12SAD122R0003 Amendment 2 Questions and Responses.pdf

RFP#12SAD122R0003

SURPASS

Amendment 2 – Responses to Vendor Questions

1) Due to the complexities of USDA RD’s LoS solution request, in addition to the FedRAMP certification, would RD consider direct discussions with solution vendors on capabilities and FedRAMP’d compliance? Either in the form of an industry day, specific meetings with vendors, or both?

Government’s Response: The Government has had numerous discussions with the vendor community during the market research phase of SURPASS and provided specific detail in the RFP about FedRAMP. At this time, the Government does not believe an industry day is warranted. If vendors have specific questions the Government will respond as appropriate.

2) As the tiered/cascading process is newer to USDA procurements, could USDA RD consider doing a past performance/qualification down-select first? This would help USDA to determine a qualified vendor pool. Since the response is very in-depth and requires a very large effort to submit a compliant proposal, vendors would know their response would be considered and evaluated.

Government’s Response: See Amendment One

3) Would USDA RD consider altering Tier 1 to include large business concerns who are able to subcontract 49% of the total effort to small business partners under a small business plan?

Government’s Response: No

4) We understand the FedRAMP process can be expedited with a sponsoring entity. Is this something that the USDA would be willing to provide to accelerate a COTS solution to be certified?

Government’s Response: In the RFP, the Government requires any COTS cloud solution to be FedRAMP ready within 6 months of award and that vendors provide a plan for becoming FedRAMP authorized. If the Government selects a solution that includes a COTS cloud solution that is not FedRAMP authorized, the Government will support sponsorship of that vendor after the COTS product once it becomes FedRAMP ready.

5) The documentation indicates a moderate FedRAMP, and our understanding is that many of the USDA system are at the Moderate Level (325 controls) of the FedRAMP certifications.

What is the anticipated level of FedRAMP certification for the LOS system as the platform may contain documents like W2, income verifications, bank statements, etc. that may fit the stature of a FedRAMP High (421 controls)?

Government’s Response: a minimum of FedRAMP moderate is required. The final decision will be determined within the FedRAMP process

6) What is the agency expectation on the annual cost associated with gaining and maintaining FedRAMP certification and validation?

Government’s Response: This will likely add cost annually. The Government cannot specifically pay for initial FedRAMP authorization or the ongoing process to maintain FedRAMP certification.

7) For the FedRAMP compliance, where are the boundaries for the components subject to the certifications? What about any 3rd party services used on platform, like flood, income, etc.;

are they subject to this as well? 3rd party services would not require a FedRAMP authorization as long as they are not retaining and storing Government data. For example, sending a transaction to a Credit Agency to pull an applicant’s credit file does not require that the Credit Agency’s system(s) be FedRAMP authorized.

Government’s Response:

a) 3rd party services would not require a FedRAMP authorization as long as they are not retaining and storing Government data. – Incorrect – any processing is in scope even if not stored (metadata applies). Any 3rd party systems that are outside the boundary must also be equal in accreditation or deployed in boundary as part of the solution.

b) For example, sending a transaction to a Credit Agency to pull an applicant’s credit file does not require that the Credit Agency’s system(s) be FedRAMP authorized.- This example is dependent on how the actual pull occurs and the security behind the transmission of the request. This is not a generic example that can be applied blanketly to the solution and should be addressed appropriately within the proposed solution.

8) What is the agency’s position on leveraging non-US citizen to support the SaaS offering?

What about US based non-US citizens?

Government’s Response: All personnel who work on a Government project or provide support must be authorized to work in the US and it’s territories. These personnel also must be within the US and/or its territories to access any Government network or system. Any SaaS offering must store all Government data on equipment that is physically located within the US and/or it’s territories.

9) We would like to know if this is a brand new contract OR if there is (was) an incumbent performing these services? If not brand new, could you please provide the current / previous contract number?

Government’s Response: The SURPASS solicitation is a new requirement for a modern Residential Loan Origination System (LOS) and Point of Sale (POS).

10) How will USDA consider JV/MP bids as it reads and scores proposals using the cascading/tiering process detailed in the RFQ? For example, will USDA consider a large business and a small business in a joint venture arrangement under its small business tier?

Government’s Response: No, as then the JV is considered a large business.

11) Will the government consider exceptions to the terms, conditions and provisions that are not applicable to acquisitions for commercial items?

12) Will the government re-consider the requirement for title passing to the government for

COTS and commercial software/data? This is not consistent with commercial practices, per FAR Part 12.301 which states: “contracts for the acquisition of commercial products or commercial services shall, to the maximum extent practicable, include on those clauses (1) required to implement statutes, and (2) determined to be consistent with customary commercial practice.”

13) Will the government instead accept a license to use restricted computer software that is more consistent with commercial software/data developed at private expense?

Government’s Response: No

14) Has this been canceled or are solicitation documents anticipated to be released soon?

Government’s Response: No, this RFQ has not been canceled. Solicitation documents were posted , on SAM.Gov July 14, 2022.

15) Is there an incumbent associated with this procurement? If so, what is their name and contract TO ID?

Government’s Response: See answer to question 9.

16) What is the Gov's acquisition strategy as far as the anticipated contract vehicle and set-aside?

Government’s Response: See RFP language

17) What is the anticipated level of effort?

Government’s Response: This is for the offeror to decide as part of their proposal submission.

18) if there are any incumbents for the “SURPASS” requirement or is this a new requirement?

Government’s Response: See answer to question 9.

19) Reference: PROPOSAL EVALUATION/SELECTION CRITERIA, Sub-Factor 2 Prior Experience. The factor states that experience is what work “your company has” performed.

Given the breadth of mortgage, government, and technology expertise required to deliver the SURPASS solution, please confirm that the government will evaluate the past performance of the proposed team equally. This will enable offerors to provide innovative solutions to meet all requirements across all seven functional areas. Government’s Response: Experience and past performance are two different criteria and factors. However, the proposed Prime vendor is the object of the evaluation for each of those factors.

20) Reference: PROPOSAL EVALUATION/SELECTION CRITERIA, Sub-Factor 2 Prior Experience. The factor states that vendors may submit on-going projects if 36 months of performance have been completed. This is very limiting and does not allow for vendors to demonstrate their most recent and innovative work and their true ability to perform the scope of work across the functional areas. Cloud based mortgage technology specifically has progressed significantly in the last 36 months, these past performances are the most relevant to the scope of work requested. Please confirm that offerors may submit projects that have been completed within the past 36 months and/or have at least 12 months of completed performance to be used.

Government’s Response: The following is stricken from the evaluation criteria and will not be applicable: “The Offeror is permitted to submit on-going projects if 36 months of performance, at a minimum, under the ongoing contract has been completed and if the Offeror clearly describes the current stage of the project and what has been completed under performance to date.”

Offerors may submit contract/task experience that have been “performed” within the past 36 months from the date of the RFP posting, regardless as to the duration or completion stage. of the contract/task.

21) Reference: PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND EVALUATION INFORMATION. The solicitation states “This is a Tier/Cascading solicitation. The evaluation of offers received in response to this solicitation will use a tiered or cascading order of precedence. Tiered evaluation of offers, also known as cascading evaluation of offers, is a procedure used in negotiated acquisitions when market research is inconclusive for justifying limiting competition to small business concerns or sub-categories of small business concerns. The contracting officer Solicits offers from both small and other than small business concerns that any offers will be evaluated in the following tier order: (a) Service Disabled Veteran Owned small business concerns (b) all small business concerns; (c) other than small business (large business concerns).”

Government’s Response: This section will be updated via Amendment One.

22) Is the government open to responding to questions upon receipt—instead of waiting until after the 8/15 deadline? We ask because the response to questions will impact the bid. If the government is not open to an early or rolling response, will you consider extending the due date beyond 8/30?

Government’s Response: The Government will respond to questions as they are received and publish answers as soon as available.

23) Is the government open to an on-prem solution?

Government’s Response: The Government is seeking a modern cloud-based solution.

24) Is the government willing to do an agency-specific FedRAMP?

Government’s Response: Yes

25) Is the government expecting to offer the SURPASS solution as a service to other agencies/departments outside of RD? (Typically this is the purpose of FedRAMP, since the level of FedRAMP security can be achieved through other means.) Is the government open to an ATO for RD use only?

Government’s Response: If an offeror proposes a cloud-based solution, then that solution must be FedRAMP authorized.

26) Is the government open to paying the cost of FedRAMP? 1) Please confirm that Rural Development (RD) will allow a ‘rolling’ set of Q&As, i.e., vendors may submit questions throughout the solicitation process.

Government’s Response: By law, the Government cannot specifically pay for a product to be FedRAMP authorized or pay specifically for the on-going efforts required to maintain FedRAMP authorization.

Government’s Response: The question and answer process update is included on Amendment One.

27) Please confirm that Rural Development will consider Past Performances from sub-contractors who have a major workshare in the proposed Team.

Government’s Response: The Government will consider Past Performance of the Prime vendor only since the contract is between the Government and the Prime.

28) Please confirm that “Tab A, General Information” including the Title/Cover Page(s), Table of Contents, Exceptions/Assumptions and Subcontracting Plan are not included in the “Factor 1: Technical 30 – page Maximum” page count? (Pages 54-55 of the Conformed Base

RFQ).

Government’s Response: Correct, those will not be counted in the page limitation.

29) Please confirm that offerors are allowed to use a smaller, yet legible font (e.g., 9pt ) for tables and graphics?

Government’s Response: Yes, a 9pt, 10pt of 11pt font in either Times New Roman or Arial is acceptable for tables and graphics, but not for narrative sections.

30) Both the RFQ and PWS state multiple times, in multiple locations, that in delivering on this project that there will be 4 Program Increments (PI’s) in each Period of Performance (PoP), lasting 12 weeks each. Our past experience in delivering on this exact model clearly leaves a gap of 4 weeks in each 52 week/12 month PoP. Therefore, on page 33 of the PWS, as written, it is slightly unclear on if the multi-day PI Planning event occurs within the 12-week Program Increment (PI) or is additive to it, making each PI cycle a 13-week total, effectively consuming the aforementioned 4-week gap?

Government’s Response: PI’s are 12 weeks in duration. PI planning occurs before the 12-week PI, and are therefore additive.

31) The solicitation appears to assume that any viable solution for SURPASS will require new FedRAMP authorization. Will the government remove as a subfactor the FedRAMP authorization experience for offerors whose solution will not require any new platform or product FedRAMP authorization?

Government’s Response: No, the subfactor regarding the FedRAMP experience must be responded in full.

32) The government has indicated that it will allow completed task orders and contracts with no specified duration as long as they have been completed within the last 3 years. In contrast, the solicitation appears to arbitrarily require ongoing work to be a minimum duration of 36 months. Please confirm the government will remove the 36-month eligibility requirement for ongoing work and accept ongoing experience where the initial base period of performance has been completed and a CPARS rating has been given?

Government’s Response: See Question 20.

33) RFP Proposal Format, Volume One, Tab A, p. 54 – Please provide the expectations and/or an example for the Subcontracting Plan.

Government’s Response: Please visit: https://www.acquisition.gov/far/52.219-9

34) PWS Section IV Payment and Invoicing, 2.0 Contract Line-Item Number (CLN) Structure, p.

61 – The Table within this section includes CLINs 0001, 0004, 0005, 0006, and 0007 for the base period. However, the RFP, on pages 34 through 37, includes CLINs 0001 through 0007 as well as each of the four option years. Will the Agency please clarify that this opportunity includes seven CLINs and is for a one-year base period with four one-year options?

Government’s Response: This IDIQ opportunity includes seven CLINs and is for a one-year base period with four one-year options. Task Order One includes only the base year and support CLINs required at this time.

35) Excel Pricing Spread Sheet – There are numerous instances where the formulas do not work in the Excel Pricing Spread Sheet. For example: Tab “Task Order One” cells D38, H38, B64

- 66, and F 64 - 66. Will the Agency please provide an updated pricing worksheet for offerors to use?

Government’s Response: Please tweak the provided example pricing worksheet as needed.

36) RFP Proposal Preparation and Evaluation Information, Proposal Format, p. 54 – Can the Government please confirm if the Contractor can provide a copy of our SAM.gov FAR Representations & Certifications report to satisfy the requirement in Volume II – Tab A, Representations & Certifications?

Government’s Response: Confirmed.

37) RFP Proposal Preparation and Evaluation Information, Factor 2: Past Performance, p. 59 – Will the government please clarify that the Offeror may cite the prime contract past performance and experience of an affiliate company so long as the Offeror demonstrates how the resources of the affiliate will meaningfully contribute to the performance of the USDA RD SURPASS Contract?

Government’s Response: No, the Past Performance of the vendor submitting its proposal as the Prime will be evaluated, not affiliates.

38) The procurement rules and GAO decisions have made clear that agencies my evaluate and credit an offeror with the past performance and corporate experience of affiliate companies where the offeror’s proposal demonstrates that the resources of the affiliate (e.g., workforce, management, facilities, or other resources) will be meaningfully contributed to contract performance. See GM–Bulltrack, B- 414591.6 (Comp. Gen. Oct. 30, 2018)(holding that an agency may properly attribute the experience or past performance of an affiliated company), and Iyabak Construction, LLC, B-409196 (Comp. Gen. Feb.6, 2014)(holding that the agency failed to articulate a rational basis for solicitation’s refusal to consider experience and past performance of affiliates). Crediting the past performance of affiliates benefits the Government by increasing the pool of competitors, which in turn likely leads to more innovative proposals, more robust technical solutions, and lower prices. Further, the agency will receive access to the resources, tools, and other valuable skills that an offeror’s affiliate and broader organization can contribute to contract performance.

Government’s Response: What is the question? For the RFP, only the proposed Prime Vendor’s experience and Past Performance is to be evaluated as it is the proposed Prime Vendor that would enter into a contract with USDA RD. Please reference question 37.

39) RFP PROPOSAL EVALUATION/SELECTION CRITERIA, Factor 3: Price proposal Section, Subsection 2, p. 60 – Subsection 2 states “There is not a specified format, nor any specific pricing list that a Vendor must use. Proposed labor categories (LCATS), Hours for each LCAT, and Rates by LCAT for each FA are not required for submission.”

The Excel Pricing template lists specific labor categories with hours and rates with a total per labor category on the Task Order One tab. Will the government clarify if the rates and hours per labor category are required and if the “task order one” tab is to be left blank?

Government’s Response: Rates and hours per labor category are not required.

40) RFP PROPOSAL EVALUATION/SELECTION CRITERIA, Factor 3: Price proposal Section, Subsection 1 – RFP States “The offeror shall provide a total price, (in MS Excel) which includes the base year and all option years along with the following price breakdown:

i. per each CLIN & Sub CLIN.

ii. per base and each option period.

The Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) Structure table in the PWS is the format that should be followed for the Pricing Spreadsheet.”

Does this relate to the CLIN table found on page 61 of the PWS under section 2.0 Contract Line-Item Number (CLIN) Structure?

This table does not provide a sub CLIN structure. Will the government please clarify if sprint pricing at the CLIN level reflected in the referenced table is sufficient?

Government’s Response: Government’s Response: Follow CLIN structure on pages 33 through 36 (Section 6. Contract Line-Item Number (CLIN) Structure) of the RFQ for overall pricing. Yes, Sprint-level is sufficient.

Additionally, a Deliverables-Schedule Pricing chart for each CLIN deliverable in correlation to Vendor’s milestone schedule, to reflect anticipated accepted deliverables for each anticipated invoiced time-period, must be provided.

41) RFP PROPOSAL EVALUATION/SELECTION CRITERIA, Factor 3: Price proposal

Section, Subsection 2, p. 60 – Subsection 2 states “There is not a specified format, nor any specific pricing list that a Vendor must use. Proposed labor categories (LCATS), Hours for each LCAT, and Rates by LCAT for each FA are not required for submission.” Labor categories are specified in both the Labor Category Descriptions tab of the excel pricing file and pages 31-32 of the Conformed base RFP. Are contractors required to use these labor categories and referenced qualifications in formation of their AGILE teams.

Government’s Response: No, Vendor is to propose what it believes to be most applicable.

The Excel sheet was just an example.

42) Excel Pricing file, Labor Category Description tab – Several of the Labor Category titles and associated functional roles are unclear as to which skill level they belong. For example Business Analyst II – Service Design Lead and Quality Assurance lead – Org. Comm, and Training Specialist. Would the government clarify to which skill level all labor categories are associated so offerors can ensure compliance with education and experience requirements?

Government’s Response: No, Vendor is to propose what it believes to be most applicable.

The Excel sheet was just an example.

43) RFP, p. 1 – Anticipated period of performance is estimated to be November 1, 2022, however the excel pricing template, tab “Task Order One” has a start date of September 1, 2022. Would the government clarify the period of performance?

Government’s Response: Excel pricing template was provided as an example. Anticipated start date of the period of performance is estimated to be November 1, 2022.

44) Will the Government confirm that should an offeror propose a solution that requires commercial software licenses and usage fees, those fees should be included in CLIN0003 and that optional CLIN0003 will then be awarded?

Government’s Response: Vendors should propose a solution it deems best based on the RFQ information. The vendor should identify any software products that may require license and\or usage fees going forward.