MODIFICATION
R -- Market Survey- Instrument Flight Procedures Automation (IFPA)- Aeronautical Information Services (AIS) Production Workflow System (APWS)
- Notice Date
- 6/24/2016
- Notice Type
- Modification/Amendment
- NAICS
- 541511
— Custom Computer Programming Services
- Contracting Office
- FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, AAQ-722 AC - Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center (Oklahoma City, OK)
- ZIP Code
- 00000
- Solicitation Number
- 24131
- Response Due
- 6/27/2016
- Archive Date
- 6/27/2016
- Point of Contact
- Angel Taylor, angel.taylor@faa.gov, Phone: 405-954-5102
- E-Mail Address
-
Click here to email Angel Taylor
(angel.taylor@faa.gov)
- Small Business Set-Aside
- N/A
- Description
- The purpose of this amendment is to answer questions received as a result of this posted market survey request. No additional market survey responses will be accepted at this time. If a solicitation is released, it will be released on the FAA Contract Opportunities Page, https://faaco.faa.gov. 1. When was the supplied CONOPS written? The CONOPS was written a couple of years ago, but was recently updated for this market survey. 2. Is the system still using oracle Workflow? Yes Oracle is still the backbone workflow. 3. Are the non-functional standards-based requirements going to be formally tested? Yes all requirements will be tested. 4. Does the APWS team have its own operations staff or are they used to a shared operations model? Operational support is provided by the FAA s Shared IT Services group, with local support provided at MMAC. 5. Are the system back-up capabilities in existence today? All backup capabilities are already in place as part of the operational support. 6. Who owns the ESB mentioned in the APWS - this program or another one? Will there be a program level ESB? The ESB exists for the support of all applications under the Instrument Flight Procedures Automation (IFPA) tool suite. 7. Which of the interfaces mentioned in the RFI exist today? Interfaces exist for AIRNAV, IFP-SIAP, IFP-FIX, IFP-ROUTES, IFP-DEPARTURES, PIT, IPDS, TARGETS, & FOMS 8. If all the requirements are defined up front - what is the envisioned change management process? Change management will be required for changing business requirements over the course of the APWS development. 9. The RFI mentions page limits for some sections yet it appears that none of the sections mention page limits does that mean none of them are constrained? The only item in the RFI that had a page limit is 4.b. Contractor Capabilities. 10. Is the envisioned agile development approach SCRUM? Yes SCRUM style is envisioned. It may have to be modified depending on the location of the contractor and the development environment. 11. Is test driven development desired? Yes where appropriate. The integration complexity does not always lend itself to true test driven development but that should be employed to the extent possible. 12. If we were to suggest a change management phase be undertaken at the beginning of the project in order to revisit the existing workflows in an attempt to define the to-be workflows would that be well received? We would certainly listen and entertain all suggestions, however both the to-be and as-is workflows are well defined 13. What is believed to be the primary contributing factor to the high latency worklists? High latency may or may not have been caused by volume of data and/or incorrect indexing. If you're viewing this announcement from a source other than Federal Aviation Administration Contract Opportunities (FAACO), visit https://faaco.faa.gov/index.cfm/announcement/view/24716 to view the original announcement.
- Web Link
-
FBO.gov Permalink
(https://www.fbo.gov/spg/DOT/FAA/MMACTR/24131/listing.html)
- Record
- SN04161695-W 20160626/160624234713-0b570f67cce3a94f53eef902a05693a7 (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 |