ETSNext RFI Industry QA Worksheet v3 01132023.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 27 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 47QMCB23N0003
- Issued by
-
GSA Federal Acquisition Service
View the file
Other files
Show all 18
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
| Government File Name | File Section No. & Name | Page # | Referenced Text | Question/Comment | Government Official Response |
| Statement of Objectives | C.2.5 Comply with required security policies for all relevant data and systems | n/a | n/a | Do you anticipate that any other level other than moderate would be required? | As of this RFI, GSA expects it to remain at the moderate level. We are continuing to meet with agencies in FY23 to align any underlying needs for agency security needs. |
| Statement of Objectives | Attachment 4 - Requirements Traceability Matrix | n/a | n/a | Have agencies had a chance to review the whole RTM? | The T&E Business Standards portions was a cross-government effort over multiple years. The modernization, architecture, and unique portions of the RTM were all developed based on many conversations with industry and agencies and we are having regular conversations and meetings. We welcome both agency and industry feedback and thoughts on any specific item in the RTM and will continue to socialize. We are continuing to meet with agencies in FY23 to gather up additional underlying needs not addressed in the Governmentwide standards. |
| n/a | n/a | Do you have current transaction time averages for that user experience so that we can manage to that expectation? | Based on 2016 user feedback and subject matter expert input on typical processing time for low and high complexity travel reservation, authorization, and voucher scenarios, current ETS2 transaction time is estimated to be between 84-200 minutes (142 minute average) per transaction. This includes reservation, authorization, voucher creation and approvals at multiple layers. Improvements have been implemented with ETS2 since this information was gathered, and the actual baselines for each agency can vary significantly by current state agency-level configuration and customizations. We are seeking industry input on the best way to measure and track improvements for desired time on task improvements over the life of ETSNext as part of this RFI. | ||
| CGI ETSNext FM Strategy | Appendix 10 | n/a | n/a | When reviewing the Financial Management Strategy Options document, Appendix 10 includes references to attached documents. The embedded documents do not open from the PDF. Can those be shared or uploaded as separate files on SAM? | Yes, the following files are posted for reference. |
1) MITRE Solution-Service Strategy
2) Data Management Lesson Learned
3) GSA ETSNext Cost/Beneft Risk Analysis
Please note, the MITRE Solution-Service Strategy was not intended as guidance to industry, but for agencies to use when acquiring solutions and services using the Federal Integrated Business Framework.
Request for Information 2 Information Requested 14 How does your solution manage travel data quality and consistency (ensuring that there are consistent low fare entries, reason code entries, standardization of organizational names) What current data quality practices are in place for GSA and these systems today? There are standard reason code entries as defined by the FTR. Data quality and consistency has been a challenge in ETS2 in other areas such as the ones mentioned (consistent low fare entries, standardization of organizational names) due to two ETS2 vendors and varying configurations/ customizations by each agency as well as multiple TMC's, multiple GDS entries, etc.
Within the T&E Business Standards, efforts were made to define data values and sources of truth (e.g., refering to census data for city names, listings of government department and bureau codes, etc) that the vendor can use to normalize data either within the transaction via API or on an extract to their reporting or the government-wide data lake.
| Request for Information | 2 Information Requested | 14 | How does your solution manage travel data quality and consistency (ensuring that there are consistent low fare entries, reason code entries, standardization of organizational names) | Does GSA have a governance framework in place and standards, requirements, and specifications defined for data quality controls? | The T&E Business Standards are designed to serve as the content framework of which specifications and data quality controls will be governed. Any changes to the standards will need to be approved by Office of Governmentwide Policy (OGP). We are still defining how that governance process will be administered, and asking for feedback on the recommended design. | |
| Request for Information | 2 Information Requested | 14 | How does your solution manage travel data quality and consistency (ensuring that there are consistent low fare entries, reason code entries, standardization of organizational names) | How does GSA monitor and report on data quality levels today? | Each agency has task orders directly with their ETS2 vendor and in some cases TMCs, and data quality issues are monitored via those contract requirements. When there have been issues that cascade across agencies, the ETS2 GSA PMO team has intervened and worked with the ETS2 providers for improvements. The degree of improvements have a number of impacting constraints related to ETS2 architecture design by each vendor, and degree of agency customizations. With a single enterprise-wide, centralized platform, we believe there is significant opportunity to improve capabilities in this area. | |
| Statement of Objectives | C.2.4.2 Data Aggregation and Extracts | 18 | The contractor shall ensure data is routinely available and accessible for extraction to GSA’s Data Lake and/or Federal agency data warehouses upon request for use by Federal agency Senior | |||
| Travel Officials, other agency executives, managers, policy makers and Governmentwide programs. | What interval do these data extractions occur (e.g., daily, weekly) as part of the current system? | Current ETS2 data extractions vary by data source in the current environment. It is primarily monthly with some being quarterly. |
For ETSNext, we believe a daily feed is appropriate goal (pending further input from industry on approach to deliver to this type of requirement and related costs, etc)
| Statement of Objectives | C.2.4.2 Data Aggregation and Extracts | 18 | The contractor shall ensure data is routinely available and accessible for extraction to GSA’s Data Lake and/or Federal agency data warehouses upon request for use by Federal agency Senior | |||
| Travel Officials, other agency executives, managers, policy makers and Governmentwide programs. | Is there a defined exchange standard that all ecosystem partners adhere to? | We expect to work with the vendor to define a set of API services over https or PGP encrypted File over SFTP and standards that would give access to: user profile data, authorizations data, reservations (PNRs) voucher data and system UI data to help improve UX. As far as ecosystem partners, there may be standards around Passenger Name Records (PNRs) that we could leverage, and we would be open to leveraging other commercial standards if available. | ||||
| Request for Information | 3 Submission Instructions and Formatting Requests | 16 | GSA will host a virtual-only Industry Open House to discuss the RFI and additional materials on December 15 at 1pm ET via Zoom. | Will GSA consider posting materials that were presented during the virtual Industry Day? | GSA held “Office Hours” on 12/15/2022 to provide an overview of the second request for Information (RFI) and draft Statement of Objectives (SOO) for ETSNext. The presentation (pdf posted on Interact) and the link to the video for the session are now available. | |
| Request for Information | 2 Information Requested | 15 | What metrics should be used to analyzed and measure the performance and user/customer satisfaction... | Would the Government provide existing user/customer satisfaction data that the contractor would have access to for use as a baseline for modernization? | Overall customer satisfaction scores for the current ETS2 service range from 6.7 to 8.5 (on a scale of 1-10 with one being the worst and ten the best); averaging 7.6 for the time period of FY 2019 through FY22. The lowest scoring categories include quality of queries/reports and release management. The highest scores were obtained in account management and help desk/client support. GSA reserves the right to provide additional overall user/customer satisfaction data to the successful offeror for ETS Next. | |
| Does GSA envision an Operational help desk that provides support for all travel services provided, inclusive of amending or repairing reservations, which would necessitate engagement with TMC provided service desks Technical help desk supporting the ETSNext platform Tier Ask me help desk – responds to questions about platform use, policy, governance, etc. Other or combination of above? Understanding that ROM pricing is being requested for core and 24/7 help desk operations, what does GSA envision will be required? | We need further agency and vendor input on preferences for travel/TMC issue handling versus technical issue handling as the nature of the issues are very different and travel issues follow very different triage / escalation processes (e.g., pre-trip need vs. mid-trip change support). Additionally, some agencies have an existing channel for employees with technology issues for employees and the travel technical service needs are channeled through that mechanism. We expect the solution to provide contextual guidance that greatly reduces the need for policy or technical support. More complicated policy questions would need to be tracked / passed to policy offices (gov't and/or agency based on the question). | |||||
| Understanding GSA’s intention that each agency will select the TMCs and GSA will prescribe standards to which TMCs must comply: Does GSA intend to continue to offer agencies the same group of TMCs that agencies engage today? What enforcement does GSA intend for noncompliance and how would it be implemented? Has GSA accounted for the associated costs and risks of TMC proliferation? | Agency customers would have access to all TMCs currently on MAS, as long as the TMCs continue to meet any, and all, updated MAS terms or conditions implemented post-ETSN award, that reflect minimum technical or process standards. Non-compliance to MAS terms would be GSA's responsibility to address, working with Federal agency contracting personnel where task orders are impacted. GSA's market research for ETSNext and TMC costs / risks is on-going. Any changes to the number of participating TMCs under MAS remains TBD. GSA's goal is to have a pool of potential TMC providers that would further foster competition and help agencies have the opportunity to select the best TMC(s) for their specific agency needs. | |||||
| Data Management: What challenges exist to the sharing of data by agencies, commissions, boards, etc. with GSA or the ETSNext vendor? To what extent is automation and machine learning being used today to improve workflows and data quality? Are data curation, discovery tools, and data fabrics used today as part of ETS2 solutions to access data from across organizational silos? | The system will need to maintain data access controls that limit data access by user organization and role. GSA (and all agencies) would only have access to their agency data in the system. However, we anticipate that some gov-wide data would be scrubbed and consolidated in a data lake, with that scrubbing removing any PII or other sensitive data to meet agency data controls needs. Machine learning is not being used today to improve workflows or data quality in any gov-wide approach. There may be small pilots within individual agencies. There are not currently standard data curation, discovery tools or data fabrics used today to access data from across organizational silos. | |||||
| Pricing and payments: What contractual relationships does GSA anticipate to facilitate services and enable payments for services and the collection of fees? Between GSA and agency customers? Between the ETSNext vendor and agency customers? What objectives does GSA intend to serve through a transactional pricing model? | GSA is looking at other example GSA government-wide service programs for fee / reimbursement models. The transactional pricing model enables a streamlined reimbursement method and simplifies budget planning for agencies. We continue to research to align this approach as to what is the best reimburement method and what are vendors preferred business model. | |||||
| In addition to GSA personnel, will RFI responses and ROM pricing be reviewed and assessed by personnel from other agencies, and third-party contractors? | Potentially, yes. 3rd party contractor(s) supporting ETSNext have an NDA and are contractually required to be independent entities and are also precluded to be part of an ETSNext Award. As for other agency personnel, that will be done on a case-by-case basis where there is a justified “need to know” and if that is demonstrated, an NDA will be in place before providing access to any information. | |||||
| Will there be a supplemental procurement for the establishment of a managed service office, in addition to this systems integration to support GSA’s transition-in and establishing an improved business model and customer experience for agencies? | TBD. GSA continues to evaluate all available options. However, we welcome your detailed feedback on this issue. | |||||
| Statement of Objectives | C.2.2.3 | As TMC services are outside of the Draft Statement of Objectives, will GSA keep TMC’s informed as to GSA decisions that are made to update this document [e.g.: Notional items that are solidified, changes / additions / language (specifically C.2.2.3), amended dates, sections not currently finalized]? | GSA will continue to communicate with industry using all available communication tools including, but not limited to Interact. | |||
| It is our understanding that a TMC RFI will be issued in the spring of 2023. Will GSA be holding a webinar to discuss the TMC RFI? | The dates for TMC RFI remain TBD. GSA intends to leverage all available communciation tools when the time comes. | |||||
| Is it GSA’s intention to vet / evaluate / assess each TMC and provide a list of qualified TMC’s to the “contractor,” civilian agencies, commissions, boards, etc. Or will this responsibility rest on the selected “contractor.” | GSA continues to gather stakeholder feedback and in order to determine an acquisition strategy, but will likely utilize the MAS for TMCs. | |||||
| Request for Information | 1.4.5 | Section 1.4.5 of the RFI entitled” Travel Management Center (TMC) Services)” addresses the benefits that Small Business TMC’s will derive from ETSNext. This section identifies Small Business participation goals. Have these goals been determined at this point, or will these be addressed in the TMC RFI? | Goals have not been determined at this point. GSA plans to encourage Small Business participation to the maximum extent and will address this once a decision has been made. | |||
| As a TMC, are we required to complete the Traceability Matrix – RFI Response Form? | GSA expects full responses by interested parties for RFI # 2. However, GSA will review all received responses to RFI # 2 and lack of responses will not impact ability to award. | |||||
| What is GSA’s procurement strategy for the ETSNext contract? Does GSA anticipate awarding a single contract or multiple contracts? | A procurement strategy has not been finalized and we are open to feedback from industry while we make a determination. At this time, GSA anticipates awarding a single contract for travel and expense. | |||||
| How will GSA procure cloud services to support ETSNext? | We do not anticipate separately procuring cloud services, we expect that the managed service will be hosted in a cloud environment with a FedRAMP moderate authorization. | |||||
| What are GSA’s most significant challenges with the current platform? | User experience lags behind commercial offerings for a number of reasons, including complexities of Federal travel policy, lack of process standardization, and services that are tailored for government needs and has not kept up with commercial best practices. Current plaforms are not able to easily implement features and services like more comprehensive duty of care, mobile applications, reshopping, unused ticket management, etc. | |||||
| How is GSA going to host ETSNext? | Contractor will be responsible for hosting ETSNext. | |||||
| Are you planning on building the entire solution from scratch or leveraging products like Concur and then building value added services around those products? | We expect to use a commercial platform, configured to meet our government needs, with the vendor proposing specific products. It is anticipated that the T&E services would include a commercial booking engine, integrated with an authorization and expense management tool, and potentially other third party features and/or UX enhancement tools. | |||||
| ETSNext T&E Technology Managed Services | Can GSA share its definition and expectation of a "T&E Technology Managed Services" provider? | As described in the RFI Section 1.5, the T&E Technology Managed Services awarded vendor will serve as a managed service delivery partner that will provide streamlined T&E experience, T&E best-in-class technology services, adaptable architecture and agile product delivery services, data and reporting services, security management, and deployment services. See the Draft SOO for additional details on scope and performance objectives in these areas. | ||||
| Emerging T&E Solutions | What is GSA's comfortability level with a technically acceptable T&E software with experience in the commercial and state & local market but is an emerging entrant to the Federal market? | GSA will evaluate all responsive offers against the evaluation criteria. | ||||
| ETSNext Standardization | What is GSA’s view on the level of standardization expected in the ETSNext solution versus custom development tailored to unique agency needs? | We expect the Travel and Expense (T&E) business standards to represent at least 80 percent of the governmentwide T&E capabilities, with unique agency needs representing 20 percent or less. | ||||
| TMCs Being External to ETSNext | Is GSA committed to the position that TMCs will be out of scope? Whether in-scope or external to ETSNext, is GSA able to limit the number of approved TMCs within the ETSNext ecosystem? | Separating the TMC service requirements is not finalized but so far, strongly supported by the market research to-date. Unlikely that we would limit number of TMCs. We are looking for input from industry on whether a T&E managed solution provider would have any minimum operating or technology standards for TMCs, and what those might be. | ||||
| Multiple GDS' | Is GSA able to limit the number of approved GDS' within the ETSNext ecosystem? | Based on market research to-date, we do not expect to limit the number of GDS. This may change as we finalize our acquisition plan and requirements. | ||||
| FFP for O&M, Help Desk (HD), Changes | We have observed from other programs where O&M/HD and other changes are impacted by customer demand and environmental changes. Would GSA consider making these services T&M or have a mechanism to be adjusted to address customer demand changes? | We are considering using fixed price agile sprints for development work, with an opportunity for the vendor to estimate a number of sprints required depending on the scope of enhancement/change required. We're open to T&M, but that brings risk and agency planning and reimbursement challenges. We welcome further input on how to consider pros and cons of any T&M based services. | ||||
| GSA T&E COE | Is it expected that the T&E Technology Managed Services provider will augment any component(s) of the COE? How does GSA envision stakeholder management among its end-agency customer engagements? | Yes, as described in the RFI Section 1.5, the T&E Technology Managed Services awarded vendor will serve as a managed service delivery partner to the CoE that will provide streamlined T&E experience, T&E best-in-class technology services, adaptable architecture and agile product delivery services, data and reporting services, security management, and deployment services. See the Draft SOO for additional details on scope and performance objectives in these areas. | ||||
| Balanced Proposal Evaluation of the T&E Software solution and the SI | Can GSA please share how it intends to conduct a balanced evaluation of an offeror’s proposed technical solution -and- the services proposed by the SI? | GSA is still considering evaluation criteria and basis of award for a potential RFP. We welcome further input as to how to evaluate both aspects of the overall fitness of the T&E Technology Managed Service Provider to meet the ETSNext service delivery performance objectives and standards. | ||||
| Financial Management Strategy Options Report | From GSA’s view, what was the most significant findings as a result of the produced report? | The most significant finding is the continued support that a centralized approach brings best value, and that ETSNext should utilize a standard FM API interface that will support agencies whether they are on legacy FMS software or migrated to Core FS. | ||||
| Statement of Objectives | B.1.1 Pricing | 4 | GSA intends to complete the ETSNext T&E Technology Managed Services procurement as an | Please clarify the meaning of a 'single award' managed services contract? Does this mean the GSA will only contract with a master service provider, e.g. SAP Concur or IBM leaving the master service provider to contract with 3-rd party service technology vendors such as a mid-office technology provider. | GSA will be awarding a single contract to a single provider for the travel and expense portion and TMCs will be awarded by each agency from the MAS for TMCs. | |
| Statement of Objectives | C.1.1 Background | 7 | The E-Gov Travel Service 2 (ETS2) is the second-generation service that was awarded to two master contract providers in 2012-2013: CWSatoTravel, Inc. and SAP Concur Technologies, Inc. Each of these ETS2 providers provide full-scale end-to-end services for online booking, authorization, agency customers through individual task orders. Each service is highly configured andvoucher, travel agency ticket fulfillment services, and ancillary services for their customized to meet agency-unique requirements, policies and financial system interface needs. Key ETS2 current-state agency environment information is summarized in Attachment 1, Federal Agency Current State Profiles. | What Master Service Providers, in addition to CWSAtoTravel and SAP Concur Technologies are competing in ETSNext bid? For example, are Accenture, Price Waterhouse, Northup Gruman participating? Any other companies? | GSA is not in a position to make the requested information publicly available, this would constitute a violation of the Procurement Integrity Act. | |
| Statement of Objectives | C.1.1 Background | 7 | The E-Gov Travel Service 2 (ETS2) is the second-generation service that was awarded to two master contract providers in 2012-2013: CWSatoTravel, Inc. and SAP Concur Technologies, Inc. Each of these ETS2 providers provide full-scale end-to-end services for online booking, authorization, voucher, travel agency ticket fulfillment services, and ancillary services for their agency customers through individual task orders. Each service is highly configured and customized to meet agency-unique requirements, policies and financial system interface needs. Key ETS2 current-state agency environment information is summarized in Attachment 1, Federal Agency Current State Profiles. | Can you provide primary contact information for the companies bidding as Master Service Providers? | GSA is not in a position to make the requested information publicly available, this would constitute a violation of the Procurement Integrity Act. However, a list of interested vendors was posted on the ETSNext Interact page on April 1, 2022 and is available at https://buy.gsa.gov/interact/community/192/activity-feed/post/398802b6-6b2e-4900-af05-c0f974139c05/Teaming_Partners_List_Now_Available | |
| Request for Information | 3 Submission Instructions and Formatting Requests | Instructions: Upon reviewing the additional background information tabs within this workbook and referencing RFI Response Question #15, please populate column D | At the top the worksheet "RFI Response Form", there is an instruction in Cell A1 (see E9) that references "Question 15". Where is Questions 15 located? | Questions for RFI responses are embedded within the RFI document. Question 15 is on page 14 of the RFI document. | ||
| Attachment 1- Federal Agency Current State Profiles.xlsx | ETSNext RFI Profile Summary | In your summary on the worksheet "ETSNext RFI Profile Summary", you reference the number of tickets, segments, and vouchers. Can you tell us how many unique GDS PNRs are created annually? | The number of tickets is the closest we can get to unique GDS PNR's. We are not tracking, at a summary level, the GDS PNR's that were created but never ticketed. During FY22, the refund percentage of ticketed transactions was 1% and exchange percentage was 8%. These numbers are relatively constant year over year. | |||
| Request for Information | 2. Information Requested | 13 | What is your willingness to collect a transactional contract access fee to return to GSA? | Is this “transaction contract access fee” to be returned to the Government similar to the current Industrial Funding Fee charged under ETS2? If not, then please clarify what it is and how (or what CLINs) it would be charged against. | Yes. In addition, GSA is seeking feedback on current reimbursement models and methods/types of transaction fees that we can take under consideration. The prior ETS2 transactional fee model enables a streamlined reimbursement method and simplifies budget planning for agencies. We continue to research to align this approach as to what is the best reimburement method and what are vendors preferred business model. | |
| Request for Information | 2. Information Requested | 18 | 3c. Help Desk Option 1: Support during Core Hours Only Option 2: 24/7 Support | Is there an SLA for help desk support as any SLA would affect staffing and thus pricing? | GSA is seeking feedback on this type of SLA and/or KPI. | |
| Request for Information | 2. Information Requested | 18 | Is there an SLA for help desk support as any SLA would affect staffing and thus pricing? | Does the estimate of help desk support calls only include the support provided by the current vendors or does it also include the help desk support calls provided by other federal agencies under a shared support model? | These calls only include Tier 1 Help Desk support calls by the current ETS2 vendors. It does not include help desk support calls provided by other federal agencies under a shared support model. | |
| Request for Information | 2. Information Requested | 18 | 3c. Help Desk Option 1: Support |
during Core Hours Only Option 2: 24/7 Support If pricing is requested for option 1 core hours only and option 2 24/7; then offerors will need to know the number of help desk support calls made during core hours and those made outside core hours. Is that information provided? We are still researching requirements in this area with agencies and any changes to incorporate for a centralized, enterprise-wide service delivery model. We are seeking industry recommendations and relevant program performance history information regarding the following considerations:
- preferences for travel/TMC issue handling versus technical issue handling as the nature of the issues are very different and travel issues follow very different triage / escalation processes (e.g., pre-trip need vs. mid-trip change support).
- some agencies have an existing channel for employees with technology issues for employees and the travel technical service needs are channeled through that mechanism.
- we expect the solution to provide contextual guidance that greatly reduces the need for policy or technical support.
- more complicated policy questions would need to be tracked / passed to policy offices (gov't and/or agency based on the question).
| Request for Information | 2. Information Requested | 18 | b. IOC: Deploy up to 6 agencies | Is there any information of the size (i.e., number of users) for the 6 agencies? | Not at this time. We are in active discussions with candidate agencies and expect to clarify this further when this information is obtained. |
| Request for Information | 2. Information Requested | 18 | 3d. Changes / Updates required due to Law, Regulation, and Policy Updates | Without knowing the scope of the changes that made to be need to be by any law, regulation or policy, it would be difficult to provide as FFP. Is it acceptable for an offeror an hourly rate with estimate to be provided once the scope is known? | We welcome industry input on preferred business model for these types of changes. We believe there are other government programs where some level of these changes are included in the FFP. We appreciate further input on how to scope / define requirements for more substantial changes that may require special skills and/or surge personnel to address the change. |
| Request for Information | 2. Information Requested | 18 | 3a. Annual Cost for T&E Technology Managed Service | Is the Government receptive to making an advance payment for this item? | Advance payments in general are prohibited by Title 31, United States Code (U.S.C.), Section 3324. Although there are exemptions, GSA would need to evaluate if it would be in the best interest of the Government to do. Vendors are encouraged to provide feedback and examples of how an advance payment could be implemented specifically for ETSNext. |
| Request for Information | 2. Information Requested | 18 | Government-wide Voucher Counts | Do the Government-wide voucher counts represent only TDY vouchers, or are they inclusive of Local Travel Vouchers for the respective Fiscal Years? | The voucher counts provided include TDY and Local Travel vouchers. |
| Request for Information | 2. Information Requested | 19 | Government-wide Voucher Counts | What is the reason the Projected Government-wide Voucher Counts for FY28 of 2.1 million are below both FY18 and FY19 voucher counts? | For the projected FY28 voucher volume, GSA is making the assumption that in the post-covid work environment, federal employee travel behaviors, including for Training and Conferences, would move more towards a virtual environment rather than in person, driving volume down 20% from FY19 levels. |
| Statement of Objectives | B.1 Pricing and Incentives | 4 | GSA intends to complete the ETSNext T&E open market, sinclge award performance-based, using NAICS Code: 513210 Software Publishers | Does GSA intend to limit the entities which may bid on ETSNext based on the NAICS code of 513210? | No. |
| Statement of Objectives | B.1 Pricing and Incentives | 19 | GSA expects the ETSNext solution will be classified as a FedRAMP Moderate system. | What does GSA consider to be the system security boundaries of the FedRAMP authorized system? | GSA anticipates the security boundary to include the booking and voucher/expense applications. However, a vendor must provide and define the full security boundary as part of a response to a RFP. Additional guidance for defining the security boundary can be found in FedRamp Authorization Boundary guidance document (attachment CSP_A_FedRAMP_Authorization_Boundary_Guidance.pdf). The purpose of this document is to provide Cloud Service Providers (CSPs) further guidance for developing the “authorizaton boundary” associated with their Cloud Service Offering (CSO) to support their FedRAMP Authorization package. |
| Statement of Objectives | B.1 Pricing and Incentives | 19 | C.2.5 Comply with required security policies for all relevant data and systems | While the SOO states GSA expects the ETSNext solution will be classified as a FedRAMP Moderate system, it also states that "if the service offering does not already have a FedRAMP Authorization at the moderate impact level an Agency Authorized moderate impact level ATO must be obtained, with GSA as the Sponsoring Agency. By this language is the Government providing an option to offerors - either FedRAMP or an ATO? Or is the ATO an interim step before the need to obtain FedRAMP certification? | We anticipate that ETSNext will require a moderate level security authorization (ATO), which GSA intends to sponsor through the FedRAMP process if vendor does not already have a current moderate level ATO from a federal agency. The FedRAMP ATO is one process with one outcome. |
| Statement of Objectives | C.2.1.4 Support Services | 12 | A. Privude a technical help desk that operates <operating hours to be defined after this initial draft> with staffing aligned with the user needs and call volumes around the world | What security requirements will apply for help desk personnel? Most restrictively, help desk services would be provided by US citizens on US soil. Is there an option (configuration) to support ETSNext travellers in a commercial follow-the-sun model? Are there options for non-US citizens on non-US soild to support transactions/data stored in the US? Or, a configuration of a US citizen located outside of the US accessing from an office or home location? What is deemed a permisable configuration for ETSNext help desk services? | We are actively seeking input on Help Desk to clarify needs and related vendor performance objectives and standards. We appreciate these questions and will use these as we pursue these clarifications for a future publication of our draft requirements. |
| Request for Information | 2. Information Received | 19 | Government Fiscal Years Run from October to September | Do the voucher counts represent air tickets only or do they include hotel bookings and or room nights? | Vouchers are essentially "trip counts". The trip may or may not include a hotel booking. |
| Request for Information | 2. Information Received | 19 | Government Fiscal Years Run from October to September | Will you provide hotel bookings in addition to air tickets? | We will take that request into consideration for the next publication of our draft requirements. Please indicate if this information would be helpful at an agency summary level or if just a number across all Civilan government will suffice. |
| Request for Information | 1.4.11 Cost Avoidance Opportunities | 9 | The commercial market incorporates items such as like-for-like rate reshopping | Will hotel rate re-shopping and airfare re-shopping be included as well? | Yes, we anticipate like for like airfare (same plane, same seat) and hotel reshopping (switch to FedRooms rate when booking non FedRooms rates at FedRooms hotels) capabilities to be part of the future service requirements. |
| Request for Information | 1.4.11 Cost Avoidance Opportunities | 9 | The commercial market incorporates items such as like-for-like rate reshopping | Will car rental rate re-shopping be included as well? | Car rental rates won't likely be included as an explicit requirement, but vendors can offer these services if they have them as additional value for the government to consider in our evaluation process. |
| Request for Information | 1.4.11 Cost Avoidance Opportunities | 9 | The commercial market incorporates items such as like-for-like rate reshopping | In addition to like-for-like, will you consider alternative reshopping setting options, such as variances or the ability to shift share? | The "like for like" capability is a minimum performance standard under consideration. Implementation of settings that allow for notifications beyond this minimum would be optional services that agencies can determine their preferences. As these capabilities mature and value is better understood, this may change over the life of the full contract period of performance. |
| Request for Information | 1.4.11 Cost Avoidance Opportunities | 9 | The commercial market incorporates items such as like-for-like rate reshopping | In the commercial market, more and more companies are moving to real time, auditing of 100% of air, hotel and car reservations as opposed to spot audits. Have you considered this? | Within your response to the RFI, you are welcome to provide more insights into commercial best practices around real-time auditing and how you would forsee it working in the ETSNext environment. |
| Statement of Objectives | C.2.3.1 Service-Oriented Architecture Integration Layer (FM and HR system | 16 | The notional architecture and SOO indicate requirements to support REST, SOAP, file transfer, and EDIFACT X12. What percentage of transactions with the ETSNext are envisioned to be file transfer and EDIFACT, and what functional types of interfaces use these methods? | As the ETSNext PMO continues to engage with Agencies, the goal is to provide updated Agency profiles (which include transaction volumes) that will help industry estimate and determine the percentages requested. However, with ETSNext, the solution preference would be first REST, SOAP, then file transfer, or EDI; File base transactions should be planned for initial data loads or agencies who cannot support REST or SOAP communication. It is anticipated that EDI X12, and EDIFACT will have the lowest usage as per the request of Agencies or external partners. | |
| Statement of Objectives | C.2.3.1 Service-Oriented Architecture Integration Layer (FM and HR system | 16 | Will the Government please clarify if the ETSNext vendor will be required to support only the industry-standard application protocols referenced in SOO Section C.2.3.1 I. or those listed in Attachment 3, Notional Technical Architecture Diagram? | The industry-standard protocols listed in Section C.2.3.1 I. and in Attachment 3, Notional Technical Architecture Diagram are the initial protocols considered for ETSNext based on market research. GSA desires to utilize these as well as other vendor recommended protocols that help meet the objectives of ETSNext and welcome inputs with the RFI responses for consideration. | |
| Statement of Objectives | C.2.3.1 Service-Oriented Architecture Integration Layer (FM and HR system | 16 | Will the Government please clarify whether the ETSNext vendor will be required to support agency-specific API methods or only support defined, standard integration methods defined in the final RFP, which agencies must accommodate? (refers to SOO Section C.2.3.1 I – L). | As stated in C.2.3.1 - L, GSA intends to provide a standard data model that the ETSN vendor would use to configure an API interface that all goverment agencies would have responsibility to connect their FM systems to. | |
| Statement of Objectives | Section L | 36 | “All key personnel proposed by the offeror shall participate. All interviews will be recorded. Each interview includes a timed, unstructured question-and-answer session, where the contractors answer questions about their offer’s Step 1 responses. Each interview will be tailored to the offer and questions are expected to vary among offerors. Offerors will not be allowed to make presentations or change their submission in anyway. Interview durations will vary based on Offeror responses; we estimate interviews to last between 1 and 3 days.” | We would like to provide feedback on the Government’s four step approach to evaluate offerors. In our experience, the evaluation factors and criteria for validation of self evaluation, which are not included in the SOO, have great impact on competition and bid viability. We request that the Government provide clarity on how it intends for vendors to conduct the self-evaluations referenced in Steps 1 and 2.? For example: what qualifications does the Government intend vendors to use to self assess Key Personnel; and how will “Response to SOO,” “508 VPAT,” “Price and Assumptions” be self-assessed? We request a response for each of the items on page 37 enumerated following, “Step 1: Self Evaluation.” | GSA continues to gather feedback on evaluation steps and welcomes feedback in RFI responses on recommended approaches for the Self Evaluation activities. Our primary goal with the Step 1 is to gather sufficient information to have an informed interview process in Step 2 and provide feedback on ability to be successful in subsequent evaluation steps. |
https://buy.gsa.gov/interact/community/192/activity-feed/post/398802b6-6b2e-4900-af05-c0f974139c05/Teaming_Partners_List_Now_Available
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .