RFQ STRATUS Pool 2 Attch E Questions and Answers_Amd 001.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 91 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 12314425Q0065
About this file
This document is a Request for Quotes (RFQ) for the USDA STRATUS Pool 2 Basic Ordering Agreement (BOA) On-Ramp for integration and development services. The solicitation seeks to add new vendors to provide cloud-based managed services across 16 task areas, including cloud strategy, platform operations, application development, security assessment, and DevSecOps pipeline engineering. The BOA will have a 10-year ordering period expiring on April 9, 2034, with individual task orders not exceeding five years.
The solicitation is open to both small businesses (Restricted track) and large businesses (Unrestricted track) under NAICS code 541512 with a $34 million size standard. Vendors must submit three prior experience examples, each demonstrating a minimum $10 million contract value within the last three years. Evaluation will focus on prior experience and management/technical approach, with vendors required to demonstrate capabilities across the Statement of Objectives task areas. The government anticipates awarding multiple BOAs in summer 2025, with task order opportunities including cloud support, application development, and IT support services for various USDA mission areas.
View the file
Other files
Show all 22
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Attch E Q&A 12314425Q0065
| Solicitation #12314425Q0065 | ||||||
| Attachment E: Questions and Answers Template | ||||||
| Question # | RFQ Document | Page Number | Section Number | Category | Vendor Question | Government's Reponse |
| 1 | Instructions RFQ 12314425Q0065 STRATUS Pool 2 On-Ramp.pdf | 15 | 4.4 Prior Experience (Volume 2) | Evaluation Criteria | Can you please confirm that the USDA is looking for three past experience references from Vendors; with each reference being a $10M minimum contract value? | See Section 4.4 of Instructions - Yes, USDA requests 3 Prior Experience examples with each being a minimum value of $10M. |
| 2 | Instructions RFQ 12314425Q0065 STRATUS Pool 2 On-Ramp | 16 | 4.4 Prior Experience (Volume 2) | Evaluation Criteria | Can a non-mentor-protégé Joint Venture submit a response without meeting the $10 million contract value threshold, similar to the flexibility provided to SBA Mentor-Protégé Joint Ventures as described in the solicitation? | No. See Section 4.4 of Instructions. |
| 3 | Instructions RFQ 12314425Q0065 STRATUS Pool 2 On-Ramp | 15 | 4.4 Prior Experience (Volume 2) | Evaluation Criteria | If the Government is unable to remove the $10 million threshold entirely, would the Government consider lowering the threshold to $2 million in order to provide greater opportunity and participation for small businesses? | No, the $10M prior experience contract value is required. |
| 4 | Instructions RFQ 12314425Q0065 STRATUS Pool 2 On-Ramp | 9 | 3.3 Acquisition Details / General Contract Terms | Evaluation Criteria | As a subcontractor/team member, is an entity permitted to participate on multiple proposal teams under the Small Business lane? | See Section 3.3 of the RFQ. A BOA prime offeror may only appear once per track. At the TO level, contractors retain flexiblity to subcontract as needed to meet a TO requirement. |
| 5 | Instructions RFQ 12314425Q0065 STRATUS Pool 2 On-Ramp | 9 | 3.3 Acquisition Details / General Contract Terms | Evaluation Criteria | If an entity is submitting a proposal as a prime offeror, is it also permitted to participate as a subcontractor on another team’s proposal? | See Section 3.3 of the RFQ. A BOA prime offeror may only appear once per track. At the TO level, contractors retain flexiblity to subcontract as needed to meet a TO requirement. |
| 6 | RFQ | 18 | 6.1 Select Most Capable Offerors and Finalize Apparent Awardees | Evaluation Criteria | The RFQ states "Once the Government determines which offerors are the most capable of satisfying the Government’s requirements, the Government reserves the right to communicate with only those offerors to address any remaining issues, if necessary, and finalize a BOA with the offeror." Does the government have a desired number or target number of vendors that it plans to on-ramp? | USDA is seeking a broad set of capabilites and has not pre-established a target number of awards for this on-ramp. |
| 7 | RFQ | 13, 14, 15 | 4.2 Volumes and Page Limits, 4.4 Prior Experience (Volume 2) | Evaluation Criteria | Row 2 of the Volumes and Page Limits table states "Maximum number of examples: 3." Section 4.4 states "The offeror shall provide a detailed narrative for three (3) examples of contracts performed . . ." The first one suggests up to 3 examples of past experience and the second reference suggest 3 are required. Can the government please clarify that up to 3 past experiences can be submitted allowing us to possibly submit only 1 or 2 that covers the SOO requirements with high confidence? | USDA requires 3 Prior Experience examples. |
| 8 | RFQ | 15, 16 | 4.4 Prior Experience (Volume 2) and 4.5 Management/Technical Approach (Volume 3) | Evaluation Criteria | Section 4.4 states "Offerors shall demonstrate experience across as many of the task areas identified in the SOO, as possible.". Section 4.5 states "The Government is specifically interested in the offeror’s approach to the following as it relates holistically to the SOO. Quality of responses is more important than quantity of SOO task areas:". The RFP seems to contradict somewhat between the evaluation of the Past Experience and the Management/Technical volumes. One requires broader coverage of the SOO task areas while the other is focused on quality and not necessarily the coverage of the SOO task areas. How does the government plan to reconcile these two opposing evaluation focus points? | The evaluation factors do not conflict. Prior Experience and Management/Technical Approach are separate factors. Quality and quantity are both evaluated. |
| 9 | RFQ STRATUS Pool 2 Attachment A – SOO | Page 2-4 | A.1 Objective / Task Areas | Technical/Scope | The SOO references “integration and development services, including managed services.” Still, it does not clarify whether Enterprise Network Services (ENS), such as cross-domain networking, transport-level interconnects, or telecom integration, are considered in scope for Pool 2. Can the Government please clarify whether ENS-related services are within scope for this Pool 2 BOA? | Those could be in scope. The exact requirements and scope determination would depend on each TO. |
| 10 | RFQ STRATUS Pool 2 Attachment I – Projected Task Order Opportunities | Entire Document | Technical/Scope | The list of projected task orders for Pool 2 appears heavily focused on application development, cloud platforms, and data engineering. Can the Government confirm whether any future task orders under Pool 2 will include support for ENS (Enterprise Network Services), telecom integration, or transport-level infrastructure? If not, is that work reserved exclusively for another pool or contract vehicle? | Unknown at this time. | |
| 11 | RFQ STRATUS Pool 2 Attachment B – Security Requirements | 2 | B.1.1 Definitions / Security Program | Security | The document outlines CSP obligations under FedRAMP and USDA directives, but it is unclear how these apply to hybrid services where contractors integrate with government-managed networks. Can the Government clarify the delineation of security responsibility when interconnecting contractor cloud environments with USDA ENS infrastructure? | May depend on each TO. TO RFQs will specify as needed. |
| 12 | RFQ STRATUS Pool 2 Attachment B – Security Requirements | 2 3 | B.1.2 Security Controls / Authorization Boundary | Security | Does the Government expect Pool 2 contractors to define a new security authorization boundary when interfacing with USDA networks, or will all work remain within pre-established FedRAMP ATO environments? | May depend on each TO. TO RFQs will specify as needed. |
| 13 | RFQ STRATUS Pool 2 Attachment B – Security Requirements | 3 | B.1.3 Continuous Monitoring | Security | Will USDA provide monitoring data and network telemetry when Pool 2 solutions are hosted in a hybrid environment that requires coordination with USDA network teams (e.g., for Zero Trust implementation or shared compliance auditing)? | May depend on each TO. TO RFQs will specify as needed. |
| 14 | RFQ STRATUS Pool 2 Attachment C – Billing, Automation & Data Reporting | 2 | Introductory Paragraph | Technical/Scope | The Attachment outlines automation and dashboard reporting aligned with TBM frameworks. Will USDA provide APIs or a centralized platform to ingest this data, or are contractors responsible for creating their own integrations into USDA systems? | Will depend on each TO. |
| 15 | RFQ STRATUS Pool 2 Attachment C – Billing, Automation & Data Reporting | 3 | Data Standardization | Technical/Scope | Will USDA define a universal data schema for all task orders under Pool 2 to ensure consistent billing and spend reporting, or will data standards vary by task order? | Data requirements may depend on each TO. However, billing requirements are specified at the BOA level and apply to all STRATUS task orders. See Attachments C and H. |
| 16 | RFQ STRATUS Pool 2 Attachment C – Billing, Automation & Data Reporting | 4 | Spend Transparency | Technical/Scope | For hybrid solutions involving ENS or on-premise components, how should contractors report spend and usage data that may be co-managed or provisioned by USDA? | Will depend on each TO. Will be addressed at the TO level, as needed. |
| 17 | RFQ STRATUS Pool 2 Attachment D – Provisions and Clauses | 2 3 | FAR 52.204-21 | Technical/Scope | The clause on safeguarding contractor information systems references FCI protections. Can the Government confirm whether these responsibilities extend to any ENS infrastructure shared with USDA under Pool 2 efforts, or are such systems considered outside the contractor’s security boundary? | May depend on each TO. TO RFQs will specify as needed. |
| 18 | RFQ STRATUS Pool 2 Attachment D – Provisions and Clauses | various | Multiple Clauses | Security | Several clauses mention system access and safeguarding responsibilities without clarifying the boundary between USDA-controlled ENS systems and contractor-controlled cloud environments. Can the Government specify who is responsible for monitoring, logging, and securing access at interconnection points (e.g., between USDA ENS and contractor platforms)? | May depend on each TO. TO RFQs will specify as needed. |
| 19 | RFQ STRATUS Pool 2 Attachment F – Labor Categories | 2 6 | Labor Categories Table | Technical/Scope | The labor categories focus heavily on cloud expertise but appear to omit roles related to enterprise network services (e.g., telecom engineer, network security architect). If a task order involves hybrid connectivity with USDA ENS, will the Government allow specialized ENS labor categories under the “custom or specialized labor” provision? | Will depend on each TO. However many USDANet and ENS requirements are handled via a separate contract. |
| 20 | RFQ STRATUS Pool 2 Attachment F – Labor Categories | 2 | Introduction | Technical/Scope | Can the Government clarify whether contractor-supplied labor categories that support network or ENS operations will be accepted if clearly justified in a task order proposal, even if they fall outside the common core labor set? | Attachment F is not an exclusive list of potential LCATs that may be used in future task orders. LCATs at the TO level will depend on each TO RFQ. |
| 21 | RFQ STRATUS Pool 2 Attachment H – Invoice Format | N/A | Pool 2 Integrators (Schema) | Technical/Scope | The invoice schema does not appear to account for billing entries related to infrastructure-level services (e.g., ENS usage, network provisioning). If such services are provided under Pool 2, should they be billed under “ODC” or is a separate field expected? | Pool 2 is generally not for infrastructure, however such requirements, if they were to arise, would be specified at the TO level. |
| 22 | RFQ STRATUS Pool 2 Attachment H – Invoice Format | N/A | General | Invoice Data Feed | Will USDA support automated submission of invoice data via API or a system-to-system method, or must vendors submit invoices manually in the exact format provided in this template? | Currently invoices are submitted via USDA ACM tool. USDA will provide training and user guides on how to submit files. |
| 23 | Attachment G – Prior Experience Cover Sheet | 1 | SOO Areas Checklist | Technical/Scope | There appear to be duplicate SOO areas listed in the checklist section: “Cloud Platform and Architecture” and “Identify and Access Management (IAM)/User Management” are each listed twice. Can USDA confirm whether this duplication was intentional, and if not, will a corrected version of Attachment G be issued for use in final submissions? | See revised Attachment G. |
| 24 | Instructions to Offerors | 12 | Volume 3 – Management and Technical Approach | Compliance | Are offerors required to submit any documentation (e.g., teaming agreements, letters of intent) to support proposed partnerships or subcontractor arrangements at the BOA level? | No. |
| 25 | Instructions §4.4 (Volume 2 – Prior Experience) | Evaluation Criteria | The $10 M threshold stated for each prior‑experience example – is that based on the total obligated-to‑date or the total contract ceiling/award value? | Total contract award value. | ||
| 26 | Attachment C §C.1.2 (Automation/APIs) | Invoice Data Feed | Attachment C references a secure API URL for invoice data feeds. Will USDA supply the specific transport protocol (e.g., REST + JSON over HTTPS) and required authentication method (e.g., OAuth 2.0) post‑award, or should Offerors describe an assumed approach in Volume 3? | Currently invoices are submitted via USDA ACM tool. USDA will provide training and user guides on how to submit files. |
Offerors are not creating an invoicing approach or describing their own approach.
| 27 | Instructions §3.1.5 (BOA Execution Rules) & §3.3.1 | Evaluation Criteria | If an SDVOSB is awarded a BOA under the Restricted (small‑business) track, may it also participate on future Unrestricted‑track task‑order teams (as a subcontractor or CTA member) without holding a separate Unrestricted BOA? | Yes. | |||
| 28 | Instructions §4.2 / §4.5 (Page Limits) | Compliance | Does the Labor‑Category cross‑walk table (aligning Offeror roles to Attachment F labor categories) count toward the 10‑page limit for Volume 3, or may it be included as an appendix excluded from the page count? | Appendices are not desired. | |||
| 29 | Attachment A: SOO | 1 | 2 Cloud Strategy | Technical/Scope | Would USDA please clarify whether it is considering cloud hosting of systems managed by responding vendors? | Possibly. | |
| 30 | Attachment D: Provisions and Clauses | 43 | 52.212-3 Offeror Representations and Certifications—Commercial Products and Commercial Services. | Compliance | Would USDA please clarify whether work under a resulting BOA is restricted to US citizens only? | This depends on security requirements that would be determined at the Task Order level. As an example, at this time USDA does not allow for work on contracts utilizing citizens from countries of concern per the Department of State watch list. | |
| 31 | Attachment D: Provisions and Clauses | 32 | Security Requirements | Technical/Scope | Would USDA please confirm whether network access and credentialing will be required of vendors? | This would be a determination at the Task Order level. | |
| 32 | 1. Instructions RFQ 12314425Q0065 STRATUS Pool 2 On-Ramp | 16 | 4.4 Prior Experience (Volume 2) | Evaluation Criteria | It is mentioned that prior experience examples must be from the prime offeror performing as either a prime or subcontractor in accordance with SBA regulations. Can offerors submit a proposal as a Contractor Teaming Arrangement (CTA), and if so, are there any specific instructions or limitations related to CTA submissions? | Contractor Team Arrangements (CTAs) in accordance with FAR Part 9 are allowed. There are multiple types of CTAs. Offerors are responsible for meeting all response requirements in accordance with applicable rules and regulations, regardless of the type of CTA. | |
| 33 | 1. Instructions RFQ 12314425Q0065 STRATUS Pool 2 On-Ramp | 15 | Evaluation Criteria | Will the government accept past performance at the BPA level? Can Task Orders on a BPA be combined to meet the $10M threshold? | Each call/task order is treated as an independent contract for prior experience evaluation. | ||
| 34 | 1. Instructions RFQ 12314425Q0065 STRATUS Pool 2 On-Ramp | 15 | Evaluation Criteria | Will the government evaluate commercial past performance equally to federal government past performance? | Yes, prior experience is not limited to Federal contracts. | ||
| 35 | 1. Instructions RFQ 12314425Q0065 STRATUS Pool 2 On-Ramp | 13 | 4.4 Prior Experience | Technical/Scope | Can the Government confirm whether experience with state or local government agencies will be considered relevant if the scope and complexity align with the SOO? | Yes. | |
| 36 | 1. Instructions RFQ 12314425Q0065 STRATUS Pool 2 On-Ramp | 14 | 4.4 Prior Experience | Evaluation Criteria | Will USDA consider a contract vehicle ceiling (rather than the task order value alone) when assessing the $10M minimum threshold, especially for IDIQ or BPA task orders with substantial scopes? | The $10M threshold must be the total for one contract/TO award, not the IDIQ/BPA ceiling. | |
| 37 | 1. Instructions RFQ 12314425Q0065 STRATUS Pool 2 On-Ramp | 14 | 4.4 Prior Experience | Evaluation Criteria | If an offeror is a small business in a Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture, can the mentor’s experience be used to fulfill all three prior experience examples, as long as the protégé provides one example in addition (regardless of size)? | No. IAW SBA regulations, the protégé or the JV itself must be able to demonstrate some level of performance. | |
| 38 | 1. Instructions RFQ 12314425Q0065 STRATUS Pool 2 On-Ramp | 15 | 4.5 Management/Technical Approach | Evaluation Criteria | Can the Government clarify if experience or methodologies for delivering cloud DevSecOps pipelines should be addressed under innovation or under process improvement? | Offerors shall provide sufficient information for the Government to determine its level of confidence in the ability of the offeror to perform the requirements of the solicitation. It is at the discretion of the offeror to determine how best to accomplish. | |
| 39 | 1. Instructions RFQ 12314425Q0065 STRATUS Pool 2 On-Ramp | 6 | 3.1.5 BOA Execution Rules | Other | Will the Government provide a forecast or estimated release schedule for STRATUS Pool 2 task orders following this BOA on-ramp? | See Attachment I: Projected Task Order Opportunities. | |
| 40 | 1. Instructions RFQ 12314425Q0065 STRATUS Pool 2 On-Ramp | 13 | 4.3 Required Documents | Compliance | Can offerors submit additional information such as a compliance matrix or summary cross-reference to facilitate evaluation, even if not explicitly required? | Yes, appendices are not desired so it will count towards the total page count. | |
| 41 | 1. Instructions RFQ 12314425Q0065 STRATUS Pool 2 On-Ramp | 14 | 4.4 Prior Experience | Evaluation Criteria | Are commercial contracts accepted as prior experience if they meet the technical scope and $10M threshold? | See Section 4.4 of Instructions - Yes, prior experience is not limited to Federal contracts. | |
| 42 | 1. Instructions RFQ 12314425Q0065 STRATUS Pool 2 On-Ramp | 10 | 3.3.2 | Evaluation Criteria | Will offerors submitting under both Unrestricted and Restricted tracks (e.g., via JV and individual bid) be considered non-compliant, even if different legal entities are used? | No. See Section 3.3 of the RFQ Instructions. | |
| 43 | 1. Instructions RFQ 12314425Q0065 STRATUS Pool 2 On-Ramp | 7 | 3.2.2 Pool Structure and Rationale | Technical/Scope | If a solution integrates elements of IaaS, PaaS, and SaaS into a managed service, how should offerors clarify scope alignment with Pool 2 versus Pool 1 or 3? | Will be determined at the TO level. | |
| 44 | 1. Instructions RFQ 12314425Q0065 STRATUS Pool 2 On-Ramp | 18 | 5.4 Confidence Rating Definitions | Compliance | Does the Government plan to issue debriefings or summary feedback for offerors that do not receive a BOA award? | Feedback may be offered by request and upon availability of staff. | |
| 45 | Attachment A – Statement of Objectives | 5 | 3.1.2 Challenges of the Current Environment | Technical/Scope | The SOO highlights issues with siloed implementations and inconsistent pricing. Will USDA establish baseline enterprise architecture principles or reference architectures for TOs under Pool 2? | May depend on each TO. TO RFQs will specify as needed. | |
| 46 | Attachment A – Statement of Objectives | 5 | 3.1.3 Evolution of DISC and CBO | Technical/Scope | Does USDA intend for future Pool 2 task orders to include requirements for multi-cloud DevSecOps environments spanning AWS, Azure, OCI, and GCP simultaneously? | Yes, this is possible. | |
| 47 | Attachment A – Statement of Objectives | 6 | 3.2.1 STRATUS Cloud Strategy | Technical/Scope | The strategy mentions GitOps and Zero Trust. Will USDA standardize tools and policies across task orders, or will offerors propose solutions independently per TO? | May depend on each TO. TO RFQs will specify as needed. | |
| 48 | Attachment A – Statement of Objectives | 6 | 3.2.1 STRATUS Cloud Strategy | Technical/Scope | Will USDA require TO-specific metrics related to “cost accountability” and “ordering transparency” to be tracked and reported by the vendors, or will USDA provide standard dashboards? | May depend on each TO. TO RFQs will specify as needed. | |
| 49 | Attachment A – Statement of Objectives | 7 | 3.2.2 Pool Structure and Rationale | Technical/Scope | Can USDA clarify if Pool 2 vendors will be responsible for managing and maintaining third-party SaaS platforms under managed services, or will that fall to Pool 3? | May depend on each TO. TO RFQs will specify as needed. | |
| 50 | Attachment A – Statement of Objectives | 7 | 3.2.3 Cloud Operating Models | Technical/Scope | In Models 3 and 4, DISC and customers share different TO ownership. Will vendors be required to adjust their team structure or response process based on which model is in use? | May depend on each TO. TO RFQs will specify as needed. | |
| 51 | Attachment A – Statement of Objectives | 8 | 3.2.3 Cloud Operating Models | Technical/Scope | Does USDA anticipate using Models 5 or 6 (non-STRATUS paths) in the near future, and would those task orders still be available to Pool 2 BOA holders? | May depend on individual requirements and strategy. | |
| 52 | Attachment A – Statement of Objectives | 5–6 | General | Technical/Scope | Will USDA require that Pool 2 vendors support legacy systems (e.g., VMware-based on-prem workloads) during migrations, or is the scope exclusively cloud-native? | May depend on each TO. TO RFQs will specify as needed. | |
| 53 | Attachment A – Statement of Objectives | 6 | 3.1.3 Evolution of DISC and CBO | Technical/Scope | The SOO references “curated managed services.” Will USDA define what services are pre-curated or is it the responsibility of Pool 2 vendors to curate and propose them? | May depend on each TO. TO RFQs will specify as needed. | |
| 54 | Attachment A – Statement of Objectives | 6 | 3.1.3 Evolution of DISC and CBO | Technical/Scope | Will USDA identify preferred or incumbent DevSecOps tools (e.g., GitLab, Jenkins, Terraform), or is the vendor expected to recommend tooling per TO? | May depend on each TO. TO RFQs will specify as needed. | |
| 55 | RFQ, SOO | RFQ Sections 4.4, 4.5, SOO Task Areas 1-16 | Technical/Scope | Must offerors demonstrate capability to perform ALL 16 SOO task areas to receive a BOA award, or can offerors specialize in specific task areas and compete only for relevant task orders? | See RFQ Section 4.4. Offerors shall demonstrate experience across as many of the task areas identified in the SOO, as possible. Lack of experience in a task area does not necessarily prevent an offeror from receiving a BOA. | ||
| 56 | RFQ Section 3.3.1 | RFQ Section 3.3.1 | Other | How many BOA awards does USDA anticipate making in each | |||
| track (Restricted/Unrestricted). | To be determined. There is no set number required for either track. | ||||||
| 57 | RFQ Section 3.1.4, 3.3.1 | RFQ Section 3.1.4, 3.3.1 | Technical/Scope | Will task order competitions be among all BOA holders or limited to | |||
| those with demonstrated capabilities in specific SOO task areas? | TO competitions will not be restricted to certain vendors based on perceived capabilities within a task area, but may be restricted based on small business set aside determinations. | ||||||
| 58 | RFQ Instructions | 18 | Section 5.5 | Evaluation Criteria | While the RFQ states that "Prior Experience is more important than Management/Technical Approach," can USDA provide more specific guidance on the relative weighting between these factors? For example, is it a 60/40 split, or is there a different weighting methodology used in the confidence assessment? | No. There is no mechanistic scoring method. | |
| 59 | RFQ Instructions | 17 | Section 5.4 | Evaluation Criteria | Within each evaluation factor, what specific criteria or sub-factors does the evaluation team use to determine High, Some, or Low Confidence ratings? Are there standardized rubrics or evaluation matrices that guide this assessment? | Section 4 and 5 of the RFQ Instructions comprehensively state the evalution factors, what is required, and how they will be evaluated. | |
| 60 | RFQ Instructions | 15 | Section 4.4 | Technical/Scope | The RFQ emphasizes demonstrating experience "across as many of the task areas identified in the SOO, as possible." Does the evaluation team score breadth versus depth differently? Is there an advantage to covering more task areas at a surface level versus demonstrating deep expertise in fewer areas? | See RFQ Section 4.4 and 5.2. There is no mechanistic scoring method. | |
| 61 | RFQ Instructions | 16 | Section 4.5 | Evaluation Criteria | For the Management/Technical Approach requirement to address "process improvements," what level of quantification and metrics does USDA expect? Should offerors provide specific methodologies, tools, or case studies demonstrating measurable efficiency gains? | It is the responsibility of offerors to prove the merits of their submission responding to this solicitation. | |
| 62 | RFQ Instructions | 16 | Section 4.5 | Technical/Scope | Regarding "identifying and implementing process automation," is USDA looking for offerors to demonstrate capabilities in specific automation technologies (e.g., RPA, AI/ML, infrastructure-as-code), or is the focus more on general automation principles and change management? | Both may be applicable to STRATUS Pool 2. | |
| 63 | RFQ Instructions | 16 | Section 4.5 | Technical/Scope | The RFQ mentions "yearly cost/price reductions while consistently meeting requirements." What range of cost reduction percentages does USDA typically expect? Are there preferred approaches or methodologies for achieving these reductions? | These are highly dependent on each unique situation. | |
| 64 | RFQ Instructions | 16 | Section 4.4 | Evaluation Criteria | For past performance examples where the offeror performed as a subcontractor, will USDA validate the scope and quality of work directly with the prime contractor, or will the government customer reference be the primary validation source? | To be clear, this situation is only allowed for small business offerors IAW SBA regulations 125.2(g) and 125.11(c)(4), i.e. a large business offeror must only submit prior experience examples where they performed as the prime. Section 4.4 of the RFQ Instructions has been revised to provide clarity. |
The evaluation will consider the information provided in the offeror's quote. The Government reserves the right to verify prior experience with the offeror references.
| 65 | RFQ Instructions | 15 | Section 4.4 | Evaluation Criteria | When evaluators "may validate the provided prior experience submission information," what specific aspects are typically verified? Is this limited to contract values and dates, or does it extend to technical performance claims and outcomes? | The Government reserves the right to verify any of the prior experience information submitted in the quote. |
| 66 | RFQ Instructions | 15 | Section 4.4 | Evaluation Criteria | For current contracts that "must be in place for at least 1 year," does this refer to the original contract start date, or does it include time under exercised options or contract modifications? | Original contract start date. |
| 67 | RFQ Instructions | 19 | Section 6.1 | Other | Beyond the general BOA structure, can USDA provide more details on how task order competitions will be conducted? Will these be full-and-open competition among all BOA holders, or will USDA use down-selection methods for larger task orders? | Will be dependent on each TO. Some will be set aside for small business, some may not. |
| 68 | Attachment I | Projected Task Order Opportunities | Other | While Attachment I lists "Projected Task Order Opportunities," can USDA provide additional context on the anticipated timeline for task order releases and typical value ranges? Are there specific task orders that will be prioritized for early release after BOA awards? | Cannot provide that detail at this time. | |
| 69 | RFQ Instructions | 45878 | Section 3.2.3 | Technical/Scope | The RFQ describes four different cloud operating models. Does USDA have preferences for specific models, or does this vary by customer/mission area? Should offerors demonstrate capability across all models? | This varies based on each situation. All of the four are possible on Pool 2. |
| 70 | Other | General Technical Requirements | Technical/Scope | What existing cloud platforms, development tools, or automation systems does USDA currently use that contractors should be prepared to integrate with? Are there preferred or mandated technology stacks for specific SOO task areas? | May depend on each TO. TO RFQs will specify as needed. | |
| 71 | RFQ Instructions | 16 | Section 4.5 | Technical/Scope | For task orders involving embedded contractor support or knowledge transfer, what is USDA's preferred collaboration model? Are there specific requirements for contractor personnel to work on-site versus remotely? | May depend on each TO. TO RFQs will specify as needed. |
| 72 | Attachment A | 6 | Section A.3 | Technical/Scope | While the RFQ references TO-level SLAs, can USDA provide examples of typical performance metrics, availability requirements, or service level expectations for different types of task orders under Pool 2? | May depend on each TO. TO RFQs will specify as needed. |
| 73 | RFQ Instructions | 17 | Section 4.5 | Technical/Scope | For the requirement to provide "innovating, modernizing and maturing approaches," how does USDA measure success in these areas? Are there specific modernization goals, technology adoption targets, or innovation metrics that drive evaluation? | May depend on each TO. TO RFQs will specify as needed. |
| 74 | RFQ Instructions | 13 | Section 4.1 | Compliance | For formatting requirements, do tables, charts, and graphics count toward page limits in the same manner as text? Are there any exceptions for technical diagrams or architectural illustrations? | Tables, charts and graphics will count toward page limits, no exceptions. |
| 75 | RFQ Instructions | 15 | Section 4.3 | Compliance | If RFQ amendments are issued close to the submission deadline, what is the preferred method for acknowledging amendments in the cover letter? Should offerors resubmit entire proposals or can amendments be acknowledged via separate communication? | Amendments can be acknowledged via separate communication. |
| 76 | Attachment A | 5 | Section A.1 | Technical/Scope | The RFQ emphasizes "team-based Agile environments" and "DevSecOps development and delivery." Does USDA expect contractors to follow specific Agile frameworks (e.g., SAFe, Scrum) or DevSecOps practices, or is there flexibility in methodology selection? | May depend on each TO. TO RFQs will specify as needed. |
| 77 | Attachment A | 5 | Section A.1 | Technical/Scope | Regarding the requirement to "maximize utilization of open source and non-government standards," how does USDA balance this preference with the need for proprietary innovation and intellectual property development? Are there specific open source technologies or standards that USDA prefers? | May depend on each TO. TO RFQs will specify as needed. |
| 78 | Attachment B | Security Requirements | Technical/Scope | While not explicitly stated in the SOO, do any of the 16 task areas require personnel with security clearances? Are there anticipated requirements for US citizenship or other personnel security criteria? | May depend on each TO. TO RFQs will specify as needed. | |
| 79 | Other | Task Order Execution | Technical/Scope | For task orders that may involve transitioning work from existing contractors or supporting ongoing efforts, what is USDA's approach to managing incumbent relationships and knowledge transfer requirements? | May depend on each TO. TO RFQs will specify as needed. | |
| 80 | RFQ Instructions | 12 | Section 3.11.4 | Evaluation Criteria | For BOA holders that may have previous STRATUS Pool 2 performance history, how does past task order performance influence future task order award decisions? Is there a formal past performance evaluation system at the task order level? | Past performance is not an evaluation factor at the BOA level. |
USDA uses CPARS as a formal past performance evaluation system. Task orders may consider all relevant experience or past performance, regardless of what contract the performance occurred under. Each TO will state the evaluation factors.
| 81 | Attachment F | Labor Categories | Technical/Scope | Can USDA provide additional guidance on the specific labor categories and skill levels most critical for the anticipated task orders? Are there preferred certifications or qualifications for key technical roles? | May depend on each TO. TO RFQs will specify as needed. | ||
| 82 | Attachment C | Section C.1 | Invoice Data Feed | Regarding the requirement to submit invoice data via API to USDA OCIO, what are the technical specifications for this API integration? Will USDA provide development environments or testing capabilities for contractors to validate their billing automation systems? | Currently invoices are submitted via USDA ACM tool. USDA will provide training and user guides on how to submit files. USDA will work with successful offerors on credentials and test cases. | ||
| 83 | RFQ Instructions | 10 | Section 3.4 | Other | With the BOA ordering period ending April 9, 2034, how does USDA anticipate managing the transition for ongoing multi-year task orders that may extend beyond this date? Will there be bridge contracts or follow-on procurement vehicles? | Task order POPs can extend up to 5 years past the expiration of the BOA. | |
| 84 | Attachment A | 45694 | Section A.1 | Technical/Scope | Among the 16 SOO task areas, are there specific combinations or groupings that USDA expects to be frequently bundled together in individual task orders? Should offerors emphasize integrated capabilities across related task areas? | May depend on each TO. TO RFQs will specify as needed. | |
| 85 | RFQ Instructions | 18 | Section 5.7 | Compliance | Given that ViaTrie LLC will provide administrative assistance in quote evaluation, what specific role will they play in the evaluation process? Will they have access to proprietary technical information, and what additional confidentiality measures are in place? | They may play a facilitation role in the evaluation process, but not a voting role. They are under strict NDAs and conflict of interest clauses. | |
| 86 | 1. Instructions | 9 | 3.3.2 & 3.3.3 | Evaluation Criteria | Per Section 3.3.2. two "tracks" are mentioned, unrestricted and restricted. Per Section 3.3.3 a Prime may only appear "once per track". Please clarify whether the following scenario is permissable. | ||
| Scenario 1: An OTSB Offeror submits as itself and as the mentor in an SBA MPP JV. The resultant awards are 1 Unrestricted and 1 Restricted, thus not in violation of Sec 3.3.3. Does the Government agree this is a compliant option? | Yes. | ||||||
| 87 | 1. Instructions | 16 | 4.5 Management/Technical Approach (Volume 3) | Evaluation Criteria | Can the government elaborate on the phrase “Quality of responses is more important than quantity of SOO areas” mentioned in Section 4.5? | With respect to Section 4.5 of the RFQ Instructions, the Government will evaluate the quality of the response rather than a simple check the box that each SOO task area is addressed. | |
| 88 | 1. Instructions | 16 | 4.5 Management/Technical Approach (Volume 3) | Evaluation Criteria | Can the government confirm that we don’t need to address each SOO area individually based on the phrase “Quality of responses is more important than quantity of SOO areas” mentioned in Section 4.5 ? | That is correct, although breadth is encouraged, to the extent possible. | |
| 89 | RFQ_STRATUS_Pool_2_Attch_C_Billing_Automation_Data_Reporting.pdf | 3 | C.4 TO Deliverables Guidance, C.4.2 Formatting and Structure | Technical/Scope | The 1st sentence reads as follows: The Government reserves the right to reject deliverables outright without review for those deliverables that are not “well formed”. Please define or explain what is meant by the term "well formed". | May depend on each TO. TO RFQs will specify as needed, or remove that language. | |
| 90 | 1._Instructions_RFQ_12314425Q0065_STRATUS_Pool_2_On-Ramp.pdf | 13 | 4.1 Guidelines and Formatting | Compliance | The instructions state that proposals must use "no smaller than an 11-point Calibri font for all text." Will the government allow a smaller font for tables and graphics as per standard government RFP practice? Please allow no smaller than a 9-point Calibri font for text in tables and graphics. | Tables shall be 11-point font size and graphics may be no smaller than 8-point font size. | |
| 91 | 1._Instructions_RFQ_12314425Q0065_STRATUS_Pool_2_On-Ramp.pdf | 14 | 4.2 Volumes and Page Limits | Compliance | Will the government please allow an increase in the overall page limit for Volume 2 from 14 to 17 pages to allow 1 additional page per Offeror provided summary (increase of 3 to 4 pages per example). | The page count cannot be increased. | |
| 92 | 1._Instructions_RFQ_12314425Q0065_STRATUS_Pool_2_On-Ramp.pdf | 14 | 4.2 Volumes and Page Limits | Compliance | Will the government please allow an increase in the overall page limit for Volume 3 from 10 to 12 pages by increasing the page limit for the Management and Technical Approach from 8 to 10 pages to allow for offerors to provide a complete approach and comprehensive understanding of the SOO. | The page count cannot be increased. | |
| 93 | 1._Instructions_RFQ_12314425Q0065_STRATUS_Pool_2_On-Ramp.pdf | 17 | 5 Quote Evaluation Criteria | Evaluation Criteria | The confidence‐based assessment framework is, by definition, subjective. To reduce variability among evaluators and help offerors tailor their submissions, would the Government please identify the qualitative metrics or illustrative benchmarks it will apply to distinguish a “High Confidence” rating from a “Some Confidence” rating? Clearly defined qualitative metrics would mitigate some subjectivity and promote a more transparent, predictable evaluation. | All Government procurement evaluations are inherently subjective. GAO case law confirms this flexibility. The Government has sufficiently described, to the best of its abilities, the evaluation approach in the RFQ. | |
| 94 | RFQ_STRATUS_Pool_2_Attch_C_Billing_Automation_Data_Reporting.pdf | 4 | C.4.2 Formatting and Structure | Technical/Scope | Section 508 formatting is required for deliverables. Does this requirement apply to all BOA-level submissions (e.g., quarterly reports) or only to task-order-specific deliverables defined later? | BOA level and TO level. | |
| 95 | RFQ_STRATUS_Pool_2_Attch_B_Security_Requirements.pdf | 2 | B.1 USDA STRATUS Blanket Ordering Agreement (BOA) Security Requirements – Pool 2 | Security | FedRAMP and USDA security compliance is required, but timing is not stated. Must an offeror already possess FedRAMP authorization at the time of quote submission, or is a plan to obtain authorization acceptable, with compliance verified at individual TO award? | May depend on each TO. TO RFQs will specify as needed. FedRAMP authorization is product/service specific and is not required at the time of BOA quote submission. | |
| 96 | RFQ_STRATUS_Pool_2_Attch_B_Security_Requirements.pdf | 6 | B.1.3.7(d) USDA Specific Guidance | Security | The document states solutions must be FedRAMP-authorized and “at all times be operating under a valid ATO” at (at least) the FISMA Low level. Please clarify timing: Must the BOA offeror already possess a USDA-issued ATO at quote submission, or will a ATO “plan & schedule” be acceptable provided the ATO is in place before the first task-order award? | May depend on each TO. TO RFQs will specify as needed. ATO is product/service specific and is not required at the time of BOA quote submission. | |
| 97 | RFQ_STRATUS_Pool_2_Attch_B_Security_Requirements.pdf | 5 | B.1.2.4 (c) & (d) Cybersecurity Authorization to Operate (ATO) | Security | Pool 2 vendors are responsible for “obtaining and maintaining DCAS and FedRAMP authorization(s).” For non-DoD workloads, will USDA accept FedRAMP authorization alone, or are both DCAS and FedRAMP approvals mandatory for every cloud service offering? | DCAS is not mandatory for every offering. | |
| 98 | RFQ_STRATUS_Pool_2_Attch_B_Security_Requirements.pdf | pages 3 to 5 | B.1.2.1 & B.1.2.3 | Security | Authorized assessment entities may conduct both “announced and unannounced” cybersecurity assessments. 1) Please define the expected frequency (e.g., annual, ad hoc) of these events. 2) Section B.1.2.1-c indicates the Government assessment entity bears its own costs, but Section B.1.2.3 requires vendors to coordinate and remediate findings. Will vendors incur any direct cost (e.g., 3PAO fees) for these Government-initiated assessments? | May depend on each TO. TO RFQs will specify as needed. | |
| 99 | RFQ_STRATUS_Pool_2_Attch_B_Security_Requirements.pdf | 5 | B.1.3.6 Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) Cybersecurity Division Trusted Internet Connections (TIC) Reference Architecture Document Version 2.0 | Security | The section references TIC Reference Architecture 2.0, whereas CISA has since issued TIC 3.0 guidance. Does USDA intend to update its requirement to TIC 3.0, and if not, will a TIC 3.0 architecture be deemed compliant? | See revised Attachment B. | |
| 100 | RFQ_STRATUS_Pool_2_Attch_B_Security_Requirements.pdf | 5 | B.1.3.1 - 1.3.2 | Security | The RFQ requires compliance with NIST SP 800-53 controls but does not cite a revision. Please confirm whether Revision 5 is required and whether any USDA-specific overlays apply in addition to the FedRAMP Moderate baseline. | Generally will be Rev 5, but may depend on each TO. TO RFQs will specify as needed. | |
| 101 | RFQ_STRATUS_Pool_2_Attch_B_Security_Requirements.pdf | 5 | B.1.3.5 Fortified Security | Security | The term “Fortified Security” is used to describe capabilities such as automated threat detection and encryption. Will USDA publish a discrete control set or measurable criteria for assessing “Fortified Security,” or should offerors map to existing FedRAMP/NIST controls? | May depend on each TO. TO RFQs will specify as needed. | |
| 102 | RFQ_STRATUS_Pool_2_Attch_B_Security_Requirements.pdf | 5 | B.1.3.4 | Security | The requirement mandates “strong separation between virtual workloads and environments” and “clear segregation of data.” To confirm cost and architecture: |
Is logical (tenant-level) separation within a FedRAMP Moderate-authorized cloud service acceptable for CUI, or will USDA require dedicated (single-tenant) environments?
| If dedicated environments are required, please specify whether this applies BOA-wide or will be defined at the task-order level. | May depend on each TO. TO RFQs will specify as needed. | ||||||
| 103 | RFQ_STRATUS_Pool_2_Attch_B_Security_Requirements.pdf | 5 | B.1.3.5 Fortified Security | Security | Encryption “at rest and in transit” is required. Please confirm acceptable cryptographic standards (e.g., FIPS 140-2 validated modules) and whether USDA anticipates migrating to FIPS 140-3 within the BOA ordering period. | May depend on each TO. TO RFQs will specify as needed. | |
| 104 | RFQ_STRATUS_Pool_2_Attch_C_Billing_Automation_Data_Reporting.pdf | 3 | C.2.1 BOA STRATUS Website | Compliance | BOA holders must post Task-Order numbers & names, team members, and a POC on a public web page updated quarterly. May the contractor redact dollar values or other sensitive data, and is a password-protected portal acceptable if it is available to Government personnel? | Dollar values and sensitive data is not required. It should not be password protected. | |
| 105 | RFQ_STRATUS_Pool_2_Attch_C_Billing_Automation_Data_Reporting.pdf | 3 | C.2.1 BOA STRATUS Website | Technical/Scope | What constitutes “updated on a quarterly basis”? Is the update due 30 calendar days after the quarter closes, or by a fixed date regardless of Task-Order award date? | There is flexibility to meet this requirement. | |
| 106 | RFQ_STRATUS_Pool_2_Attch_C_Billing_Automation_Data_Reporting.pdf | 4 | C.4.4 Deliverables Media | Technical/Scope | Deliverables may include “Dashboards – Linkage to USDA technologies Tableau Dashboard Files.” For costing purposes, please clarify whether (1) contractors must supply Tableau creator licenses, or (2) USDA will provide creator/publisher licenses and server hosting for dashboard deployment. | May depend on each TO. TO RFQs will specify as needed. | |
| 107 | RFQ_STRATUS_Pool_2_Attch_A_SOO.pdf | 6 | A.1 – Item 16 | Technical/Scope | Does USDA anticipate requiring continuous monitoring support (e.g., ongoing vulnerability scans, monthly reporting) under these task orders? | May depend on each TO. TO RFQs will specify as needed. | |
| 108 | RFQ_STRATUS_Pool_2_Attch_A_SOO.pdf | 6 | A.1 – Item 16 | Security | Are there specific penetration testing, vulnerability assessment, or red team exercise requirements as part of the A&A services? | May depend on each TO. TO RFQs will specify as needed. | |
| 109 | RFQ_STRATUS_Pool_2_Attch_A_SOO.pdf | 5 | A.1 – Item 15 | Security | Will USDA require full-scope FedRAMP assessments (including Security Assessment Plan, Security Assessment Report, and POA&M), or will the majority of 3PAO work be focused on Readiness Assessment Reports? | May depend on each TO. TO RFQs will specify as needed. | |
| 110 | Instructions RFP | 9 | 3.3 Acquisition Details / General Contract Terms | Evaluation Criteria | The RFP states "prime offeror may only appear once per track." Can the Government please confirm that a vendor can participate as the Prime offeror on the Unrestricted track in Pool 2 and also submit as the mentor in a mentor-protégé JV on the Restricted track in the same pool? | Yes, that is accurate. | |
| 111 | Instructions RFP | 13 | 4.1 Guidelines and Formatting | Compliance | Can offerors use a smaller font for tables, graphics, and illustrations? | Tables shall be 11-point font size and graphics may be no smaller than 8-point font size. | |
| 112 | Instructions RFQ 12314425Q0065 Stratus Pool 2 On-ramp | 14-15 | 4.2 Volumes and Page Limits | ||||
| 4.4 Prior Experience (Volume 2) | Evaluation Criteria | Must the bidder submit exactly three (3) prior experience examples with their submittal, or is the requirement meant to be a maximum of three (3) prior experience examples submitted (see pages 14 and 15)? For instance, if a company has two (2) prior experience examples, each totaling over $10M, will that be acceptable? Can you please clarify that requirement? | 3 Prior Experience examples must be submitted. | ||||
| 113 | Attachment A - Statement of Objectives | 2 | 1. Governance | Security | Does USDA have documentation regarding the specific attributes required for data privacy and security? | May depend on each TO. TO RFQs will specify as needed. | |
| 114 | Attachment A - Statement of Objectives | 2-3 | 1. Governance | ||||
| 5. Cloud Security | Security | Is 3PAO and ongoing authorization covered in this section and in section 5 - Cloud Security? | Possibly, but moreso covered in the SOO # 15. FedRAMP Authorization and 3PAO Assessor Services. | ||||
| 115 | Attachment A - Statement of Objectives | 5 | 13. Operations and Maintenance | Technical/Scope | Is Disaster Recovery testing considered a part of the system authorization processes or included in O&M? Will we be able to obtain a copy of the Disaster Recovery policy/directive or any supporting documentation? | May depend on each TO. TO RFQs will specify as needed. | |
| 116 | Attachment A - Statement of Objectives | 5 | 13. Operations and Maintenance | Security | Do you have documentation that outlines the specific criteria (both actual and for reporting purposes) for implementing security controls? Will we be able to obtain a copy of USDA requirements over and above current NIST requirements? | May depend on each TO. TO RFQs will specify as needed. | |
| 117 | Attachment A - Statement of Objectives | 5 | 15. FedRAMP Authorization and 3PAO Assessor Services | Security | Will USDA be using the FedRAMP Readiness Assessment Report templates? If not, will you provide the USDA template for review? | May depend on each TO. TO RFQs will specify as needed. | |
| 118 | Attachment A - Statement of Objectives | 6 | 16. Security Assessment & Authorization Services | Security | Will you provide the current copy of the USDA Risk Management Framework (RMF) Guide and any associated guidelines, checklists, processes, and/or procedures? | Yes, when relevant at the task order level. | |
| 119 | Solicitation Instructions | 13 | Section 4, 4.1 Guidelines and Formatting | Compliance | May the government allow the use of Calibri font smaller than 11pt for headers, footers, graphics, callouts, and tables? | Tables shall be 11-point font size and graphics may be no smaller than 8-point font size. | |
| 120 | Solicitation Instructions | 14 | Section 4, 4.2 Volumes | Compliance | May the government allow the inclusion of a glossary of acronyms and abbreviations outside of page count for each of the volumes? | Appendices are not desired and page count cannot be increased. | |
| 121 | Solicitation Instructions | 14 | Section 4, 4.2 Volumes | Compliance | May the government permit an introduction to the prior expeirence (volume II) consisting of an additional 1 page, making the total page allowance for the volume 15 pages? | Page count cannot be increased. | |
| 122 | Solicitation Instructions | 15 | Section 4, 4.3 Transmittal | Compliance | For the entity's representations and certifications from SAM.gov, does the government expect the full text for each clause to be included, or are the provision or clause titles sufficient? | Clause titles are sufficient. Please also reference questions 133 and 134. | |
| 123 | Solicitation Instructions | 15 | Section 4, 4.3 Transmittal | Compliance | For the entity's representations and certifications from any other source required by the RFQ, may the offeror make explicit reference to those source representations and certifications or does the government wish these other representations and certifications be copied in whole within Volume 1? | References and not full text are sufficient. | |
| 124 | 1. Instructions RFQ 12314425Q0065 STRATUS Pool 2 On-Ramp | 17 | Section 5.2 Prior Experience (Volume 2) | Technical/Scope | Are there a requisite number of Statement of Objectives (SOO) Task Areas that an offeror must demonstrate in its Volume 2 response to achieve a rating of High Confidence? | No. There is no mechanistic scoring method. | |
| 125 | 1. Instructions | 14-15 | 4.3 Transmittal Cover Letter with Required Documents (Volume 1) | Compliance | Can the government amend the instructions for "All offerors are required to identify the size standard under which they are submitting a quote." to be included by offerors in the transmittal letter rather than as a separate attachment. | Yes, see revised Section 4.3. Volume 1 should be a single combined document. | |
| 126 | 1. Instructions | 14-15 | 4.3 Transmittal Cover Letter with Required Documents (Volume 1) | Compliance | "Additional Required Documents (each to be submitted as attachments to the Cover Letter)" "Exceptions/assumptions... shall be identified on a separate page within the cover letter submission." | ||
| Can the government please clarify if the cover letter and attachments to the cover letter shall be submitted as one file or each as separate files? | See revised Section 4.3. Volume 1 should be a single combined document. | ||||||
| 127 | 1. Instructions | 13 | Section 4: Submission Instructions to Offerors |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .