RFP_Q&A_302.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 24 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 19AQMM19R0302
About this file
This Request for Proposals from the Department of State seeks an Identity Management System and Credential Management System to manage identities and credentials for the Department's domestic and international personnel. Offerors must submit Phase I proposals by August 1st, 2019 that address their relevant experience and past performance. A pre-proposal conference will be held on July 18th, 2019 in Springfield, Virginia to discuss the RFP requirements. Phase II of the solicitation will involve an oral presentation and demonstration of proposed solutions that can provide identity management, credential issuance and maintenance, card production, and physical and logical access control for up to 200,000 Department personnel worldwide. The incumbent contractor's solution must also be transitioned to the new contractor. The final award will be an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract to manage the system for 10 years.
Q&A
View the file
Other files
Show all 16
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
| 19AQMM19R0031 RFP Q&A | 19AQMM19R0302 RFP Q&A | |||||||||
| Reference | Question | Recommendation | Answer | Reference | Question | Recommendation | Answer | |||
| 1 | Does only the prime vendor require the facility clearances specified in the solicitation? Are subcontractors exempt from this requirement? | The Top Secret Facility Security Clearance (FCL) is required for the prime. The prime's subcontracting firms may have a Secret FCL depending on their role within the scope of the requirement. The SOO, VI.A paragraph 12 provides that key personnel and anyone with access to the system must possess a Top Secret security clearance. | 35 | B.2 Pricing Structure | ||||||
| page 1 | Due to the complexity of the project, and the fact that many small businesses have the skills to support certain aspects of the project better than some larger firms, would the Government be open to allowing this to be a multi-award IDIQ with one set-aside for Small Business and the other for Unrestricted? | No | ||||||||
| 2 | SOO, Section IV B, #9 | Does the prime contractor, or a sub-contractor, need to be an established reseller of Oberthur/Idemia PIV cards? This requirement indicates that this may be the case. | Clarify the required reseller status for the prime and/or sub-contractors in responding to this solicitation. | The proposed solution must demonstrate that the Offeror can consistently provide PIV card stock that meets DOS specifications and includes DOS secruity features at the awarded price throughout the IDIQ ordering period. | 36 | M.13 Subcontracting Plan | ||||
| page 91 | Can the government please provide the provisions to be used to enforce the subcontracting goals to meet the specific targets? | Please see FAR clause 52.219-9 | ||||||||
| 3 | SOO, Section IV B, #3 | Are all card types (PIV, PIV-I, FAC, FLAC, NonPIV, Visitor) based on PIV card stock (Oberthur V7/8) ? | Clarify if all card types are based on PIV card sock or whether another type of card stock (e.g. prox ) are used for certain card types. | Yes. Currently Oberthur V8.1 card stock with DOS specifications and security features. | 37 | Table C-1 | ||||
| page 1 | Can the government please provide historical data as to the usage of each station type and geographic location of each? | See Appendix C. | ||||||||
| 4 | SOO, Section VI A, #2 | Do visitor cards use the symmetric CAK? | Yes. | 38 | H.4 Key Personnel and Emergency Personnel | |||||
| page 17 | Can the Government provide the key staff labor categories with required qualifications and certifications? | Key Personnel and their qualifications are expected to be solution dependent. | ||||||||
| 5 | SOO, Section VI A, #9 | Would DOS not consider IDMS solutions that run in a secure GovCloud environment? | Consider allowing cloud-based solutions that have prior government ATO vetting. | The DOS will consider all solutions that achieve the objectives in the SOO while adhering to the constraints identified. | 39 | Solicitation_-_IDMS, Section J | Will the government please provide Att. 14: Past Performance Customer Satisfaction Survey? | Yes | ||
| 6 | SOO, Section IV B, #21 | Does the existing CCure PACS solution include reader and panel equipment that works with the symmetric CAK requirement or do these components come from the current IDMS/CMS vendor? Will the offeror need to provide any PACS components beyond integration of managed identity and credential data? | Clarify the PACS integration requirements as API-level integration vs. reader/panel replacement. | DOS currently has Xtec readers performing symmetric authentication. Once the authentication decision has been made, that approval is sent to C-Cure for authorization and access determination. Proposed solutions should address authentication and provide successful authentication to C-Cure. Failed authentication can be sent directly to the reader. The Offeror must provide a complete PACS solution that achieves the objectives in the SOO. | 40 | If necessary, is the government willing to maintain two card management systems (incumbents and incoming solution)? If so, for how many months is the government prepared to maintain two systems as the new solution transitions in to replace the current one? | Yes. The transition period is expected to be solution dependent. All other things being equal, a shorter transition period may be seen as more advantageous than a longer transition period. | |||
| 7 | SOO Appendix C – DOS Sites with Enrollment, Issuance, and Kiosk Stations, #1 | Is the Government planning to expand the current number of enrollment, issuance, and kiosk stations domestically and overseas during the performance of the IDIQ schedule and task orders? | The contract is designed to accommodate evolving DOS ICAM, HSDP-12, PACS, LACS requirements. | 41 | Att._1_-_IDM_SOO, Section IV, Subsection B., #9 | For the current card inventory what is the approximate number of cards managed and can an accurate inventory be provided? | Approximatley 70K identities with a possible expansion to 200K over the period of performance of the contract. | |||
| 8 | Solicitation_-_IDMS, Phase II Page limitation, #81 | Does the Phase II Technical Proposal page count include the classified technical response? | Yes | 42 | Att._1_-_IDM_SOO, Section II Overview, Paragraph 2 | For the current IDMS hardware inventory, what is the approximate number of items and total dollar value, and were there any discrepancies in the last annual inventory? | See Appendix C for the inventory. The other elements can be addressed in Due Diligence if they are determined to be pertinent to the proposed solution. | |||
| 9 | Attachment 1 – IDMS SOO, C. Technical Background, #4 | Can the Government provide additional documentation and/or requirements about the vetting functionality and system interface with the IDMS badge request? | Vetting interface is not required. The vetting process at DOS is handled at by DO/DFP at issuance. The Offeror's solution must be able to capture vetting data, but not directly interface with the DOS vetting system. | 43 | Solicitation_-_IDMS, Section F.6 | Will the government allow appropriate contract personnel activities to be done via telecommuting? | The DOS will consider all solutions that achieve the objectives in the SOO while adhering to the constraints identified. | |||
| 10 | IDMS Section Factor 2 #4 Oral Presentation | Will the offeror be required to complete a full enrollment, issuance, along with card maintenance, producing a compliant card during the demonstration? | In order for the government to fully evaluate the ability for a solution to function in the DOS environment, a live technical demonstration is recommended. | No. | 44 | Is the government aware of any successful agency PIV card contract transitions or lessons learned from previous transitions that it would expect the contractor to apply or avoid in this contract? If so, will the government please provide? | No. | |||
| 11 | Page 77 - Oral Presentation that demonstrates the following system functionalities and capabilities: | Should the government desire a live technical demonstration, will the government be providing the required connectivity or holding these demonstrations at the contractor’s location? | Programs that have required Operational Capability Demonstrations (OCD) in the past have typically been delivered from the contractor’s facility. This is due to the connectivity requirements and preparation time required for OCD’s of this magnitude. | The Government is open to attending a live technical demonstration at an Offeror's facility if in the local DC Metro region. | 45 | Is the Department planning to issue HSPD-12 compliant identity records and/or PIV I badges to Locally Engaged Staff worldwide? If so, on what timeline? | The possibility exists. There is no current timeline. | |||
| 12 | Page 80 – Business Management | Will the government accept GSA Schedule rates to support cost realism analysis? | We recommend GSA schedule rates be one of the options that could be used for realism analysis. | It is possible that GSA Schedule Rates will be used for realism. | 46 | Will the Government sponsor official passports for contractor personnel who travel internationally on behalf of the government? | No. | |||
| 13 | Solicitation, L.15 PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS, p.75-79, p.81 Att 1 Task Order 1, p.5 Table 1 |
Att 1 Task Order 1, p.8 Table 4
| The government states on pg.81 in Phase II Page limitation that the Technical Proposal shall not exceed 35 pages, however in L.15 the government lists Factor 2 Items 1-4 and Factor 3 items 1 and 2 as the main contents of the written Technical Proposal, both of which include multiple documents and deliverables (TOMP, IMS, Risk Management, Communications, Staffing, Training, PWS’ etc.) Can the government please confirm that the 35-page limit is only intended for Factor 2 item #2 Technical Approach to Statement of Objectives? Can the government clarify the page count for the Technical Proposal as described in L.15 beginning on page 75, currently only ACR’s are excluded per the instructions in Section L. | Recommend government extend Technical Proposal page count to 50 pages for Factor 2 items #1 and #2, while excluding draft deliverables and task order PWS’s from page count. Recommend the government clarify that required drafts of deliverables with proposal for Factor 2 identified in Attachments 1, 2, 3 are excluded from page count. Recommend Task Order PWS’ and required draft deliverables for Factor 3 are excluded from page count. | The Government is increasing the page limit to 45. The page limit includes everything under "Technical Proposal", not just Factor 2 #2. | 47 | Under what conditions if any, will hardware shipped to overseas locations under this contract be shipped via diplomatic pouch? | Controlled items are shipped via classified diplomatic pouch. |
| 14 | Solicitation, L.15 PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS, p.78-79, p.81 Att 1 Task Order 1, p.5 Table 1 |
Att 1 Task Order 1, p.8 Table 4
| In Section L the government requests a PWS for Task Order 1 and Task Order 2 which each must include their own TOMP, IMS, Risk Management Plan and a Staffing Plan. In Attachments 2 and 3 for each Task Order it also lists other and overlapping deliverable drafts, can the government confirm the total deliverable drafts requested and the proper location in the Section L.15 instructions? For example, both task order 1 and 2 list several deliverables however only task order 1 states “draft with proposal” but many of these documents are not accounted for in Section L instructions or in page count. | Recommend the government clarify and list all deliverable drafts required and their location in the proposal instructions. Recommend the government remove page count limitations for deliverable drafts. | The deliverables that will be evaluated by the Government during Phase II are listed in Section L. The deliverables listed in the task orders in Attachments 2 and 3 are the deliverables that will be completed as part of task order performance after award. | 48 | Are overseas hardware shipments allowed to use DS/C/ST’s supply chain management contract for shipping logistics? | For Task Order #1 , the Government will handle the shipping. Additional task orders will address the shipping required to meet their requirements. | |||
| 15 | Task Order 1 Section B #2 | Can the government detail how a company providing a Domestic Product under the Buy American Act for the IDMS/CMS will be included in the evaluation criteria? | FAR 52.225-1 has been eliminated as this requirement is exempt from the Statute. | 49 | Solicitation_-_IDMS, Section H.1.b | Can the government provide a copy of, “DEPARTMENT OF STATE PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION CARD POLICY AND PROCEDURES (FEB 2015)”? The link provided leads to an older version (2010). | The updated version will be provided during Due Diligence. | |
| 16 | Pg.13, Attachment 1, SOO | Since the Dept. of State has utilized Cloud/FedRAMP solutions in other aspects of their environment, will the government consider a FedRAMP approved solution for any aspects of this solution if available? | The utilization of FedRAMP and associated framework has been demonstrated to reduce cost and speed deployment times. With this solicitation addressing the next 10 years of this program, would it be beneficial for the government to consider allowing for emerging standards such as FedRAMP? | The DOS will consider all solutions that achieve the objectives in the SOO while adhering to the constraints identified. | 50 | Solicitation_-_IDMS, Section H.4 | Will the government please confirm that post-award identification of key personnel will be a bi-lateral contract modification? | Post-award identification of key personnel will be a unilateral modification as the key personnel stated in the offeror's proposal shall be final as previously proposed. If changes must occur they will occur in accordance with key personnel clause. |
| 17 | Sec L.8 Instructions, Solicitation Response, PG 68 | RFP States to pay particular Attention to Section L.16 in creating your response. There is no Section L.16 Could Government confirm that L.15 is what is being referenced or is there a missing section? | See updated Solicitation, "L.16" replaced with "L.15" on pages 44 and 68. | 51 | Att._1_-_IDM_SOO, Section IV, Subsection B.6 | Approximately how many duplicate SGIDs currently need to be corrected within the IDMS? | The systems must be able to address and manage duplicate SGIDs and identitiies. The Government is currently conducting a data clean up effort. | |
| 18 | Attachment 1, SOO |
II Overview The solicitation references “Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) of 2014;”
There are two FISMAs: 2002 and 2014. These are:
1. Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) of 2002
2. Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA) of 2014
| The solicitation reference uses a part of each. Will the government please confirm the FISMA Act in 2014 is the correct version to be utilized? | Clarify that the correct reference is the Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA) of 2014 | Yes. | 52 | Att._1_-_IDM_SOO, Section IV, Subsection B.7 | Approximately how many duplicate identity records currently need to be corrected within the IDMS? | The systems must be able to address and managie duplicate SGIDs and identitiies. The Government is currently conducting a data clean up effort. | |||
| 19 | Pg. 86 – M.10.1.2 Subfactor #2 – Past Performance | Is subfactor 2 of Phase 1, factor 1, strictly based on the Customer Satisfaction Survey? Or, should this information be included in the overall 10 page write up for Performance Confidence Assessment? | Subfactor 2 is based on the customer survey and any other sources the Gov't has access to. It is not based on the 10 page write-up. The overall Performance Confidence Assessment is based on a combination of subfactor 1 and 2, wherein Subfactor 1 is more important than Subfactor 2. | 53 | SOO Section E, #12 | Will the USG provide deliverables from the incumbent contract as identified in the SOO Section E, #12 which states, “Develop and deliver a phase-out performance plan that can be consumed by other systems using non-proprietary protocols, and provide subject matter expertise to assist in transition. Provide technical responses to government inquiries within a reasonable timeframe. The plan must include a method to export all IDMS data to industry standard data and card exchange formats as well as provide schema documentation.” | The deliverables from the incumbent contract are not applicable to the current requirement. | ||
| 20 | This means all work will be performed at this location, no option that work can be done elsewhere | The Offeror must propose a solution that achieves the SOO objectives while adhering to the constraints identified. The Government anticipates daily, face-to-face, onsite interaction with the Offeror's solution providers. See SOO as amended. | 54 | Att._1_-_IDM_SOO, Section VI, Subsection B.38, B.39, and B.46 | The following State Dept. policy references are not available via the link provided. Can a soft copy or working link be provided? |
5 FAM 460
5 FAM 600
| 12 FAH-10 H-170 | Yes, during due dilgence. | |||||||
| 21 | The contract will be IDIQ, which I believe will also be on the GSA schedule 70, since ESI is not have a GSA line item, I assume we would have to team with another company. No possibilities of getting the contract outside the GSA line? | This IDIQ is outside of GSA. | 55 | Solicitation_-_IDMS, Section H.9 | We understand the DoS right to the DoS PII data that will be part of the contract but the proprietary software/solution used will not fall under the data right provision correct? | Please see paragraph H.9 of the solicitation. This paragraph illustrates clearly the data rights situation for this procurement. | ||
| 22 | Section B | |||||||
| Pg. 76, section 4, c | To manage an existing DOS credential that has been encoded, whereby the original Card Manufacturer Keys were replaced with the DOS CMS Card Issuer Keys, we will need to import the DOS CMS Card Issuer Master Keys. |
Question: How will the DOS Card Issuer Master keys for issued DOS cards be provided?
| For DOS existing issued cards, we recommend the DOS exports and transmits the DOS CMS Card Issuer Master Keys using the Oberthur (Idemia) secure key ceremony protocol format. | Offerors must describe how their proposed solution would accomplish the transition of existing DOS credentials. | 56 | Solicitation_-_IDMS, Section L.15.II "Technical Proposal", Factor 2.4.b and 2.4.c | Will the government please confirm that the current incumbent will be required to provide the management keys to unlock the existing PIV cards for the Oral Presentation and for contract performance? Factor 2.4.b and 2.4.c are only possible with the existing DOS-issued cards keys. | Yes. | |
| 23 | Section B | |||||
| Pg. 76, section 4, c | To be able to connect to the certificate authority to be able to locate the existing user and perform the transactions to generate new certificates, revoke old certificates and perform key recovery we will need adequate credentials and certificate template information. |
Question: Will DOS provide: 1) CA and LDAP connection information, 2) User Group and certificate template information, 3) Registration Authority with the appropriate permissions to execute and manage the certificate transactions necessary to perform certificate management for an existing DOS user?
The DOS should provide a certificate authority connection worksheet that outlines:
CA connectivity necessary network information to connect the CMS to the DOS CA.
LDAP connectivity information listing necessary network information to connect the CMS to the DOS LDAP.
Certificate Template Sheet: Certificate template names that are in use for DOS credentialing activities
CA Registration Authority Credential: Provide the reference and authorization codes sot that the RA can be generated in hardware for the CMS.
| DOS operates its own Entrust Based CA. As the solution is a government solution, vendors must demonstrate their ability to adapt to the evolving interface requirements while maintaining compliance with all relevant standards and policy (FPKI, FIPS 201.X). | 57 | Solicitation_-_IDMS, Section B.4.c | The solicitation states that "Administrative support (coordination of travel arrangements, etc.) will be the responsibility of the Contractor." Is the government saying that passport applications, visa applications, eCC coordination, hotel bookings, etc. are unallowable costs? | We recommend that these functions be allowable costs as they are in direct support of the program's mission | There is no reimburesable portion of this contract. Therefore, the costs for the adminstractive support should be included in the FFP portion of the offeror's price proposal. | ||
| 24 | Section B | ||||||
| Pg. 76, section 4, d | Question: Will DOS describe the DOS symmetric key generation and transmission process? For example, is the symmetric key generated outside of the CMS so that the CMS must retrieve the symmetric key and load it on to the card? Or is the symmetric key generated by the CMS and securely transmitted to the relying parties (PACS)? | Offerors must describe how their proposed solution would address DOS symetric key authentication requirements. | 58 | Solicitation_-_IDMS, Section B.5.b | The solicitation states that the costs and fixed fees are based on a normal workweek of 60 hours for performance within the United States outlying areas and outside the United States. Will the government please clarify if the contractor's employees are required to work 60 hours per week when performing in outlying areas and outside the United States, or if this is a maximum that may be worked. | 60 hour workweek is the standard minimum performance for outside the USA. | |
| 25 | Appendix C, Table C-1 | In order to minimize cost of transition, we would like to understand what enrollment and issuance station hardware and software is currently in use. Our product may be compatible with these components so they can be reused. |
Question: Will DOS provide the make and model of the; Fingerprint capture device, card printer, single fingerprint reader device, document scanner, camera.
| DOS should provide a detailed GFE hardware and software listing of the commercially available components. | DOS will provide a detailed listing of GFE hardware and software during Phase II. | 59 | Solicitation_-_IDMS, Section F.4.b | Will the government please provide the "Default - Fixed-Price Supply and Service clause" so that we can assess the risk of liquidated damages? | Added. | |||||
| 26 | F.6 Place of Performance | Will DOS confirm the expectation is that all contractor staff will perform all work under this contract at the Springfield, VA location, and not at contractor sites? | Recommend contractor staff perform day-to-day work at contractor sites and arrange for the appropriate contractor staff to report to DOS locations on a set schedule, such as 1-2 days per week, or for meetings. | The Offeror must propose a solution that achieves the SOO objectives while adhering to the constraints identified. The Government anticipates daily, face-to-face, onsite interaction with the Offeror's solution providers. See SOO as amended. | 60 | Solicitation_-_IDMS, Section F.7 | Will the government please confirm that if the government requests deliverables that are not listed in the solicitation, the effort to generate those deliverables will be cost reimbursable? | Deliverables will be requested via task order, therfore priced into the individual task orders. | ||
| 27 | VI. CONSTRAINTS AND APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS | |||||||||
| A. Constraints #17 | Will DOS clarify if the personnel with system access specified here is limited to administrator-level access, or does this include any contractor with any system role? | Clearance requirements are contingent upon to level of system and data access and are solution dependent. At a minimum, system administrators, and most likely all individuals with elevated privileges, will require TOP SECRET clearances. | 61 | Solicitation_-_IDMS, Section H.2.a | Do proposed subcontractors require a TOP SECRET facility clearance, or can they be processed for the clearance upon award? | We recommend that subcontractors be allowed to obtain a TOP SECRET facility clearance after award. This will allow the contractor to propose the best possible team in support of the program's mission. | See answer number 1. | |||
| 28 | D. Training and User Support | Does DOS currently host an LMS, or any WBT systems, applications or tools in which this training needs to be used or interface? Will DOS provide document formatting requirements for any required training systems, applications or tools? | Currently DOS WBT uses a DOS Adobe Connect delivery mechanism. The Offeror must propose a training solution that achieves the SOO objectives while adhering to the constraints identified. | 62 | Solicitation_-_IDMS, Section L.15.I Paragraph 5 | The solicitation states "The offeror shall convey the offeror's current facility clearance level and CAGE code and the current facility clearance levels and CAGE code of any proposed subcontractors." This requirement seems out of place as the prior and following paragraphs are requirements for past performance references. Will the government please clarify this paragraph? Is the government asking for a section in the phase I proposals confirming facility clearance levels of the prime and subcontractors, not related to the required references? Or is the government asking for the facility clearance levels while performing the past performances? | The DoS is requiring the Cage Codes for the proposed prime and subs, not related to the past performance references. | |||
| 29 | Revised RFP Q&A – Response to #2 | The Governments response to Question # 2, regarding Subcontractors requirement for a facility security clearance states, “The Top Secret Facility Security Clearance (FCL) is required for the prime. The prime's subcontracting firms may have a Secret FCL depending on their role within the scope of the requirement. The SOO, VI.A paragraph 12 provides that key personnel and anyone with access to the system must possess a Top Secret security clearance”. Will the Government please clarify if Subcontractors are required to hold a facility clearance? Top Secret, Secret, or otherwise? | Subcontractors are required to have a FCL yes. | 63 | Solicitation_-_IDMS, Section L.15.II "Reading Room" | If the contractor has appropriate means to handle classified material, such as a SCIF, can the contractor receive the classified material located in the reading room and develop the classified portion of the proposal in their own facility? | Allowing contractors to develop the proposal in their facilities will ensure that the government receives the best and most comprehensive proposal possible. | No as that would provde an advantage to one offeror over another. All offerors must be attritubed the same opportunity. | ||
| 30 | 3. – Comprehensive Cost/Price Proposal Pg. 79/80 | Section 3 states, “The Offeror(s) shall provide firm fixed price cost/price proposals for Task Order #1 and Task Order #2”. There is no direction regarding the Offeror(s) requirement to provide a comprehensive list of proposed labor categories and rates for the overall IDIQ – just a price for Task Orders. Is the contractor required to propose a list of IDIQ labor categories and rates? Or, will this be established on a Task Order basis after award? | The overall IDIQ schedule labor rates and item prices may be established via negotiations pre-award. | 64 | Solicitation_-_IDMS, Section L.15.II "Technical Proposal", Factor 3.1 and 3.2 Staffing Plan (factor c under "The PWS must also include the following plans:" | The solicitation requires names for all positions in Task Order 1 and 2, not just of key personnel. Will the government please consider requiring names for only key personnel? | Requiring names for every position heavily favors the incumbent since they have personnel currently performing against similar requirements. | Yes. See amended solicitation. | ||
| 31 | Section L.14, p.63 | When you discuss “Associate Contractor Agreement” with regards to Xtec, are you intent on keeping the system already installed and maintained by Xtec, or will you consider as new PIV system if it is demonstrably more efficient, reliable and robust, as long as it also meets HSPD-12 requirements? | Xtec is currently party to the ACA. The purpose of this soliciatation is to procure a complete IDMS solution. The Offeror must propose a solution that achieves the SOO objectives while adhering to the constraints identified. | 65 | SOO_Appendix D | Is the winning vendor responsible for deployment (travel/procurement/install/training) of the new enrollment workstations and or the deprovisioning of the old/current enrollment stations? | The contractor's responsibilites will be outlined in each task order. For Task Order #1, the labor associated with travel and installation of the enrollment stations is not included. | |||
| 32 | Section L.15, page 72 | Do the required Past Performance examples for the Phase 1 response have to show specific experience with PIV-type systems or with the “scope, magnitude and complexity” of large, multinational projects more generally? | The more relevant the citations are to DOS requirements, the higher the rating for the Relevant Experience subfactor. | 66 | SOO Statement of Objectives; Page 13 #11 | Does the Government intend to do a refresh of all enrollment equipment, or is some/all of the current enrollment peripherals to be retained for the new system? | No. Retention/refresh of peripheral equipment is solution dependent. | |||
| 33 | Section L.15, page 72 | Can Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) be used in place for the “Past Performance Customer Satisfaction Survey” | No, the survey is required. | 67 | If a vendor is selected to proceed to Phase II will there be an opportunity to ask additional questions about the RFP? | Yes. During the Due Diligence sessions. | ||||
| 34 | Section L.15, Phase I Page limitation, Page 73 | Is subcontractor past performance that the offeror considers critical to the solution part of the 10 page count? | Yes | 68 | SOO Statement of Objectives; Page 13 #11 | How many incumbent FTE’s are currently on site in Springfield, supporting the program? | The number of current FTEs is dependent on the incumbent's solution and is not pertinent. | |||
| 69 | Is the government open to other PIV card suppliers other than Oberthur/Idemia? | Yes. | ||||||||
| 70 | Can the government confirm the previous answers from submitted questions from the “cancelled” RFP from March 2, 2019, are still valid/applicable? | Yes, the answers previously provided are still applicable as per this sheet. | ||||||||
| 71 | Can the government confirm whether this RFP includes the possible replacement of the current PACS readers/xnodes or will the new CMS need to provision to the current PACS(CCure) and current XTec readers/xnodes? | Yes. | ||||||||
| 72 | Is the Government open to using a different CA provider on the Federal Brige? | No. | ||||||||
| 73 | Aside from what is mentioned in the solicitation, are there any additional systems or components with which we would need to integrate? | Yes. | ||||||||
| 74 | It states derived credentials will be required in the future. Which mobile device management (MDM) products are currently in use today at DOS? | Derived credentials are a future requirement and are not required for Task Orders #1 and #2. | ||||||||
| 75 | Are there any hardware and/or peripherals which are part of the current solution that you wish to reuse? | Yes, all other things being equal, to the extent that is saves the Government money. | ||||||||
| 76 | Does DOS have an IDMS/CMS architecture to include all system connections which can be shared with bidders? | Yes. Architecture will be available in Phase II. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .