FY23 EBS Solicitation Questions and Answers (Compiled).xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 18 KB Posted
- Attached to
- FY23 USDA Enterprise Business Solutions Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 12314422R0011
About this file
This document contains compiled questions and answers related to a solicitation for the Department of Agriculture's Enterprise Business Solutions. The solicitation seeks proposals for an enterprise business solution to replace the department's current Microsoft-based system and support over 130,000 users. Offerors may propose alternative solutions to Microsoft, hybrid solutions using both Microsoft and non-Microsoft products, or solely Microsoft solutions. The response deadline is June 21, 2022. The incumbent contractor is Dell Federal, LLC. Evaluation criteria include technical approach, past performance, price, and a proof of concept test. Questions cover topics such as licensing, pricing, evaluation methodology, and transition requirements.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| FY23 EBS Solicitation Questions and Answers (Compiled) 061622.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| B02 12314422R0011_Amd_0004.pdf | ||
| B02 Attachment C Source Selection Plan 061522.pdf | ||
| B02 12314422R0011_Amd_0003.pdf | ||
| B02 12314422R0011_Amd_0002.pdf | ||
| B02 Attachment A Vendor Price Worksheet 10Jun22.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| B02 Attachment B USDA OCIO Enterprise Business Solutions Statement of Work 7June22.pdf | ||
| B02 12314422R0011_Amd_0001.pdf | ||
| B02 Attachment D USDA EBS Transition Assessment Report.docx | DOCX document | |
| B02 Attachment C Source Selection Plan.pdf | ||
| B02 Attachment B USDA OCIO Enterprise Business Solutions Statement of Work.pdf | ||
| B02 12314422R0011.pdf | ||
| B02 Attachment F Estimated Cost for Maintaining Concurrent Licenses.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| B02 Attachment E Past Performance Questionnaire.pdf | ||
| B02 Attachment A Vendor Price Worksheet.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet |
Show all 15
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| FY23 Enterprise Business Solutions RFP 12314422R0011 | ||
| Question | Government Response | |
| 1 | We understand the USDA is looking for an Enterprise business solution. But we are confused because the USDA already have/utilize Microsoft as an EBS. Based on our understanding after reading the SOW either USDA want to move to O365 or some other solution like Google platform? | This requirement is being solicited as brand name or equal. Microsoft is the current solution in place. The Statement of Work outlines the full requirements needed and what an alternative solution must meet if proposed. |
| 2 | Will the USDA please grant a response extension until 8-Jul-2022 so that we can ensure a comprehensive response packet with competitive pricing? | If an extension is found to be necessary, we will consider making an adjustment to the RFP. |
| 3 | In reference to B02 Attachment A, please confirm USDA is requesting monthly or annual pricing for columns E and by extension Column F. | Column E is the vendor’s determination if this unit price will be monthly or annual. If it is a monthly cost to cover the period identified in row 1 the unit price should be $X * 12. Again populating the extended total price in column F. |
| 4 | Clin 1001-9001 are maintenance only skus, which require an underlying License to purchase more. As such, USDA is only eligible to purchase the quantities represented in CLIN 0001 for these On-prem SA-only skus. Any increase in quantities for Clin 1 would need to be represented as License & Software Assurance part numbers, which are different from the represented SA-only part numbers. We recommend keeping the quantities consistent for the Option Years of Clin 1. | The USDA has addressed this concern and a revised Attachment A Vendor Price Worksheet has been included in Amendment 0002 posted on 6/13/2022. |
| 5 | Should offerors’ Phase I proposal response include the Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment E) with a completed Part 1, Contractor Identification so that the USDA has notice of the specific References that it should be receiving with respect to each offeror? | Yes, Part 1 of the Past Performance Questionnaire must be included in the Phase 1 submission. |
| 6 | Would the USDA consider allowing additional time for Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment E) References to provide written responses so long as they are identified in the Phase 1 proposal responses? It may be difficult for some References to find time to respond within the allotted time given Summer travel plans and other commitments. | If the USDA finds an extension to be necessary, we will consider making an adjustment to the RFP. |
| 7 | Should the offerors’ Phase I proposal response include signed copies of the Solicitation (SF 1449) and Solicitation Amendment 0001? | Yes, signed copies of the solicitation and any corresponding amendments must be submitted. |
| 8 | Please confirm that there is no page limit on the offerors’ Phase I proposal transmittal letter. | Confirming there is no page limit for the Phase 1 submission requirements. |
| 9 | The SAM.gov posting indicates that the Solicitation includes “controlled attachments” which are presumably attachments other than Attachment A - Attachment F, which are designated public. Would the USDA please confirm whether or not there are Solicitation attachments in addition to Attachment A – Attachment F? | Confirming there are no controlled attachments. All current solicitation attachments include: |
1. Solicitation 12314422R0011
2. Solicitation Amendment 12314422R0011-0001 3. Solicitation Amendment 12314422R0011-0002
4. Attachment A Vendor Price Worksheet
5. Attachment B USDA OCIO Statement of Work revised 6/7/2022
6. Attachment C Source Selection Plan
7. Attachment D USDA EBS Transition Assessment Report
8. Attachment E Past Performance Questionnaire
9. Attachment F Estimated Cost for Maintaining Concurrent Licenses
| 10 | Would it be acceptable to provide References for contracts where the Offeror did not have any role in performance (but a proposed subcontractor performed the contract)? | Do not supply PPQs for subcontractors, since the Government will only be working with the contractor and it is the contractor’s job to control the work of the subcontractor. PPQs should provide the Government past performance information on how the contractor has performed work of similar size, scope and magnitude. |
| 11 | Please confirm pricing in B02 Attachment A column E is meant to be priced at a per month price for all CLINs for all years. | Column E is the vendor’s determination if this unit price will be monthly or annual. If it is annual the total annual cost should be entered. If it is a monthly cost to cover the period identified in row 1 the unit price should be $x * 12. This should auto populate the extended total price in column F. |
| 12 | Clin 1001-9001 are maintenance only skus, which require an underlying License to purchase more. As such, USDA is only eligible to purchase the quantities represented in CLIN 0001 for these On-prem SA-only skus. Any increase in quantities for Clin 1 would need to be represented as License & Software Assurance part numbers, which are different from the represented SA-only part numbers. We recommend keeping the quantities consistent for the Option Years of Clin 1. | See Amendment 0002 posted on 6/13/2022 which incorporates revised B02 Attachment A Vendor Price Worksheet which addresses this concern. |
| 13 | The B02 USDA Enterprise Business Solutions (EBS) Transition Assessment Report, Attachment D to the Solicitation includes Section 4.4, Resource Level of Effort which states:Section 4.4, Resource Level of Effort states: |
The EBS migration LOE estimates in this assessment include: O365 data migrations, training on a comparable EBS, re-development of functionality built using MS products, and LOE associated with updates to applications that depend on MS products.
