QUESTIONS - 3 - Final.pdf

QUESTIONS

1. In reference to RFP Section 6.5, Page 31: "Fit Gap Status" and "Completed Capability Questionnaire and Accompanying Documentation." Please confirm this refers to the same document.

HRM Response: If you are referring to Appendix C, yes, it is same information.

2. In reference to RFP Section 6.5 (5.6), Page 37: Numbering goes from 6 to 9. Did the Government intend to include other information?

PPS, ITCB Response: No other information intended. Just mis-numbering.

3. In reference to RFP Section 7.3, Page 42: "7. Offerors shall describe its approach to staffing to meet the requirements of the PWS." Does this refer to the SOO or is this a separate document?

If separate, will the Government please provide?

PPS, ITCB Response: This reference should be to the SOO. “PWS” has been changed to SOO.

4. In reference to Attachment X SOO Section 2, Page 4: "It is the intention of FS to immediately transition to the services provided by the successful Offeror." Are Offerors expected to assume O&M responsibilities, or just transition the data and functions to a new system?

HRM Response: Just transition functions to system.

5. In reference to Attachment X SOO Section 3, Page 5: "5. Is able to accommodate access to users for self-reporting incidents who are USDA Employees, including new Employees that may not have records in the system of record yet," What types of incidents will be self-reported? It is our understanding that employees are required to report incidents using DOL's ECOMP system. Are users self-reporting incidents in the current Origami Risk solution, or do they also use the

DOL/ECOMP?

HRM Response: Currently, user employees are required to report incidents using the Origami Risk system.

6. In reference to Attachment X SOO Section 3, Page 6: "10. Provides bi-directional transmission of claims data to include filing claims for such forms as the CA-1 and CA-2 as integrated with the Government’s operational EDI with the DOL. The solution must add new forms and delete obsolete forms per OWCP: (https://www.dol.gov/agencies/owcp/dfec/regs/compliance/forms)" Is DOL currently processing claims data using a bi-directional transmission with DOL?

HRM Response: No, DOL is not processing claims via a bi-directional transmission.

https://www.dol.gov/agencies/owcp/dfec/regs/compliance/forms

7. In reference to Attachment X SOO Section 3, Page 6: "16. CA-7’s can be completed in incident reporting with automatic interface to DOL." Does the Forest Service have an active MOU ISA with DOL for this required automatic interface?

HRM Response: MOU ISA is in place with DOL, however, DOL has shut down all automatic interfaces at the now.

8. In reference to Attachment X SOO Section 3, Page 6: "19. The system must be capable of handling the current FS case load." What is the current FS case load? What is the estimated total number of caseloads?

HRM Response: Up to 25,000.

9. In reference to Attachment X SOO Section 3.2, Page 8: "6. Complete the transition and assume control and management of the work described in the PWS within 120 days of contract award."

Does this mean that the Contractor will control and management the incumbent system? No. It will be helpful for the Government to detail the technical aspects and operational state of the current solution and what is being transitioned within 120 days.

HRM Response: Fully operational.

10. In reference to Attachment X SOO Section 4.1, Page 9: "In integrating with other systems, the contractor shall develop an Integration Plan that includes a detailed baseline budget and schedule." What is the need of a budget? Does the government expect that there will be additional costs / budget needs outside of this contract?

HRM Response: No

11. In reference to Attachment X SOO Section 4.1, Page 9: "Referencing requirement IPS-144 and IPS-144.1, the EDI port with the DOL has already been established and tested as part of the ConnectHR system. Pre-defined standard data fields will be transferred between the selected solution and the DOL Data Repository (DDR) API using industry standard Web Services Description Language (WSDL) and XML to communicate." IPS-144 and IPS-144.1 are not included in the Integrated Project Requirements documents. Do these refer to the bi-directional transmission, and is this currently working?

HRM Response: Yes, it is currently inactivated.

12. In reference to Attachment X SOO Section 8, Page 11: "Deliverables: Data Migration Plan - Within 30 days of contract award" Is all data documented in data dictionaries, to include source, data owners, and access information? What is the Data Security Categorization level for all data?

CIO Response: Yes, all data is documented. The Data Security Categorization level is

MODERATE.

13. In reference to Attachment X SOO Section 8, Page 11: "Deliverables: Online Operating Manuals and Training (Webinars) Within 45 days of contract award" We recommend the Government edit this timetable to reflect delivery of manuals which represent the system as configured for the Government or confirm that COTS documentation is what is required to satisfy this deliverable/due date.

HRM Response: This time frame will remain at 45 days.

14. In reference to Attachment X SOO Section 9, Page 12: "PS-2. Integration is completed within five business days of the baseline schedule from the Integration Plan" Some integrations will be with outside parties, for example health and safety regulations data. Will Forest Service be responsible for those discussions and agreements?

HRM Response: Yes

15. In reference to Attachment E: Field Requirements: Does Attachment E represent the full list of data fields to be migrated?

HRM Response: Yes, it’s the baseline

16. In reference to Attachment X SOO Section 3, Page 7 as well as Appendix C, requirements OSOH- 39 and 40: At which FISMA impact level (e.g., moderate) must the solution comply?

CIO Cyber Security Response: eSafety is a FISMA Moderate.

17. In reference to Attachment X SOO Section 3, Page 7 as well as Appendix C, requirements OSOH- 39 and 40: If the offeror has a FISMA moderate FedRAMP certified data center for deploying the hosted solution, is this acceptable? Or is AWS or Azure GovCloud a mandatory requirement for hosting the solution?

CIO Cyber Security Response: As long as it is a FedRamp Gov certified, that would be acceptable. Non-USDA approved solutions would impact the implementation timeline but would not disqualify a bidder.

18. In reference to Attachment X SOO Section 1, Page 3: The Government states that the current system resides in AWS GovCloud. RFP Section II: Pricing Schedule also lists “Hosting Costs (GovCloud)” as a CLIN in each year. Does the Government require that the new system is deployed in AWS GovCloud as well?

CIO Cyber Security Response: No. A Gov certified FedRamp environment is adequate.

19. In reference to Attachment X SOO Section 1, Page 3: If the solution has to be deployed in AWS or Azure GovCloud, will the vendor need to use the agency provided GovCloud or will the vendor need to manage all aspects of the GovCloud?

CIO Cyber Security Response: The solution will need to be in a USDA approved GovCloud instance.

20. In reference to RFP Section 3.3, Page 9 and Section 6.5, Page 32: There are several references to

GSA schedules. Is this acquisition being conducted through GSA MAS? Will this contract be awarded through the successful offeror’s GSA schedule contract?

HRM Response: Open Market

21. In reference to RFP Section II: Pricing Schedule: There is not a dedicated CLIN for implementation services (e.g., configuration, training). In which CLIN does the Government expect vendors to price the labor associated with implementation of the solution, or will the Government provide CLIN(s) for these services?

PPS, ITCB Response: CLIN 0008 in the Base Year has been added in the event of configuration and training needed. This need will be determined shortly after award, so pricing of this CLIN is needed.

22. In reference to RFP Section 6.5, Page 31: What does the Government expect for Certification?

PPS, ITCB Response: This will be the FedRamp Certification

23. In reference to RFP Section 6.5, Page 31: What does the Government expect for Performance Work Statement? Is the offeror expected to propose a PWS or does this refer to the SOO or some other document?

HRM Response: PWS

24. In reference to RFP Section 6.5, Page 31: What does the Government expect for QASP? Is the offeror expected to propose a separate QASP from the one provided by the Government? Or is this the Quality Control Plan mentioned on Page 34?

PPS, ITCB Response: Since the requirements document is a SOO, then the respondent proposal would include a PWS and relative QASP. The attached QASP will be removed.

25. In reference to RFP Section 6.5 (5.6), Page 35: The instructions for Factor 3.1 Past Performance state that summaries must be provided for work underway or completed within the past three

(3) years. However, “Currency” is defined as being performed within the last five (5) years on page 37. Please confirm if the requirement is for 3 years or 5 years.

HRM Response: 5 years

26. In reference to RFP Section 7.3, Page 43: What are the eligibility requirements for “eligible small business offerors?”

PPS, ITCB Response: Eligible Small Business Offerors are those that are deemed Small Business based on size and revenue per SBA (SBA.gov), and as entered in SAM.gov. The size standard presented with any response will be verified in SAM.gov. Also, refer to FAR 19.7 Small Business Program for further information regarding Small Business concerns.

27. In reference to RFP Section 7.3.1, Page 44: Offerors are required to include pricing per FAR 52.217-8. Will the Government please amend the pricing table to include pricing for the Option to Extend Services, or otherwise advise how offerors should present pricing for this option?

PPS, ITCB Response: Yes, on pg. 8 of the RFP Table 2.6 has been added to the Schedule of Items. This is to price FAR 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services and this term will not exceed 6 months, if utilized.