18f / bpa-fedramp-dashboard Goto Github PK

Section 3, Competition of the Ordering Guide appears to be missing formatting for the competition steps.The intent appears to be an ordered list. See the first sentence in Section 3 that ends with “...that will consist of the following steps:”.

In Section 4.0, Requirements of the PWS, there are no requirements for operational support, monitoring, deployment, logging, error handling and responses, etc. It would help to know what requirements must be met to allow hands-off operation, or seamless transition to a support team.

Which engine(s) will be used in Code Climate to evaluate performance for the Tested Code deliverable?

Invoice terms reflect a T&M/LH contract type rather than the FFP contract type mentioned in the draft RFQ.

Section 5.7.2.a states "All contractor employees assigned to perform this task order will be Key Personnel" while 5.7.2.f states "At a minimum, a Project Manager must be identified and designated as Key Personnel." The latter statement seems to contradict the former.

Product Owner - As the key liaison to business needs and use, is the Product Owner expected to coordinate sprint demonstrations and interaction with key agency subject matter experts as needed?

In the Instructions For Oral Presentations, it would be helpful to know whether during "Contractor Provided Questions", will the government reviewers be in the room as we discuss our approach? This would help us strategize our approach.

Section 3, Procedures for Task Order Awards of the Ordering Guide has three main steps: Task Planning; Competition; and Evaluation and Award. There are no procedures provided for the Evaluation and Award step. Can you please provide this?

In Section 4.0, Requirements of the PWS, there appears to be a formatting issue with non-requirements listed under requirements. It is suggested that tasks that vendors are not expected to handle be included as a separate section and not under Additional Requirements.

I recall the government mentioning in a teleconference that agencies will have the option to designate socio-economic categories for their RFQs through the Agile BPA. If this is the case, it may be helpful to identify the socio-economic categories of the awardees in the 18F Agile Blanket Purchase Agreement Ordering Guide.

Minor typo: Esther Kim's address in 6.12 is misformatted; it reads "esther,[email protected]" rather than "[email protected]".

In the QASP, the Method of surveillance for deployment is “CloudFoundry Logs”. Can the government verify that the target platform is CloudFoundry?

1. Does the FedRAMP customer want all the additional content and design that would be included in a stand-alone site such as introductory content, about page, contact forms, etc. or do they just want the report pages from a report selection list?
2. Should the site be built with a generic look-and-feel for integration into another site, or should we develop a more “finished product” look and feel for a stand-alone site?
3. If the content will integrate with another site, does the customer (or 18F) have a specific preference for Javascript and CSS frameworks?

In the Request for Quotation (RFQ), the government requests a "brief explanation as to the reason for “No Quote”." Would the government mind sharing what this information will be used for and if there are any reasons for No Quote that would be looked upon unfavorably. For example, small businesses may have the bandwidth to respond to a limited number of RFQs. During "high season" for some agencies, small businesses may be inundated with RFPs/RFQs.

While many in the federal procurement space understand these acronyms, it should always be our practice give full enumerations of acronyms when first used in any piece of stand-alone content. This ensure we are not dependent on up/side/down stream artifacts that explain the acronyms - they may change over time.

Section 4.0, Requirements of the PWS. Is the use of third-party libraries allowed, in addition to the US Web Design Standards? Is there an approved list of third-party libraries including versions?

https://github.com/18F/bpa-fedramp-dashboard/blob/master/Pre-Solicitation-Documents/QASP.md about halfway down the page

In the Performance Work Statement, the government requests "At a minimum, a Project Manager must be identified and designated as Key Personnel." It would greatly facilitate our response if the government utilizes the Agile BPA labor categories; or, at minimum, provides an equivalency table. I am guessing that each time we see a role name or labor category that doesn't match up, we would end up asking about it anyway so that we are on the same page with the government as to resourcing and pricing.

For the first project, key personnel are required to attend the Oral Presentation. Will this be a typical requirement of all future 18F submissions?

#1 of the RFQ. What information is required to be provided in the event of a “No Quote”? This is described as “brief” - is there a page limit?

What user community will be made available for the user research?

Section 6.11 of the current PWS: Does GSA envision all project-related correspondence between the winning bidder and the 18F client to be through the AASBS? Please provide more detailed information regarding the use of the portal and whether this will be the required communication medium on future task order projects. Alternatively, will e-mail be an acceptable means of communication for this project-related communication?

Section 4.0, Requirements of the PWS. What is the definition of a “static site”? It appears that the page will update dynamically with a json/csv from GitHub. It also appears to have potentially dynamic user interaction.To clarify, is the requirement that all files are stored statically (server-side) and all dynamic interaction is enabled in the browser (client-side)?

In the Transparency Policy, I assume that our proposal text will not be published. Would it be possible for the government to add a clause specific to this?

#1 of the RFQ states that questions or comments shall be submitted via email. Will RFQ questions also be posted on a publicly available website, such as GitHub, per the Transparency Policy?

Section 6.2, Period of Performance of the RFQ states “The period performance for this task order is delivery of the final product 60 days after the Post Award Conference. The Period of Performance begins on the date of the Post Award Conference and ends 60 days after the Post Award Conference.” Are these business days or calendar days?

For each role, can the Government Roles & Responsibilities document identify from which agency the role will typically be fulfilled? Some are 18F, others likely from originating agency.

The QASP procedures states that "The Contractor must correct the defect(s) within the timeframes established in the PWS”. Can the government clarify what are the timeframes for the correction of defects established in the PWS?

In Agile BPA RFQs, it would be very helpful for vendors if the government could indicate towards the beginning of each RFQ whether it is set aside for a specific socio-economic status or open to all awardees. Thank you!

Has the COR determined the appropriate level of training? Will that be conducted after the 2 month development effort?

In the Performance Work Statement, it states that invoicing is to be performed monthly, but there is only a single CLIN to be delivered at the end of month. Is it possible to propose monthly invoicing for partial completion or some mid-project deliverable? Monthly invoicing greatly aids small businesses, though once every two months is not too burdensome either. Would the government mind clarifying whether they are expecting two invoices or one invoice total for FedRAMP?

In the 18F Agile Blanket Purchase Agreement Ordering Guide, it is noted that "all awardees must have valid Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) 70 contracts." Could you provide guidance to BPA holders on whether it is sufficient to actively bid on the Agile BPA to maintain a Schedule 70 contract, or must we be active on both vehicles?

Non-Issue

Please review the attached regarding our questions for the above mentioned RFQ. Thank you!
18F FedRamp questions.docx

Who is responsible for writing the user stories and the acceptance criteria? Will this be done by the Government Product Owner, or the vendor?

This is what a question could look like. Is it a question?

The draft RFQ states that copies of teaming arrangements are required as part of the submission and that they will count against the 15 page limitation for the technical response. This may be an issue as teaming agreements are typically multiple pages.

In the Instructions For Oral Presentations, it would be helpful to have a brief description (1-2 sentences) letting us know what is meant by Contractor Arrival and Acclimation.

Section 3.0, Scope of the PWS states that the deliverable is described as a public beta launch. Is it correct to assume the definition of beta is based on the 18F Project Stage Definitions? https://18f.gsa.gov/dashboard/stages/

We are unable to locate the data format and sample data referenced in the FedRAMP SOW:

A template of the data format of the data can be found in this Github Repository and sample data is available here.

Will that be provided prior to official release of the RFQ? This will be very helpful in our pricing strategy.

It will also be helpful to know the maximum number of rows expected in the CSV file to determine whether there are performance or other constraints for a static site.

Please also confirm whether the data is a single CSV file with a flat data structure, multiple CSV files with cross-references, or a single CSV file with internal cross-references.

Can the government confirm whether there will be security requirements (e.g. PII data to be protected, authentication and authorization) as part of this project? If so what are the security requirements.

For the current and future task projects, please confirm if a submitted OCI Statement is part of the 15-page limit for a technical quotation.

It would be helpful to know whether any FARs govern "Oral presentations" if this session is not governed by FAR 15.102.

Section 4.0, Requirements of the PWS. This specifies a requirement for print friendly layout. Are there also requirements for mobile and touch friendly layouts?

In the Instructions For Oral Presentations, will there be an option for mixed in-person and remote attendees?

Should the table in the QASP document specify that the code be in source control? Also deployed to staging should be known (tagged) version from source baseline.

This is not at all a big deal, but I wanted to point out that it appears that in the 18F Agile Blanket Purchase Agreement Ordering Guide, the awardees are not alphabetized.

For this first draft RFQ, you are requesting 2 project examples similar to the scope for the FedRAMP dashboard. This requires links to the Git repository and to the live site (or screenshots). If we have similar experience to this scope from commercial clients, they most likely will not allow us to provide the Git repository or source code or even screenshots of their systems. Is there another way to use the commercial experience as a reference? Can we provide a case study and a client point of contact for the project for verification? Do you envision most of the BPA task orders having this type of similar experience qualification?

I have several questions to submit and need to confirm this is the correct path.

There is a mention of a number of different groups that would need access to the FedRAMP private information. Does the dashboard need to support user accounts and different access to data? If so, how will user accounts be managed? Does 18F have a centralized user administration / authorization solution that needs to be integrated with FedRAMP dashboard?