B09_SA_QandA_0001.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 24 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Outdoor Recreation Access Management Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 140D0426Q0281
About this file
This file is a Questions and Answers document supplemented with quantitative data tables for a Department of the Air Force (DAF) outdoor recreation access management system procurement. The solicitation (140D0426Q0281) is being executed by the Department of the Interior as the contracting activity, with the Air Force retaining technical oversight. This is a recompete of contract 140D0421P0244, previously held by RecAccess.
The system must support permit issuance, payment processing, help desk services, and content management across 11 Air Force installations. Key requirements include integration with Pay.gov for transaction processing (with fees passed through to end users), FedRAMP Moderate-level hosting compliance, and support for multiple premium services including online reservations, lottery/draw systems, check-in/check-out functionality, interactive mapping, online surveys, and safety briefings. The contractor must achieve full operational capability within 2-4 weeks of contract start, with Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson and Grand Forks AFB designated as priority installations aligned with hunting season openings. User volumes range significantly by installation, from 52 users at Offutt AFB to 12,066 at JBER, with annual permit volumes averaging between 0.2 and 3,153 permits per installation. The contractor is responsible for data migration, Pay.gov integration compliance for new installations, and GIS data integration (with government providing data in ESRI format). The government will provide existing safety briefing content and establish vendor-specific Pay.gov account structures. The current system operates on a public-facing non-.mil platform and does not require DAF Authority to Operate, though FedRAMP Moderate authorization is mandatory for the successor system.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Sol_140D0426Q0281_Amd_0001.pdf | ||
| B08_SOL_PWS_ORAM_Attach_1.pdf | ||
| Sol_140D0426Q0281.pdf | ||
| B08_SOL_Pricing_Attach_2.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| B08_SOL_ORAM_FINAL.pdf |
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
Q&A
| Question No. | Prospective Offeror Question | Government Response |
| 1 | Will a call center be required to take reservations over the phone? | No |
| 2 | Quantities for licensing and reservations for pricing purposes? | See tab no. 2 of this spreadsheet |
| 3 | Is this a recompete, and who is the current incument? | Yes, the incumbent is RecAccess (140D0421P0244) |
| 4 | Is there a total or estimated contract value? | This information shall not be shared |
| 5 | Please explain how the DOI is overseeing the acquisition but it's for the USAF? | DOI serves as the contracting activity while the AF retains technical oversight duties |
| 6 | Is there a specific platform this is running on now or is there one that is being considered? or is this an Agnostic approach? And Whether data migration is an expected task under this PWS? | No specific platform is specified in PWS. Data migration is expected task under PWS and data (user account data, transaction records, and permit history generated under the contract) will be provided to the government and an awarded contractor (if that is the case). |
| 7 | I also don't see FTE's or KP's annotated. Is this up to the offerer's discretion? | This is a performance based requirement. Consult the PWS and instructions to offerors |
| 8 | Peak concurrent user estimates? | August - December each year per location |
| 9 | PWS Section 3.1 describes ongoing services (permit issuance, payment processing, help desk, CMI hosting) that appear to be recurring O&M in nature, while Attachment 2 appears structured for deliverable-based development pricing only. |
a. Should Offerors propose recurring monthly/annual hosting, maintenance, transaction processing, and help desk fees?
| b. | If so, where should these be reflected in the pricing template? | ||
| c. | Should the Offeror propose a separate pricing structure, or will the Government issue a revised Attachment 2? | This is a performance based requirement. Consult the PWS and instructions to offerors | |
| 10 | PWS Section 2.3 allows addition of installations in base and option years. How should Offerors price this add-on capability? Should Attachment 2 include a per-installation add-on CLIN for Basic Services and for each Premium Service (Reservations, Lottery/Draw, CICO, Interactive Mapping, Online Surveys, Safety Briefing, SMS)? | This is a performance based requirement. Consult the PWS and instructions to offerors. | |
| 11 | Regarding section 3.1.6, Expected call/email volume or historical ticket data? | Approximately 47 hunter/recreationist emails and calls per year and then Approximately 18 installation administrator calls/emails and tickets per year | |
| 12 | Regarding section 3.1.6, help desk must be US-based? | This is a performance based requirement. Consult the PWS and instructions to offerors | |
| 13 | Regarding section 3.1.6, Acceptable communication channels? | This is a performance based requirement. Consult the PWS and instructions to offerors | |
| 15 | Does DAF have established Pay.gov agreements and account structures (Agency Location Codes, TAS/BETC) for each of the 11 installations? | The 11 installations do not have separate accounts but have one vendor-specific account. The Government will facilitate the establishment of a new, vendor-specific account structure for the successful awardee. | |
| 16 | Is the Contractor responsible for any Pay.gov onboarding, agreement establishment, or Agency Location Code setup? | The contractor must meet the requirements for Pay.gov integration for every installation onboarding under the performance period of this contract. The contractor is not responsible for Pay.gov agreement establishment or Agency Location Code setup | |
| 17 | Who bears responsibility for Pay.gov transaction fees — the Contractor, the Government, or pass-through to the end user? | It is a pass-through to the end user and included in the permit fee | |
| 18 | For installations requiring interactive mapping, will the Government provide GIS data (installation boundaries, training areas, recreation zones) in a standard format, or is the Contractor responsible for sourcing/developing this data? Is there a required mapping platform (Esri, Google Maps, open-source), or may the Contractor propose a platform? | GIS data was previously given by each installation GIS support person in ESRI format. Either a geodatabase or shp files | |
| 19 | Will the Government provide existing safety briefing and orientation content (slides, videos, quiz questions) for installations requiring this premium service, or is the Contractor expected to develop this content from installation-provided source material? | Government provided | |
| 20 | Does the system require a DAF or or DoD Authority to Operate (ATO) under the Risk Management Framework (RMF)? | The DAF or DoD Authority to Operate (ATO) under Risk Management Framework (RMF) is not required as current vendor system is not on a .mil hosted site but a .com site | |
| 21 | Does the system require fedRAMP Moderate or Low authorization for the hosting environment? | Current Sikes Act permit system in under FedRAMP Moderate Level and should assume the same for awardee | |
| 22 | Any specific continuous ATO (cATO) inheritance from a DAF enterprise platform? | No | |
| 23 | The system collects personally identifiable information (PII) including name, address, date of birth, phone, email, and potentially state hunting/fishing license numbers. Is a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) and/or System of Records Notice (SORN) required under the Privacy Act? If so, who is responsible for preparing and maintaining these documents? | A SORN has already been issued to the Department of Air Force they are responsible for maintaining this document. | |
| 24 | Is the Contractor expected to have all 11 installations fully operational on Day 1 of the POP, or is a phased rollout acceptable? | Expect functionality within the first 2-4 weeks of the contract | |
| 25 | If phased, what is the maximum allowable implementation window before all installations must be live? | No greater than 4 weeks | |
| 26 | Are there any installations with higher-priority go-live dates (e.g., tied to hunting season openings)? | It is expected that Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson and Grand Forks AFB would be priority for there latitude. Prioritize the rest of the installations based on their individual state hunting season opening | |
| 27 | Is there an intent to fully exercise both option years assuming satisfactory performance, or is continued funding contingent on other factors the Government can share? | Option years are included to ensure continuity of services. The decision to exercise the option(s) is made annually based on the criteria set in the FAR | |
| 28 | The solicitation and PWS do not specify the number of Full‑Time Equivalents (FTEs) or Key Personnel roles. Should offerors propose staffing levels and key positions based on their technical approach and understanding of the requirement? | This is a performance based requirement. Consult the PWS and instructions to offerors | |
| 29 | Is the Government seeking a Commercial‑Off‑The‑Shelf (COTS) product, a low‑code/no‑code solution, or a custom‑developed approach? | This is a performance based requirement. Consult the PWS and instructions to offerors | |
| 30 | Can the Government provide an estimated number of system users (e.g., types of users and approximate counts, levels of access and usage) to support system capacity and licensing assumptions? | See tab no. 2 of this spreadsheet | |
| 31 | Does the Government anticipate this system residing in a public-facing environment (e.g., internet-accessible platform such as IL-level hosting), or within a specific DoW/DAF hosting enclave? | It is anticipated that this system resides on public-facing environment. |
&"Aptos"&14&K000000 CUI&1#_x000D_
_x000D_&1#&"Aptos"&14&K000000 CUI
Quantities
| Permits | |||
| Portal | Avg per Year | Min | Max |
| Altus AFB | 19.8 | 3 | 34 |
| Barksdale AFB | 2479.2 | 962 | 3015 |
| Beale AFB | 165.4 | 57 | 230 |
| Columbus Air Force Base | 32.8 | 0 | 68 |
| Goodfellow AFB | 73.4 | 0 | 143 |
| Grand Forks AFB | 73.4 | 23 | 97 |
| JBER | 3153.4 | 0 | 4748 |
| JBSA - Camp Bullis | 1157.6 | 401 | 1823 |
| Little Rock Air Force Base | 225 | 0 | 425 |
| Offutt AFB | 0.2 | 0 | 1 |
| Robins AFB | 303.6 | 207 | 401 |
| Checkins | |||
| Portal | Avg per Year | Min | Max |
| Altus AFB | 4 | 0 | 20 |
| Barksdale AFB | 3814 | 3672 | 3976 |
| Beale AFB | 880.4 | 212 | 1490 |
| Columbus Air Force Base | 287.4 | 0 | 565 |
| Goodfellow AFB | 176.6 | 0 | 313 |
| Grand Forks AFB | 111.8 | 59 | 160 |
| JBER | 8054.6 | 0 | 17526 |
| JBSA - Camp Bullis | 5652.2 | 113 | 9071 |
| Little Rock Air Force Base | 2406.6 | 0 | 4826 |
| Robins AFB | 491.8 | 137 | 718 |
| Lottery Tickets | |||
| Portal | Avg per Year | Min | Max |
| Barksdale AFB | 171 | 0 | 310 |
| Beale AFB | 9.8 | 0 | 49 |
| Grand Forks AFB | 85 | 23 | 127 |
| JBSA - Camp Bullis | 35.2 | 0 | 173 |
| User Count | |||
| Portal | # of Users | ||
| Altus AFB | 111 | ||
| Barksdale AFB | 5083 | ||
| Beale AFB | 830 | ||
| Columbus Air Force Base | 184 | ||
| Goodfellow AFB | 196 | ||
| Grand Forks AFB | 151 | ||
| JBER | 12066 | ||
| JBSA - Camp Bullis | 2261 | ||
| Little Rock Air Force Base | 727 | ||
| Offutt AFB | 52 | ||
| Robins AFB | 1324 | ||
| Admin Count | |||
| Portal | # of Admins | ||
| Altus AFB | 3 | ||
| Barksdale AFB | 18 | ||
| Beale AFB | 16 | ||
| Columbus Air Force Base | 5 | ||
| Goodfellow AFB | 7 | ||
| Grand Forks AFB | 5 | ||
| JBER | 31 | ||
| JBSA - Camp Bullis | 17 | ||
| Little Rock Air Force Base | 11 | ||
| Offutt AFB | 2 | ||
| Robins AFB | 9 |
&"Aptos"&14&K000000 CUI&1#_x000D_
_x000D_&1#&"Aptos"&14&K000000 CUI
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .