Consolidated QA RESPONSES_ 2032H5-24-Q-00080_DSS Question Template_5292024 - v10_FINAL.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 57 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Digital Support Services BPA
- Solicitation number
- 2032H5-24-Q-00080
About this file
This document is a draft Request for Quotations (RFQ) for a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) for Digital Support Services for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The IRS intends to establish multiple award BPAs for Digital Support Services to enhance the taxpayer and tax professional experience and obtain contractor support with a comprehensive solution aligned with the agency's Taxpayer Experience Strategy. The services required include new development, testing, infrastructure modernization, and a range of other IT support. The BPA will be awarded under the GSA Multiple Award Schedule for Information Technology Services, SIN 54151S. The IRS is accepting questions on this draft RFQ until April 16, 2024. The key requirements include a minimum of 5 years of demonstrated experience in areas such as legislative analysis, taxpayer experience, and agile delivery. The BPA will have a 5-year period of performance. Small business participation is required, with a 15% set-aside goal. Pricing will be evaluated for fair and reasonableness.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Attachment 6 Pricing Template_02202024_V5.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| DRAFT RFQ Digital Support _PWS-DSS-BPA_040924.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment 8-DSS BPA crosswalk_02142024-V5.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
Draft Q&A
| Draft RFQ_PWS Reference | |||||||||
| Document | Clause | Section/Page # | Question | COMMENT | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE | SL | CO Response | Color Code | |
| Draft RFQ_PWS | Page 6, B4.0 Skills Requirements Section: | Please clarify if the government’s intent is to acquire only IRS incumbents for this work, or if staff with expertise in the core Digital Services scope and needs are also considered. | All vendors who submit a proposal will be considered and evaluated as to their ability to meet the PWS requirements. | Procurement | |||||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | Page 170, Legislative Analysis Experience | The Draft RFQ_PWS states, “The Contractor shall have at least seven (7) years demonstrated experience providing IT system impact analysis for changes resulting from legislative initiatives and/or mandates. Experience shall include leading coordination with IT delivery partners and IRS business owners.” Please clarify if it’s the government’s intent to only acquire IRS incumbents for this work, given the mandatory requirement tied to work/previous experience with IRS business owners. | All vendors who submit a proposal will be considered and evaluated as to their ability to meet the PWS requirements. The Government's intent is not to only acquire from IRS incumbents. Additionally, the experience level has been changed from seven (7) years to five (5) to allow my vedors to qualify. | PMO | |||||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | Page 8, Key Personnel: | Will the requirement be to provide resumes for ALL key personnel for the RFP, or just the Program Manager at the BPA level? | Resumes for all key personnel must be provided as part of the vendor's proposal. | ||||||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | Page 10, SB Participation: | What are the IRS' diversified small business participation (%) goals for this BPA? | The IRS goal for small business participation for this BPA is a 15% set aside. | ||||||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | Pages 31-53, starting with Staffing | The technology “required experience” requirements for technical roles (e.g., DevOps/Configuration Engineer) may be narrow. Would the government consider making some specific requirements as “preferred experience”? | No, the IRS will not change the required experience requirements. The required experience is essential to successful contract performance. | ||||||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | Page 170, Direct Taxpayer Experience: | The Draft RFP states: “The Contractor shall have direct Taxpayer Experience with the creation, development, and deployment of Taxpayer Experience capability. The Contractor shall be able to provide clear and consistent evidence of this direct experience by at least seven (7) years supporting program and projects.” The language seems restrictive. Would the government consider making the requirement from “direct taxpayer experience” to experience similar/compatible/relevant to direct taxpayer experience? This would allow the government to obtain better value and diverse experience from companies that have tackled creating solutions for government requirements. | Two experience requirements have been updated. Contractor is desired to have 5 years demonstrated experience with Legislative Analysis. Contractor is desired to have direct Taxpayer Experience. Taxpayer experience can be Federal or state level. | ||||||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | pg 2 | The Government makes frequent mention of its AI powered tools. What guidelines can IRS provide on the use of AI/LLM in developing digital products? | Current chatbots and live assistance tools are just one example of where vendors may propose using AI-powered technology to improve the taxpayer experience. | ||||||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | pg 5 | Regarding CI/CD, are there existing DevOps platforms that contractors will be expected to deploy onto? If so, can the IRS please provide further details on their technical architecture? | The vendor will be expected to utilize GitHub, Gitlab, Jenkins, and ArgoCO. | ||||||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | pg 6 | IRS mentions IBM CLM, GitHub, and GitLab. Can the Government please provide additional details on how they are storing and managing source code today and what their strategy is for the future? If targeting modern tools like GitHub/Gitlab, why is there a requirement for extensive knowledge and expertise in IBM rational? | Agile development is currently managed through IBM CLM and some of the current systems may continue to use the IBM Rational tool suite. Source code is stored and managed through GitHub and GitLab. | ||||||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | pg 6 | The RFQ requires that the "[v]endor must have been/or currently is a prime on a two $75M+ contracts over the past 5 years." As the NAICS code for this RFQ (541519) has a size standard of $34M, this requirement is unduly restrictive to small businesses. With the IRS intending to make at least two awards to small businesses, will the Government consider lowering this threshold to one contract valued at $75M or more? | The small business can have currently or in the past have been a subcontractor on a contract of $75M or more. The $75M+ is indicative of the size and scope needed to evaluate the offerors ability to meet the requirements as identified in the PWS. | ||||||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | pg 6 | The refereced section "Demonstrated Experience with IRS Architecture, Portals, and Processes" disadvantage otherwise qualified vendors who have not supported IRS in the past, but bring knowledge and expertise of digital services best practices combined with a fresh/innovative perspective gleaned from experience supporting other agencies. Will the Government consider removing the IRS experience requirement to allow for new partners who are qualified in the other experience areas? | No, the IRS will not change the demonstrated experience requirements. The required experience is essential to successful contract performance. | ||||||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | pg 59 (C.7.7.1) | The Government lists two locations for planned work activities. Will the Government provide further details regarding on-site vs remote work? | The information will be provided through solicitation at the task order level. | ||||||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | pg 18-19 | Could the IRS please include any additional information about existing agile processes/elaboration processes e.g. IRS agile handbook, DevOps handbook (if available)? | IRS utilizes SAFe or KANBAN agile methodology for its major development programs. The IRS OneSDLC is documented at https://www.irs.gov/irm/part2/irm_02-031-001. | ||||||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | pg 32 (DevOps/Configuration Engineer LCAT Description) | IRS lists Openshift, Kubernetes, and Kustomize in the experience section. Is IRS currently using Openshift as their platform as choice? | The IRS utilizes Openshift and AWS. | ||||||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | pg 31 (Program Manager LCAT Description) | The IRS states that the Program Manager shall have "[e]xperience in implementing Taxpayer Experience Platform." In order to encourage competition and new ideas, will the Government please remove this requirement or reword it to allow experience from systems of similar size/scope/complexity? | |||||||
| No, the IRS will not change the demonstrated experience requirements. The required experience is essential to successful contract performance. | |||||||||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | pg 43 (UX Researcher LCAT Description) | Could the IRS please provide information on existing tools available for UX research. Additionally, how is the IRS currently recruiting and finding research participants? Is the contractor expected to source and find research participants? | The IRS primarily uses InVision for UX research. The IRS sources taxpayers to be research participants and the vendor will not have to source participants. | ||||||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | pg 43 (UI/UX Designer LCAT Description) | What tools is the IRS currently using for UI/UX Design (e.g. Figma, Sketch)? | The IRS primarily uses InVision for UI/UX design. | ||||||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | pg 60 (Government Furnished Equipment) | Does the IRS anticipate that work done as part of TOs must be performed on GFE? Or on contractor hardware? | It will depend on the task order and government lead but in most cases work will be done on Government furnished equipment. | ||||||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | F.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR AWARD p. 173 | Will the Govt. please confirm that Small Businesses submitting a bid for the Small Business Track are excluded from submitting a Small Business Participant Plan - Factor 4? | All Offerors are required to submit a SBPP. Small businesses may represent themselves. | ||||||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | B4.0 Skill Requirements p. 6 | Will the Govt. kindly consider reducing the minimum contract value threshold for small businesses participating in the small business track from $75M+ (over 5 years) to a more reasonable amount of $20M? This adjustment would enable small businesses to present a more extensive range of relevant experience across all Mandatory Requirements subject areas. Due to the nature of being a small business, our portfolios contain fewer examples with annual spending exceeding $5 million. | No, the small business can have currently or in the past been a sub on a contract of $75M or more. | ||||||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | C.6.10 Task Area 10 - Penetration Test p. 20 | The document says that "Penetration testing will occur from the public perspective in the PTE environment. Testers may be required to use live tax information as IRS has indicated there may not be synthetic taxpayer accounts available to use in the PTE or production environments". Will the Government provide this live tax data for testing, if synthitic data is not available? Also does the PTE environment currently have access to the public users for testing purposes? | Yes, if live data is required, the government will provide. If synthetic data is used, the vendor will be required to create it. | ||||||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | C.7.7.4 Rational Collaborative Life Cycle Management (CLM) and Rational Team Concert (RTC) p. 61 | Will the government please confirm this is the latest products for source code control and requirements? | CLM is utilized for EPICs, requirements, stories, and test cases/results; source code is stored in GitLab, GitHub and GitBucket. | ||||||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | B2.1 Digital Support Service Programs p. 2 | IRS wants to implement AI based solution for chatting, appointment schedules and more. Will the Government provide any guardrails that prevent any particular solution that may result in vendor lockin? | The IRS is open to vendor proposed solutions utilizing AI. | ||||||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | Given the significance of the changes in this Draft RFP from the prior 2022 version, could the Contracting Office please provide an estimated Solicitation Release date for planning purposes? | TBD, Q3 | |||||||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | Can the IRS provide insight into the reasoning and nature behind such a large change to the DSS acquisition, to include the underlying policy and/or mission-based reasons for the overhaul to the RFQ? | The requirements have been further refined to meet current needs and legislative mandates. | |||||||
| Attachment 8 | Attachment 8 provides both project RFQ Labor Categories as well as Quoted GSA Labor categories, on the prior version of the RFQ, the quoted labor category titles were used for mapping to each vendor’s GSA Schedule. What is the significance of the listed Quoted GSA Labor Categories in the draft document? | This is still for mapping purposes. The vendors should update catergories to map to their GSA catergories. | |||||||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | Volume 4, Past Performance requires both project profiles and past performance questionnaires, per the table on Page 167. Will the agency make past performance questionnaires not required for federal projects with CPARS? | The vendor needs to submit both the project profiles and past performance questionnaires. The Government will utilize CPARS to supplemental the project profiles and past performance questionnaires as necessary. | |||||||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | Evaluation Factor 6, Price, states that the government will evaluate pricing to determine if price quotes are fair and reasonable; however, an adjective rating scale is still given for this factor. How do the definitions of “significant strength, strength, weakness, significant weakness, and deficiency” apply to a fair and reasonable evaluation of BPA Ceiling rates? | The Rating Descriptors and Definitions only apply to Evaluation Factors 1 through 5. Evaluation Factor 6, Price, will be evaluated by the government to determine if the price quotes are fair and reasonable. | |||||||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | Will the Contracting Office please confirm that the Key Personnel Table under Section B5.0 are the roles required to be included as part of the submission under the Management Volume? | Yes, the roles in the key personnel are to be included as part of submission under management volume. | |||||||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | B4.0 :Skill Requirements | ||||||||
| Page 6 of 177 | The solicitation states “Vendor must be able to develop 4 or more capabilities from different value streams simultaneously”. Could you please confirm where the capabilities and value streams are defined in PWS? |
The solicitation states “Vendor must be able to develop 4 or more capabilities from different value streams simultaneously”. Could you please confirm where the capabilities and value streams are defined in PWS?
| Vendor must be able to develop multiple capabilities from different value streams simultaneously. The vendor needs to include in their proposal how they will do this. Value streams contain all the activities, people, systems, and the flow of information and materials needed to deliver a capability. | |||||||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | B4.0 :Skill Requirements | ||||||
| Page 6 of 177 | The solicitation states “Vendor/Technical Leadership must have a minimum of 3 years skills and experience building enterprise class online account systems with multiple layers of enterprise dependencies and IRS operational domain knowledge”. Could you kindly clarify what does the Government refer to when mentioning online account systems? | Online accounts refers to any IRS systems impacting the taxpayer experience and utilized by the taxpayer for self service on their tax account. Refer to Sections 1 and 2 for additional information on online accounts. | |||||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | C.4.3.1. Solution Engineering Support | ||||||
| Page 14 of 177 | As per the solicitation, “To accomplish this section, the contractor shall be responsible for providing the team members to contribute the full suite of solution engineering to support the FDT teams in 6.3 (FDTs) 6.4 (TDC ON), and 6.5 (Infrastructure Modernization)”. Please provide more clarification on these section numbers. What does the government refer to by 6.3 (FDTs) 6.4 (TDC ON), and 6.5 (Infrastructure Modernization)? | See updated section C.6.3.1: The references to those sections have been removed as they were not needed. | |||||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | C.4.3.1. Solution Engineering Support | ||||||
| Page 14 of 177 | In the "Desired Outcome", the Government specifies the creation of three FDTs to develop, test, and deploy business capabilities. Does this mean the Government is proposing only three FDTs for this task area? | See updated section C.6.3.1: No, the IRS anticipates a minimum of three FDTs will be required. The vendor needs to propose the number of FDTs needed to complete development of the multiple capabilities in the various value streams. | |||||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | Phase 1, Factor 1: Requirements | ||||||
| Page 170 of 177 | We would like to suggest an amendment to Mandatory Requirement 3, currently stating, "The Contractor shall have direct Taxpayer Experience with the creation, development, and deployment of Taxpayer Experience capability...by at least seven (7) years supporting program and projects." We propose changing "direct Taxpayer Experience" to "Direct Experience within Federal space or commercial space." This modification would allow the IRS to consider companies that have achieved similar results with other federal agencies, thus broadening the pool of qualified applicants. | Two experience requirements have been updated. Contractor is desired to have 5 years demonstrated experience with Legislative Analysis. Contractor is desired to have direct Taxpayer Experience. Taxpayer experience can be Federal or state level. | |||||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | General | We respectfully urge the government to require offerors to undergo recertification of their small business status. To ensure a level playing field and promote fair competition, we highly recommend recertification for all those planning to submit a proposal. | Small business certification should be in good standing at time of submission. Verification will take place via SAM.gov. | ||||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | General | Who are current incumbents? | The IRS will not provide this information. It can be obtained through existing government systems. | ||||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | General | Are there any pain points or issues with the current vendor(s)? | The IRS will not provide this information. | ||||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | General | Is there any challenge fulfilling the needs of Treasury-IRS with the existing contracts for related services or any specific improvements you are looking for? | The purpose of the BPA is to provide a small set of vendors who can provide the services required to support Digital Services in the IRS. | ||||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | Page no.66- Section: C.15.0- clause: Contractor Security Requirements: | What type of Facility and personnel clearance will be required? | Public trust clearance | ||||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | E.3. PREPARATION OF QUOTATIONS p 168 | Can the government please confirm that the required submission of “Administrative Information” for Phase II can be submitted as its own attachment/file? | Yes, you can include as an appendix to Volume II. | ||||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | Phase II: Factor 3 – Management Approach P. 172 | The RFQ states “Under this evaluation, the IRS may also consider the offeror’s Technical Approach and Sanitized Price Quote as they relate to the proposed Management Approach, but Price will not be evaluated under this factor.” As there are no other instructions or references to Offerors providing a “Sanitized Price Quote” can the government please clarify what is required and how that requirement is to be submitted? | The price quote shall be separate from all technical evaluations. Language insinuating the use of a "Sanitized Price Quote" for use shall be removed. | ||||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | E.3. PREPARATION OF QUOTATIONS p. 167-168, 174 | The table provided in the instructions outlining volume number, required documentation, and page limits currently denotes two (2) “Volume IV’s” (Small Business Participation Plan and Past Performance). Can the government please confirm that the Past Performance Volume should be renamed to Volume V to align with Factor 5 – Past Performance on page 174? | Updated | ||||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | Factor 6 – Price p. 174 | Can the government please confirm that Offerors are permitted to include a Price Narrative with their Price Quote? | Yes, the vendor shall provide a narrative with their price quote as long as they stay within the page counts. | ||||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | B5.0 Contractor Key Personnel p. 8 | The government has requested that Offerors provide 18 Key Personnel at the Task Order level; however, there is no Task Order included in the procurement to inform the scope of work to align key personnel accurately. As such, can the government please provide the Task Order and/or additional information about the scope of the referenced Task Order? | Task order requirements will change from task order to task order as will required support. Key personnel should be based on the scope identified in the BPA PWS. | ||||
| Attachment_6_Pricing_Template_02202024_V5 and Attachment_8-DSS_BPA_crosswalk_02142024-V5 | The Pricing Template has 27 labor categories, and the BPA Crosswalk has 37 labor categories. There are also labor categories in the pricing template that are not in the cross walk (e.g., Intermediate Project Manager, Product Manager, Scrum Master) or labor categories that are in the cross walk but are not in the pricing template (e.g., Performance FDT Support, Performance Engineer (Tester), Security Analyst). Can the government please align the labor categories in the Pricing Template and the BPA Crosswalk to match. | Please use the LCATs in attachment 6 and align your internal roles to LCATs that match. | |||||
| Attachment_8-DSS_BPA_crosswalk_02142024-V5.xlsx | The BPA Crosswalk seems to have grouped multiple roles into one labor category. For example, the Delivery Manager, is also the Scrum Master and Business Analyst or the Project Manager is also the Technical Integrator/Environments. All of these roles might have different skills requirements, for example the Business Analyst does not need to have a Scrum Master certification, or the Technical Integrator/Environments would have more technical background than the Project Manager who might be PMP certified. Can the government please split these? | Please use the LCATs in attachment 6 and align your internal roles to LCATs that match. | |||||
| Attachment_8-DSS_BPA_crosswalk_02142024-V5.xlsx | Column C - Quoted GSA Labor Category Title | Column C of the Crosswalk is for the Quoted GSA Labor Category Title. The government has already filled this out with labor categories that are not necessarily on our GSA schedule. Can the government please clear column C to allow for an offeror to populate it with their GSA MAS schedule? | See updated template | Same as above | |||
| Attachment_8-DSS_BPA_crosswalk_02142024-V5.xlsx | Row 7 - Project Manager (Technical Integrator/Environments) | The last bullet of the Project Manager (Tech) states “Work with production support to review production performance data and” which appears to be incomplete. Can the government please complete the sentence? | Complete bullet reads, "Work with production support to review production performance data and identify technical debt. Write stories and assist in prioritizing technical debt in the O&M backlog." | ||||
| Attachment_8-DSS_BPA_crosswalk_02142024-V5.xlsx | Under the column “RFQ Projected Labor Category,” the rows depicting “Developer-Back end” and “Developer – Front end”, currently include multiple levels of experience for Senior and Junior resources within each of their labor category descriptions (column B). Can the government provide two labor categories for the different Years of Experience requirements? | The labor categories remain the same as both are for front or back end developers with different years of experience. | |||||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | E.3. PREPARATION OF QUOTATIONS p. 167-168 | The government indicates that “The Labor Category Crosswalk (RFQ Attachment 8)” should be “13 pages – As given - No format Changes”. The document right now as given to us by the government is 10 pages. When we complete Column D which is the description from our GSA schedule, it will likely exceed the 13-page limit. Can the government please consider reformatting the document or allowing more pages? | Updated page limit in doc to 15 | ||||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | E.3. PREPARATION OF QUOTATIONS p. 167-168, 171 | The table provided in the instructions outlining volume number, required documentation, and page limits currently denotes that Volume II should have the “Contractor’s Technical Quote for the PWS requirements” but in the section for evaluation criteria for award, the government refers to “Technical Approach.” Can the government please confirm these are the same? | Updated. | ||||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | D Clauses and Prevailing Terms and Conditions; D.1 Clauses; 4) FAR 52,216-1 Type of Contract (APR 1984) FAR 52,216-1 Type of Contract (APR 1984) | Can the government please update Clause 4) FAR 52,216-1 Type of Contract (APR 1984) to add in the missing reference of “and Labor Hour” to the following: “As prescribed in 16.105 , complete and insert the following provision: Type of Contract (Apr 1984) The Government contemplates award of Firm Fixed Price and Labor Hour Task Orders resulting from this solicitation. [End of provision]” | Updated | ||||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | D Clauses and Prevailing Terms and Conditions; D.1 Clauses; 53) IR1052.215-9005 Compliance with Proposal Instructions (MAY 2018) IR1052.215-9005 Compliance with Proposal Instructions (MAY 2018) | p. 161 | Can the government please update Clause 53) IR1052.215-9005 Compliance with Proposal Instructions (MAY 2018) to replace “Section L” with “Section E” to correctly align with the proposal instruction reference: “Offerors whose proposal(s) are submitted in accordance with the instructions given in Section E and which meet the mandatory requirements in Section C shall be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria presented in the solicitation. Offerors whose proposals are not submitted in accordance with the instructions given in this RFP or which do not meet the mandatory requirements may not be considered for award. | ||||
| (End of provision)” | Updated | ||||||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | C.4.3.1 Solution Engineering Support p. 14 | Section C.4.3.1 of the PWS references sections which are not in the PWS (6.3, FDTs, 6.4 TDC ON, 6.5 Infrastructure Modernization). Can the government please correct or remove these references? | Section numbering has been updated and references not needed removed. | ||||
| Attachment_8-DSS_BPA_crosswalk_02142024-V5.xlsx | Will the government confirm that Offerors may propose additional Labor Categories (LCATS) awarded on the GSA schedule to support requirements? | Vendors may propose additional LCATS. | |||||
| Attachment_6_Pricing_Template_02202024_V5 and Attachment_8-DSS_BPA_crosswalk_02142024-V5.xlsx | Will the government allow the Offerors to modify the pricing template to have the correct and compliant information and formatting? | The Government does not understand the full breadth of this question as it relates to compliant information. | |||||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | Page 7 Section B4.0 Skills Requirements One of the bulleted item reads “Demonstrated Experience with IRS Architecture, Portals, and Processes”. | Does the IRS Architecture, Portal, and Processes experience refer to the offeror or the personnel/resources to be hired for the contract? | The offeror must propose Key Personnel with the demonstrated experience to meet the requirements of the PWS. | ||||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | Page 8 | The required experience specifically asks for IRS domain knowledge and IRS ELC and SDLC experience. Companies that are currently not supporting the IRS do not stand a chance even when they are qualified and have experience elsewhere. Would the Government consider removing the specific IRS experience requirement? | No, the IRS will not change the required experience requirements. The required experience is essential to successful contract performance | ||||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | Page 17 | What is the testing framework? What are the testing tools and automated testing tools in place? | The IRS utilizes the Test Driven Development (TDD) and Behavior Driven Development (BDD) frameworks using tools including LoadRunner, Selenium, Jmeter, Cucumber, Yaks, and SOAPUI. | ||||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | N/A | On which vehicle does the procurement is expected to take place? | This BPA will awarded via GSA MAS. | ||||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | N/A | Is this a multiple-award BPA? If so, how many awards are expected for this award? | This is a mulitple award BPA. | ||||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | Phase I: Factor 1 – Mandatory Requirements p. 170 | The solicitation requires 7 years of experience across all 5 mandatory requirements. Would the Government revise this request to 5 years to be more consistent with Federal period of performance (PoP) requirements. The draft requirements of 7 years will artificially constrain competition, limit innovation, and reduce the likely of the IRS achieving its DSS objectives. Modifying this requirement will expand the competitive field to a wider array of Offerors to bring a diverse set of technical capabilities and proven solutions from across industry, ultimately enabling the IRS to leverage a broader spectrum of best practices and solutions. | Two experience requirements have been updated. Contractor is desired to have 5 years demonstrated experience with Legislative Analysis. Contractor is desired to have direct Taxpayer Experience. Taxpayer experience can be Federal or state level. | ||||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | Phase I: Factor 1 – Mandatory Requirements p. 170 | Requirement 3, Direct Taxpayer Experience, is difficult, if not impossible to meet, and will reduce the likelihood of achieving the legislative direction outlined in the Taxpayer First Act (TFA). Will the Government remove this requirement, doing so will promote competition thereby improving the taxpayer experience. The TFA was passed in 2019 and the Tax Payer Experience Office stood up on 2022. Meeting the duration requirements is impractical. Furthermore, the only performance experience that plausibly exists has delivered the current taxpayer experience. There will be no outside innovation delivered during the execution of DSS. If this requirements persist then consider updating to reflect demonstrable success of the taxpayer experience without requiring it at the Taxpayer Experience Office. Require Offerors to show where and how they have achieved: • | Expanded Digital Services: | ||||
| • | Seamless Experience: | ||||||
| • | Proactive Outreach and Education: | ||||||
| • | Community of Partners: | ||||||
| • | Focused Strategies for Reaching |
Underserved Communities:
| • | Enterprise Data Management and Advanced Analytics: | Two experience requirements have been updated. Contractor is desired to have 5 years demonstrated experience with Legislative Analysis. Contractor is desired to have direct Taxpayer Experience. Taxpayer experience can be Federal or state level. | |||
| PWS | C.6.17 p. 31 | Please confirm if Staffing (Task Area 17) is intended to be a separate task area | Staffing is a separate task area. The vendor is to propose what resources are needed to support achievement of the requirements in the PWS. | ||
| Attachment 6 Pricing Template | Base Year Row 4 | In the Pricing Template spreadsheet, Row 4, Base Year 508 Developer/Tester has a 10% discount listed. Is this correct or should the vendor determine all discounts? | Vendor should determine all discounts. | ||
| PWS | B2.2, C.4 Page 3 & Page 11 | O&M support is referenced in PWS page 3 & 11. We believe O&M support is part of this BPA. Which task area(s) should it O&M support be included? | O&M is addressed in task Area 13 | ||
| PWS | C.6.11 page 23 | Under Strategic Test Support Work Products, the government states "508/IRAP Testing …. Is not included in this Task Order". In multiple other sections, 508/IRAP Testing is included. Please confirm if vendors are required to support 508 testing services and staff under this BPA? | The vendor is expected to support 508/IRAP testing under this BPA. Section C.6.11 discusses Strategic Test Support and the IRS' desire to automate testing. 508/IRAP testing is not considered a candidate for automation at this time. | ||
| PWS | C.6.12.3 page 26 | The End of Test Report is required to be consistent with recommendations from "Task Area 2". Did the government intend to reference Task Area 11 - Strategic Test Support? | Yes it should reference Task Area 11 and was updated. | ||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | F.1 Evaluation Criteria for Award p. 170 | How is the government defining "Direct Taxpayer Experience"? | Two experience requirements have been updated. Contractor is desired to have 5 years demonstrated experience with Legislative Analysis. Contractor is desired to have direct Taxpayer Experience. Taxpayer experience can be Federal or state level. | ||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | B4.0 Skill Requirements p. 6 | Will the Government provide a description of “previous experience with Authenticated Portals”? Does it include using them or maintaining them? | Previous experience with Authenticated Portals refers to experience supporting, maintaining and usage. | ||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | E.3 Preparation of Quotations p. 167 | Are a cover letter and table of contents excluded from the 7 page limit for the Mandatory volume? | The cover letter is excluded from the page count. The table of contents is not excluded from the page count. | ||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | F.1 Evaluation Criteria for Award p. 174-175 | Will the Government update the "Excellent" and "Good" rating descriptions for Past Performance? These appear to reflect descriptions for the Management Approach. | Yes, the IRS will update the Excellent and Good rating descriptions for the Past Performance. | ||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | E.3 Preparation of Quotations p. 167 | Is Program Manager (BPA) the only position that requires a resume for Volume III, Management Approach? | The vendor must submit resumes for all Key Personnel proposed in Volume III, Management Approach. | ||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | E.3 Preparation of Quotations p. 168 | Should Administrative Information for Phase II be a volume by itself? | Please include as an appendix to Volume II. | ||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | E.3 Preparation of Quotations p. 175 | Can you provide Attachment 5 (Project Profiles)? | This attachment will be provided with the Solicitation. | ||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | B2.2 Digital Services Products | ||||
| Page 3, Paragraph 1 | By stating that the Digital Services Program is "delivering a unified Online Account product" does this solicitation represent a consolidation of multiple existing programs and/or contracts? | No the DSS BPA does not represent a consolidation of programs. The IRS is developing multiple systems that reside on the same Taxpayer Experience Platform (TXP). Vendors will be expected to deliver common services that can be reused by the other systems. | |||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | B2.5.3, 2.5.3.2 Federated Delivery Teams (FDT) | ||||
| Page 5, Paragraph n/a | Is the Federated Delivery Team (FDT) analogous to a matrix management organizational, with each FDT acting like a homeroom and team members assigned to projects/PMs? | No, the Federated Delivery Team (FDT) is made up of five to twenty-five members with different skill sets working in an agile fashion to design, develop, and deliver capabilities. | |||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | C.4.6 Task Area 6 - Elaboration (BPA) | ||||
| Page 18, Paragraph 1 | Please provide the list of "SD ESC approved products" as referenced. | Products will be provided on task orders against the BPA. The SD ESC approved products is the list of capabilities approved by governance to be developed. The list is developed through the Product Planning process on an annual basis and approved by governance. | |||
| Attachment 6 Pricing Template | n/a | Are the hours in the Pricing Template fixed, or is Vendor allowed to recommend an alternative estimate of hours? | The vendor may recommend an alternative estimate of hours based on their experience along with supporting evidence. | ||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | PWS B4.0 | Will the government confirm that the high level skill requirements need to be met by the prime contractor (not the team writ large)? | High level skill equirements can be met by a combination of prime contractor and subs. | ||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | PWS B4.0 | Will the government confirm that all past performance cited by joint ventures must be performed in the name of the JV in order to be included in the evaluation (i.e., mentor proteges citing the mentor's past performance would not be compliant)? | Joint Venture (JV) must be performed together on a past or current contract. Mentor will not count as JV. | ||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | PWS B4.0 | Are the minimal high level skill requirements identified in B4.0 evaluated as part of the mandatory requirements for a pass/fail rating? | Yes, the high level skill requirements in B4.0 will be evaluated as part of the mandatory pass/fail rating. | ||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | PWS C.15 | Please confirm that Secret or Top Secret facility clearances are not required from the prime for this BPA. | Secret and Top Secret clearances are not required. Clearances levels are to be confirmed at the task order level. | ||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | PWS C6.13, 14, and 15 | How does the government envision program portfolio and relese management, Comms Support and creation and management of an IMS working across 50+ task orders across multiple applications and work streams? Are these activities intended to be stand alone task orders across the entire BPA portfolio? | Task orders may be focused on all activities across multiple task areas necessary for the development and delivery of specific capabilities or they may be standalone task orders focused on a single task area (e.g. portfolio management, communications support). | ||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | PWS C6 | What do the task areas mean where it says (BPA) compared to the task areas that don't say (BPA)? | Removed reference in doc. | ||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | C.1 ORDERING PROCEDURES p. 10 | Does the IRS intend to setaside specific Task Orders for the small businesses awarded the BPA or rather all Task Orders be released full and | |||
| open to all BPA holde | All task orders will be released full and open bids on the BPA, however, small business set-asides will be determined at the task order level. | ||||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | B3.0 Objectives p. 5 | The use of TDD indicates a very traditional/waterfall approach. Is the IRS intending for teams to write tests before code is produced in a |
traditional TDD format? Or does the IRS intend to integrate testing into the continous integration process? Our suggestion would not be to
| require TDD as the development format, but instead to rely on good code coverage ind your CI/CD process. | The IRS utilizes test driven development (TDD) to ensure there is appropriate test coverage throughout the CI/CD process. | |||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | Factor 3 – Management Approach p. 172 | This is the only instance wherein Traditional and Waterfall are referenced in terms of project/program management. Does the IRS intend to | ||
| operate outside of an Agile and/or SAFe environment? | The majority of programs supported by this BPA will utilize the Agile methodologies of SAFe and Kanban, however, there are some programs within IRS that operate outside of Agile and SAFe. | |||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | C.4.3 Task Area 3 – New Development and Support Services (BPA) p. 11-13 | Though the IRS is stating it wants Agile product development and Agile thought leadership from its team members, the work described under |
3.4 Description Task Area clearly aligns with Waterfall with large User Story requirements being documented before and approved through EA
| and Cybersecurity - it doesn't allow for an interative launch or learning cycle. | Noted, thanks for your input. | |||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | C.6.16 Task Area 16 – Support for Product Planning p. 30 | Research does not appear to be a part of the Federated Delivery Team and a key component of a successful Agile delivery model incorporates | ||
| rapid user research throughout a rapid, iterative. development process. This should be incorporated throughout. | Noted, thanks for your input. | |||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | C.4.6 Task Area 6 – Elaboration (BPA) p. 18 | Though the IRS continually highlights its desire for Agile software development; however Task Area 6 - it's description; desired outcomes; and |
work products speak to a more Waterfall cycle where large feature sets or product increments are researched, planned, and broken up then assigned to a team rather than assigning an outcome to a team and allowing them to interatively work towards that outcome. Will task orders be released under this BPA that are outcome-driven vs requirements-driven? Is there an actual opportunity to improve how the IRS is currently
| releasing software? | Many of the task orders under this BPA will utilize a Statement of Objectives (SOO) to put more of a focus on the outcomes. The IRS is open to recommendations on improving its releasing of software. | |||||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | C.6.11 Task Area 11 – Strategic Test Support (BPA) p. 24 | Will this ROAD guide and other internal documents referenced throughout the PWS be provided along with the final PWS? | No, the ROAD Guide and other internal Government documents referenced throughout the PWS will not be provided with the final PWS. | * | ||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | C.7.6 Place of Performance p. 59 | Can the IRS provide an estimate of number of days in a calendar year that Contractor staff will be expected onsite at NCFB, ECC-MTB, and | ||||
| ECC-MEM? | The requirements and time commitment differs for each task order under this BPA so it is not possible to provide an estimate. Contractor staff should expect to be onsite at governemnt facility one to three days of each week. | |||||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | B4.0 Skill Requirements: |
C.4.3 Task Area 3 – New Development and Support Services (BPA) C.6.17 Task Area 17 – Staffing Factor 1 – Mandatory Requirements Factor 2 – Technical Approach Beginning in September 2021 with the initial notice that RFQ 2032H5-21-Q-00101 would soon be released, this procurement has been challenging for industry. After an enormous investment of time and resources spent by industry in teaming arrangements and proposal development costs, the solicitation was canceled in Septemer of 2022. Despite the IRS' assertions that it is welcoming of new entrants to the IRS, especially those that are small businesses, the draft PWS contains multiple requirements throughout that are unduly restrictive of competition and are designed to provide the incumbent contractor(s) with an unfair competitive advantage. Examples are listed in column B. Before putting industry through another lengthy and costly procurement exercise, the IRS should either remove unduly restrictive requirements designed to provide the incumbent contractor(s) with an unfair competitive advantage or dissemintate the PWS to a pre-determined pool of vendors using FAR 8.405-6: Limiting Sources. Not doing so opens the door to Pre-Award Protests filed either at the agency-level, with GAO, or the Court of Federal Claims.
Question: Does the IRS want fresh perspectives on how to improve its digital service offerings to the public that promote self-service through a seamless/personalized online experience? If so, the IRS should ask potential contractors how they would implement more modern Agile practices than indicated by the processes and work products described throughout the PWS.
| Question: Is the lengthy time it takes to onboard new team members at the IRS - even for those people who have current Top Secret clearances from other government agencies - driving the preponderous of those requirements that show favor to the incumbents? Is there an internal initiative to examine and improve the security clearance process to make it quicker for people to begin work post-award? Unduly restrictive requirements should be removed to allow for a truly competitive procurement. | The IRS is open to responses that provide ways to improve current processes and digitatization/moderization of tools for communication with US taxpayers; this should be listed in your responses. However the IRS does have specific requirements that must be met and are listed in the PWS; if a vendor does not have said experience, they should team up with a vendor that has mentioned experience and submit proposal. Due to Government mandates, we can not remove or adjust requirements or lessen experience. Expedited clearance processes are being worked on and should have a positive impact on clearance times in the future. | |||||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | B5.0 Contractor Kep Personnel, page 7 | Does the government anticipate any more requirements for BPA-level key personnel roles (e.g., Sr. Cloud Architect, Technical Integrator)? | No, the IRS does not anticipate the requirement for any additional key personnel roles. Each offeror is free to propose additional key personnel they feel necessary to meet the requirements of the PWS. | |||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | C.2 Applicable Labor Categories, page 11 and C.11.0 Support Items, page 65 | Considering the importance of Cloud and Cyber skillsets as outlined in the draft solicitation, please confirm that bidders may propose LCATs from the "Cloud Computing and Cloud Related IT Professional Services" and/or "Highly Adaptive Cyber Services" SINs (518210C and 54151HACS, respectively) in addition to 54151S? | Offerors can only propose based on the SIN identied in the RFQ | |||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | C.6.17 Task Area 17 – Staffing, page 31 | Would the government consider substituting the requirement for the Program Manager to have a PMP, for example, with 5 extra years of relevant experience delivering large programs? | No, the PMP certification is required for the Program Manager. | |||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | C.6.17 Task Area 17 – Staffing, page 53 | Would the government consider substituting the preference for "certified IIBA" and skill in "IIBA best practices", for example, with 2 additional years of Business Analysis experience at the IRS? | No, the IIBA certification and skill in IIBA best practices is required. | |||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | E.3 Preparation of Quotations, pages 168 | Will the SF1449 that offerors need to fill-in be included with the final RFQ? | Yes, it will be. | |||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | F.1 Eval Criteria for Award, page 169 | Can the Government please confirm all volumes should be submitted at the same due date and time, to avoid any delay or potential for protest between phases? | The volumes should be submitted based on the phase. | |||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | General | Is the government considering an orals component to meet the prime's proposed key personnel and/or see how they work together in a collaborative environment to deliver? | No, the IRS is will not be using an orals component as part of the evaluation of proposals submitted in response to this RFQ. | |||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | F.1 Eval Criteria for Award, page 170 | In the section on mandatory requirements, the government notes that "the Contractor shall". Can you confirm that the prime is "the Contractor" that must meet all the mandatory requirements? | The prime. | |||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | F.1 Eval Criteria for Award, page 170 | In support of mandatory requirements, please confirm the government requires evidence (e.g., contract #s, POPs) to support offerors' assertions? | Yes, the IRS requires evidence in the form of the contract #, POP, and value to support offerors's assertions. | |||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | F.1 Eval Criteria for Award, page 171 | Factor 2, Tech Approach – Please clarify how the LCC will be evaluated. | The LCC will be evaluated on how it maps to the KP identified in your technical approach. | |||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | F.1 Eval Criteria for Award, page 171 | Factor 2, Tech Approach – Are the numbered items under "the IRS may consider" relevant for this solicitation? | Yes they will be considered. | |||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | F.1 Eval Criteria for Award, page 172 | Factor 3, Mgt Approach – Please clarify the reference to the “sanitized price quote”. What is this, and if required, how would it be evaluated? | The Santized price quote reference has been removed. | |||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | F.1 Eval Criteria for Award, page 172 | Factor 3, Mgt Approach – Please clarify the reference to "the non-Managed Services programs, with how it will provide management for the Managed Services." How does this relate to the work outlined in the draft PWS? | Factor 3 will be updated with the revised RFQ submission. | |||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | F.1 Eval Criteria for Award, page 173 | Factor 4, SBPP - There is a mention of Attachment 7. Will this attachment be included with the final RFQ? | Yes, it will. | |||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | F.6 Eval Criteria for Award, page 174 | Given the Draft RFQ_PWS states "Contractors may propose an alternate labor mix to address the estimated effort projected in the PQT," please confirm that the Government intends to evaluate and score pricing based on the required "detailed information in the Labor Category Crosswalk and Technical Quote that explains how the proposed labor mix will accomplish the tasks set forth in the RFQ". This evaluation approach, which is currently indicated in the draft, will allow the Government to make a robust comparison of bidders' proposed solutions, approaches, and staffing along with associated pricing. | The IRS intends to evaluate and score pricing based on the required detailed information in the Labor Category Crosswalk and Technical Quote that explains how the proposed labor mix will accomplish the tasks set forth in the RFQ. | |||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | Page 12-13; C.4 Description of Task Areas | Would the government please clarify the operating agreements between the DSS contractor and the IRS EST organization? What are the success and acceptance criteria for testing, and who is contractually responsible for completion of testing activities? | The IRS EST organization provides government oversight of testing. The vendor will be required to conduct all testing within the guardrails provided by EST. | |||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | Page 61-63; C.7.4 and C.7.5 | We note that there is no mention of Testing included in the final deliverables, work products or Deliverable Acceptance criteria. Will the government please clarify the inclusion or non-inclusion of testing results/success in acceptance criteria? | All test planning documentation and test execution results are to be included. | |||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | Page 20; C6-8 | Does the Government anticipate awarding testing tasks to the same or a different vendor as the development tasks? | Testing tasks may be awarded to same or different vendors as the development tasks. Awards will be via task orders. | |||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | Page 134; F.1 Evaluation Criteria for Award, Factor 3 - Management Approach | The government indicates it will evaluate the extent to which vendors' Management Approach "...address[es] the differences in how it will provide management for the non-Managed Services programs, with how it will provide management for the Managed Services." Would the government please clarify what is meant by non-Managed Services and Managed Services in the context of this program? These terms do not appear anywhere else in the Draft RFQ_PWS. | This BPA is for non-Managed Services programs. The offeror is expected to be clear in how they will manage non-Managed Services programs. | |||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | F.1, Phase I/Factor 1 - Mandatory Requirements, pages 170-171 | Can the government confirm that Factor 1 - Mandatory Requirements can be fulfilled by either the prime offeror or a subcontractor team member of the prime offeror? | The mandatory requirements are required to be fulfilled by the Prime offeror. | |||
| Draft RFQ_PWS | F.1 p. 169 | The evaluation for Factor 1 states it will be done on a Pass/Fail basis which is binary, but the paragraph then states that "Quoters who rate most highly for Phase I will be advised to proceed to Phase II" which sounds like there will also be a adjectival rating. Can the government please clarify how Phase I will be evaluated? | The language will be modified to "Quoters who pass" |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .