.h, and 2.j have a negative connotation to the same scoring of 5 or "strongly agree". Can the government please clarify how scores across each of the 10 questions will be aggregated such that a rating of "Strongly Disagree" or "Strongly Agree" will consistently imply either a positive or a negative rating from users? A11: The scale of 1-5 does not directly correlate to Strongly Disagree - Strongly Agree for all questions. For the positively worded questions, it does. For the negatively worded questions, the scale is flipped so that 5 correlates to Strongly Disagree and 1 correlates to Strongly Agree. Q12: Please specify the due dates for each CDRL A001-A007 relative to the contract award date, or meeting date as applicable? What is the timing for CDRL updates required upon exercise of CLINs 0004 and 0005? A12: See block 16 on each page of Exhibit A - ASAE CDRLs. Q13: "Requirement 5.1 in the CRM attachment specifies ‘tracking intelligence history across enterprise nodes'. Could the Government specify which enterprise nodes are required to be tracked against, and what elements of historical information are required to be tracked?" A13: The Government is not tracking the nodes but is tracking user history from their analysis. For example, an analyst begins work and they move to another location or the system goes down and they come back online connected to a different node; the analyst's work and workspace should be persisted so they do not have to start over. Another example, an analyst creates something and a month later there is a question and the analyst needs to go back and determine how he/she arrived at that conclusion. He/she will need the user history. Q14: Question 4d from Feb 19, 2015 9:30 am, asks "Is there a desire by the customer to have a different or additional extraction and entity resolution capability?"; The answer was "No". This answer appears to conflict with Key Performance Parameter K2 "Entity Resolution". Is it a requirement for offerors to provide Entity Resolution capability as described in KPP K2 of the FRD, or are offerors allowed to leverage the existing services identified below to meet this FRD requirement as the answers to this series of questions imply. A14: Yes the offeror can leverage existing technology to meet the entity resolution requirement.