| Attachment D provides a range of number which appear to be hours of effort. Are the range of numbers hours of effort? | The EBS migration LOE estimates in this assessment include: O365 data migrations, training on a comparable EBS, re-development of functionality built using MS products, and LOE associated with updates to applications that depend on MS products. ― | BEST CASE LOE: 1,346,677 | |
| ― | WORST CASE LOE: 4,897,467 | ||
| ― | MOST LIKELY LOE: 2,826,513 | ||
| ― | TRIANGLE ESTIMATE: 3,023,552 | ||
| ― | PERT ESTIMATE: 2,925,032 What is reflected is the number of hours applied for the level of effort. Best Case, Worst Case and Most Likely each have a specified number of hours applied to that specific level of effort. | ||
| 14 | Were the hours of effort used to calculate the costs identified in Section 4.3 Cost of Migration to Alternative Solution? | There are five different cost tables in this section. Both dollars and hours are associated with the activity being performed in each table. Those activities include: EBS Migration Analysis, O365 Data Migration, O365 Training Costs, Redevelopment, and Total EBS Migration Costs. | |
| 15 | Are the hours of effort labor hours to be incurred by the contractor, USDA personnel or both? | The B02 Attachment D EBS Transition Assessment Report is an independent assessment conducted to evaluate the conditions it would take for the USDA to transition from Microsoft to an alternative solution. It is for informational purposes only and as a tool in the best value determination. Any transition effort will be incurred by the Contractor. | |
| 16 | If the hours of effort labor hours are to be incurred by both USDA and the Contractor, is there a break down of the hours of effort between USDA and the Contractor? | No, there is not a breakdown. | |
| 17 | Does Attachment D include a calculation of the cost of loss productivity of USDA personnel that are involved in the transition, e.g., USDA employees who must attend training classes in the products of the new solution, USDA employees who must assist the contractor in the technical transition, etc.? | No | |
| 18 | The Source Selection Plan states in part: |
The offeror’s total price must include the total cost of the replacement solution that satisfies all requirements and must include transition costs, and training costs agreement during the transition period.
Does the “total cost of the replacement solution” include the cost of loss productivity of USDA personnel that are involved in the transition?
| Transition costs consist of training USDA Enterprise License users, and transition to the new environment. | ||
| 19 | Will the USDA add to the price of an offered replacement solution to actual costs incurred by USDA for loss of productivity of USDA personnel during the transition period? | See response to Question 18 |
| 20 | Will the proposed length of the transition period for a proposed replacement solution be considered in the best value determination? | Yes |
| 21 | Is there any time limit on the proposed length of the transition period for a proposed replacement solution? | If an alternative solution is proposed, the length of transition is the offeror’s responsibility to determine and propose if selected to move on the Phase 2. |
| 22 | The Source Selection Plan utilizes the term “hybrid solution” and states in Section 1.3 that “USDA will advance to phase 2 the lowest priced/high confidence Microsoft proposal, the lowest priced/high confidence alternative solution proposal, the lowed priced/high confidence hybrid proposal, etc.” |
Is a “hybrid solution” a replacement solution that proposes the use of Microsoft Corporation software and/or services and non-Microsoft Corporation software and/or services?
| Any alternative or hybrid solution would consist of anything other than a 100% Microsoft solution. | ||
| 23 | Is there a minimum amount of Microsoft Corporation software and/or services that must be proposed to be considered a hybrid solution? Is there a minimum amount of non-Microsoft software and/or services that must be proposed to be considered a hybrid solution? If so, what are the minimum amounts? | No minimum amounts |
| 24 | May a hybrid solution propose using Microsoft Corporation software and/or services for the entire contract period of 10 years? | Yes |
| 25 | What is USDA’s methodology for “grouping hybrids” and selecting “more than one (1) hybrid solution to go on to Phase 2”, as stated in Section 1.3? | If there are multiple hybrid variations proposed, the USDA can elect to select 1 hybrid solution to move on to phase 2 or one offeror from each variation. Alternative solutions of the same type would be grouped together and one selected to move on the Phase 2. |
| 26 | Will hybrid solutions be required to demonstrate that the integration of software between the non-Microsoft software and/or services and the proposed Microsoft software and/or services will achieve the same functionality and features that meet all of the requirements of the Statement of Work as a single unified solution? | Offeror’s who are selected to move on to Phase 2 will participate in a Proof of Concept. The Proof of Concept will test the alternative solutions to ensure they are compatible within the USDA environment and can meet the requirements stated in the Statement of Work. |
| 27 | Section 1.3.1.b) of the Source Selection Plan states: |
Capable vendors must provide a minimum of three (3) past performance references for efforts that similar in size, scope, and complexity, and that are either ongoing or were completed within the last three years….
| Is a similar size past performance reference one that involves the transition of more than 100,000 seats? | Yes | ||
| 28 | Is a similar size past performance reference one that involves the transition of a material percentage of the seats applicable under the RFP? | Yes | |
| 29 | Is a similar scope past performance reference one that involves the transition of all or most of the capabilities listed in the Statement of Work? | Yes | |
| 30 | Is a similar complexity past performance reference one that involves the transition of all or most of the capabilities listed in the Statement of Work for different entities within the same organization? | Yes | |
| 31 | May a past performance reference come from non-U.S. Government customers? | Yes | |
| 32 | In order to compliant, must an ongoing past performance reference be one where the transition efforts have been completed? If not, for how long of a period must an ongoing past performance reference be in existence? | Past performance references can be from contracts that are currently being performed or completed. | |
| 33 | May an offeror attach additional sheets to Attachment E, Past Performance Questionnaire that describes in detail the size, scope and complexity of the past performance reference? | For the past performance questionnaire, the USDA only requires responses to the questions from the recipient of the work. | |
| 34 | Will the Government please include a definition for each confidence rating (e.g., High, Moderate, Low) it will assess for Past Performance? | Confidence ratings are defined on Page 8 of the B02 Attachment C Source Selection Plan | |
| 35 | For offerors offering a hybrid solution, will the relevant past performance reference be required to be a reference of a substantially similar solution to the hybrid solution being offered pursuant to this RFP? | Yes | |
| 36 | Are offerors allowed to submit past performance references of a proposed major subcontractor that has performed relevant work by delivering required software and services to the end customer as a major subcontractor to another prime contractor? | Yes | |
| 37 | Section 1.4 of the Source Selection Plan states in relevant part: |
In an alternate solution, the USDA shall not lose functionality or shall not impact on official government records.
| Must an offeror of an alternate solution ensure that USDA functionality is not loss during the transition period as well as after the completion of the transition? | Yes | ||
| 38 | Should the word “or” in this statement be replaced with the word “and”? | Yes | |
| 39 | Section 1.4.2 of the Source Selection Plan states in relevant part in the first bullet: |
The PoC shall include a strategy or plan which describes the idea and proposed functionality of the product….
| Is the term product synonymous with the term “proposed solution”? | Yes | |
| 40 | Section 1.4.2.2. of the Source Selection Plan states in part at the first bullet: |
If [it] meets USDA’s requirements for an Active Directory environment or similar solution….
| Is a “similar solution” a solution that meets all of the functional capability of Active Directory? | Yes | ||||
| 41 | The Source Selection Plan states that the Government is soliciting an “equal” alternative. Should uses of the word “similar” in Section 1.4.2.2 be changed to “equal” throughout the Source Selection Plan? | No | |||
| 42 | Will the Government add a bullet that states that “If the proposed solution meets all other functionality, security, and other requirements described in the SOW.” | No. The below two items listed in Section 1.4.2.2. of the Source Selection Plan would be reflective of the requirements listed in the Statement of Work (SOW). • | If the proposed solution offers enterprise business capabilities that provide similar features and capabilities currently consumed by the USDA. • | If the proposed solution offers enterprise business capabilities that provide similar features and capabilities currently consumed by the USDA end user. | |
| 43 | Section 1.4.2.2. of the Source Selection Plan states in part at the fourth bullet: |
If the proposed solution offers enterprise business capabilities that provide similar features and capabilities currently consumed by the USDA.
| Is a proposed solution that provides “similar features and capabilities” a solution that provides all of the functional capabilities currently consumed by the USDA? | The proposed solution must meet the functional capabilities and requirements in the Statement of Work | |
| 44 | Section 1.4.2.2. of the Source Selection Plan states in part at the eleventh bullet: |
If the proposed solution offers enterprise business capabilities that provide similar features and capabilities currently consumed by the USDA end user.
| Is a proposed solution that provides “similar features and capabilities” a solution that provides all of the functional capabilities currently consumed by the USDA end user for enterprise business capabilities? | The proposed solution must meet the functional capabilities and requirements in the Statement of Work. | |
| 45 | The evaluation factors do not align throughout the Source Selection plan, as referenced below. Will the USDA please align the evaluation factors in Sections 2.2. and 2.3? |
In section 2.2 they are:
| - | Phase 1: Factor 1 – Responsiveness, Factor 2- Price, Factor 3 – Past Performance. |
| - | Phase 2: Factor 1 – Written Technical, Factor 2 – Proof of Concept (a. POC Strategy/Plan, b. POC Execution), Factor 3- Price. |
In Section 2.3 they are:
| - | Phase 1: Factor 1 - Responsiveness to Brand Name or Equivalent and Price, Factor 2- Past Performance. | |
| - | Phase 2: (Factor 1 – Written Technical Solution, Factor 2 – Proof of Concept, Factor 3- Total Cost Ownership) | Yes, section 2.2 Phase 2 Evaluation Factor 3 should be “Total Cost of Ownership” |
| 46 | Section 2.3.5 of the Source Selection Plan states: |
For alternative solutions, the Government will further evaluate price in Phase 2. Estimated cost for maintaining concurrent licenses will be added to alternative vendor’s proposals based on the timeframe identified in their written technical solution and transition plan to determine the total cost of ownership of an alternative solution. This may be used in the best value determination.
Will the total cost of ownership of an alternative solution include the costs incurred by the USDA of loss of productivity of USDA personnel during the transition?
| See response to Question 18 | ||
| 47 | Will the “estimated cost for maintaining concurrent licenses” be used in the best value determination when an alternative solution is proposed? | Yes |
| 48 | Will the Government perform a price realism analysis as part of its evaluation of Total Cost of Ownership to ensure that offerors do not submit prices that are unrealistically low and therefore introduce risk to mission requirements? | This will be a best value analysis to include licenses, transition, and training. The B02 transition Assessment provides estimates of any transitional requirements, which will be used to determine if the Offeror understands the size, scope, and complexity. |
| 49 | Will the Government also evaluate Price in Phase 2 using Attachment F – Estimated Cost for Maintaining Concurrent Licenses and Attachment D – USDA EBS Transition Assessment Report? | Yes |
| 50 | The EBS Statement of Work states in the section on “Transition Requirements”: |
The new vendor shall need to help coordinate and assist with union negotiations due to changes in work conditions. The new solution deployment shall not start until the union agreement is finalized.
| Will the USDA’s evaluation of Past Performance include an evaluation of the success that the offeror has had in obtaining acceptance by the union to the proposed solution? | Union acceptance has not been incorporated in the Past Performance Questionnaire and will not be evaluated with that factor | ||
| 51 | Will the USDA’s evaluation of the Proof of Concept include an evaluation of issues that may be presented in achieving acceptance of the proposed solution by the union? | The evaluation will include aspects related to ease of use and end user experience, but is not tied directly to a Union | |
| 52 | Will the new vendor be entitled to any monetary compensation for the time period covered by the negotiation with the union? | No | |
| 53 | Who is the incumbent contractor? | Dell Federal, LLC | |
| 54 | Are there any listed incumbent sub-contractors? | No | |
| 55 | RFP calls for Premier IT Support and training for 100 users; is there any other helpdesk, training or support required from the vendor for the other 130,000 USDA users? If so, what are the anticipated/budgeted amount of hours? | There are several training references in the requirements table such as: Cloud Access Security Broker (CASB) – Line 31, DLP/IP Deployment – Line 1 |
Server Management – Line 32 USDA has not stipulated any exact amount of training.
| 56 | Is the current infrastructure setup under a single Microsoft tenant or are there multiple domains and tenants? If so, how many? | There are two tenants, USDA GCC and the OIG. There are two domains, USDA GCC and the OIG. |
| 57 | Will billing be centralized, or will vendor be required to bill each USDA location individually? | Billing will be centralized through the USDA Client Experience Center (CEC) |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .