Questions and Answers - Solicitation No 24322626R0007.pdf

Question No.

Question Category Question/Recommendation Answer

1 Agency Complexity

Can we assume Agency complexity is based on two equal factors: size and deviation of requirements from base implementation? EX: VA has both the size and diversity of employee population (title 5, 38, and 32) to be considered complex.

The agency t-shirt sizing aims to define tiered levels of effort that each agency will fall into. The resulting sizing categories aim to reflect both the scale of an agency (i.e., number of FTE users) and the IT environment complexity (i.e., the number of required integrations).

2 Agency Complexity

PWS 5.2, p. 31, 157: Please consider revising the Agency Complexity Definitions to allow bidders to propose additional complexity factors and recommendations at time of task order. For example, feasibility of timeframes is the complexity of the employee population being transitioned into the new HCM platform. Size of employee population and number of interconnections will not always equate to the same timeframes. A smaller agency with a complex mission, specialized skills, and highly complex roles may require more time to deploy than a more straightforward larger agency.

OPM considered numerous important factors in determining the t-shirt sizing protocols best designed to meet agency needs. OPM believes that the enumerated criteria best summarize the relevant factors for offerors.

3 Agency Complexity

pg. 32: Agency Complexity Definition column, Large Complexity definition “And/or 20+ interconnections required beyond Core Implementation.”

a. Question: What is the maximum number of interconnections that would be required for this sizing, represented by the “+”?

b. Question: Do the listed quantity of interconnections include

The agency t-shirt sizing aims to define tiered levels of effort that each agency will fall into. The resulting sizing categories aim to reflect both the scale of an agency (i.e., number of FTE users) and the IT environment complexity (i.e., the number of required integrations). The second part of this question is incomplete and thus can't be answered.

4 Agency Complexity PWS, p. 32: The anticipated complexity for an agency does not always align to the Agency Complexity definition on page 32.

Are the agency size determinations subject to change post award?

The government intends to determine the complexity of each agency through its PMO communications and operations before each TO is issued to the vendor.

5 Agency Complexity

Does OPM have a contingency plan for situations where the complexity is not assigned correctly (i.e., more interconnections needed than originally anticipated)? If an agency changes size over the course of the contract, at what point would its complexity be reassessed?

The government intends to determine the complexity of each agency through its PMO communications and operations before each TO is issued to the vendor.

6 Agency Complexity

Page 18, in reference to the “... 2 million Executive Branch civilian employees...”

a. Does the government intend for the vendor to focus on transferring records related to active employees only within the timeframes specified in the chart on page 32? This is as opposed to all system user records which would include inactive civilian employee users who still have records tied to agency specific HR systems.

b. If the government intends for the vendor to move all user records including non-active civilian employee users and their associated records, how many non-active civilian employee records should the vendor anticipate in addition to those listed in the chart for each Agency Complexity Definition?

Offerors should price the level of complexity based on the requirement that all existing agency/department Core HCM data (active and inactive) will be migrated from the current Core HCM solution into the Federal Core HCM platform.

7 Agency Complexity

PWS 5.2, p. 33, 157: The Agency Complexity table on page 33/157 lists the Department of War (DoW) as an X-Large complexity. Please clarify the scope of a DoW transition in recognition that the DoW has contains three major departments (Army, Navy, Air Force), along with Marine Corps, Space Force and Coast Guard, and the 11 Combatant Commands. For example, shall Offerors assume the entirety of DoW as the X-Large implementation, or a different level of scope (e.g., phased transition of departments or employee categories)?

The entirety of DoW is the X-Large Complexity.

8 Agency Complexity

PWS 5.2, p. 33, 157: The Agency Complexity table on page 33/157 lists the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as a Large complexity. Please clarify the scope of a DHS transition in recognition that it contains multiple agencies

(i.e., CBP, CISA, US Coast Guard, FEMA, etc.). What specific scope shall Offerors assume for DHS? If the entirety of DHS will the Government consider elevating this to X-Large complexity?

The entirety of DHS is a Large Complexity.

9 Agency Complexity Organizations such as USCG can fall under multiple agencies which would increase complexity. How would USCG be categorized in terms of complexity using this pricing model?

The United States Coast Guard is a component of the Department of Homeland Security

(DHS).

10 Agency Complexity Would time and attendance functionality be required for any customer with

"N/A" complexity? At what point in the timeline?

The government will determine the timeline for agency transitions. Time and attendance functionality is in scope for all agencies.

11 Agency Transition

Page 87: The table provided on page 33 of the solicitation lists 24 CFO Act agencies; whereas the table on page 87 lists 23 CFO Act agencies. To reconcile this discrepancy, the Offeror requests that the Government provide an itemized list of the agencies referenced in the table on page 87.

Furthermore, in order to accurately assess the level of effort and appropriately size estimates, the Offeror requests that the Government identify the specific core Human Capital Management (HCM) solutions currently in use by each CFO Act agency.

The Core HCM Solution Example table in Appendix B has been amended to reflect this discrepancy. The government is not providing an itemized list of all agency's specific

HCM solutions currently in use.

12 Agency Transition CLIN 0002: To effectively plan and staff the Agency Transition phase (CLIN 2), what is the prioritized order of anticipated agency on-boarding?

The government will determine the timeline for agency transitions. The government will stagger agencies in an order that would allow for transition to the trial and usability access stage NLT July 4, 2027.

13 Agency Transition Can the government provide a complete list of all the government entities who would participate in this OPM initiative. Please provide their estimated corresponding user base (all entities with an agency user id, past and present)

Please refer to the Agency Complexity table in Section 5.2 Agency Transition of the solicitation. OPM regularly publishes employee counts for each agency through fedscope.opm.gov.

14 Agency Transition Implementation Schedule: Does the 90-day implementation window include

ATO issuance and data migration, or only configuration and testing?

ATO issuance is part of Core Implementation. The tasks associated with Agency

Implementation are listed in the PWS section 5.2

15 Agency Transition Shadow Mode Duration: Can the 60-day shadow operation period be extended if discrepancies are found during testing?

The Government retains discretion during contract administration to address discrepancies or readiness concerns as they arise. If issues are identified during testing, the Government may consider adjustments to the shadow operations period through appropriate contract administration mechanisms. Offerors should base their proposals on the 60-day period as stated in the solicitation.

16 Agency Transition

P. 32: Regarding the mandated six-month trial and usability access period specific ed for each agency transition, we recommend reducing the duration of this segment for cost-efficiency. Will the Government consider a reduced trial period, such as 30 days of shadow mode (non-production) and 3 months of trial/usability (sustainment), especially for Small Complexity agencies?

For the purposes of the basic contract evaluation, Offerors shall assume the timeframes stated in the solicitation and PWS. During contract performance, it is possible that the Government may consider adjustments to the duration of the trial/usability period at the task order level, based on agency complexity, readiness, and mutual agreement.

17 Agency Transition CLIN 0002: Given the variable duration of agency level transition, will the

Government allow for more frequent milestone payment terms or monthly payment increments?

The government intends to distribute payment according to the milestones, timelines, and portions in the solicitation.

18 Agency Transition

The current milestone payment schedule for CLIN 2 (Agency Transition) defers a significant portion of the payment (70%) until the 30-day sign-off period. As services costs are incurred from Day 1 and milestone-based payments conflict with the continuous delivery nature of a SaaS model, will the

Government consider adjusting the milestone payment schedule to reflect either a monthly payment schedule or a schedule aligned to more immediate key milestones upon service delivery?

The government intends to distribute payment according to the milestones, timelines, and portions in the solicitation.

19 Agency Transition PWS 5.4: Non-Production Tenants are a component of a customer's subscription. Can the subscription start at the beginning of the agency transition period instead of the completion of agency transition milestones?

No. CLIN 3 licensing and sustainment is expected to begin after the final milestone of CLIN 2. The government does not intend to pay for licensing and sustainment until the product and implementation is proven to fully meet the requirements, per the milestones and performance metrics in CLIN 2.

20 Agency Transition

Since some agencies utilize a shared service provider (such as NFC), should the offeror assume that this population will transition using a shared tenant structure?

If not, will the new HCM platform be the system of initiation and source of record for these agencies and please identify which agencies will not be part of the shared service provider structure?

The PWS indicates that agencies serviced by the same existing platform may transition at the same time, minimizing agency-specific implementation teams. The offeror should propose the tenant strategy. The Core HCM platform will be the system of record for all agencies included in the transition. (Section 5.2 Agency Transition)

21 Agency Transition

PWS 5.2, p. 35: Agency Transition- The Sponsor includes Department of Interior and Department of Agriculture. The RFP states that it includes IBC and NFC but does not explicitly state if it means IBC and NFC customers would be part of transition. Conversely, they list Department of Treasury but do not

The PWS lists representative agencies and shared service centers in Appendix B. Please refer to the Agency Complexity table in Section 5.2 of the solicitation for a list of agencies.

22 Agency Transition Is the required Help Desk creation (PWS 5.2.5) for deployment support, business-as-usual, or both?

Tier 1 help desk support will be operated and maintained by OPM.

23 Agency Transition

PWS 5.2, p. 33: Please confirm that the Department of War employee population will not require compliance with Cloud Computing Security

Requirements Guide Impact Level 4, (CC SRG IL4), authorization or require a BCAP connection.

All of the requirements for security and privacy are described in the PWS.

24 Agency Transition

Is the expectation that all federal agencies will standardize HR processing and operations? If not then how, who and when will the agency specific requirements be provided? Will agency specific requirements be part of the scope?

Agency-specific task orders will include agency-specific requirements as part of CLIN 0002.

25 Agency Transition

How does OPM envision supporting the differing business rules across agencies?

a. Can OPM provide a diagram of how the multi-tenant architecture will support the agencies?

b. Is OPM planning on standardizing the workflows for PAR processes? if not, how will the system support the unique requirements of each agency?

OPM will consult with agencies to achieve maximum policy, workflow, and business process standardization across government. OPM will work with agencies to define system configurations that meet a majority of use cases. In rare cases, OPM will seek to enhance the Core HCM product through customization to address agency needs.

Offerors should propose the tenant structure.

26 Agency Transition

For a system supporting 2 million users and millions of daily transactions, how will OPM ensure predictable costs beyond the Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) concern?

How can OPM budget effectively if underlying components have variable costs? What is the risk of being "double-billed"—once for an API call and again for the backend integration execution?

The government intends to monitor and manage all cost and associated cost risk associated with the solution.

27 Case Study Submission

L.6, p. 144, Volume I- Technical Factor 1 - Subfactor A - Case Studies: The Sponsor states "Each Case Study submission is limited to 3 pages total and must meet the form and format in section C.2.A "format" referenced earlier in this document." Oracle is unable to identify this format or section C.2.A. Will the government please confirm that section L.6.2.a (pg. 141) is the intended reference and requirement for format of the Case Studies?

The document has been corrected to reflect the proper reference to L.6.2.a.

28 Case Study Submission Page 144 of Amend 1 regarding case study submission references section “C.2.A.” We presume this refers to section L.6.2.c.a, which pertains to the proposal file format on page 141? Is that correct?

The document has been corrected to reflect the proper reference to L.6.2.a.

29 Case Study Submission

The following on Page 144 says “Each Case Study submission is limited to 3 pages total and must meet the form and format in section C.2.A.”

Is the correct reference, L.6.2.a?

The document has been corrected to reflect the proper reference to L.6.2.a.

30 Case Study Submission

Reference L.6.2, Case Study Submissions, and M.2, Evaluation Approach, pgs.

143 & 151. Sections L & M request Case Studies for "prior" contracts. Will the

Government please confirm that "prior" refers to contracts where the implementation has been completed, while sustainment may be ongoing? We suggest rewording the requirement to state “Offerors shall submit up to five Case Studies for evaluation that describe their most relevant and largest contracts, wherein implementation has been completed and sustainment may be ongoing, which involve work similar in size, scope, and complexity to the requirements outlined in the PWS.”

Offerors may submit contracts where implementation is complete and sustainment is ongoing. The government has reworded the PWS to state “Offerors shall submit up to five Case Studies for evaluation that describe their most relevant and largest contracts, wherein implementation has been completed and sustainment may be ongoing, which involve work similar in size, scope, and complexity to the requirements outlined in the

PWS.”

31 Case Study Submission

Given the current government shutdown, will the government waive the following requirement for Volume I, Subfactor A? "Customer Verification: Each Case Study must be signed by the customer (or authorized representative) to verify the accuracy and authenticity of the information provided."

The solicitation has been amended to remove the customer verification requirement.

Each Case Study must be certified by the Offeror stating that the Case Study is fully true to the best of their knowledge.

In the event the evaluation team discovers misleading, falsified, and/or fraudulent proposal information, the Offeror may be eliminated from further consideration for award. Falsification of any proposal submission, documents, or statements may subject the Offeror to civil or criminal prosecution under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United

States Code.

32 Case Study Submission

Reference L.6, Case Study Submissions, pg. 144. Section L requires Customer Verification for each case study via a signature from an authorized representative. Would the Government consider eliminating this requirement due to personnel being unavailable during the Government shutdown?

The solicitation has been amended to remove the customer verification requirement.

Each Case Study must be certified by the Offeror stating that the Case Study is fully true to the best of their knowledge.

In the event the evaluation team discovers misleading, falsified, and/or fraudulent proposal information, the Offeror may be eliminated from further consideration for award. Falsification of any proposal submission, documents, or statements may subject the Offeror to civil or criminal prosecution under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United

States Code.

33 Case Study Submission Given the current federal government shutdown, for the case studies, is there an alternative if we are unable to secure the customer's signature verifying the content's accuracy?

The solicitation has been amended to remove the customer verification requirement.

Each Case Study must be certified by the Offeror stating that the Case Study is fully true to the best of their knowledge.

In the event the evaluation team discovers misleading, falsified, and/or fraudulent proposal information, the Offeror may be eliminated from further consideration for award. Falsification of any proposal submission, documents, or statements may subject the Offeror to civil or criminal prosecution under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United

States Code.

34 Case Study Submission

On page 144 of the solicitation, the requirement to substantiate past performance requires offerors to submit customer signature verification.

Given the government shutdown, many customer representatives within the U.S. government are unavailable to provide these signatures. Would OPM consider contact information for relevant government contacts sufficient?

The solicitation has been amended to remove the customer verification requirement.

Each Case Study must be certified by the Offeror stating that the Case Study is fully true to the best of their knowledge.

In the event the evaluation team discovers misleading, falsified, and/or fraudulent proposal information, the Offeror may be eliminated from further consideration for award. Falsification of any proposal submission, documents, or statements may subject the Offeror to civil or criminal prosecution under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United

States Code.

35 Case Study Submission

Given the stringent timelines associated with the RFP submission, we respectfully request that OPM consider waiving the requirement for

“Customer Verification” related to the case studies (Section L.6, 2c). As an alternative, we will be willing to offer direct reference calls between OPM and our clients, enabling a firsthand discussion of the work we have delivered.

The solicitation has been amended to remove the customer verification requirement.

Each Case Study must be certified by the Offeror stating that the Case Study is fully true to the best of their knowledge.

In the event the evaluation team discovers misleading, falsified, and/or fraudulent proposal information, the Offeror may be eliminated from further consideration for award. Falsification of any proposal submission, documents, or statements may subject the Offeror to civil or criminal prosecution under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United

States Code.

36 Case Study Submission

P. 143: Can the Government remove the signature requirement for the case study?

Most customers require legal review prior to signing which may not align with the proposal timeline?

The solicitation has been amended to remove the customer verification requirement.

Each Case Study must be certified by the Offeror stating that the Case Study is fully true to the best of their knowledge.

In the event the evaluation team discovers misleading, falsified, and/or fraudulent proposal information, the Offeror may be eliminated from further consideration for award. Falsification of any proposal submission, documents, or statements may subject the Offeror to civil or criminal prosecution under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United

States Code.

37 Case Study Submission

L.6, p. 143, Volume I _ Technical Factor 1, Subfactor A -- Case Study Submissions: In the case where Offerors have commercial customers of high relevance and applicability to OPM's Case Study requirements, while recognizing Commercial customers are often obfuscated and/or unlikely to provide verification due to commercial legality risks, please confirm the Government will accept Commercial Case Studies without a signed customer verification. This will allow Offerors to sufficiently demonstrate both Government and Commercial case studies while recognizing many commercial customers avoid such verification.

The solicitation has been amended to remove the customer verification requirement.

Each Case Study must be certified by the Offeror stating that the Case Study is fully true to the best of their knowledge.

In the event the evaluation team discovers misleading, falsified, and/or fraudulent proposal information, the Offeror may be eliminated from further consideration for award. Falsification of any proposal submission, documents, or statements may subject the Offeror to civil or criminal prosecution under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United

States Code.

38 Case Study Submission

L.6, p. 143, Volume I _ Technical Factor 1, Subfactor A -- Case Study Submissions: Will the Government confirm, for the Case Study Submissions, that the offeror may provide case studies in which the Offeror's solution or technology was implemented and managed by a systems integrator (SI), where the offeror was not the prime contractor of record, but its product, software, or service was the primary component of performance?

Confirmed.

39 Case Study Submission Can the government confirm that each Case Study in Volume I, Subfactor A, should be submitted as a separate file?

While Section L.6.2.c includes suggested file structures and naming conventions, the Government provides flexibility in how Offerors organize and submit their proposal files within each volume. The Government’s primary objective is to ensure that evaluators can easily locate and assess all required information.Offerors may choose to submit each case study or subfactor as an individual file, or combine multiple elements into a single, clearly organized file, as long as the content is easy to navigate, properly labeled, and clearly identifies each required element in accordance with the solicitation instructions. However, the Government requests that each proposal volume be submitted as a separate file (e.g., Volume I, Volume II, etc.) and that a single file not contain elements from multiple proposal volumes. Multiple volumes may be submitted in a single email or upload, but each volume should be a distinct file to facilitate evaluation and document management.

40 Case Study Submission

Section L.6.2.c, volume I, Technical Factor 1, Subfactor A - Case Study Submissions, p. 142-143: Please confirm that Offerors shall submit Volume I as a series of separate files rather than combining content into Subfactor or

Volume files.

While Section L.6.2.c includes suggested file structures and naming conventions, the Government provides flexibility in how Offerors organize and submit their proposal files within each volume. The Government’s primary objective is to ensure that evaluators can easily locate and assess all required information.Offerors may choose to submit each case study or subfactor as an individual file, or combine multiple elements into a single, clearly organized file, as long as the content is easy to navigate, properly labeled, and clearly identifies each required element in accordance with the solicitation instructions. However, the Government requests that each proposal volume be submitted as a separate file (e.g., Volume I, Volume II, etc.) and that a single file not contain elements from multiple proposal volumes. Multiple volumes may be submitted in a single email or upload, but each volume should be a distinct file to facilitate evaluation and document management.

41 Case Study Submission

The RFP specifies that “at least three of the five Case Studies shall be from the prime Offeror.” Given that OEMs are not always system integrators and system integrators are not also OEMs, would it be acceptable for the Offeror to submit only two case studies from the OEM (a subcontractor) instead of three from the prime?

An Offeror shall follow the instructions in the solicitation for submission of the case studies.

42 Case Study Submission P. 143: Should the scope of the case studies be limited to implementation of

SaaS solutions?

Per the solicitation, case studies should describe the most relevant and largest contracts involving work similar in size, scope, and complexity to the requirements outlined in the PWS.

43 Core Implementation Will the OPM ATO cover all onboarded agencies under reciprocity or will an

ATO be required for each Agency?

The OPM ATO will cover all agency use, as stated in section 5.1.1, "OPM's ATO covers any agency's use of the platform."

44 Core Implementation

Due within 30 days of award and final due within 45 days of award. Does this mean that the Contractor is responsible for developing the agency-level

System Security Plan for the ATO that OPM must issue? Would this be due within 30 days and then OPM expects to perform an assessment between the

30 day mark and the 45 day mark?

Yes. The contractor is responsible for developing the System Security Plan and submitting draft and final Authority to Operate documentation within the specified timelines (draft within 30 days of award, final within 45 days of award). This solution will have a single authoritative ATO covering all customers.(Section 5.1 Core

Implementation)

45 Core Implementation Can OPM specify all applicable laws in scope for CLIN 0001 (including all

CLINs under CLIN 0001)?

No, OPM cannot specify all applicable laws for CLIN 0001; refer to the PWS for requirements.

46 Core Implementation Are there any specific components required in the fit gap analysis report?

Yes. The Fit-Gap Analysis Report must document all findings, recommended approaches, timelines to address each gap, associated risks, and estimated effort. It must be reviewed and approved by the Government prior to commencement of Core

HCM configuration. (Section 5.1 Core Implementation)

47 Core Implementation

Please define "configuration" vs. "customization" for the "minimal customization" requirement (p.23), including whether workflows, rules, labels, reports, RBAC, compliance logic, integrations, and data standards are configuration or customization.

Configuration: adjustments made through delivered workflows, rules, security settings, and administrative features; forward-compatible. Customization: modification to delivered code, data model, or core logic beyond vendor-supported configuration.

(Section 5.6 Minimization of Customization)

48 Core Implementation Is a single code base required for all agencies (no forks), and if so, how are agency differences handled (configuration, data settings) without agency-specific branches?

Yes, a single code base is required. Agency differences are handled via configuration and data settings, not code forks. (Section 5.6 Minimization of Customization)

49 Core Implementation

When will GFI (including documentation and a test environment) be delivered after award for each system to be integrated with: USA Staffing APIs, USA Performance APIs, payroll provider specifications, FEHB Data Hub, EHRI, eOPF ICDs, non-prod access, Azure APIM access?

GFI (documentation and test environment) will be delivered at the time of approved ATO per Section 5.1, Section 5.2, and Appendix B.

50 Data

Does OPM have a general, non-conditional requirement for backing up Government data in a non-proprietary format or does this only apply in situations where the Escrow clause applies? Should backups be to a location that is accessible to the Government? On what type of frequency?

Section 5.1 of the solicitation has been updated to reflect, "Ensure that all system backups (including full, incremental, and real-time replicated backups) are securely maintained and made accessible to the Government upon request."

51 Data

PWS 5.2.3, p. 36: Is it the expectation that all existing agency/department core HCM data include historical data? If so, what are the specific expectations regarding the scope, duration, or granularity of the historical data to be included? Oracle recommends the Government to allow bidders to recommend an appropriate data migration strategy.

The PWS requires migration of all existing agency Core HCM system of record data, including historical data. The specific scope and duration should be proposed by the bidder and confirmed with OPM. (Section 5.1, Data Migration Strategy)

52 Data

For data migration, does "all existing agency Core HCM data" mean all historical data since system inception, or only active data with a defined number of historical years? What precise historical scope is required per data type?

The PWS requires migration of all existing agency Core HCM system of record data, including historical data. The specific scope and duration should be proposed by the bidder and confirmed with OPM. (Section 5.1, Data Migration Strategy)

53 Data

Which data types must be migrated and with what retention windows (active employees; separated employees; position history; personnel action history/SF-50; performance history; training history; workflow/case history;

system configuration; document attachments)? Is a viewable archive acceptable or must all history be recreated as records in the solution?

All listed Core HCM data types must be migrated.

54 Data What are expected data volumes by agency size (median GB, active employees, total employee records), and are there known outliers?

Data volumes vary by agency size; specifics are determined during implementation.

Known outliers should be identified during data migration planning. (Appendix B)

55 Data What is the total volume of data for the initial data migration?

The total volume of data is not specified and will vary by agency/product. The data migration for each agency will be specified as part of CLIN 2: Agency Transition.

56 Data Would it be correct to interpret the chart as stating: “There are a total of 24 government agencies whose data would need to be migrated to the Federal

Core HCM Platform”?

No, the chart is a representative list of Core HCM solutions currently in use by CFO Act Agencies.

57 Data For custom/mainframe systems, how will extraction occur (direct DB access, agency-provided exports, contractor-built extractors), and is the contractor responsible for reverse-engineering undocumented/proprietary formats?

Extraction methods are determined per agency via any of the methods listed.

58 Data What are data migration validation/acceptance standards (target accuracy rate, measurement method—counts, field-level, rule validation), who validates, and what is the agency validation window?

Target accuracy rate is ≥99.5%. Validation includes counts, field-level, and rule validation. OPM and agency validate; validation window is determined by OPM.

59 Data

To significantly expedite the data migration process, to what extent can the system owners within each agency be required to provide APIs to expose necessary information to the Federal Core HCM Platform? This is consistent with OPEN Government Data Act requirements.

The PWS anticipates agency cooperation for data migration, including providing necessary access and documentation. Agencies may be required to provide APIs, access or data exports as needed.

60 Data What technologies support the OPM Data Lake? OPM's data lake is based on standard Azure data lake technology.

61 Data

The PWS states that all system-of-record data must be replicated daily to OPM’s enterprise data lake. Will OPM require near real-time synchronization or event-driven updates to maintain consistency between the Core HCM platform and the data lake, especially for time-sensitive workforce data?

The PWS requires daily replication of system-of-record data to OPM’s enterprise data lake. However, OPM may require more frequent and event-driven synchronization for time-sensitive data elements.

62 Data

The RFP (PWS §3.2.4) requires data segmentation by agency while maintaining centralized oversight. How will OPM ensure a consistent, authoritative

“system of record” view of each employee across agency tenants while preserving agency-specific data ownership and privacy controls?

OPM expects that the Offeror to propose the architecture within their respective submission to the government.

63 Data

The RFP mentions OPM’s data lake operated by OCIO. Can OPM clarify whether this lake will act as a passive data repository, or as an active analytics and synchronization layer supporting cross-agency insights and AI/ML use cases?

We envision the OPM data lake to be the foundation for active analytics and synchronization layer.

64 Data

Given the fact that OPM has the employee data segregated across structure databases, data lake sources, legacy, etc. and also unstructured data such as eOPF digitized PDF files, how is OPM going to achieve the golden employee record that provides the 360 view across databases, source legacy data, data lakes and unstructured data in files?

OPM will achieve the golden employee record—a unified, authoritative 360-degree view—by leveraging the Core HCM platform as the central system of record, integrating structured data from legacy and agency databases, indexing unstructured documents from eOPF, and replicating all relevant data to the OPM enterprise data lake.

65 Data

The solicitation references multi-tenant architecture with agency-level data isolation. Will OPM support a federated data access model that allows secure cross-agency analytics and benchmarking while maintaining compliance with

FISMA and FedRAMP boundaries?

OPM expects that the Offeror to propose the architecture within their respective submission to the government.

66 Data

The RFP calls for a standardized HR data model applicable across all agencies. What governance process will OPM use to manage data mastering (deduplication, conflict resolution, version control) as agencies onboard with differing data quality and structures?

OPM expects that the Offeror will address data migration within their respective submission to the government.

67 Data

To comply with NIST SP 800-53 and FISMA controls, how will OPM track data lineage, transformation, and provenance across the Core HCM, the data lake, and external systems? Will the selected vendor be expected to provide native data cataloging or lineage visualization capabilities?

To comply with NIST SP 800-53 and FISMA, the solution must support data lineage tracking, transformation logging, and provenance metadata.

68 Data

The modernization roadmap references future integration of AI/ML and workforce analytics. Will OPM require an extensible data model capable of incorporating emerging datasets—such as skills inventories, digital credentials, or DEIA metrics—without major schema redesign?

The Government expects that the proposed architecture and integration strategy will explicitly address long-term adaptability, modularity, and extensibility.

69 Data Will agencies have the capability to programmatically access harmonized workforce data through standardized APIs or data services, rather than building direct point-to-point extracts from the Core HCM platform?

Agencies will have access to harmonized workforce data via standardized APIs and data services.

70 Data Given the size and sensitivity of the federal workforce dataset, what is OPM’s plan for archiving, purging, or tiering historical data while maintaining analytics continuity?

OPM will implement a data lifecycle management strategy that includes archiving and tiering of historical data in the data lake.

71 Data

Section C.6.9.5 (7), p.52: "If the software is provided as a cloud-based (SaaS) solution, the Contractor shall instead: Establish a Data Escrow Agreement ensuring Government access to all application data, configurations, and schema in a usable, non-proprietary format." Does the government have a "Data Escrow Agreement" form that can be provided, or a preferred format that should be used?

Contractor should provide a Data Escrow Agreement in alignment with requirements outlined. OPM will not provide a format.

72 Data PWS 6.9.5, p. 51: Please remove section 6.9.5. Unlike software escrow, which focuses on source code, SaaS escrow covers the operating environment (which includes the underlying infrastructure).

The PWS requires a Data Escrow Agreement for SaaS solutions, ensuring government access to all application data, configurations, and schema in a usable, non-proprietary format. (Section 6.9.5)

73 Data Data Mapping: Will OPM provide legacy data dictionaries to support the

≥99.5% migration accuracy requirement?

The government will provide legacy data dictionaries during implementation. (Section

5.1 Data Migration Strategy)

74 Data

PWS, p. 37: 5.2.3 indicates the core HCM platform provider is responsible for ETL, however, section 10 indicates the agency will do a one-time data migration cutover.

Can the Government clarify who is responsible for data extraction?

The Core HCM platform provider (contractor) is responsible for planning and executing the complete, accurate, and secure migration of all data from the legacy HCM system, including extraction, transformation, loading (ETL), and validation. (Section 5.2 Agency

Data Migration)

75 Data

PWS, Section 5.2.3.7: Pg 36 Part 7 indicates “Refresh non-production environments at least every 30-90 days or before major releases to prevent risks such as inaccurate testing, security vulnerabilities, compliance violations, and integration failures. Does this refer to:

- a refresh of data within the non-production environment, or

- a refresh of the assets (containers, servers, etc.) within the environment?

Pg 37 (1st sentence in bold) indicates “Agencies will do a one-time data migration cutover and begin using the new Core HCM platform for new actions as soon as agency specific c testing has been completed and OPM signs off that the system is ready for agency use”

It is customary to do at least three data migration loads during an Implementation. Does this indicate that OPM’s intention is to only migrate one time during the deployment?

The refresh refers to data within the non-production environment. The data migration strategy should include multiple test/dry runs, but agencies will do a one-time data migration cutover for production use after testing and OPM approval. (Section 5.2

Agency Data Migration)

76 Data PWS 5.1.3.2: If the solution supports object oriented data, is the offeror exempt from supplying data tables and a data dictionary?

No exemption is specified. The contractor must deliver data tables and a data dictionary for all data transaction types. (Section 5.1 Data Migration Strategy)

77 Data PWS 5.2.3: Will the Government provide the SFTP file for data migration or will access to the data repository be provided?

5.1.3.1.C conflicts with 5.2.3 for data extraction

The data migration strategy can include a secure file-based ingestion (e.g., SFTP, encrypted file transfer) method to migrate static or legacy data from agencies’ legacy

Core HCM systems, but other data access methods may be available depending on the environment (Section 5.1 Data Migration Strategy)

78 Data PWS 6.6.3: Will the Government accept an outline of all database schemas for the OEM as-is upon delivery, to be updated if/whenever the schema is modified?

Yes. The contractor’s solution must be capable of exporting all database schemas for both production and non-production environments to OPM on a monthly basis or as required. (Section 6.6 Additional Compliance Requirements)

79 Data

PWS p. 32: Can the Government provide more detail on the level of obfuscation or category of data to be obfuscated for shadow testing? We recommend that social security numbers, salaries, and other sensitive data fields be obfuscated, while first and last name and employment information such as job title and supervisor remain visible to ensure accuracy of testing.

The PWS recommends obfuscation of sensitive data fields such as social security numbers, salaries, and other sensitive data for shadow mode user acceptance testing.

First and last name, job title, and supervisor information may remain visible to ensure accuracy of testing. (Section 5.2 Agency Transition)

80 Data For the 60-day "shadow mode" UAT, is the required approach dual entry, data copy/replay, or parallel operation with sync? Which approach must offerors price and implement?

The 60-day “shadow mode” UAT is allows the agencies to test the new system using agency obfuscated data.

81 Data Who develops and runs obfuscation for UAT data (tools and scripts to produce obfuscated data, or generation of synthetic data)?

The contractor is responsible for developing and running obfuscation tools/scripts for

UAT data. (Section 5.2 Agency Transition)

82 Data

5.2.3 item 2: Develop and provide Extract, Transform, Load (ETL) and data pipelines according to approved schemas and non-proprietary data and software standards

The requirement states to "develop and provide extract" does OPM expect the OEM to gain access to production environments to extract data? Or does OPM define "develop and provide extract" as the design of how the data would be extract and OPM will be responsible for extracting the data?

The Core HCM platform provider is responsible for planning and executing the complete, accurate, and secure migration of all data from the legacy HCM system, including extraction, transformation, loading (ETL), and validation. (Section 5.2 Agency Data Migration)

83 Data

The Draft and final Comprehensive Data Migration Strategy IAW Paragraph

5.1.3 of the PWS is due within five (5) days of IDIQ award, and is final due within 10 days of approved draft. Can OPM list the systems that are in scope for this requirement (i.e., the systems where data must be migrated from)?

Appendix B provides a representative (non-exhaustive) list of Core HCM solutions currently in use by CFO Act agencies. The government will determine the full list of systems in scope during implementation. (Appendix B)

84 Data If migration errors are found post go-live, what remediation is required (re-migration at no cost, fixes at no cost, agency manual correction), and for what responsibility window (e.g., 30/60/90 days)?

If migration errors are found after go-live, the contractor is required to:

Remediate errors at no additional cost to the Government. Final acceptance depends on OPM verification and agency confirmation that the migration is complete and validated in accordance with the approved migration plan.

85 Data What will be the process for Change control when it comes to the Employee /

HR data model?

The HR QSMO will be responsible for change control of the Employee/HR data model.

(Section 5.1 Change Management)

86 Data

If a Core HCM provider's native tools (like Workday Orchestra) are used, how will OPM ensure robust connectivity to the many non-Workday, on-premise, and legacy systems? How will OPM mitigate the risk of these tools being highly optimized for their own ecosystem but less effective for the complex, heterogeneous federal environment?

OPM will work with each agency's Core HCM system of record data owner to ensure robust connectivity to support data transfer for migrations.

87 Data

Beyond persistent integrations, the initial data migration from legacy systems represents a significant, high-risk effort. How will the chosen platform facilitate this massive, one-time data transformation, validation, and loading?

Will this require a separate set of tools and scripts, or can the same enterprise platform be used for both migration and long-term integration?

OPM expects that the Offeror will address data migration within their respective submission to the government.

88 Evaluation

Section L.6 2., Volume III vs Section M.2, Tech Factor 3, p. 147 vs 155: Please clarify for duration of the System Testing Activity. The Instructions on page

147 state at least 10 business days while the Evaluation Criteria on page 155 states no few than 5 days. The minimum length of these periods differs. What is the requested minimum duration?

This has been corrected to state at least ten (10) consecutive business days of access.

89 Evaluation

Section M, P. 147 & 155: Section M (P. 155) states that “Offerors shall provide Government testers with no fewer than five days of access to their Core HCM platform” for system testing, but Section L instructions specify a different duration of “at least ten (10) consecutive business days of secure, fully functional access to their proposed Core HCM platform for use by Government evaluators.” Please clarify the Government’s planned timeframe in which its evaluators will be assessing Technical Factor 3: System Testing.

This has been corrected to state at least ten (10) consecutive business days of access.

90 Evaluation Is there an expected timeframe for the government to evaluate and notify bidders after submission of documents in Step 1?

The timeframe for completing Step 1 evaluations and issuing Advisory Notifications will depend on the number of proposals received. Fewer proposals will require less time to evaluate, while a larger volume may extend the evaluation period. The Government will complete Step 1 evaluations as efficiently as possible and notify Offerors promptly once evaluations are complete. Offerors are encouraged to monitor SAM.gov for updates.

91 Evaluation

Instructions on page 145 of the solicitation say “All Offerors that submitted a compliant proposal for Step 1 will be informed of the date and time of their demonstration.” Can the government explain whether the live demonstration will be part of Step 1 or be conducted after receiving the advisory notification following Step 1?

In this context, "submitted a compliant proposal for Step 1" refers to the Proposal Submission Instruction at L.6.1 that states, "Considering this is a two-step evaluation process, only the following volumes shall be submitted with the Offeror’s initial proposal: [Technical Factor 1 - Subfactor A: Past Experience Case Studies; and

Subfactor B: OOTB Functionalities]". All Offerors that submitted a compliant proposal for Technical Factor 1, Subfactors A and B will be informed of the date and time for their

Virtual Live Demonstration #1, Subfactor C.

92 Evaluation

Can you please clarify where Pricing is to be included? I understand that it is part of Step 2, but is this expected to be submitted electronically with Technical Factor 2 or delivered verbally as part of Technical Factor 4?

Industry would recommend that Pricing be submitted separately after the Virtual Live Demonstration #2 is completed and the Government has been able to provide an additional/updated notice of “Confidence” to help the

Government make the best decision on capabilities and the vendors similarly determine their own ‘confidence’ based on questions asked within the demonstrations or assumptions that are vetted out during the process.

Upon reviewing this concept, the government will proceed as planned and price will be due along with Technical Factor 2 Written Approach. Pricing shall be provided at

Attachment 0002 in conjunction with Technical Factor 2.

93 Evaluation Reference L.6.1, pg. 140. Will the Government provide Offerors an opportunity to test Microsoft Teams session prior to scheduled demo to ensure successful connectivity and/or address any technical issues?

The government does not plan to have a pre-session to test Microsoft teams. If there are technical issues that cannot be resolved for the scheduled timeslot, the government will reschedule.

94 Evaluation P. 139: Please provide a proposed schedule for the virtual live demonstrations following the Step 1 written submission of Subfactors A and B, as well as scheduling Demo #2 during Step 2.

Virtual Live Demonstration #1 will be scheduled shortly following receipt of Step 1 written submissions. Virtual Live Demonstration #2 will be scheduled shortly following the issuance of advisory notifications.

95 Evaluation Reference L.6.2, Virtual Live Demonstration #1, pg. 145. Please confirm that the demonstration will be entirely live and Offerors may not use PowerPoint slides to supplement their demonstration of the three scenarios.

Confirmed. The demonstrations will be entirely live. Offerors may not use PowerPoint slides to demonstrate their capabilities related to the three scenarios.

96 Evaluation Presentation Materials: The RFQ prohibits handouts or slides but also requires a slide deck. Can the slide deck be displayed during the oral presentation?

The Virtual Live Demonstration #1 will be entirely live. Offerors may not use PowerPoint slides to demonstrate their capabilities related to the three scenarios.

97 Evaluation

L.6, p.145, Volume I _ Technical Factor 1, Subfactor C --Virtual Live Demonstration #1 : Will the Government confirm that the only information to be submitted for Technical Factor 1, subfactor C is the list of Demo 1 Participants (as noted in the Content Requirements table on page 142/157)?

Confirmed.

98 Evaluation Scenario-Based Questions: Will quoters receive the two scenario-based questions in advance of the presentation day to allow preparation, or only during the session?

Scenarios for Virtual Live Demonstration #1 are included in this solicitation.