UDD_RFI_Questions_and_Responses_7-24-2026.docx

Unified Discovery & Disclosure Platform RFI Questions and Responses

1. Is the subject effort a new requirement or a follow-on to an existing contract? If the latter, can I please find out the incumbent contractor's name and contract number?

Response: This is a new requirement.

2. What are the expected data volumes and source systems for initial ingestion and steady-state operations?

Response: 348TB with 340TB being for eDiscovery and 8TB being for FOIA. Source systems will be CasePoint eDiscovery and FOIAXpress. Steady state for eDiscovery is 559 (625) cases with an 8% growth per year. Steady state for FOIA is 124,000 cases a year with a 15% growth per year.

3. Which systems and repositories are in scope for integration during the initial deployment, particularly Microsoft 365, legacy FOIA systems, and eDiscovery data sources?

Response: The legacy FOIA and eDiscovery systems will be the data sources for initial discovery and data transfer. Additional data sources for FOIA will be FOIA.gov, Pay.gov, and Public Access Link.

The Government requires that the proposed solution support integration with key enterprise platforms, stakeholder applications, and other agency information systems as necessary to support business operations. This includes, but is not limited to, integration with commonly utilized productivity suites, current and legacy record management systems, public access portals, electronic payment solutions, artificial intelligence tools, and other mission-critical platforms. The solution must accommodate secure connectivity to external and internal systems via agency-approved APIs or other authorized data exchange mechanisms, employing industry-standard communication protocols for both real-time and scheduled data transfers. Additional systems and repositories relevant to the scope of operations may be identified and incorporated during the implementation phase.

4. "4.2 The Platform is a Contractor-provided cloud solution."

We understand that eFOIA and eDiscovery are legacy enterprise system that are currently in production. We are trying to understand the boundaries of the vendor-proposed solution. A system of this scale in a 3-tier architecture, is driven by front-end ( the website(s), ), middleware, & backend ( data repository ). Does the government intend to replace all of the above layers with this solution?

Response: Yes, we plan to replace it all. Both legacy platforms are SaaS solutions.

5. The RFI PWS (1.0 Background, pg.4) states that "VA seeks a single, integrated, FedRAMP-authorized cloud platform that performs both eDiscovery and eFOIA work end to end on the same corpus, with a single chain of custody, redaction engine, audit log, and user interface, while preserving role-based separation across matter types and components."

Is VA seeking (A) a tracking system for FOIA matters and eDiscovery (FOIA litigation matters), or (B) a general-purpose eDiscovery tool for all agency litigation?

Response: Option A

6. The RFI PWS (1.0 Background, pg. 4) states that "These systems do not share a common evidentiary corpus, a chain of custody, a redaction engine, a legal hold registry, an audit log, or a user interface. The eFOIA system supports FOIA and Privacy Act request intake, processing, redaction, response, public posting, appeals processing and tracking and reporting, while the eDiscovery system supports litigation and administrative discovery across the matter lifecycle."

Regarding chain of custody, does VA mean custody beginning when a record enters the FOIA/eDiscovery platform, or custody across the record's entire lifecycle — from original creation/ingestion through destruction?

Response: The chain of custody begins when the record enters the new FOIA/eDiscovery system. That chain of custody shall be maintained until it is no longer in the SaaS solution.

7. The RFI PWS (5.20 Implementation and Data Migration - pg. 15) states that "The Government seeks a defensible approach to implementing and configuring the unified platform and migrating data from VA’s existing CasePoint eFOIA and eDiscovery systems, including cutover of active matters and FOIA requests, preservation of chain of custody and legal holds during migration, validation of migrated records, and minimal disruption to ongoing operations."

The PWS refers to CasePoint for both eFOIA and eDiscovery. Can VA confirm which application currently supports eFOIA — CasePoint or FOIAXpress? These are two distinct applications, and confirming the incumbent system(s) would help respondents scope the data-migration approach accurately.

Response: Currently the VA uses AINS as the SaaS FOIAxpress for the FOIA process and CasePoint eDiscovery SaaS solution for eDiscovery.

8. The RFI PWS (3.2 Scale (Indicative, Not Binding), pg. 9) states that "The following figures are provided for planning purposes only and are not binding: approximately 400 concurrent and 1,900 named users, and approximately 120,000 FOIA and Privacy Act requests per year, with litigation eDiscovery operating at large-Federal-agency scale. Detailed volumetrics will be provided in the solicitation."

Please confirm whether these figures describe a single user population — i.e., approximately 1,900 total provisioned user accounts, with peak simultaneous usage of approximately 400 — or two distinct user groups requiring separate licensing.

Response: We have ~1400 provisioned users. FOIA has more concurrent users at any given time up to approximately 80% of the concurrent licenses. Detailed updated information will be provided with the solicitation

9. The RFI PWS (3.2 Scale (Indicative, Not Binding), pg. 9) states that "The following figures are provided for planning purposes only and are not binding: approximately 400 concurrent and 1,900 named users, and approximately 120,000 FOIA and Privacy Act requests per year, with litigation eDiscovery operating at large-Federal-agency scale. Detailed volumetrics will be provided in the solicitation."

Does VA have a preferred licensing model (named-user, concurrent-user, or enterprise/unlimited) for pricing purposes, or should vendors propose the model they consider most cost-effective at this scale?

Response: We leave this for the offeror to decide. Subscription-based services are not preferred. The solicitation will most likely be released as a competitive best value solicitation with Price being a factor considered.

10. The RFI PWS (3.2 Scale (Indicative, Not Binding), pg. 9) states that "The following figures are provided for planning purposes only and are not binding: approximately 400 concurrent and 1,900 named users, and approximately 120,000 FOIA and Privacy Act requests per year, with litigation eDiscovery operating at large-Federal-agency scale. Detailed volumetrics will be provided in the solicitation."

Can VA confirm what portion of these users are anticipated to use the eDiscovery module specifically, versus the FOIA case management module?

Response: We are a dynamic organization and need the vendor to provide a solution with flexibility to handle the workload capacity and dynamic variability with ~1,400 users. We currently utilize ~20% of the concurrent utilization for eDiscovery and ~80% for FOIA.

11. The RFI PWS (3.2 Scale (Indicative, Not Binding), pg. 9) states that "The following figures are provided for planning purposes only and are not binding: approximately 400 concurrent and 1,900 named users, and approximately 120,000 FOIA and Privacy Act requests per year, with litigation eDiscovery operating at large-Federal-agency scale. Detailed volumetrics will be provided in the solicitation."

Can VA provide a breakdown of the 1,900 named users by role — for example, FOIA professionals (full processors) versus record custodians or occasional users (primarily record search, upload, and recommendations)?

Response: Approximately 700 eDiscovery users and 700 FOIA users. We utilize RBAC for Administrative Roles limited to a small number of Super-Users.

12. PWS 5.20. What current systems are in scope for replacement, coexistence, or integration?

Response: AINS is the SaaS for FOIA and CasePoint is the SaaS for eDiscovery. The new solution will be a unified platform.

13. PWS 3.2, 5.20. Does VA expect historical migration, and if so, what data volumes, file types, and source systems should industry assume?

Response: Yes, that data will consist of current cases and matters. There is ~650TB of data to migrate and it will come from the current platform directly.

14. PWS 3.2, 3.4. Can VA share backlog volumes, annual request volumes, or expected growth?

Response: The eDiscovery system does not have a backlog. The FOIAXpress system has a backlog of approximately 8,000 cases (at the moment). Historical workload information is available through VA's Congressionally Mandated Reports (CMR), which identify trends in FOIA request volumes.

15. PWS 5.3. Would VA consider revising Section 5.3 to state a preference for software that is designed, built, coded, and operationally supported solely by U.S.-based personnel, and hosted only within the United States, in light of the platform’s handling of sensitive legal, investigative and FOIA/Privacy Act data?

Response: Per section 4.2 of the PWS: PLACE OF PERFORMANCE

Performance is at Contractor facilities (offsite), and work is performed remotely. The Platform is a Contractor-provided cloud solution. All Platform infrastructure, data, and contractor personnel supporting the platform shall be located within the United States; no offshore access or storage is permitted. Users access the platform nationwide, including United States territories. The primary Government location is VA, OIT, Washington, DC.

16. PWS 3.2, 5.20. What are the actual current data volumes by system: total TB, active TB, archived TB, active matters, open FOIA/PA requests, legal holds, and media volumes?

Response: Total data is 347TB with 167TB being in active storage and 180TB being in nearline storage. Archive storage is out of scope for this solicitation. eDiscovery has 559 active cases and FOIA has 9600 active cases. Legal holds are out of scope for this solicitation. Media volumes/type include but are not limited to mp3, wav, mp4,avi , bmp, eps, gif, jpg, xlsx, xls, pptx, ppt, docx, doc, msg, pcx, pdf, png, fig, csv, txt, wpd, xml, xps, wmf and all of the formats currently supported by police worn body cameras.

17. PWS 6.1.5, 6.2, 5.20. What is VA’s expected ATO path, timeline, and dependency model for site-to-site connectivity, TIC, identity integration, and production cutover?

Response: The vendor is expected to complete the ATO no later than four months from award.

18. PWS 5.4, 5.5, 5.16. For Microsoft 365 / Purview / Graph, what specific data sources and modes are required at go-live: Exchange, Teams chat, Teams files, SharePoint, OneDrive, Purview hold handoff, Purview collection orchestration, or direct Graph collection?

Response: The VA has a Digital Collection Service (DCS) that pulls the data. The tooling would utilize the data provided by DCS.

19. PWS 3.0, 5.21, 5.22. Will the future solicitation include optional CLINs for custom enhancements, surge review services, or additional managed-service support?

Response: The platform shall be delivered as a dynamic unified enterprise FOIA and eDiscovery management platform with native capabilities supporting core operational functions including intake, preservation, collections support, ingestion, processing, indexing, search, analytics, review, redaction, production, release, audit tracking, records management support, and reporting. By dynamic, it is expected that the system will continue to keep up with industry standards dynamically. Therefore, the system is expected to keep up with technology and avoid obsolescence.

20. PWS 5.16, 5.20. Are there any non-CasePoint source systems that must be migrated or integrated at award, including FOIA portals, records systems, BI tools, or media repositories?

Response: Yes. In addition to the current AINS platform, anticipated integrations may include the FOIA Reading Room, Pay.gov, FOIA.gov, the Department of Justice reporting site, the Public Access Link, and VA facilities or systems that maintain digital video evidence. The solution should support transfer and processing of video files in a manner that preserves file integrity and chain of custody when converting or preparing recordings for FOIA release. Additional integration requirements will be identified in the solicitation.

21. RFI Submission Instructions. Does the 15-page limit include the required company information (Name, CAGE/UEI, socioeconomic data, contract vehicles), the AI self-certification form, and any cover or transmittal page, or are those excluded from the page count?

Response: The 15-Pages are all encompassing.

22. PWS 3.2, 5.19. The PWS provides indicative user counts and request volumes but defers detailed volumetrics to the solicitation. For a credible ROM, can VA provide estimated total data under management, annual ingestion volume, and expected annual growth?

Response: Total data under management is ~350TB. Ingestion volume per year is estimated at approximately 100 TB per year. The annual growth for eDiscovery is estimated at 8% and 15% for FOIA. eDiscovery Raw growth is expected to compound with source proliferation in alignment with industry growth. Growth of ESI sizes could impact file sizes for eDiscovery.

23. PWS 5.20. What is the total data volume in the existing CasePoint environments to be migrated, and how many active matters and open FOIA/Privacy Act requests would be in flight at cutover?

Response: Total data volume to in the existing CasePoint environments to be migrated is 350TB. There are 560 open eDiscovery cases and ~9,600 open FOIA cases. Anticipate approximately 9,000 open FOIA and FOIA Privacy cases in flight at cutover. There will be approximately 560 eDiscovery cases during the same timeframe.

24. PWS 5.20, 5.23. Does VA envision a simultaneous cutover of both systems, or a phased migration (for example, FOIA first, then eDiscovery)?

Response: This is referenced in the PWS. However, it is expected that the vendor will provide proper migration planning.

25. RFI Language; RFI Company Info. The RFI references SDVOSB/VOSB set-aside consideration and NAICS 513210. Does VA anticipate this as an SDVOSB/VOSB set-aside, a small business set-aside, or full and open competition?

Response: The acquisition strategy has not been determined.

26. Acquisition structure and award model Does VA anticipate a single-award contract, a multiple-award BPA/IDIQ, or another ordering structure? If multiple awards are contemplated, does VA expect one contractor to operate the enterprise production platform, or could work be divided among multiple platform providers?

Response: As of this time VA is contemplating a single award, however the acquisition strategy for this requirement has not been finalized. In part, the purpose of this RFI is to help reach determination of the acquisition strategy.

27. Contract vehicle and NAICS/SIN

Has VA selected an acquisition vehicle and principal NAICS code? Because the draft PWS includes substantial systems integration, migration, configuration, security, training, and managed services in addition to SaaS licensing, would VA consider NAICS 541512, Computer Systems Design Services, rather than 513210? If VA uses GSA MAS, would it consider SIN 541611LIT, Litigation Support Solutions, which directly covers eDiscovery, FOIA, legal hold, project management, technical support, and total litigation-support solutions?

Response: This is useful information. In part, the purpose of this RFI is to help reach determination of the acquisition strategy. The contract vehicle, NAICS, and SIN are all components of this strategy.

28. FFP volumetrics and pricing assumptions

For the requested ROM pricing, should respondents base estimates solely on the indicative planning figures provided in Section 3.2, or does VA intend to provide additional planning volumetrics (e.g., legacy data volumes, active matters, storage, annual ingestion/processing, integrations, and migration scope) prior to solicitation to support realistic Firm-Fixed-Price proposals?

Response: Reference: Question 2: Data volumes and source systems for initial ingestion and steady-state operations.

Question 13: Historical migration, including data volumes, file types, and source systems.

Question 16: Current data volumes by system (TB, active, archived, matters, requests, legal holds, media).

Question 22: Estimated total data under management, annual ingestion volume, and expected annual growth.

Question 23: Total data volume to be migrated and active matters/open requests at cutover.

29. Legacy CasePoint migration scope

Will VA provide inventories and export specifications for both current CasePoint environments, including data volumes, active FOIA requests, litigation matters, legal holds, workflows, audit histories, redactions, correspondence, permissions, and custom fields? Will VA require migration of all historical data or permit archival retention of closed matters?

Response: Proprietary data will not be provided. Information that is relevant will be provided after award. The VA has a Digital Collections Services that manages the data and archive.

30. FedRAMP impact level

When does VA expect to decide whether FedRAMP Moderate or High is required, and will that determination be made before solicitation release? The current PWS states that the impact level remains pending.

Response: FedRAMP Moderate is the requirement.

31. Native versus integrated FOIA functionality

Will VA evaluate a solution favorably where certain FOIA functions—such as the public portal, reading room, reporting, identity proofing, fees, or correspondence—are provided through configuration, APIs, VA components, or supplemental tools rather than entirely natively? The draft PWS appears to allow these approaches.

Response: The platform shall be delivered as a unified enterprise FOIA and eDiscovery management platform with native capabilities supporting core operational functions including intake, preservation, collections support, ingestion, processing, indexing, search, analytics, review, redaction, production, release, audit tracking, records management support, and reporting.

32. Prime/OEM responsibility boundaries

Will VA permit a teaming model in which a systems integrator serves as prime contractor and provides implementation, migration, integration, training, and managed services, while a FedRAMP-authorized software OEM provides the SaaS platform, hosting, Tier III support, and product-level security artifacts?

Response: VA is not limiting teaming or partnering relations if they can fully satisfy stated requirements and can meet all contract terms and conditions.