Amendment 002 Solicitation 2031JG22R00025.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 23 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Enterprise Sales and Marketing Solution
- Solicitation number
- 2031JG22R00025
About this file
This document package includes an amendment to a solicitation for an Enterprise Sales and Marketing solution and the related federal contract opportunity. Key details include that the solicitation is seeking an end-to-end turnkey retail service solution including hardware, software, hosting, operations and maintenance, staffing for contact centers and fulfillment warehouses, and integration with internal and external systems. The scope covers the United States Mint's entire numismatic program including direct-to-consumer/business sales over all channels, contact center and fulfillment operations, an order management system, eCommerce platform, point-of-sale system, business analytics, customer relationship management, and business-to-business solutions. The solicitation number is 2031JG22R00025 and involves the Department of the Treasury. The proposal due date is September 2nd. Pricing templates and labor categories are included as attachments.
View the file
Other files
Show all 23
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
ESM RFP Questions
| United States Mint Amendment 002 | |||||||
| SOLICITATION TITLE: United States Mint Enterprise Sales & Marketing and Solutions | |||||||
| SOLICITATION NUMBER: 2031JG22R00025 | DATE PREPARED: July 27, 2022 | ||||||
| QUESTION | |||||||
| NO. | SOLICITATION SECTION/PAGE NO. | VENDOR QUESTIONS | UNITED STATES MINT RESPONSES | ||||
| 1.0 | FedRAMP Compliance, page 17 and following: Please provide additional clarity on the following: | Please confirm that all Cloud Service Providers (CSP) must be FedRAMP authorized with the understanding that currently there is no cloud-based ecommerce platform that is FedRAMP authorized. | All Cloud Service Providers that meets NIST 800-145 definition for Cloud must be FEDRAMP certified. It is not true that no cloud-based ecommerce platform is FEDRAMP authorized. There are 91 agencies which includes Department of Treasury that have authorized SALESFORCE FEDRAMP Moderate Instance and 10 Agencies that have authorized Salesforce High Instance. Since the ESM will house PII, we will require the use of Salesforce Moderate. | ||||
| 2.0 | FedRAMP Compliance, page 17 and following: Please provide additional clarity on the following: | This would require the US Mint to migrate from the current Salesforce Commerce Cloud platform to a hosted website. Additionally, the current CDP and Email platform would need to be migrated to another provider as these cloud-based platforms are not FedRAMP authorized. | No response required. | ||||
| 3.0 | ESM Appendix A 1 Functional and Business Requirements Final.docx | ||||||
| 1.7.2 FedRAMP and Executive Order (EO)14028 Compliance | If FedRAMP is not a requirement will a POAM with a waiver be required for all CSPs? | FEDRAMP is not a Mint requirements or Treasury requirement and is an order by OMB. Which means that we do not have option of leveraging a Plan of Action and Milestone (POAM) to avoid FEDRAMP requirements. Order and details are below. | |||||
| 4.0 | ESM Appendix A 1 Functional and Business Requirements Final.docx | ||||||
| 1.7.2 FedRAMP and Executive Order (EO)14028 Compliance | Will Interconnection Service Agreements (ISA) be required for both FedRAMP and non-FedRAMP CSPs? | Any Cloud Service provider that meets NIST 800-145 definition for clouding computing must be FEDRAMP certified. | |||||
| 5.0 | ESM Appendix A 1 Functional and Business Requirements Final.docx | ||||||
| 1.7.2 FedRAMP and Executive Order (EO)14028 Compliance | Are CSPs required to utilize EO 14028 Zero trust requirement? | EO 14028 are for Federal Agencies and Bureaus and the FISMA system. If the ESM solution is hosted by the vendor and will be accounted for as a Mint FISMA system, that system will have to meet EO 14028 zero trust requirements. For solutions/applications that are hosted by Cloud Service Provider, they will be required to meet FEDRAMP requirements and work with the FEDRAMP office as zero trust requirements are identified. | |||||
| 6.0 | ESM Appendix A 1 Functional and Business Requirements Final.docx | ||||||
| 1.6.2.4 Propose potential capability to utilize FedRAMP High certified cloud computing capabilities. | Does this requirement reference a potential for FedRAMP high capacity in that ESM will raise from Moderate to high NIST standards? | ESM should not have a requirement for FEDRAMP high since the solution will not house any sensitive federal information, law enforcement, healthcare data or emergency services. | |||||
| 7.0 | ESM Appendix A 1 Functional and Business Requirements Final.docx | How would the US Mint need to see the optional requirement 2.6.3.1 "Provide option to integrate US Mint “information” website (www.usmint.gov) and catalog site content into a unified and optimized website while allowing multiple US Mint offices the ability to maintain stewardship and control of their content." Shall vendor propose this as separate solution and pricing? | Vendor should propose separate solution and pricing. | ||||
| 8.0 | Whether companies from Outside USA can apply for this? (like, from India or Canada) | Contractors are required to be in compliance with Section H-1 (Page 33) of the Solicitation. Unless the solicitation says otherwise, there is no requirement that Mint service contractors be based within the US or perform the work within the US. | |||||
| 9.0 | Whether we need to come over there for meetings? (Assume vendor wants to know if they have to attend onsite meetings if they are working outside of the US.) | If the contractor is asking whether or not there is an expectation they will need to be onsite at the US Mint, the answer is Yes. There may be times where the US Mint will expect the contractor to be at their Headquarters in DC for meetings. | |||||
| 10.0 | Can we perform the tasks (related to RFP) outside USA? (like, from India or Canada) | Contractors are required to be in compliance with Section H-1 (Page 33) of the Solicitation. Unless the solicitation says otherwise, there is no requirement that Mint service contractors be based within the US or perform the work within the US. | |||||
| 11.0 | Can we submit the proposals via email? | Yes. When the US Mint stated in Section L-3 (Page 78) to submit proposals electronically, we meant submit via email. | |||||
| 12.0 | Do you know if the current fulfillment partner might be interested in pairing up with us from the Technology side? | As a federal entity, the US Mint is not in a position to answer this question. Contractors who are looking to pair up with other contractors are welcome to reach out to them directly to establish those partnerships. | |||||
| 13.0 | I.33 PROPERTY AND INVENTORY CONTROL | How would the US Mint account for concealed shortages found by vendor? Would the US Mint count those shortages towards inventory shrink liability by the contractor? If so, is it the US Mint’s expectation that the contract count each piece of inventory at inbound for validation? | Concealed shortages will count against vendor's inventory. Inventory reconciliation counts do not allow for offsets. It is the vendor's discretion on how to handle incoming receipt of inventory. | ||||
| 14.0 | I.33 PROPERTY AND INVENTORY CONTROL | Does the US Mint plan to tag items with RFID tags or other tools to ensure inventory tracking through the supply chain? | Vendor is responsible for 100% of inventory. RFID and barcoding for inventory tracking through the supply chain is dependent upon the vendor. | ||||
| 15.0 | ESM_Appendix A 1 Functional and Business Requirements Final.docx. |
Location: 1.7 Information Technology Location:1.7.2 FedRAMP and Executive Order (EO) 14028 Compliance Location:1.7.2.4 Vendor must develop, communicate and integrate OMS III Zero Trust Strategy into the Mint’s Zero Trust strategy. Vendor must implement Zero Trust into OMS as required by the EO Location:1.7.6 Internal & External Security Audits Location:1.7.6.5 Develop, implement and document zero-trust architecture. The system must restrict access to users and/or systems which are necessary to accomplish actions when needed. Are CSPs that are third parties required to utilize EO 14028 Zero trust requirement? EO 14028 are for Federal Agencies and Bureaus and the FISMA system. If the ESM solution is hosted by the vendor and will be accounted as a Mint FISMA system then that system will have to meeting EO 14028 zero trust requirements. For solutions/application that are hosted by a Cloud Service Providers (Needs to meet NIST 800-145 definition for cloud computing) then they will be required to meet FEDRAMP requirements and work with the FEDRAMP office as zero trust requirements are identified.
FedRAMP Prepares for 'Zero Trust' Stance | FedRAMP.gov SP 800-145, The NIST Definition of Cloud Computing | CSRC
16.0 ESM_Appendix A 1 Functional and Business Requirements Final.docx.
Location: 1.7 Information Technology Location:1.7.2 FedRAMP and Executive Order (EO) 14028 Compliance Location:1.7.2.4 Vendor must develop, communicate and integrate OMS III Zero Trust Strategy into the Mint’s Zero Trust strategy. Vendor must implement Zero Trust into OMS as required by the EO Location:1.7.6 Internal & External Security Audits
| Location:1.7.6.5 Develop, implement and document zero-trust architecture. The system must restrict access to users and/or systems which are necessary to accomplish actions when needed. | When will the US Mint communicate the Zero Trust strategy that the vendor must integrate into? | We just awarded a contract that will identify Mint’s gap for zero trust and will assess all of Mint’s system based on CISA’s Zero Trust Maturity Model. For now the requirement is MFA, EDR, and logging, as we decide on additional capabilities we will work with the vendor. Zero Trust will be a long term effort that matures over time. | ||
| 17.0 | ESM_Appendix A 1 Functional and Business Requirements Final.docx. |
Location: 1.7 Information Technology Location:1.7.2 FedRAMP and Executive Order (EO) 14028 Compliance Location:1.7.2.4 Vendor must develop, communicate and integrate OMS III Zero Trust Strategy into the Mint’s Zero Trust strategy. Vendor must implement Zero Trust into OMS as required by the EO Location:1.7.6 Internal & External Security Audits
| Location:1.7.6.5 Develop, implement and document zero-trust architecture. The system must restrict access to users and/or systems which are necessary to accomplish actions when needed. | Will the Zero Trust strategy need to be solutioned at the network or the user level? | Zero Trust occupies 5 Pillars (Identity=Users, Devices, Network/Environment, Application Workload, and Data) and thus both User and Network will have to incorporate Zero Trust. Each pillar has separate requirements which are identified in CISA maturity model that I provided the link for above. | |||
| 18.0 | Appendix A-1, 1.1.7 (Page 1) | As the leader in accurate and inclusive solutions including Sigma Identity Fraud, Sigma Synthetic Fraud, and graph-defined identity verification, it would be helpful to know what automated fraud detection systems are currently in place and whether they are designed to integrate with the single RESTFUL API that our solution provides. (Referencing "Establish real time and continually tuned fraud detection system and processes for manual review and resolution when automated decisions cannot be made." ) | Current system is designed to provide RESTFUL API to integrate payer authentication services with order management system. | ||
| 19.0 | Appendix A-1, 1.1.7 (Page 1) | What are the current manual review processes? (Referencing "Establish real time and continually tuned fraud detection system and processes for manual review and resolution when automated decisions cannot be made." ) | The manual process involves reassessment of transaction, reverse lookup of customer info, contacting cardholder, card-issuer, and CRM. | ||
| 20.0 | Attachment 2, Fraud Stats (Page 7) | What are the reasons for system rejects? | Reasons include mismatched addresses, suspicious IP or location data, suspicious ordering patterns. | ||
| 21.0 | Attachment 2, Fraud Stats (Page 7) | What percent are automated rejects versus manual reviews? How much manual review is there? | It depends on product. At top level for all FY22 fraud rejects, average percent breakout between system and reviewer reject is 80.31% and 19.69% respectively. Average review rate in FY22 is 12.58%. | ||
| 22.0 | SOLICITATION C.9 Security Requirements (Page 17) | Will the government consider amending / removing this requirement as OMB M-06-16 was rescinded by OMB M-17-15? (Referencing "Comply with the standards for OMB Memo 06-16: Protection of Sensitive Agency Information Records (June 2006)"). | OMB M-06-16 was not rescinded by OMS M-17-15. This requirement will not be amended/removed. | ||
| 23.0 | SOLICITATION C.9 Security Requirements (Page 17) | Would the government be willing to sponsor a cloud service that is designated FEDRAMP ready in the marketplace? (Referencing "Any system or application that meets NIST SP 800-145 for Cloud computing must be FEDRAMP Authorized.") | Yes, we would be willing to sponsor a FedRAMP certification for a solution used for ESM. | ||
| 24.0 | Attachment 11, Sample Labor Categories & Descriptions | The government provided labor category descriptions but does not include four of the five labor categories (Call Center Manager, Fulfillment Manager, Security Manager, and e-Commerce Solutions Manager) identified in the solicitation. Does the government expect the offeror to develop labor category descriptions for those key positions? | Yes | ||
| 25.0 | SOLICITATION (Page 79) | The solicitation page 79 of 87 states the that Technical and Management Proposal should include “Attachment 1 SOO – Completed as instructed on the attachment” as part of the Technical Proposal. Can the government confirm the statement meant to request offerors to address each requirement within the SOO in the Technical Proposal? | Yes, each requirement should be addressed withint the Offeror's narrative in the Technical and Management proposals. | ||
| 26.0 | SOLICITATION (Page 22) | The solicitation page 22 of 87 indicates four out of the five-year base period are dedicated to O&M support, leaving the first year to the implementation of the logical and physical design. Given the Go-Live date of October 1st, 2023, would the government intent to award the ESM contract on or before October 1st, 2022? | No, but it is intended to occur before end of calendar year 2022. | ||
| 27.0 | Attachment 9, Management & Technical Section L&M (Page 3) | In Attachment 9, page 3, it states “Transition from Legacy systems to Offeror’s approach would not result in any downtime or customer’s need to recreate accounts.” Can the government identify which systems are considered Legacy systems? | The entire current solution is considered Legacy. | ||
| 28.0 | The Attachment 1 SOO indicates the USM is open to adopting a new e-commerce platform. Can the government identify any system components they would like to retain? | Our requirements are around functionality, not specific systems other than those owned by the US Mint (e.g., Oracle). The US Mint is looking to the Offeror to propose a solution. | |||
| 29.0 | Attachment 9, Management & Technical Section L&M (Page 3) | The Attachment 9, page 3, states “Offerors that can demonstrate how they will maximize the use of their existing processes, systems, features, facilities, and capabilities will be highly rated.” Does the government prefer to retain the current e-commerce front end solution? | Vendor to supply a recommendation for a front end solution. | ||
| 30.0 | Appendix D, USM Internal & External Systems Interface Descriptions | Can the government provide information on when the Interface Control Documents (ICDs) were last updated? Does the government expect the incoming contractor to update the Interface Control Document (ICD)s during the transition? | The Interface Control Document was updated prior to posting the solicitation. The US Mint expects this document to be updated as necessary. | ||
| 31.0 | SOLICITATION, Section F-2 (Page 22) | ||||
| Attachment 6, Pricing Template | The solicitation Section F.2 states the Base period is equal to the proposed period of Performance for Logical and Physical Design Phases and four (4) years of Operations and Maintenance, Base Year five (5) years period. However, Attachment 6, Pricing Template, pricing Instructions Tab indicates Base period and seven (7) option periods, inconsistent with the solicitation instructions. Can the government please clarify the period of performance for the logical, physical, and O&M phases? | Please see replacement pages for the following: |
Pricing Template - Be sure to note the change in date from September 2024 to September 2023 Solicitation Section F-2
| 32.0 | Attachment 1, SOO- Section 6.3 | Can the government please confirm, as per the Statement of Objectives, Section 6.3 Physical Design requirements, the incoming contractor is expected to integrate a total of seven interfaces which includes Pay.gov, USM Data Warehouse, Oracle Federal Financials, Oracle Manufacturing WMS, Oracle Inventory, GovDelivery.com, and Amazon? | Yes, that is the expectation. |
| 33.0 | Can the government provide information on the last data purge/cleansing of the customer database? When was the last data purge to remove BOTs for the customer database? | We are currently undergoing a data purge/cleansing. This includes BOTs but does not preclude the need for a BOT solution. | |
| 34.0 | Attachment 5, System Security Control Baselines | Do we need a separate Attachment 5 System Security control baseline spreadsheet for every application used in the proposed solution? Or one for the USM solution/system? | One Spreadshet with every application used in the proposed solution |
| 35.0 | SOLICITATION, Section L-2 (Page 78) | In the Solicitation, page number: 78/87, Section L.2 - AMENDMENTS TO SOLICITATIONS (JAN 1996) CLAUSE # L-069 VAR – “Offerors shall acknowledge receipt of any amendment to this solicitation by signing and returning the amendment electronically to KATRICE.WALKER@USMINT.TREAS.GOV.” Based on this statement, do we need to send all the acknowledged receipts of any amendment in a separate email, or do we only need to provide all the acknowledged receipts of any amendment in Contracts Volume or both? Can the government please confirm? | Provide acknowledged receipts of any amendments in the Contracts Volume only. |
| 36.0 | SOLICITATION, Section L-3 (Page 78) | In Sam.gov, the proposal due time is 05:00 PM EDT and in the solicitation instructions document, page number: 78/87, Section L.3 - the due time mentioned is 10:00 AM EST. Can the government please clarify the proposal due time? | Proposal due time is 5:00 PM EDT. Please see replacement page in Solicitation Section L.3. |
| 37.0 | SOLICITATION, Section L-4.g (Page 80) | In the Solicitation, page 81/87, under (g) Past Performance / Relevant Experience instructions, there is a statement stating, “At a minimum, the Offeror shall include one reference from the Relevant Experience sub-factor in the Management Volume.” Can the government clarify what the offeror needs to provide for this statement? | Please see Solicitation replacement Page 81. |
| 38.0 | SOLICITATION, Section L-4.h (Page 81) | In the Solicitation, page 81/87, under h) Sub-Contracting Plan, there is the statement – “the prime shall submit Subcontractor pricing in a password protected file with its proposal submission.” Can the government please provide a label format for the subcontractor pricing file? | 2031JG22R00025_Subcontractor Plan and Pricing_(Vendor Name) |
| 39.0 | SOLICITATION, Section L-4.i (Page 81) | In the Solicitation, page 82/87, Section L – i) “Offerors responding to this solicitation are required to submit available Voluntary Product Accessibility Template(s) (VPATs) for any products, services, and other components of their proposed solutions covered by Accessibility Laws, Regulations and Policies (as defined above), and to complete and submit the Electronic & Information Technology Accessibility Standards spreadsheet (Attachment C-1 VAR) for any such components for which no VPAT is provided.” Can the government please provide a label format for the VPATs, or in which volume do we need to keep the VPATs information? | 2031JG22R00025_VPATs_Vendor Name |
| 40.0 | SOLICITATION, Section L-4.i (Page 82) | Can the government please provide the Attachment C-1 VAR, Electronic & Information Technology Accessibility Standards spreadsheet referenced on page 82 of 87 of the solicitation? | Attachment C-1 VAR is hereby replaced with Attachment C-1 VPAT template. |
| 41.0 | Attachment 10, Contractor Performance Questionnaire | In the ESM_Attachment+10+Contractor+Performance+Questionnaire+Final document, it is ATTACHMENT 9 – CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE. Can the government please update the document? | Please see Attachment 10 replacement page |
| 42.0 | SOLICITATION (Page 22) | Can the government please clarify whether the place of performance is the government site or the contractor site? | Refer to Solicitation Page 22 |
| 43.0 | Attachment 6, Pricing Template | In Attachment 6 Pricing Template Final, it shows the government site and contractor site in the logical design and physical design TABs. Can the government please confirm whether we need to provide rates for both the government and contractor sites? | The Contractor should propose rates that correspond to their technical and management approach that will be used during logical and physical design phases. |
| 44.0 | Attachment 6 -7 | Can the government please provide the label format for the price volume spreadsheets (i.e., Attachment 6 and Attachment 7)? | 2031JG22R00025_Pricing Template_(Vendor Name) |
2031JG22R00025_Cost Scenario Template_(Vendor Name)
| 45.0 | Will the Government allow inclusion of Microsoft Project format as part of PWS submission? | Yes | |
| 46.0 | Can the government please provide information on how the customer satisfaction surveys are carried out at present? What have been the most recent customer satisfaction levels? | Refer to Historical Data | |
| 47.0 | Can the government please provide acceptable quality standards for Cost per Order (CPO), Cost per Exposure (CPX), Cost per Acquisition (CPA), Customer Acquisition, and Customer Retention? | Vendor to provide their strategic standards. Data will vary by program. | |
| 48.0 | Can the government clarify the acceptable levels for fraud detection and mitigation? | Vendor to provide their strategic standards. Data will vary by program. | |
| 49.0 | Can the government please clarify the expectations and standards for Chargebacks and prioritizations? | Vendor to provide their strategic standards. Data will vary by program. | |
| 50.0 | During the market research session, it was stated by the USM representative that we can use our subcontractor's qualifications/experience to support our proposal and bid and achieve the RFP's requirements, and that references in the RFP to "Offeror" and "Contractor" were inclusive of our Team Z (Company X and Company Y). Please confirm that the government's use of the term "Offeror" and "Contractor" throughout the RFP and its attachments is synonymous and inclusive of our usage of "Team Z" (i.e. Prime and Sub together) to denote the "Offeror" and "Contractor" as per our proposal? | The term "Offeror" and "Contractor" is the entity who will be contracted with the US Mint. | |
| 51.0 | With this definition of "Offeror" and "Contractor", is it correct for us to assign the Contractor's workshare of 85% (RFP Section I.36 CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE (MAR 1996) CLAUSE # I-058) to "Team Z" as the Contractor and will this teaming arrangement be approved by the United States Mint for the purpose of this opportunity? | The term "Offeror" and "Contractor" is the entity who will be contracted with the US Mint. | |
| 52.0 | References response to Q1. | Would it be possible for the US Mint to share what agencies are using Salesforce Commerce Cloud in a FedRAMP supported framework? We reviewed the FedRAMP marketplace and saw agencies utilizing Salesforce, as outlined in your response, but do not see a commerce platform listed in any instance – all are using other Salesforce tools (ex: Service Cloud). | Refer to the following link for list of agencies: |
https://marketplace.fedramp.gov/#!/products?sort=productName
53.0 Can the government please confirm the due date of the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) as being September 2nd? Confirmed.
http://www.usmint.gov/
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .