24-31 Litigation Notice_Vendor_Responses - FINAL.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 33 KB Posted
- Attached to
- eDiscovery SW as a SaaS and ATO Support Services
- Solicitation number
- 24-31-A-PMO-OITA
About this file
This document is a Sources Sought Notice from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) seeking information on a FedRAMP Moderate Microsoft Azure cloud-based Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) eDiscovery platform. The platform must be capable of eDiscovery processing, including litigation hold, forensic collections, early case assessment, review, analysis, and production. It must integrate with existing eDiscovery and litigation tools, and be able to process a variety of ESI formats, including chat communications. The IRS requires 90TB of total data storage, with 54TB for active review, 27TB for cold storage, and 9TB for staging. Key requirements include automated redaction, machine translation, and mobile tools for iOS. The IRS is looking for the solution to be fully functional in production within 60 days of the transition and data migration. Responses to this Sources Sought Notice will inform the IRS's acquisition strategy for this requirement.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 24-31-A-PMO-OITA Notice Response Matrix - V2-UPDATED.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 24-31-A-PMO-OITA Notice Response Matrix.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 24-31-A-PMO-OITA SaaS and ATO Support Services RFI-V3.docx | DOCX document | |
| 24-31-A-PMO-OITA PWS - eDiscovery_SaaS and ATO V3.docx | DOCX document |
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
| Document | Questions | Response to Questions |
| SSN | In The Requirement, Section 1 on page 2 of the Sources Sought Notice, the IRS requires a "vendor-hosted cloud-based instance." Could you please clarify what is meant by "vendor-hosted"? Specifically, is the IRS looking for a SaaS solution hosted by the SaaS Provider themselves, rather than a third-party service provider? | The term "vendor-hosted cloud-based instance." as used in the IRS requirement refers to a SaaS solution where the hosting and management of the cloud-based service are performed by the SaaS solution provider itself. This means that the SaaS provider is responsible for the infrastructure, maintenance, security, anad availability of the service. The IRS is specifically looking for a solution that is hosted directly by the SaaS provider rather than relying on a third-party service provider to host the solution. |
| SSN | In The Requirement, Section 2 on page 3 of the Sources Sought Notice, it mentions the need to create a Security and Privacy Authorization/FedRAMP Package. If a proposed SaaS solution already has a FedRAMP Moderate ATO from the FedRAMP PMO, does this meet the IRS's requirements? | If a proposed SaaS solution already has a FedRAMP Moderate Authority to Operate (ATO) from the FedRAMP Program Management Office (PMO), this does meet the IRS's requirements for FedRAMP compliance. However, additional steps may still be necessary to ensure full alignment with IRS-specific requirements. The IRS has a requirement to obtain an ATO and conduct a PIA prior to using the cloud-based SaaS solution in a production environment. The expectation is the Contractor will support the IRS in collecting and coordinating the paperwork for the IRS's ATO process. |
| SSN | If additional steps or documentation are necessary, could you please specify what they are? | Once the RFP is released, this will be addressed. |
| SSN | In the Optional Litigation Support Services section on pages 3-4 of the Sources Sought Notice, the IRS seeks information on ancillary litigation support services with the proposed SaaS solution. Given that SaaS Providers typically only provide software and technical support: Could the IRS clarify if SaaS Provider responders would be disqualified or negatively impacted if they cannot provide these optional services? | Confirmed there would be no negative impact. The SSN is for market research purposes only. The IRS anticipates additional ancillary litigation support services may be required and is conducting market research activities to determine if there are businesses, especially small business enterprises, currently exist with the capability to provide the SaaS solution, technical services and litigation support services. The answers may impact procurement and sourcing discussions for future discussions. |
| SSN | Would the IRS consider separating the solicitation for the SaaS solution from the solicitation for these optional services to streamline responses and contracting for the SaaS CSP bidders? | Yes, this is a consideration in discussion. The current ancillary support services detailed in the SSN are not currently included nor anticipated in the current, draft version of the PWS. |
| SSN | In the Draft PWS section on page 4 of the Sources Sought Notice, the IRS states this document is provided for technical comments, feedback, or questions. However, there is no place in the RFI for us to provide technical comments or feedback on the Draft PWS. Could the IRS please provide guidance on how we should submit our technical comments or feedback? | The Sources Sought Notice Response Matrix has been amended to provide industry a section to submit additional technical comments and feedback. |
| SSN | In Part II Capability, Section B, Question 3 on page 5, the IRS asks whether we can meet the PWS requirements. This question implies an evaluation of capabilities. However, in the Draft PWS section on page 4 of the Sources Sought Notice, the IRS states this document is provided for information and planning purposes only. Could the IRS please clarify the intent of Question 3 given the informational purpose stated on page 4? | The intent of the SSN is to identify potential sources to help shape acquisition strategy decisions, and intent of this question is to collect names of businesses that can reasonably assure the IRS that their proposed solution meets the requirements of the PWS. |
| SSN | For Part II Capability, Section B, Question 12 on page 5 of the Sources Sought Notice, could you please clarify which purchasing schedules the IRS will consider? | No decision has been made on potential purchasing schedules. We are collecting potential sources and contract vehicles to inform the acquisition strategy. |
| SSN | For Part II Capability, Section C, Questions 2-4 on page 6 of the Sources Sought Notice, given that the ATO process is an internal process managed by each federal agency, could you please clarify the intent behind asking if our company has experience in supporting ATO obtainment? Are you seeking information about our experience providing necessary security documentation and collaborating with agencies during their ATO process? | Confirmed. The IRS has a need for a Contractor to support the documentation development and coordination in order to facilitate obtainment of an ATO. The intent of the question is to determine if there are contractors with these capabilities in the market who have an understanding of ATO requirements. |
| SSN | For Part II Capability, Section C, Question 5 on page 6 of the Sources Sought Notice, could you clarify what specific assistance you are looking for regarding Privacy Impact Assessments (PIA)? Are you asking if we have experience providing the required documentation and support to agencies for their internal PIA processes? | Yes, the IRS is asking if your company has experience providing the required documentation and support to agencies for their internal PIA processes. |
| SSN | For Part II Capability, Section C, Question 6 on page 6 of the Sources Sought Notice, could you please clarify the implications if a SaaS Provider responder does not have pre-cleared employees? | We are conducting market research on staffing capability within the market. The ability to staff individuals and obtain clearances expeditiously is important to the IRS. This requirement will be updated in the next iteration of the PWS to reflect that "vendors are required to have people that have been vetted or cleared by IRS within the last two years." |
| SSN | For Part II Capability, Section D, Question 1 on page 6 of the Sources Sought Notice, the amount of data to be migrated from the legacy platform is not specified. Can you provide the data volume that needs to be migrated? | Approximately 90 TB of data across 500 workspaces. |
| SSN | For Part II Capability, Section D, Questions 2-3 on page 6 of the Sources Sought Notice, given that SaaS Providers typically provide only the software and technical support, can the IRS clarify if these managed services and specialized professional services need to be provided directly by the SaaS Provider? | The SSN is for market research purposes only. The IRS anticipates additional ancillary litigation support services may be required and is conducting market research activities to determine if there are businesses, especially small business enterprises, currently exist with the capability to provide the SaaS solution, technical services and litigation support services. The answers may impact procurement and sourcing discussions for future discussions. The current ancillary support services detailed in the SSN are not currently included nor anticipated in the current, draft version of the PWS. |
| SSN | Would it be acceptable for the SaaS Provider to partner with third-party providers to meet these requirements? | Yes, this would be considered as an option. |
| SSN | Would IRS consider procuring the optional ancillary litigation support services separately from the SaaS technology solution? This will ensure the IRS gets the best technology solution with the option to work with best of breed consulting/services companies. | Yes, this is a consideration. The SSN is for market research purposes only. The IRS anticipates additional ancillary litigation support services may be required and is conducting market research activities to determine if there are businesses, especially small business enterprises, currently exist with the capability to provide the SaaS solution, technical services and litigation support services. The answers may impact procurement and sourcing discussions for future discussions. |
| SSN | Does the Government define pre-cleared individuals as staff cleared per IRM 10.23.2? | Pre-cleared individuals are contractor staff who have an active IRS clearance. We are conducting market research on staffing capability within the market. The ability to staff individuals and obtain clearances expeditiously is important to the IRS. With that said, this requirement will change from active, pre-cleared individuals to a "vendors are required to have people that have been vetted or cleared by IRS within the last two years." |
| SSN | The IRS has requested a FedRAMP Moderate Solution. In addition, it has specified Microsoft Azure Government as the cloud environment for this solution. Will the Government accept a FedRAMP Moderate or a FedRAMP High Government Community SaaS solution hosted in Microsoft Azure (Commercial) given both Azure (Commercial) and Azure Government environments meet the more than 400 FedRAMP Moderate and High ATO security protocols and controls, are used by other Federal agencies, and would require undergoing IRS ATO process in either scenario? | While both Microsoft Azure Commercial and Government meet the FedRAMP Moderate and High ATO security protocols and controls, the IRS has specified for Microsoft Azure Government as the cloud environment for this solution. |
| SSN | For the role of Project Manager, if the candidate does not have 5+ years experience managing applications, integration/implementation efforts specifically for the IRS, will similar experience in a Federal Legal Environment with 5+ years experience in Federal Cloud migrations be acceptable? | Yes. This requirement will be updated in the next iteration of the PWS. |
| SSN | When does the IRS anticipate releasing a solicitation and award for this requirement? | It is unknown but anticipated in Q4 2024. |
| SSN | How many active vs. inactive workspaces does IRS plan to migrate? | Approximately 500 workspaces totaling 90TB of hosted data. |
| SSN | Can the Government provide an estimate of the volume of data it wants to migrate to the new solution? | According to the PWS, the IRS requires the new SaaS platform to support a minimum of 90TB of ESI for agency review upon initial service phase-in, with scalable storage to accommodate data growth. |
| SSN | Will IRS provide ARM exports to migrate into the new solution? | The PWS states that the contractor will be responsible for defining and implementing a data migration strategy, including building scripts to load and verify data in the new system and ensuring all legacy data is successfully moved to the new platform. |
| SSN | The RFI specifies the requirement for a FedRAMP certified solution on Azure; can the government indicate if a FedRAMP certified solution on a comparable Cloud provider other than Azure is acceptable? | The IRS IT has specified a preference for a cloud-based instance running on a FedRAMP Microsoft's Azure Government Cloud. |
| SSN | If the answer to the above is no, can the government specify the reasons why the Cloud provider must be Azure? | This preference is outlined to ensure compliance with specific security and operational requirements tailored to the IRS needs. |
| SSN | 24-31-A-PMO-OITA SaaS and ATO Support Services RFI-V3.docx, pg 2, Proposed SaaS Solution, If a vendor's solution has already been reviewed by a 3PAO and the FedRAMP PMO for High Readiness for AWS GovCloud, would the government accept AWS GovCloud, or is Azure mandatory? | The IRS has specified a preference for a cloud-based instance running on a FedRAMP Microsoft's Azure Government Cloud. This preference is outlined to ensure compliance with specific security and operational requirements tailored to the IRS needs. |
| SSN | 24-31-A-PMO-OITA SaaS and ATO Support Services RFI-V3.docx, pg 2, Provide mobile tools, Please clarify if native mobile apps for Apple and Android are required to be updated for workflow along with the web app. | The IRS requires the proposed SaaS solution to provide mobile tools usable in the Apple iOS environments. The Android requirement will be removed from the next iteration of the PWS. This indicates that native mobile apps for Apple should be included and capabile of supporting the required workflows in conjunction with the web application. |
| SSN | 24-31-A-PMO-OITA SaaS and ATO Support Services RFI-V3.docx, pg 2, The Requirement, Could you clarify the specific formats and types of chat ESI (e.g., Slack, Teams, SMS) that the eDiscovery platform must process and organize? | The eDiscovery platform must be capable of reviewing ESI in a wide variety of formats, including chat communications such as Slack, iMessage, SMS, and Teams. The platform should also facilitate the collection and organization of these chat formats in alignment with the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) process. |
| SSN | 24-31-A-PMO-OITA SaaS and ATO Support Services RFI-V3.docx, pg 2, The Requirement, What specific existing eDiscovery and litigation tools must the proposed solution integrate with? | The proposed eDiscovery SaaS solution must integrate with existing discovery and litigation tools used by the IRS. Specifically, the integration should include tools like Microsoft 365 (specifically Microsoft Purview eDiscovery), Salesforce, and other related repositories. The integration should support seamless data collection, review, and production processes |
| SSN | 24-31-A-PMO-OITA SaaS and ATO Support Services RFI-V3.docx, pg 2, The Requirement, Can you provide more details on the expected volume and types of data that will be handled by the proposed solution, particularly for chat ESI? | The expected volume will be provided at the time of the release of the solicitation. |
| SSN | 24-31-A-PMO-OITA SaaS and ATO Support Services RFI-V3.docx, pg 2, Proposed SaaS Solution, What specific capabilities are required for the integration with MSOffice 365, Salesforce, and other third-party systems? | The integration with MSOffice 365, Salesforce, and other third-party systems should include the following capabilities: |
Data Collection and Ingestion, Data Processing and Review, Automated Workflows
| SSN | 24-31-A-PMO-OITA SaaS and ATO Support Services RFI-V3.docx, pg 3, Proposed SaaS Solution, How will the IRS measure the "method acceptable to the IRS" for 24/7 access to data in active review? | The IRS will measure the “method acceptable to the IRS” for 24/7 access to data in active review based on the following criteria: uptime and availbility, performance metrics, and support and maintenance. |
| SSN | 24-31-A-PMO-OITA SaaS and ATO Support Services RFI-V3.docx, pg 3, Proposed SaaS Solution, Could you provide more details on the criteria and process for auto-redacting information quickly and effectively? | The proposed SaaS solution must include robust redaction capabilities, including: Rules-Based Redaction, Character String Recognition, Regular Expressions (RegEx), Multiple Redactions, Review and Edit Redactions, and Reporting |
| SSN | 24-31-A-PMO-OITA SaaS and ATO Support Services RFI-V3.docx, pg 3, Proposed SaaS Solution, What are the specific security and compliance requirements for the migration of existing workspaces from a server-hosted version of Relativity to the new cloud-based solution? | The specific security and compliance requirements for migrating existing workspaces from a server-hosted version of Relativity to the new cloud-based solution include: FedRAMP Compliance, Data Encryption, Access Control, Documentation, Penetration Testing, Migration Strategy and any other security and compliance requirements necessary for a new cloud-based solution. |
| SSN | 24-31-A-PMO-OITA SaaS and ATO Support Services RFI-V3.docx, pg 3, Support Obtainment of Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) and Authority to Operate (ATO), What specific support and documentation will be required from the vendor to assist with obtaining the Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) and Authority to Operate (ATO)? | To assist with obtaining the Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) and Authority to Operate (ATO), the vendor will be provided the specific support at the time of the release of the solicitation. |
| SSN | 24-31-A-PMO-OITA SaaS and ATO Support Services RFI-V3.docx, pg 3, Optional Litigation Support Services, Can you clarify what specific ancillary litigation support services are anticipated and how they should integrate with the primary eDiscovery SaaS solution? | The SaaS solution will be used by a future IRS contractor in order to provide potential ancillary litigation support services. |
| SSN | 24-31-A-PMO-OITA SaaS and ATO Support Services RFI-V3.docx, pg 3, SaaS Support and Ancillary Services, What are the expected response times and service levels for the support services, including processing/ingestion, end-user training, and consulting? | The service levels for support services will be provided at the time of the release of the solicitation. |
| SSN | 24-31-A-PMO-OITA SaaS and ATO Support Services RFI-V3.docx, pg 3, SaaS Support and Ancillary Services, Could you provide more details on the required training and consulting services related to the e-discovery/ESI review process? | The required training and consulting services include: Initial Training, Ongoing Training, and Consulting Services as described within the DRAFT PWS. |
| SSN | 24-31-A-PMO-OITA SaaS and ATO Support Services RFI-V3.docx, pg 4, Terms and Conditions, What are the criteria for evaluating vendor responses to this RFI, and what specific information is the IRS looking for in the responses? | The vendor must meet the requirements as outlined within the DRAFT PWS. |
| SSN | 24-31-A-PMO-OITA SaaS and ATO Support Services RFI-V3.docx, pg 4, Terms and Conditions, Can you provide details on the expected timeline for the transition and data migration from the current vendor-hosted Relativity-service instance to the new contracted instance? | The entire transition period is expected to not exceed sixty (60) calendar days, ensuring minimal disruption to ongoing operations |
| SSN | 24-31-A-PMO-OITA SaaS and ATO Support Services RFI-V3.docx, pgs Various, Budget Information, Does the IRS have an established budget for this acquisition? If so, what is the budget range? | The IRS has a preliminary budget and information for the budget range will not be shared. |
| SSN | 24-31-A-PMO-OITA PWS - eDiscovery_SaaS and ATO V3.docx, pgs Various, Implementation Timeline, When does the IRS expect the eDiscovery solution to be fully functional in a production environment? | The IRS expects the eDiscovery solution to be fully functional in a production environment following the completion of the transition and data migration phases, which should be within sixty (60) calendar days from the start of the transition |
| SSN | 24-31-A-PMO-OITA SaaS and ATO Support Services RFI-V3.docx, pgs Various, Contract Type, What type of contract does the IRS intend to use for this acquisition? (e.g., Firm Fixed Price (FFP), Time and Materials (T&M), etc.) | It is anticipated to be a firm fixed price contract, but final decision will be made by the CO based on acquisition strategy discussions. |
| SSN | 24-31-A-PMO-OITA SaaS and ATO Support Services RFI-V3.docx, pgs Various, Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE), Will the IRS provide an Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) to help vendors prepare competitive quotes? | The IGCE is an internal government document and will not be shared. |
| SSN | One of the solutions we sell here at Carahsoft, Proofpoint, is interested in responding to this solicitation with us and we were wondering what the submission requirements entail since there isn’t much info on B2G? Are you looking for pricing, datasheets, SOW, etc.? Any insight or guidance you can provide would be greatly appreciated. | We are currently in the market research phase. The draft requirements and the sources sought notice can be found on SAM.gov here: https://sam.gov/opp/d3b7e59299a744d48a7e7e631cdc39a4/view |
| SSN | Page 2 “Overview”. “ The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is seeking a FedRamp |
Moderate Microsoft Azure cloud-based Software-as-a-Solution (SaaS) eDiscovery platform.” This offeror has je of the most widely-used eDiscovery platforms in both Government and Commercial settings, and has developed that platform in the AWS Govcloud. Our client list shows extensive deployments with customers who use and store data in Azure, including of course using O365. nWe cannot see any technical reason to require an Azure environment for a SaaS-based solution; will the Government please amend this to accept any government accredited CSP/Cloud Service Provider?
| The IRS has specified a preference for a cloud-based instance running on a FedRAMP Microsoft's Azure Government Cloud. This preference is outlined to ensure compliance with specific security and operational requirements tailored to the IRS needs. | |
| SSN | The Government has requested review, cold storage and staging. Most clients also |
request a “suspended” data mode that is stored at a lower cost than review, but can be
| reactivated instantly. Does the IRS require such an environment? | Yes, we do. Cold Storage is a term of art similar to a "suspended" state. The IRS is looking for the SaaS tool to provide the ability to migrate inactive workspaces/cases to a lower cost storage option that can be brought back to an active reivew state within a short amount of time depending on the needs of the case. | |
| SSN | The IRS has talked about integration with their M365 environment, but has not |
mentioned legal holds, this offeror assumes the Government will either require or give
| additional technical scoring to offerors that include legal holds? | No decision has been made on evaluation criteria and scoping factors. We are collecting potential sources and contract vehicles to inform the acquisition strategy. | |
| SSN | The Government has not asked for any form of advanced analytics, which is the method |
most large organizations are using to drive their ediscovery. Will the Government be giving additional technical scoring to offerors that provide advanced, interactive
| analytics, conversation mapping, interactive clustering, etc.? | Scoring determinations and evaluation criteria have not been established. This sources sought is being used to identify potential offerors and existing solutions in the market and will be used to inform acquisition strategy decisions. | |
| SSN | The IRS has not specified any features for deposition planning, trial strategy, etc. Will |
the Government be providing additional technical scoring for offerors that can provide
| case/deposition strategy and support? | To the extent that a SaaS tool might offer the ability to create timelines or import and digest depositions or display exhibits at trial, the IRS is interested in those capabilities. However scoring determinations and evaluation criteria have not been established. This sources sought is being used to identify potential offerors and existing solutions in the market and will be used to inform acquisition strategy decisions. | |
| SSN | This offeror assumes the Government is looking for a true browser-based solution that |
does not require the loading of software on IRS machines or networks to operate or
| transfer data, is that correct? | Yes. That is correct. | |
| SSN | The offeror issues that the SaaS solution must also have cleared U.S. citizens to be the | |
| technology provider on this contract, correct? | Yes. That is correct. | |
| SSN | Will the Government consider solutions that are primarily developed outside the U.S. as |
long as the software vendor provides a small LLC or other US company to represent it in
| the U.S? | The DRAFT PWS specify that all contractor headquarters, infrastructure, servers, and data must be physically located in the United States or U.S. territories. Solutions primarily developed outside the U.S. will not meet these requirements, even if represented by a U.S. entity. | ||
| SSN | Does the Government require vendors being offered to disclose major breaches to their | ||
| platform in the past 3 years? | Yes, the Government requires vendors to disclose any major breaches to their platform in the past three years as part of their compliance and security evaluation. | ||
| SSN | Should all telephone, chat and email support be required to be included in the offer? | Undetermined. Pricing structure will be determined after insight gained from this Sources Sought. | |
| PWS | Can the Government please confirm if key personnel role of the Cloud Systems Engineer is required to be a Relativity Certified Administrator (RCA), or rather should the requirement be for certification in whichever technology is selected? | Certification in the tool offered is acceptable. It does not have to be an RCA. This will be updated in the next iteration of the PWS. | |
| SSN | Is this requirement a recompete of services under contract 47QSMA19D08PL - 2032H519F00759? Will the IRS detail the spending allocation between technology and services? | Yes this is a recompeteof services under contract 47QSMA19D08PL - 2032H519F00759. | |
| Will the IRS detail the spending allocation between technology and services? | This is undetermined at this time. A decision will be made by the Contracting Officer if any allocations will be released. At this time, his sources sought is being used to identify potential offerors and existing solutions in the market and will be used to inform acquisition strategy decisions. | ||
| SSN | 3. The IRS's specific requirements around Azure Government, IRS cleared personnel with RCA, significant IRS past performance,etc., seem to preclude anyone other than the incumbent, Deloitte and a Relativity based solution, from competition. Is this the IRS's intent, or are other comparable solutions acceptable? | The IRS intent is not to preclude competition. We are conducting market research to determine the availability of solutions that meet the IRS's requested needs at the moment. The sources sought responses will provide the IRS with acquisition strategy considerations that we will take into account during finalization of the requirement. |
The IRS has specified a preference for a cloud-based instance running on a FedRAMP Microsoft's Azure Government Cloud. This preference is outlined to ensure compliance with specific security and operational requirements tailored to the IRS needs.
The ability to staff individuals and obtain clearances expeditiously is important to the IRS. With that said, this requirement will change from active, pre-cleared individuals to a "vendors are required to have people that have been vetted or cleared by IRS within the last two years."
| SSN | In addition to FedRAMP Moderate solutions in the Microsoft Government cloud, will the Government consider FedRAMP Moderate or High solutions hosted in other environments such as AWS or Microsoft Azure Commercial? | The IRS has specified a preference for a cloud-based instance running on a FedRAMP Microsoft's Azure Government Cloud. This preference is outlined to ensure compliance with specific security and operational requirements tailored to the IRS needs. |
| Draft PWS | In the provided DRAFT PWS, one of the objectives on page 6 is to "Provide mobile tools usable in the Android & iOS environments." Would a SaaS Provider be disqualified or deemed non-compliant if they are unable to provide a mobile application? | Provide mobile tools usable in the iOS environments is required. The Android requirement will be removed from the next iteration of the PWS. |
| Draft PWS | In Section 1.2.7 Other Requirements on page 18, we understand that the IRS requires a customized setup involving secure data transfer and user access via AT&T’s MPLS network. Given that SaaS solutions are generally designed to be broadly applicable and not tailored to specific network infrastructures, could you please clarify if there is flexibility in this requirement? | We are looking for the ability to maximize throughput between the IRS end users and the SaaS tool so there is flexibility in this requirement. |
| Draft PWS | Would other secure methods of data transfer and access compatible with standard SaaS environments be acceptable? | Yes, we are open to other possibilities that maximize throughput between IRS end users and the SaaS solution. |
| Draft PWS | In Appendix D Cybersecurity Operational Cloud Requirements on pages 71-77 of the Draft PWS, there are 43 "Security Operational Cloud Requirements and Questions." Could the IRS please provide guidance or instructions on whether Responders are expected to provide written responses to these questions as part of the RFI submission? | Appendix D Cybersecurity Operational Cloud Requirements on pages 71-77 of the Draft PWS was provided for informational purposes only, and will likely be provided in future iterations of the PWS. Written responses to these questions are not necessary when responding to this RFI. |
| Deaft PWS | 24-31-A-PMO-OITA PWS - eDiscovery_SaaS and ATO V3.docx, pg 1, General Requirement, What specific features or functionalities are expected from the "advanced review tools" mentioned in the general requirement section? | The IRS is looking for a SaaS solution that is offering capabilities to help with the overall management of the agency's eDiscovery process. Some examples of features that are of interest include the ability to use templates to standardize ingestion and processing of case related data. For review, things like data visualization or usage of cotinuous active learning models. We are also looking for tools that offer ways to better conduct automated redactions or privilege reviews. |
| Draft PWS | 24-31-A-PMO-OITA PWS - eDiscovery_SaaS and ATO V3.docx, pg 1, General Requirement, What are the specific criteria and process for transitioning existing data and workspaces to the new platform with minimal disruption? | The Office of Chief Counsel has approximately 90 TB of data located in 500 workstations. The data and coding decisions made in these workspaces will be needed to migrated to the new tool within 60 days to minimize disruption to trial teams. |
| Draft PWS | 24-31-A-PMO-OITA PWS - eDiscovery_SaaS and ATO V3.docx, pg 1, SaaS Solution Requirement, Can you provide more details on the data storage requirements, specifically the allocation of 54TB for review, 27TB for cold storage, and 9TB for staging? | The Office of Chief Counsel has approximately 90 TB of data located in 500 workstations. Based on current estimates, 54 TB of this data is in active review. The remaining amounts can be placed in a less-available environment. The percentages of space allocated to each requirement is likely to change. |
| Draft PWS | 24-31-A-PMO-OITA PWS - eDiscovery_SaaS and ATO V3.docx, pg 1, SaaS Solution Requirement, How will the IRS define and measure the effectiveness of "auto-redact information quickly and effectively"? | Trial teams are required to redact filings with the United States Tax Court and other judicial bodies to remove sensitive personally identifying information (PII). Tools will need to be able to detect PII in documents, accurately identify the PII, and redact the information so that it is masked when it is produced. |
Scoring determinations and evaluation criteria have not been established. This sources sought is being used to identify potential offerors and existing solutions in the market and will be used to inform acquisition strategy decisions.
| Draft PWS | 24-31-A-PMO-OITA PWS - eDiscovery_SaaS and ATO V3.docx, pg 2, SaaS Solution Requirement, What specific capabilities are required for machine translation within the eDiscovery Review tool, and what languages are anticipated to be covered? | The IRS is interested in the ability to conduct unofficial translations similar to what you might find using a commercially available tool like Google Translate. The tool must keep all data within its security boundaries and not send it to services outside of the boundary. At this time, the IRS cannot speak to what specific languages would be needed but an expectation that a broad number of languages should be available is reasonable. |
| Draft PWS | 24-31-A-PMO-OITA PWS - eDiscovery_SaaS and ATO V3.docx, pg 2, SaaS Solution Requirement, Could you provide more details on the required mobile tools and their expected use cases in the Android and iOS environments? | The IRS is interested in the ability to connect in a synchronous or asynchronous manner to existing workspaces via mobile devices such as an iPhone or iPad. The IRS currently supports iOS products in its environment. |
| Draft PWS | 24-31-A-PMO-OITA PWS - eDiscovery_SaaS and ATO V3.docx, pg2, SaaS Solution Requirement, What are the specific criteria for restricting data access by counsel's office to ensure that only those with a need-to-know have access? | The IRS has a need to be able to restrict access to information at varying levels of granularity from restricting access to work product, documents, or entire workspaces. The SaaS tool should be able to offer this ability. |
| Draft PWS | 24-31-A-PMO-OITA PWS - eDiscovery_SaaS and ATO V3.docx, pgs Various, General Requirements, Has the IRS identified a specific Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS)/SaaS eDiscovery tool that it wants the vendor to customize? If so, please provide details on the identified product. | The IRS is conducting this sources sought to identify potential SaaS eDiscovery solutions that meet the IRS needs and technical requirements drafted in the PWS. |
| Draft PWS | 24-31-A-PMO-OITA PWS - eDiscovery_SaaS and ATO V3.docx, pgs Various, Implementation Timeline, When does the IRS expect the eDiscovery solution to be fully functional in a production environment? | The IRS expects the eDiscovery solution to be fully functional in a production environment following the completion of the transition and data migration phases, which should be within sixty (60) calendar days from the start of the transition |
| Draft PWS | In section 1.2.7 of the Draft PWS document, there are references to integrating with the agency's current collection and processing tools - can the Government provide a list of those tools? | The IRS is currently utilizing Microsoft's Purview eDiscovery tool along with EnCase for its collections and processing needs. |
| Draft PWS | In section 1.1.1 of the Draft PWS document, the Government states that the eDiscovery platform must be capable of integration with existing eDiscovery and litigation tools - can the Government provide a list of these tools? | In addition to Microsoft's Purview eDiscovery tool and EnCase, the IRS is interested in the ability to integrate with other tools such as Salesforce. |
| Draft PWS | Question regarding eDiscovery SaaS and ATO Support Services ACTIVE Contract Opportunity Notice ID 24-31-A-PMO-OITA bid due July 10th. The IRS is in need of an eDiscovery SaaS solution that is ‘FedRAMP Moderate’ to rest on the Microsoft Azure Government Cloud, which is FedRAMP Moderate. Would that then satisfy the FedRAMP requirement if our eDiscovery solution, Digital REEF, is not FedRAMP certified? | No, the eDiscovery Solution must be FedRAMP Moderate approved through the FedRAMP PMO. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .