Crypto Class 1 - Attachment 8. RFP Questions and Answers 20230320.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 21 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Cryptocurrency Managed Services - Class 1
- Solicitation number
- 15M50024QA4400002
About this file
This document contains Questions and Answers related to a Request for Proposal (RFP) for Cryptocurrency Managed Services - Class 1 IDIQ contract, Solicitation Number 15M50024QA4400002.
The key details are:
- The U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) has a requirement to manage and dispose of large quantities of popular cryptocurrency assets, known as Class 1 cryptocurrencies.
- The contract will streamline custody, management, and disposal processes for cryptocurrency assets while allowing for the diversification of the type of cryptocurrency assets that can be managed.
- The acquisition strategy is for a single award Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract with a 5-year ordering period and potential 6-month extension.
- The Government will select the best value offeror using the trade-off method.
- Offerors must be registered in the SAM database and meet specific audit and compliance requirements, including SOC 1 Type II and SOC 2 Type II audits.
- The Government will not consider utilizing a Special Purpose Vehicle or alternative fee structures for this effort.
View the file
Other files
Show all 15
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
Sheet1
RFP Questions and Answers Attachment #8
Cryptocurrency Managed Services - Class 1
| Question # | RFP Section | RFP Page | Question | Answer | |
| 1 | FACTOR 2 - TECHNICAL CAPABILITY/RESUMES (VOLUME 2) | 1 | This section asks the Offeror to "Describe the Phase-In/Phase-Out Plan for contract and asset transition." As part of the Transition Plan, there may be various services available pending the set up of the USMS account. As such, please confirm, is the USMS able and willing to utilize a Special Purpose Vehicle? | The USMS will not consider utilizing a Special Purpose Vehicle for any of the services required under this effort. | |
| 2 | Instructions to Offerors | 7 | To confirm, are the only people who are able to participate in the Question Section of the presentation the Program Manager and one additional Authorized Corporate Representative? | An authorized Corporate Representative and the Program Manager shall introduce the company upon their scheduled Factor 1 Experience Oral Presentation; the Program Manager shall introduce/present the questions listed for Factor 1 Experience as per the Attachment #3 Instructions to Offerors. If an alternate to the Program Manager is designated for this task, communication via email shall be submitted to the Contracting Officer along with the request for the oral presentation time slot. A total of 5 personnel (including the Program Manager and the Authorized Corporate Representative) may attend the presentation and the additional 3 personnel may be called upon to address the On the Spot Questions, if needed. | |
| 3 | FACTOR 1 - EXPERIENCE/ORAL PRESENTATION (VOLUME I) (Attachment # 3) | 4 | Is the maximum of 5 attendees a hard requirement for the oral presentation? Given the breadth of subject matter contemplated, we'd ideally like to bring a deep team of specialists who best address the content. Similarly, is the hard maximum for the "on the spot challenge questions" 2 people? | See above response. | |
| 4 | 1.4 | 5 | Can you please share the breakdown of # of tokens per asset? | This data will not be shared. | |
| 5 | SF 1449 | 1 | Are any of the current Class 1 digital assets under investigation that would prohibit sales? | Cryptocurrency assets in USMS custody are only able to be sold upon the receipt of authorizing documents. Per PWS section 10.1 Asset Forfeiture Process, the USMS will provide notice when an asset is authorized for liquidation. | |
| 6 | 6B | 1,2 | Is there a designation as to which standards are mandatory or ar | ||
| all expected to be met? | All standards are required as applicable. | ||||
| 7 | Atth 4, Atth 6 | (3); (14-16) | Our small business attended a SOC 1 and SOC 2 pre-audit consultation. It was noted it takes minimum of 2-3 months to complete a SOC I Audit and minimum 12 months to complete the SOC II Audit. Is it possible for the SOC Audits to be conducted in a quarterly schedule for SOC I and Annual for SOC II? | SOC audits must be conducted per PWS section 5.2.3. | |
| 8 | ATTACHMENT 7 - PRICING SCHEDULE | NA | What is the source of the funds used to pay for the Cryptocurrency Management and Disposal Services requested under this RFP? | All funds associated with this RFP will be paid out of the Assets Forfeiture Fund. The Fund receives proceeds from the sale of property forfeited to the U.S. Government under the Department of Justice Asset Foreiture Program. | |
| 9 | ATTACHMENT 7 - PRICING SCHEDULE | NA | Would the Agency consider an alternative fee structure tied just to trading commissions and not custody fees? | The Agency will not consider an alternate fee structure at this time. | |
| 10 | ATTACHMENT 7 - PRICING SCHEDULE | NA | Would the Agency consider splitting any of the requested services among multiple vendors? | The Government intends to award one single Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity IDIQ) to one entity as per |
Attachment #3 Instructions to Offerors.
| 11 | Attachment 7 | Base Year Tab | The period of performance for the base year is 12 months, however, the Pricing Schedule for the base year calculates an MMF for 11 months. Can you explain the discrepancy and does this mean the contractor will be paid an MMF for 11 months instead of 12? | Attachment #7 Pricing Schedule has been replaced by updated version. | |
| 12 | PWS & Instructions | PWS pg 12; Instructions Pg 11 | It is not typical see both Commercial Crime Insurance and Cyber Insurance to be in place at the same time, even at the largest custody providers. Crypto insurance policies take months to formulate and obtain and this seems incompatible with the ability of any bidder to be fully operational within 60 days. How does USMS reconcile these competing requirements? | The requirement for Commerical Crime Insurance and Cyber Crime Insurance is based on industry best practices obtained during market research. | |
| 13 | 5.4 Information and Data | ||||
| 19 | With the understanding that an individual offeror may not be able to satisfy all the requirements, would a subcontract satisfying cyber security requirements? | Cyber security requirements shall be met by all performing entities under this effort. | |||
| 14 | 5.1.1 Insurance | 12 | With the understanding that an individual offeror may not be able to satisfy all the requirements, would a subcontract satisfying insurance requirements such as Commercial Crime and Cyber policies, be allowed? | See answer above. | |
| 15 | Appendix Standards and | ||||
| Compliance Requirements | 1 | Given the lack of potientional bidders that would meet all of the requirements, would USMS consider an offeror that has arranged for a subcontractor to meet those requirement? If the Primary does not currently have SOC audits in place, would the subcontractor that would be handling those requirements be able to satisfy the SOC I and II Audits? | The SOC audit compliance – whether SOC 1 Tpe II or SOC 2 Type II – is required for all performing entities under |
the cryptocurrency effort. Offerors may propose a business solution that best addresses the activities as required by the Performance Work Statement (PWS) via Teaming Agreements or Subcontracting opportunities; however, all performing parties shall be compliant to the SOC audit requirement. Additionally, the compliance shall be pre-existing at the time of response and shall be evaluated under the terms of the solicitation.
| 16 | 5.2.3 Third Party | ||
| Compliance Audit | Does the offeror need to have their SOC audits completed by date of RFP release(as Per Attachment 3, Page 6 Section 10) or date of offeror submission (Per RFP pg 1 Red/Bold Font) | The SOC audit compliance – whether SOC 1 Tpe II or SOC 2 Type II – is required for all performing entities under |
the cryptocurrency effort. Offerors may propose a business solution that best addresses the activities as required by the Performance Work Statement (PWS) via Teaming Agreements or Subcontracting opportunities; however, all performing parties shall be compliant to the SOC audit requirement. Additionally, the compliance shall be pre-existing at the time of response and shall be evaluated under the terms of the solicitation.
| 17 | Not Applicable | N/A | Utilizing a Separately Managed Entity (SME) or Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) (i.e., a separate legal entity) may provide additonal flexibility to the USMS in terms of engaging a variety of service providers to provide the more comprehensive services requested by the USMS, as well as potentially better protect the USMS assets from counter-party risk and assist with risk mitigation. Due to the volatility within the digital assets ecosystem and the potential lack of sole bidders capable of providing all services requested under the RFP, would the USMS be open to utilizing an SME/SPV? | The USMS will not consider utilizing a Special Purpose Vehicle for any of the services required under this effort. | |
| 18 | 5.4 Information and Data | ||||
| 19 | Are offeror's being benchmarked by FIPS standard 140-3 | ||||
| (as per PWS section 5.4) or FIPS 140-2 (as per "Standards and Compliance Requirements" page 5 section A2.4.C ? | Offerors will be held to FIPS 140-3 standards. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .