# MODIFIABLE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) TEMPLATE
## Project Title: Reverse-Engineer Undocumented PL/SQL, PowerBuilder & Oracle Forms Codebases into Specs
- **RFP Document Reference**: `VNA-RFP-024` (Companion to Solution Brief `VNA-SB-024`)
- **Issuing Organization**: `[INSERT ORGANIZATION / COMPANY NAME]`
- **Issue Date**: `[2026-10-27]`
- **Proposal Due Date**: `[INSERT DATE, e.g., +30 Calendar Days]`
- **Reference Architecture Portal**: https://reverse-engineer-legacy-code-ast.web.app/
- **Template Attribution**: This site is designed by Viscosity.AI

---

## SECTION 1: ISSUING ORGANIZATION PROFILE & PROCUREMENT SCHEDULE (MODIFIABLE)

> **Instructions for RFP Author**: Replace all bracketed placeholders (`[...]`) below with your organization's specific dates, contacts, and environment metrics before issuing to prospective bidders.

| Procurement Milestone | Target Date / Entry (Modifiable) |
|---|---|
| Issuing Organization Name | `[Insert Legal Entity Name]` |
| Primary Procurement / Technical Contact | `[Insert Name, Title, Email]` |
| RFP Issue Date | `[2026-10-27]` |
| Vendor Written Questions Due | `[Insert Date - Week 2]` |
| Organization Responses to Vendor Q&A | `[Insert Date - Week 3]` |
| Final Vendor Proposals & Pricing Due | `[Insert Date - Week 4]` |
| Technical Architecture Demos / Oral Presentations | `[Insert Date - Week 5]` |
| Target Contract Award & Phase 0 Kickoff | `[Insert Date - Week 6]` |

### 1.1 Executive Summary & Business Objectives
`[INSERT COMPANY NAME]` ("Organization") is soliciting competitive proposals from qualified enterprise architecture and engineering firms to modernize and transition our current **Undocumented Legacy Codebases (PL/SQL, PowerBuilder, Forms, Pro*C, T-SQL, RPG/COBOL)** environment to **AST Dependency Graphs, Business-Rule Catalogs, OpenAPI Specs & Target Code**.

Our primary business and technical objectives are:
- Traditional discovery relies on interviewing business users who only know the screens they click daily and miss 40% of the silent validation, pricing, and compliance rules buried in triggers and stored procedures.
- Conversely, dumping raw 10,000-line PL/SQL packages or PowerBuilder `.srw` files into generic AI chat windows fails due to context-window truncation, missing cross-file call graphs, and hallucinated summaries.
- Without a dead-code audit, engineering teams waste 35%+ of their modernization budget converting obsolete screens, unused tables, and orphaned procedures that have not executed in years.

---

## SECTION 2: CURRENT ENVIRONMENT BASELINE INVENTORY (MODIFIABLE)

Bidders must size their technical delivery plan and fixed-fee milestone pricing against the baseline inventory table below:

| Inventory Dimension | Current Baseline Count / Footprint (Modifiable) | Target Modernization SLA / Objective |
|---|---|---|
| Legacy Source Stack (`Stack X`) | Undocumented Legacy Codebases (PL/SQL, PowerBuilder, Forms, Pro*C, T-SQL, RPG/COBOL) | Full retirement / modernization |
| Target Architecture (`Stack Y`) | AST Dependency Graphs, Business-Rule Catalogs, OpenAPI Specs & Target Code | Production-grade HA/DR & security |
| Lines of Undocumented Legacy Code (Thousands) | `[Insert Count, e.g., 450 K LOC]` | 100% functional parity & optimization |
| Legacy Reports, Forms & Database Packages | `[Insert Count, e.g., 600 objects]` | Automated AST & schema uplift |
| Query Fan-Out Rationalization (Cluster Cloned Queries -> Canonical Core SQL + Runtime Filters) | `[Insert Count, e.g., 80 % fan-out reduction]` | `[Target Rationalization / SLA]` |
| Target Cutover Downtime Window | `[e.g., < 15 Minutes / Near-Zero Downtime]` | Rehearsed parallel run + rollback plan |
| Security, Compliance & Identity | `[e.g., SSO/MFA via Entra ID / Okta, Row-Level VPD, Audit Logs]` | Zero critical/high CVEs at Go-Live |

---

## SECTION 3: MANDATORY TECHNICAL SCOPE OF WORK & DELIVERABLES (MODIFIABLE)

The selected partner shall execute the project across four gated phases (**Phase 0: AST Discovery & Architecture Blueprint**, **Phase 1: Core Foundation & Data/Code Conversion**, **Phase 2: Integration, Runtime Filtering & UAT**, and **Phase 3: Parallel Run, Cutover & Hypercare**).

### 3.1 Core Architectural Requirements
1. **[MODIFIABLE REQUIREMENT 1]**: Stage 1 - Deterministic Compiler AST & Call-Graph Construction: We parse your complete source repository (`.pbl`/`.srw`/`.srd`, `.fmb`/`.pll`/`.rdf`, `DBA_SOURCE` PL/SQL, T-SQL, Pro*C, ColdFusion, C#) into a deterministic graph database mapping every UI control -> event trigger -> procedure call -> table/column CRUD operation.
2. **[MODIFIABLE REQUIREMENT 2]**: Stage 2 - Runtime Telemetry & Dead-Code Pruning: By correlating the static AST call graph with database audit/AWR execution counts (`V$SQL` / `DBA_HIST_SQLSTAT` / table modification timestamps), we isolate the 30% to 45% of legacy objects that are completely dead.
3. **[MODIFIABLE REQUIREMENT 3]**: Stage 3 - AST-Grounded AI Specification Synthesis: Each topologically sorted call subgraph is fed into our private OCI/Anthropic/OpenAI inference pipeline to produce human-readable Functional Requirements Documents (BRDs), state machines, and edge-case tables where every bullet cites the exact legacy file and line range.
4. **[MODIFIABLE REQUIREMENT 4]**: Stage 4 - Automated Target Scaffolding & Test Generation: From the verified AST and specification, we generate target Oracle APEX 24.2 blueprints, PL/SQL package stubs, OpenAPI 3.1 contracts, and `utPLSQL` / Playwright regression test suites.
5. **[MODIFIABLE REQUIREMENT 5]**: Query Fan-Out Rationalization & Runtime/Inference Filtering: Instead of migrating cloned reports and DataWindows 1-for-1, our AST SQL parser clusters queries by their canonical core JOIN graph, builds governed Oracle 23ai views only for those core queries, and generates dynamic WHERE clauses, faceted filters, and ad-hoc report variations at runtime and via AI inference (APEX 24.2 Smart Filters & Select AI).

### 3.2 Component-Level Conversion & Deliverable Matrix
Bidders must confirm compliance with each component conversion requirement below:

| Req ID | Legacy Artifact / Baseline Workload | Required Target Architecture | Engineering Method & Acceptance Criteria | Priority (Modifiable) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| REQ-01 | Undocumented 5,000-Line PL/SQL or T-SQL Packages | Line-Cited Functional Specification + Modular Package Design | AST Control-Flow Graph + LLM Summarization | `[Mandatory / Optional]` |
| REQ-02 | Spaghetti UI Triggers (PowerBuilder / Oracle Forms) | Extracted Business-Rule Catalog + State Transition Matrix | UI-vs-Domain Logic Separation Classifier | `[Mandatory / Optional]` |
| REQ-03 | Orphaned Tables, Views & Uncalled Procedures | Verified Dead-Code Decommission Manifest | Static Call-Graph + `DBA_HIST_SQLSTAT` Join | `[Mandatory / Optional]` |
| REQ-04 | Implicit Foreign Keys (Enforced Only in App Code) | Explicit DDL Constraints & Interactive ERD Lineage Diagram | AST Join-Predicate Mining | `[Mandatory / Optional]` |
| REQ-05 | Cloned Reports / Queries Differing Only by WHERE Clause or Group-By (Query Fan-Out) | Canonical Core SQL View + APEX 24.2 Runtime / AI Inference Filters | AST Join-Graph Clustering (75-90% Report Count Reduction) | `[Mandatory / Optional]` |

### 3.3 Mandatory Platform & Tooling Standards
- Viscosity Multi-Language AST Parser (PowerBuilder, Oracle Forms XML, PL/SQL, T-SQL, ColdFusion, .NET)
- Oracle Database 23ai AI Vector Search & Graph for querying codebase dependencies
- Oracle SQLcl & `DBMS_METADATA` / `PL/Scope` (`DBA_IDENTIFIERS`, `DBA_STATEMENTS`)
- utPLSQL & Playwright automated parity test generators

---

## SECTION 4: VENDOR TECHNICAL Q&A QUESTIONNAIRE & SCORING RUBRIC

Bidders must provide direct, concise written responses to each question below. The Issuing Organization's evaluation committee will grade responses using the embedded benchmark criteria.

### Vendor Question 1: How is Legacy Code X-Ray different from simply using GitHub Copilot or ChatGPT on our source files?
- **Bidder Response Requirement**: Provide a concrete architectural explanation, reference toolset, and verifiable production proof. Generic marketing statements will be scored zero.
- **Evaluation Benchmark (What High-Scoring Responses Must Demonstrate)**: LLMs alone cannot resolve cross-file inheritance, global variables, dynamic SQL, or database trigger chains across 2,000 files. We use real compiler parsers (including Oracle `PL/Scope` and our PBL/FMB AST engines) to build the exact mathematical dependency graph first, so the AI never guesses or hallucinates relationships.
- **Evaluator Score (0 to 10 Points)**: `[   / 10 ]`

### Vendor Question 2: Does our source code ever train public AI models?
- **Bidder Response Requirement**: Provide a concrete architectural explanation, reference toolset, and verifiable production proof. Generic marketing statements will be scored zero.
- **Evaluation Benchmark (What High-Scoring Responses Must Demonstrate)**: Never. All AST parsing runs locally inside isolated enclaves, and any semantic summarization uses zero-data-retention enterprise API endpoints.
- **Evaluator Score (0 to 10 Points)**: `[   / 10 ]`

### Vendor Question 3: What is included in the downloadable PDF Solution Brief?
- **Bidder Response Requirement**: Provide a concrete architectural explanation, reference toolset, and verifiable production proof. Generic marketing statements will be scored zero.
- **Evaluation Benchmark (What High-Scoring Responses Must Demonstrate)**: The PDF Solution Brief includes a sample Legacy Code X-Ray Diagnostic Output (showing an AST dependency map, extracted business-rule table with line citations, and dead-code scorecard) plus instructions for requesting a 2-week Phase 0 Codebase Assessment.
- **Evaluator Score (0 to 10 Points)**: `[   / 10 ]`

### Vendor Question 4: How do you prevent report and query fan-out bloat, and how do you guarantee zero vendor lock-in?
- **Bidder Response Requirement**: Detail your methodology for clustering redundant legacy queries/reports into canonical core SQL views with runtime or AI-inference filtering, and specify customer code/data ownership upon project completion.
- **Evaluation Benchmark (What High-Scoring Responses Must Demonstrate)**: Bidder must demonstrate deterministic AST SQL clustering (collapsing 75%-90% of cloned reports into core database views with runtime predicates), 100% customer ownership of all DDL, PL/SQL, application source code, and Terraform scripts, and zero proprietary runtime lock-in.
- **Evaluator Score (0 to 10 Points)**: `[   / 10 ]`

### Vendor Question 5: Describe your automated regression testing, parallel run, and zero-downtime cutover methodology.
- **Bidder Response Requirement**: Specify how data parity, business-rule equivalence, and rollback safety are verified prior to production cutover.
- **Evaluation Benchmark (What High-Scoring Responses Must Demonstrate)**: Bidder must provide automated row-count and cryptographic hash reconciliation, automated unit/UI test suites (e.g., utPLSQL, Playwright), and a rehearsed cutover runbook with sub-minute rollback capability.
- **Evaluator Score (0 to 10 Points)**: `[   / 10 ]`

---

## SECTION 5: COMMERCIAL PRICING & LICENSING MATRIX (MODIFIABLE)

Bidders must complete the fixed-price milestone table below and disclose all recurring software or cloud consumption assumptions.

| Milestone / Cost Category | Deliverable & Acceptance Gate | Fixed Fee / Annual Cost (USD) | Estimated Duration (Weeks) |
|---|---|---|---|
| **Phase 0: Discovery & AST Code/Schema X-Ray** | Verified inventory, dead-code manifest, core SQL fan-out map, and final blueprint | `$[Insert]` | `[2 - 3 Weeks]` |
| **Phase 1: Target Environment & Automated Uplift** | Provisioned target stack, schema migration, and core business logic conversion | `$[Insert]` | `[4 - 8 Weeks]` |
| **Phase 2: UI, Integrations, Reporting & UAT** | Completed application/portal screens, runtime reports, AOP templates, and UAT sign-off | `$[Insert]` | `[3 - 6 Weeks]` |
| **Phase 3: Production Cutover & Hypercare** | Rehearsed cutover, reconciliation sign-off, documentation, and 30-day hypercare | `$[Insert]` | `[2 - 3 Weeks]` |
| **Optional: Annual Managed Services / Support** | 24x7 monitoring, patching, DBA performance tuning, and quarterly enhancements | `$[Insert / yr]` | `[12 Months]` |

---

## SECTION 6: PROPOSAL EVALUATION SCORECARD (MODIFIABLE)

| Evaluation Criterion | Weight (%) | Description |
|---|---|---|
| **1. Technical Architecture & Automation Tooling** | `35%` | Depth of AST automation, query fan-out rationalization, database/cloud architecture, and zero lock-in. |
| **2. Verifiable Production Experience & References** | `25%` | Proven track record delivering identical `Reverse-Engineer Legacy PL/SQL, Forms & PowerBuilder (AST)` engagements with measurable outcomes. |
| **3. Cutover Safety, Testing & Compliance** | `20%` | Rigor of data reconciliation, automated regression testing, security/compliance controls, and rollback safety. |
| **4. Commercial Value & Total Cost of Ownership (TCO)** | `20%` | Transparent fixed-fee milestone pricing and 3-to-5 year software/cloud licensing savings. |
| **TOTAL** | **`100%`** | |

---
*Template Reference: `VNA-RFP-024` | Companion Portal: https://reverse-engineer-legacy-code-ast.web.app/ | This site is designed by Viscosity.AI*