36C10B19R0009-0001001.docx
DOCX document Posted
- Attached to
- TAC 19-53538 Enterprise Telecommunications Expense Management software platform Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 36C10B19R0009
About this file
36C10B19R0009 0001 Attachment eTEMS RFP Questions and Answers.docx
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 29
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Q#
| Section |
| Page |
| Statement |
| Question |
| Answer |
1.
Our Team would like to request a 2-week extension of the response date for the Enterprise TEMS solicitation to June 17, 2019.
This will allow us adequate time to properly incorporate the results of the Questions and Answers into our response volumes.
The VA agrees to a one-week extension of the response date to June 10, 2019.
2.
| To provide the best possible response for this 15-year contract supporting an important infrastructure component, we respectfully request the government consider a 3-week extension on the submission due date. |
| The VA agrees to a one-week extension of the response date to June 10, 2019. |
| 3. |
| 1; Background |
| 68 |
| 1—Complete Wire-line Inventory |
| a. Can vendors assume that VA will provide the complete inventory of all wireline assets in use? |
b. If not, is there a requirement for vendors to conduct an on-site survey of all or some VA locations to gather the inventory information?
c. If yes, where should vendor price this activity?
a. All data processed thru the eTEMS will be “green” data in the form of new orders that will eventually build a validated inventory.
b. Not Applicable (N/A), there is no requirement for vendor surveys.
c. As in b. above, N/A.
| 4. |
| 1; Background |
| 69 |
| 4—Contract Mgt |
| Can VA provide total number of active contracts and number of carriers currently having active wireline service contracts? |
| As stated in 3. above, all orders will be processed thru the system as transition orders or new orders. Related contracts or Task Orders will be entered into the solution preparatory to the orders being placed. |
| 5. |
| 1; Background |
| 69 |
| 7. Process integration w/VA fiscal/accounting systems: |
| a. Is this integration with the future CGI management system, or is it with the current accounting systems? |
If with the current accounting systems, could VA identify which accounting software and, if it is COTS based, which COTS software it is using?
a. The requirement is for the solution to ebond with the current financial management system until the new system is brought into production, at which time the system will ebond to the new system as described in Optional Tasks 5.4.
(Please refer to Section 5.4.1.1 for the link to the VA Financial Services Center.)
| 6. |
| 5.3.7 |
| 89 |
| Support & Maintenance |
| The PWS mentions data archiving in several places, so could VA provide the criteria for archiving the data, addressing items such as: |
1. What data retention period is required?
2. How long must the archived data remain available?
How often will VA access the archived data?
Retention and archiving of the data shall be in Accordance with VA Records Control Schedule (RCS) 10 . https://www.va.gov/vhapublications/rcs10/rcs10-1.pdf
| 7. |
| 5.3.7.1 |
| 90 |
| Help Desk |
| a. Please define the term vendor BSS? |
b. How will vendors receive ticketing requests from ServiceNow?
c. Will the vendor receive the request via email?
d. Is the ticketing system part of the eTEM integration with ServiceNow?
If so, how would the vendor receive ticketing requests while the integration is in progress?
a. BSS - Business Support System
b. Business to Business electronic Interexchange as described in Section 5.2.2.1 of the PWS.
c. No, per PWS section 5.2.2.2.
d. Described in Section 5.3.7.1.
| 8. |
| 5.4.1. |
| 91 |
| FSC financial mgt interface |
| a. Is VA asking eTEM to integrate with VA’s online e-invoicing from Tungsten? |
b. If not, what specific financial interface such as AP or any other function is required?
Which financial accounting COTS software is VA currently using that needs to integrate with eTEM?
a. Defined in Section 5.4.1.2.
b. N/A, requirements are described in Section 5.4.1.1.
Please refer to Section 5.4.1.1 for the link to the VA Financial Services Center.
| 9. |
| 5.4.1.2 |
| 92 |
| FMBT interface (optional task) |
| Based on the new CGI Momentum being 100% specific to federal and VA accounting vs. it being COTS, how does VA envision eTEM integrating with this closed financial system? |
| Described in Section 5.4.1.2. and Section C.10 VAAR 852.232-72 ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION OF PAYMENT (2) Any system that conforms to the X12 electronic data interchange (EDI) formats established by the Accredited Standards Center (ASC) and chartered by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). |
| 10. |
| 5.4.1.4 |
| 92 |
| Mobile wireless lifecycle mgt |
| a. Please identify which MDM COTS VA is using |
b. For EMM, please identify which COTS software EMM is using?
c. Please clarify if MDM integration should be through ServiceNow or stand alone, meaning should eTEM integrate with MDM platform directly?
d. Is it acceptable to launch the MDM management portal from eTEM for this integration?
e. If not, to what level should the eTEM conduct MDM functional integration?
f. Is there a requirement for the eTEM to integrate with AEMS/MERS and Maximo?
g. If yes, will VA accept a comma delimited report as an integration option, or is VA asking for creation of APIs to these systems?
h. If API is required, does VA expect them to be ready as part of the 120 days proof of concept, at the end of 180 days implementation, or later?
a. Blackberry Works UEM Client for security.
b. Vendor portals for management, AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon Wireless.
c. Section 5.4.1.4 explains how VA anticipates the integration with MDM and Service Now.
d. Yes, per Section 5.4.1.4.
e. N/A
f. Yes, per Section 5.4.1.4
g. VA will evaluate any approach for integration that meets the requirements of Section 5.4.1.4.
h. VA does not anticipate this Optional Task to be available in the base period. VA anticipates this Optional Task to occur in an Option Year.
| 11. |
| Att 3 |
| Pricing |
| a. Does VA intend vendors to include wireless pricing in the pricing template? |
b. If yes, since the cost model for wireless devices is based on active devices per month vs. the percentage (%) of usage, where and how should vendors price the wireless devices?
c. Where should we price all other optional requirements?
d. Can VA identify the total number of mobile devices that the eTem needs to manage?
(Please refer to the last paragraph of Section 5.4.1.)
a. No, wireless prices are already under a separate contract.
b. N/A
c. Pricing workbook, FFP Priced Line Items tab, row 21 thru 26, column H
d. Upon execution of the Optional Task, VA estimates in excess of 90,000 mobile devices.
| 12. |
| General |
a. Since VA has issued several eTEM RFIs, has it identified any TEM COTS solutions that meet all solicitation requirements?
If yes, could VA name which ones meet all requirements?
No, VA has not identified any specific solutions.
| 13 |
| General |
| Given how complex this PWS is and all the potential questions that could impact vendor proposals, we respectfully ask that VA allow vendors 3 weeks to submit proposals from the date when VA issues answers. |
| The VA agrees to a one-week extension of the response date to June 10, 2019. |
We have seen 4 requests from VA regarding TEM and Modernization: Mobility Management, TEM System, Analysis & Physical Audit and EIS Transition Support. We are wondering if you value a unified approach to these 4 efforts?
This is not a requirement of this effort.
15.
Is VA going to restrict the EIS transition and modernization efforts to only the 10 EIS winners, or will VA look for the best cost/service option?
This is not a requirement of this effort.
16.
Based on the subscription pricing and the current telecom spend data provided, is it safe to assume the VA anticipates migrating all costs over a 4-5 year period. Can you provide details on the implementation plan/TEMS roll out?
VA anticipates implementation of the eTEMS to occur in a phased approach. Successful vendor will meet all requirements in Section 5.3 at award and during the periods defined in the PWS.
As Optional Tasks are exercised, eTEMS will be used to manage all telecommunications services for the enterprise.
17.
Based on the subscription pricing and the current telecom spend data provided, it appears the VA is planning for an increase in spend, yet the goal is to decrease spend. Please clarify.
The overarching goals are to gain visibility into telecommunications spend, optimize, and control costs while providing an enterprise management solution.
18.
The subscription pricing seems counter intuitive to the stated goal of cost reduction. The more savings identified and telecom costs are reduced, the less VA is willing to pay for services. Can you reconcile this or shed light on your reasoning?
The overarching goals are to gain visibility into telecommunications spend, optimize, and control costs while providing an enterprise management solution.
19.
The cap for annual invoices processed starts year 1 with significantly less spend than VA processes ($60M vs $225M in Wireline). Following subsequent years, there is a cap double the size of VA spend. Do you expect a very slow adoption from sub agencies and locations? Why would the cap be double the VA spend?
The caps are not to exceed amounts and may be adjusted toward actual spend vs. projected spend. VA anticipates orders flowing thru the system to be smaller in year 1 ramping up in out years as services are transitioned.
20.
FBO shows that this is not a set aside. File 36C10B19R0009_001 also shows no set aside. However, file 36C10B19R0009-002 states it’s 100% small business set aside. Can you please clarify?
This solicitation is a 100% small business set aside. Please refer to Block 10 on cover page of the solicitation 36C10B19R0009.
21.
| 186-187 |
| Basis for Award |
| The document states: "To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than "Acceptable" must be achieved for the Technical Factor." What is the definition of "Acceptable" for evaluation purposes? |
An Acceptable proposal is one that at least meets all of the Government’s requirements, contains at least minimal detail, demonstrates at least a minimal understanding of the problems, and is at least minimally feasible (moderate to high risk).
22.
| 186-187 |
| Basis for Award |
| Are there ratings higher than Acceptable for the technical factor? If so how are they defined? |
a. Yes. There are ratings of Outstanding and Good which are higher than Acceptable. The ratings are defined in the Government’s internal Evaluation Plan for this acquisition.
23.
| 190 |
| Proposal Files |
| The document states: "If the Offeror submits annexes, documentation, attachments or the like, not specifically required by this solicitation, such will count against the Offeror’s page limitations unless otherwise indicated in the specific volume instructions below." Please confirm that any included cover page / title page, cover letter, and table of contents will not count towards page limits. |
| Refer to Section E.14 |
Any included cover page / title page, cover letter, and table of contents will not count towards page limits. does count towards page limits.
24.
| 86 |
| 5.2.1.6 Business Analytics/Business Intelligence and Reporting - Reports and Dashboards, i.40, |
| Item i.40 identifies "Trouble tickets" among the minimal datasets for reporting functions. Please clarify what trouble tickets are referenced here (for example - carrier service tickets, eTEMS Help Desk Tickets, or ServiceNow tickets). |
| eTEMS Help Desk trouble tickets, Carrier trouble tickets, Service Now tickets (captured for reporting purposes). |
25.
| 104-108 |
| •5.3.7 Support and Maintenance, Page 90 |
•6.7.1 Operational Service Level Requirements (SLA) (SLR)
| Please confirm that the downtime for scheduled upgrades and maintenance does not count against the 99% availability SLA of the eTEMS solution. |
| Refer to Section 6.7.1 |
26.
| For Volume II - Past Performance Factor, offerors are required to provide information on "Contracting Activity" and "Contract administration activity" for each past performance citation. Please clarify the distinction between "Contracting Activity" and "Contract administration activity" to ensure offerors provide the appropriate information in each past performance citation. |
| When an administrative Contracting Officer is involved during contract performance, provide the appropriate information. |
27.
| 77 |
| 5.2.1.1 Access and Auditing, g.11 |
| Item g.11 identifies Directory Services Access among the events the eTEMS shall log. What does the term "Directory Service Access" mean? |
| Directory Services Access means the logon audit solution acts to facilitate audit of specific logon events, current and past logon activity and lists all logon related changes. |
28.
| 84 |
| 5.2.1.2 Assets and Inventory, C, Page 77 |
5.2.1.6 5.2.1.6 Business Analytics/Business Intelligence and Reporting - Reports and Dashboards, i.31
| Requirement C under 5.2.1.2 Assets and Inventory Management refers to a "business occupational code (BOC)," but a BOC is also referenced as "Budget Object Code" in requirement i.31 under 5.2.1.6. Please confirm that these terms are two separate entities. |
| Yes, these two different terms but they do have the same acronyms. |
Budget Object Code=BOC business occupational code =BOC
28.
| 77 |
| 5.2.1.2 Assets and Inventory, C, Page 77 |
5.2.1.6 5.2.1.6 Business Analytics/Business Intelligence and Reporting - Reports and Dashboards, i.31
| Requirement C under 5.2.1.2 Assets and Inventory Management refers to a "business occupational code (BOC)," but a BOC is also referenced as "Budget Object Code" in requirement i.31 under 5.2.1.6. Please confirm that these terms are two separate entities. |
| Yes, these two different terms but they do have the same acronyms. |
Budget Object Code=BOC business occupational code =BOC
29.
| 78 |
| PWS 5.2.1.4 |
| PWS 5.2.1.4 describes Invoice Processing (Expense Management) to include dispute creation and tracking within the eTEMS tool. While the generation of information to support these actions is automated within the eTEMS, there are still actions that may require further research outside of eTEMS to support these functions within eTEMS. Is it assumed the resources to conduct this type of research will be performed within the eTEMS task areas or will this be performed outside of the eTEMS contract? |
| Without knowing what particular "further research" you are referring to, VA has an invoice processing and payment system that electronically receives invoices and processes them to payment. VA expects the eTEMS to eBond with this system and import the invoice data to be applied against industry standard telecommunications expenses management business rules (scrubbing) and expose anomalies , thereby producing an Exceptions & Variance Report for VA to use to conduct disputes and track them within the eTEMS. Section 5.2.1.4, first paragraph, provides the overarching concept of Invoices Processing. VA expects the data to be cross relational and available within the software database for Business Analytics and Reporting requirements. More information about the VA Financial Services Center can be found in Section 5.4.1.1. |
30.
| PWS 5.2.1.6 Business Analytics/Business Intelligence and Reporting |
| Table D, 11 – 14 cite scorecards and reports, but do not contain much detail. What will these be based on? The scorecard and other reports likely need more information to understand this requirement and ensure any proposed system can meet it. What data would be reported and who is in the intended audience? |
| Defining Table D, 11-14: 11. Vendor Scorecard: A vendor management scorecard is used to measure the performance and effectiveness of vendors. 12. Invoice Reports: Are reports with billing amounts that are shown conditionally. 13. Allocation Reports: Is cost allocation used for financial reporting purpose to spread costs among departments. 14. Cost Center: Is used for financial reporting. A cost center is a department within VA that costs the organization money to operate. Intended Audience: The goal of business analytics (BA) / business intelligence (BI) is to fulfill a need for VA to make well-informed business decisions. Without the right information properly displayed in front of decision-makers, moving forward with the best possible strategies and tactics is difficult. The predictive modeling provided by BA/BI allows VA to make data-driven decisions by utilizing historical and present information to forecast future results. |
31.
| 90 |
| PWS 5.3.7.1 Help Desk |
| PWS 5.3.7.1 Help Desk describes Major and Minor issues. While Major issues seem clearly defined, Minor issues seem to be vaguely defined as “everything not Major”. Therefore, a wide variety of events could meet the criteria for a Minor issue, but because of the SLAs, it would not seem to be VA’s intent in defining it this way. Does the VA have specific examples in mind that would qualify as a Minor issue or could they more clearly define Minor issues? |
| A Minor Issue is an issue that does not compromise the operation or use of the system by VA. Examples would include untimely performance of the contractor to address help desk requests or work tickets, adding users, configuration changes, status of tickets unavailable, or updating the Customer Support Organization List within 5 days of changes. |
32.
| 103 |
| PWS 6.6 Service Level Requirements |
| PWS 6.6 Service Level Requirements only penalizes the Contractor financially as opposed to focusing on correcting the issue. This may shift the focus of the Prime Contractor to financial mitigation as opposed to performance mitigation. We suggest modifying the SLA to focus on performance mitigation and correcting any problems. Would the Government consider changing the financial penalty into an After-Action Report requirement where the Prime must provide it’s “get well” plan to reduce poor performance? |
| SECTION 6.6, second paragraph begins, "VA will begin assessing lower service level prices for all CPIs as described below, commencing with the third month of contract performance." VA expects coordination between vendor and COR to collaborate on a "get well plan" for poor performance well before SLA penalties are invoked. |
33.
| 103 |
| PWS 6.6 Service Level Requirements |
| PWS 6.6 Service Level Requirements provide no incentive for exceeding metrics. We suggest including terms which incentivize the Prime to exceed metrics such as claw-back provisions whereby if the Contractor is penalized, it could earn the penalty back by meeting/exceeding the SLA the following two consecutive months? |
| SECTION 6.6, second paragraph begins, "VA will begin assessing lower service level prices for all CPIs as described below, commencing with the third month of contract performance." VA expects coordination between vendor and COR to collaborate on a "get well plan" for poor performance well before SLA penalties are invoked. SLA's establish minimum requirements and are expected within the thresholds described. There are no thresholds for determining acceptable performance vs. exceptional performance. |
34.
| PWS Section 6.7.1 |
| PWS Section 6.7.1 includes Critical and Moderate Performance Indicators but does not differentiate what these two categories mean. Are the penalties different for Critical versus Moderate? |
| For Critical vs. Moderate, the penalties are the same. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .