191NLE24R0020 Questions_ANSWERS.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 40 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 191NLE24R0020
About this file
This document is a set of questions and answers related to a federal contract opportunity for IT Consulting Services for the Office of the Prosecutor General (OPG) of Ukraine.
The solicitation (191NLE24R0020) is seeking services to conduct an IT audit, develop an IT strategy, implement an IT Service Management (ITSM) system and Service Desk, provide IT employee training, and develop various IT documents. Key details include: an 8-month period of performance, a requirement for an 11-person team of specialists, the ability to propose open-source ITSM solutions, and the need to localize the ITSM system to Ukrainian. Pricing should be submitted as a combined model rather than itemized per deliverable. The opportunity is a small business set-aside, and subcontractors must be identified in the proposal. Responses to the solicitation are due by April 26, 2024.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| PR12374555_SOW OPG IT Consulting Services with TOR_AMENDED.docx | DOCX document | |
| PR12374555_Appendix B_ToR Development.docx | DOCX document | |
| SOW for OPG IT Consulting Services with TOR.pdf | ||
| Appendix A_SOW_OPG IT Consulting Services_EN.pdf | ||
| Questions 191NLE24R0020.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet |
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
Questions and Clarifications
| Identifier | Technical, Cost, or Admin | RFP Section and Page Reference | Question or Clarification Request | Offeror Recommendation (if any) | Government Response to Question | |
| *Note: Answers must be complete, well-written, and address all aspects of the question or clarification request. The goal is to provide adequate information so an additional round of Q&A results in few or no follow-up questions. | Change to RFQ? If so, where? | |||||
| 1 | Technical | SoW, SERVICE SPECIFICATIONS AND EXPETCED DELIVERABLES, page 3. | There is another lot stated in SoW but not included to Appendix A called " DEVELOPMENT OF ToR FOR THE INFORMATION SYSTEM (CALLED “MINORS”) FOR THE OPG JUVENILE DEPARTMENT". | |||
| Could you please clarify if this item is relevant for this RFP or not? | This Item a part of RFP, the contractor is expected to develop a ToR for the OPG Juvenile Department. Specific scope descritpion is in the Appendix B that is already added to the solicitation in SAM.gov | |||||
| 2 | Admin | Appendix A, 2.1 Project team, page 6 | Team composition requirements state that we have to involve a developer for this project. Nevertheless, walking through the scope of work we do not consider it necessary because no development task are identified. Moreover, we wanted to state that we have a lot of process engineers that can support the ITSM system implementation and architects that can also support. | There are tasks for developers on IT-audit stage and ToR development stage. The developer should be on board | ||
| 3 | Admin | Appendix A, 3.6 Duration and location, page 10 | There is a requirement "It is expected that the total duration of the audit will not exceed 8 months from the date of signing the Agreement". Upon our experience working with Ukraine's Governmental Institutions within other IFI projects we can state that the start of the engagement can be postponed from the recipient side because of long process of approving the project with DSSZZI and SBU (SSU), and signing the NDA with the recipient itself. The start of the project may be significantly postponed because of this issue and we request to approach this risk within the Agreement. | We do not anticipate any issues with signing the NDA or obtaining approvals from SBU and DSSZZI. The proposed project duration of 8 months looks feasible. | ||
| 4 | Technical | Appendix A, 4.3 Development requirements, page 12 | From the previous section (IT audit) we assume that information security strategic issues (operating model) should be included to IT strategy as well. But within the 4.3 section the requirement only states that only advanced information security technologies implementation should be considered. | |||
| Could you please clarify if we need to add Information Security Strategy from operational model perspective to our proposal? From our perspective the result of IISS assessment should be an entry point for more detailed development of the Information Security function. | It is expected that information security aspects will be mentioned in each point of stratagy where it is appropriate. |
| 5 | Technical | Appendix A, 5.3 Implementation requirements, page 18 | Our team is aimed to develop the recommendations and propose several options (including technical specification) of ITSM implementation within IT strategy development. But it is a Recipient's responsibility to decide which system should be implemented, and make a procurement of the system before the implementation. The process of implementation itself should be started only after the finalization of procurement process. | We expect that contractor may suggest open source solutions that the recipient may choose which one to be implemented. There is no need to make an extra procurement | |
| 6 | Admin | Appendix A, 6 CONDUCTING TRAINING FOR IT | |||
| EMPLOYEES, page 19 | Could you advise when the trainings are expected to be delivered to recipient? |
The trainings schedule should be aligned with ITSM implementation and Service Desk implementation. Is there a clear requirement from the Recipient?
| From our perspective, the trainings should be held during and after the implementation to make the better effect to Recipient's personnel competences. | During the IT-Audit the points of enhancement should be discovered. The Contractor should suggest and approve a training plan to cover problems issues. | ||||
| 7 | Admin | Appendix A as a whole | Could you advise what is the expected period of performance for the engagement? Are there any requirements to the Recipient for making their own effort to comply with the timeline? | ||
| What will be happened if the engagement performance exceeds the expected timeline because of the delays from the Recipient's side? | The recipient is interested in success of the project. However contractor may suggest the way of risks mitigation. | ||||
| 8 | Technical | Appendix A as a whole | Could you provide basic information of the IT landscape size: number of applications, number of servers and physical cores, number of users | The information may be provided after NDA signing | |
| 9 | Technical | Appendix. 3.5 SCOPE OF WORK: p. 8 | Will audit include all hardware analysis or only the server infrastructure without laptops, other user endpoint hardware? | It is expected to get all IT infrastructure analysed | |
| 10 | Technical | Appendix. 4 DEVELOPMENT OF OPG’S IT | |||
| STRATEGY: p. 13 | 4. The transition plan from the current model to the target model - is an operating model of IT is meant or a wider definition of the Model is assumed? | It means that the contractor should suggest a target vision and a way to reach it. | |||
| 11 | Technical | Appendix. 5 ITSM IMPLEMENTATION . 5.2 EXPECTED RESULT p.16 | Should all mentioned processes be described and setup in the configured ITSM application or the implementation og the ITSM system be completed within 8 months (including data integration, migration, user training)? | The system should be set up to work with mentioned processes. | |
| 12 | Technical | Appendix.. CONDUCTING TRAINING FOR IT | |||
| EMPLOYEES p.19 | Is there any requirements as per the duration of the trainings of each format? | The training plan should be suggested by the contractor and approved by recipient. | |||
| 13 | Technical | Appendix.. 8 DEVELOPMENT OF IT DOCUMENTS p.25 | a. IT architecture documentation: diagrams of different levels, etc. - What should cover the IT architecture documents (what types of diagrams - network diagrams, data flow diagrams, deployment, use cases, activity diagrams) and what questions the architecture should answer? For example - It should provide enough information to decision maker as per investments into new IT architecture components, or on the other hand - be detailed to allow development teams to start working with solution design and development? | The contractor should suggest the way of architecture description. The discription should provide enough information about how the architecture is built and why. | |
| 14 | Technical | Appendix.. 8 DEVELOPMENT OF IT DOCUMENTS p.25 | Documents describing the reporting system of different levels and key | ||
| performance indicators: templates (examples) of reports - Should templates of the reports include mockups or it can be a description of the reports, parameters, visualization methods? | It is reasonable that all suggested solutions should be accompanied with a clear visualisation of result to better manage of recipient expectations. | ||||
| 15 | Technical | Appendix.. 8 DEVELOPMENT OF IT DOCUMENTS p.25 | a. Risk register. - Is it IT related risk register? | Yes | |
| 16 | Technical | Appendix.. 8 DEVELOPMENT OF IT DOCUMENTS p.26 | d. Incident reporting. |
e. Log of events.
| Should it be templates for the log and incident reports? | It should be tamplates, recomendations on how to fill the tamplates and also pre-filled templates to provide an example. | ||||
| 17 | Technical | Appendix.. 8 DEVELOPMENT OF IT DOCUMENTS p.26 | f. Configuration Elements Database (CMDB) - Should CMDB be designed and configured or the data migration (database population with actual configurations) should be also in scope? | The expected result of provided service is ready to use system. | |
| 18 | Technical | Appendix.. 8 DEVELOPMENT OF IT DOCUMENTS p.26 | SLA performance reporting - Is Performance engineering testing in scope? Could it be just the procedure and templates for SLA performancereporting? | The needs in perfomance testing should be discussed with the recipient. | |
| 19 | Technical | Appendix.. 8 DEVELOPMENT OF IT DOCUMENTS p.26 | m. Procedure describing the testing process - Should it cover common approaches for testing to be used as a templates and requirements (or Testing strategy) or include specifics of each information system? | It should include specific for the different systems. | |
| 20 | Technical | Appendix.. 8 DEVELOPMENT OF IT DOCUMENTS p.26 | Test protocols - what should they include? | They should test metodology, results of testing, recommendations. | |
| 21 | Technical | Appendix.. 8 DEVELOPMENT OF IT DOCUMENTS p.26 | a. Procedure for managing/installing software updates. - Each IT system could have its own recommended procedures. What is expected to be included in the document? | It should include specific procedures for each system. | |
| 22 | Technical | 3 OPG'S IT AUDIT Page 7 Appendix A | Could the contracting office clarify if there are any specific technological frameworks or software tools that the OPG prefers for the IT audit and strategy development phases? This would help ensure compatibility and meet technical expectations. | There is no specific frameworks or tools that OPG insists on. | |
| 23 | Admin | SOW Description | Are there any limitations or specific requirements for using subcontractors under this contract? For example, are there any restrictions on the percentage of work that can be subcontracted or specific approvals required? | The subcontractors should be announced at the offer stage otherwise they should be agreed with the recipient. | |
| 24 | Technical | 2.1 PROJECT TEAM Page 5 Appendix A | Could the contracting officer provide clarification on the expected availability of project team members throughout the entire period of performance? Specifically, is continuous availability required for all key roles, or are there provisions for rotational duties or phased involvement depending on the project phase? This information is crucial for structuring our team effectively to ensure seamless project delivery. | The availability of recipient will be provided | |
| 25 | Cost | SOW - QUOTATION MUST INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING - Page 5 | Regarding the 'Service Specifications and Expected Deliverables' section of the RFP, are we required to provide a unit price for each individual deliverable listed? Could you please clarify if each deliverable should be itemized separately in our pricing structure, or if a combined pricing model is acceptable? | A combined pricing model is acceptable | |
| 26 | Cost | SOW - QUOTATION MUST INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING - Page 5 | "In reviewing the RFP, specifically under '2. DELIVERY DATE,' it states that equipment is to be delivered to the government by a date to be determined. However, our understanding from the Statement of Work is that this project does not include the delivery of any equipment as part of the services provided. Could you please confirm whether the inclusion of 'Equipment delivered to Government by TBD' is applicable to this RFP, or if this may be an error in the document?" | No equipment is expected to be delivered. It will be removed from the SOW | |
| 27 | COST | SOW - QUOTATION MUST INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING - Page 5 | "In the 'DESCRIPTION' section of the RFP, it specifies that we should provide a description/nomenclature of the items being quoted, and that product literature may be included. Could you please clarify the level of detail required in the description for the services proposed? Additionally, is there a preferred format or specific aspects of compliance that you would like us to highlight within the product literature to demonstrate full compliance with the RFP's required features?" | This section will be amended accordingly. | |
| 28 | COST | SOW - QUOTATION MUST INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING - Page 5 | In reviewing the RFP documentation, we noticed that the sequence of items in the list under the section 'QUOTATION MUST INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING' progresses from 1, 2, then skips to 4, omitting item #3. Could you please clarify whether item #3 was intentionally omitted or if this might be a typographical error? If there is a #3, could you kindly provide the missing details to ensure our quotation is complete and accurate? | Typo error. Will be amended accordingly. | |
| 29 | Admin | Sam.gov Solicitation Website | The Sam.gov solicitation indicates that this opportunity is a Small Business Set-Aside, but there is no mention of that requirement in any of the provided documentation. Can the government confirm that it will not consider bids from offerors who exceed the Small Business standard? | All Documents given to State OSDBU, requested SB, | |
| 30 | Technical | Appendix A, Section 2.1 Project Team | Section 2.1 provides characteristics of 11 roles on a team of experts. Can the government confirm that the expected staffing or level of effort is for 1 FTE each for each of the 11 roles, resulting in an 11 FTE team for the prescribed 8-month period? | It is expected to have 11 separate specialists working in Kyiv during the contract term. Resumes for these specialists should be provided during the bidding stage. | |
| 31 | Technical | Appendix A, Section 2.1 Project Team | Section 2.1 provides characteristics of 11 roles on a team of experts. Is the government expecting resumes or descriptions of proposed personnel, or just an overall price for the described (11-person?) team based in Kyiv? | It is expected to have 11 separate specialists working in Kyiv during the contract term. Resumes for these specialists should be provided during the bidding stage. | |
| 32 | Technical, Cost | Appendix A, Section 5 ITSM Implementation | Section 5 describes the need to implement an ITSM solution. Does the government have a particular software solution in mind, or already in place? If not, are licenses for the proposed ITSM solution (i.e. Jira, ServiceNow) expected to be included in the FFP price, or quoted as a separate direct cost? If software is not provided by the government, can you provide a quantity of seats required or some other sense of size/scale of the expected user base? | It is expected to have 11 separate specialists working in Kyiv during the contract term. Resumes for these specialists should be provided during the bidding stage. | |
| 33 | Technical, Cost | Appendix A, Section 7 Service Desk Implementation | Section 7 (along with elements of Section 5) describes the implementation of a Service Desk. Can the government please clarify the expected timing of this requirement? Is it expected that the Service Desk will be fully implemented and "go live" only at the end of the 8-month period of performance - and therefore staffing and operation of the Service Desk is outside of the scope of this solicitation? | We expect that the contractor may suggest open-source solutions, allowing the recipient to choose which one to implement. There is no need for additional procurement. | |
| 34 | Admin | Given the robust nature of the requirements, and the necessary time to receive responses to questions, would the government consider an extension of the due date (currently 19 April) for proposals? | It is already been extended to April 26 | ||
| 35 | Technical | Appendix A, Section 6 Training | The SOW outlines 12 topics on which training is to be performed. Could the government provide detail on how many people will need to receive the training, and the likely location(s) of recipients of training? | This should be discovered during the IT-audit phase | |
| 36 | 5 ITSM implementation | Will the government accept a cloud based ITSM? If yes, how does the government want cloud based subscriptions priced? If no, should the contractor propose additional software and hardware to run the on premise ITSM?In case software licensing price shall be included - please, kindly specify expected extimated number of users, and IT administratros, as well as the number of years for which the license price shall be provisioned in the proposal | We klnow that the UKR government is working on a strategy to move to the cloud and some ministries have already started that move. For the sake of "future proofing" these capabilities and aligning with modern digitial governments, INL should ask OPG if a cloiud based solution would be sufficient (would also help meet the 8 month requirement) | Only on-remise solutions can be suggested. Cloud based solution wouldn’t be sufficient. | |
| 37 | 5 ITSM Implementation | Does the ITSM have to support the Ukrainian langauage set? | Clarify language requirements in the SOW. | ITSM should be localized to Ukrainian | |
| 38 | 6 Training | How many employees does the IT department have? How many do they want trained? | Provide a current breakdown of the OPG IT staff in terms of managers and engineers. | The information may be provided after signing the NDA | |
| 39 | Overall | Section 3.6 states the duration for the IT Audit is 8 months, but there is no reference regarding Period of Performance for any of the other task areas in the appendix A. Based on our experience, this is an incredible amount of work to complete in only 8 months, specifically the implementation of the ITSM and Service desk. This is compounded by the fact that the SOW requires us to engage IT staff for the audits and train them during this same time period. We can provide enough contract labor to complete this in 8 months, but it is doubtful that OPG has enough manpower to take part in all of these efforts while at the same time still doing their day to day job. | Please clarify that the total POP is 8 months from award and/or provide further clarificatiion and/or allow the contractor to propose a POP that makes sense based on their experience. | Period of performance is 8 months from signing the contract. | |
| 40 | Page 5 of the SOW | There is a reference to "Minors" as a deliverable, but it is not included in the Appendix A. | Remove it as a deliverable or provide the necessary details. | ToR on Minors should be added to the scope | |
| 41 | 5 ITSM implementation | What is the expected time of implementation? | 8 months is a very tight timeline; 18 or 24 months is more inline with industry standards - not becuas ethe work takes that lomg, but because that’s how long it takes to plan, implement, train, etc | 8-month term is required, and there is no need to extend the performance period due to the urgent need for these services. | |
| 42 | 7 Service Desk | What is the expected time of implementation? | 8 months is a very tight timeline; 18 or 24 months is more inline with industry standards - not becuas ethe work takes that lomg, but because that’s how long it takes to plan, implement, train, etc | 8-month term is required, and there is no need to extend the performance period due to the urgent need for these services. | |
| 43 | 3 IT Audit | Use of frameworks - the RFP stipulates a number of frameworks that shall be used by selected Consultant during the project, including ISO-9000, Cobit, ISO20000, ISO22301, as well as NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5. Considering that Cobit is designed as comprehansive holistic framework, covering all aspects of IT Governance, IT Management and Security, please, clarify, whether consultant can propose to use Cobit as a single core framework during IT Audit phase of the project? | Can we propose a single framwework that addresses all audit requirements vs individual frameworks/standards? | That may be suggested but the decision is on recipients side. | |
| 44 | 5 ITSM implementation and 7 Service Desk | . Sections 7.2 and 5.2 contain different number of processes for Service Desk/ITSM implementation. Please, clarify, which specific processes shall be implemented in Service Desk. | ITSM and Service Desk go hand in hand. Either specify which section is correct or make a statement to the effect that the contractor should use best practices for the implementatoon of ITSM and Help desk and that their should be consistency across those functions. Otherwise the government runs the risk of having two seperate implementations - this is a waste of resources and does not meet the strategic objectives of this SOW. | The contractor should suggest best way of IT tools for ITSM and Service Desk implementation due to scope of work. | |
| 45 | Overall | In order for us to properly estimate expected effort and complexity, please, provide baseline information about current size of the Recipient’s organization,: approximate number of IT staff, number of Information Systems, number of data centers, approximate number of users. | This information will be provided upon signing NDAs. | ||
| 46 | Overall | Please confirm that this audit is limited to only the national level of the OPG and not the obalast OPG's | The audit will definitely cover aspects of the functioning of regional IT departments, as a part of the entire IT infrastructure. | ||
| 1 | Admin | SoW, page 5 | Please specify what is meant by "DELIVERY DATE: Equipment delivered to Government by TBD.". Are there any deliveries of technical equipment in the scope of the project? | No equipment is expected to be delivered. Should be removed from the SOW. | |
| 2 | Admin | Appendix A, page 10 | Please specify the duration of the whole project. Does the duration of maximum 8 months stated in section "3 OPG 'S IT AUDIT" refer to IT audit? Are there any limitations of duration for other pieces of work to be delivered (i.a. development of IT strategy, etc) in place? | The 8-month period covers all the consultation services to be delivered. | |
| 3 | Admin | SoW, page 5 | Do you accept as references work delivered not only by PwC Ukraine but also by our colleagues from PwC Central and Eastern Europe (CEE)? (PwC Ukraine belongs to the PwC CEE area and works closely on different projects with our foreign colleagues) | It is expected that the contractor will provide proof of experience belonging to the legal entity that will sign the contract. | |
| 4 | Admin | SoW, page 5 | We acknowledge the significance of experience in projects of this nature and as PwC Ukraine in particular and PwC CEE in general we have provided such kinds of services to numerous clients. We are ready to provide pertinent descriptions of services delivered but due to confidentiality clauses in contracts in some cases we will not be able to provide detailed client references as stated in SoW (e.g. organization, name, phone). Do you accept such sanitized credentials? | All provided information from participant will be analysed on competitive basis. | |
| 5 | Admin | SoW, page 3 | Please provide us with Appendix B mentioned | It has already been added to SAM.gov. | |
| 7 | Admin | - | Do you require subcontractors to submit any additional documents, such as a Statement of Availability, etc.? | There is no need to provide SoA | |
| 1 | Admin | SoW, page 5 | Please specify what is meant by "DELIVERY DATE: Equipment delivered to Government by TBD.". Are there any deliveries of technical equipment in the scope of the project? | No equipment is expected to be delivered. Should be removed from the SOW. | |
| 2 | Admin | Appendix A, page 10 | Please specify the duration of the whole project. Does the duration of maximum 8 months stated in section "3 OPG 'S IT AUDIT" refer to IT audit? Are there any limitations of duration for other pieces of work to be delivered (i.a. development of IT strategy, etc) in place? | POP is 8 month from signing the Contract. The project plan should be aproved with recepient. | |
| 3 | Admin | SoW, page 5 | Do you accept as references work delivered not only by PwC Ukraine but also by our colleagues from PwC Central and Eastern Europe (CEE)? (PwC Ukraine belongs to the PwC CEE area and works closely on different projects with our foreign colleagues) | It is expected that the contractor will provide proof of experience related to the legal entity that will be signing the contract. | |
| 4 | Admin | SoW, page 5 | We acknowledge the significance of experience in projects of this nature and as PwC Ukraine in particular and PwC CEE in general we have provided such kinds of services to numerous clients. We are ready to provide pertinent descriptions of services delivered but due to confidentiality clauses in contracts in some cases we will not be able to provide detailed client references as stated in SoW (e.g. organization, name, phone). Do you accept such sanitized credentials? | All provided information from participant will be analysed on competitive basis. | |
| 5 | Technical | - | In which way should the proposal be submitted? Through a platform (if so, which one) or by email? | Please Submit Via email to Krishnakumarm@state.gov | |
| 6 | Admin | - | Do you require subcontractors to submit any additional documents, such as a Statement of Availability, etc.? | There is no need to provide SoA |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .