47QMCB23R0011_QandAsPart2Update_2023-12-21.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 77 KB Posted
- Attached to
- E-Gov Travel Service, Next Generation (ETSNext) Travel and Expense (T&E) Technology Managed Service
- Solicitation number
- 47QMCB23R0011
- Issued by
-
GSA Federal Acquisition Service
About this file
This document contains questions and answers related to a solicitation for the E-Gov Travel Service, Next Generation (ETSNext) Travel and Expense (T&E) Technology Managed Service. The solicitation seeks a contractor to provide a managed T&E service for federal agencies through a shared service model. Key details include that the solicitation number is 47QMCB23R0011 and was issued by GSA Federal Acquisition Service. Pricing is included for transactional CLINs up to 3 million transactions annually as well as implementation CLINs. The response due date for Phase 1 offers is January 31, 2024. Implementation will occur in phases starting with an initial operating capability targeted for November 2024. The document addresses questions on a range of topics including APIs, reporting, security, subcontracting, and pricing assumptions.
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 61 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
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
Questions & Answers Due 1212202 GSA ETSNext Generation
47QMCB23R0011
Questions & Answers Due December 12, 2023 *UPDATE dated December 21, 2023*
| No. | RFP Section | RFP Page No. | Industry Question/Comment | Official Resopnse | Does this require Solicitation Amendment? | Complete? |
| 1 | Preproposal Conference | N/A | Will agencies order directly off the ETSNext Contract for custom requirements work they need? | No. GSA will have a Governance process in place that GSA will own. GSA will be the sole agency that will award any items on this stand-alone contract. The Custom Reqirements (CLIN 4) would go through our governance process, if we have an agency or agencies that are requesting a custom requirement. |
The managed service provider will work with GSA to address any impacts (technological, change management, price, etc) of a proposed enhancement as the managed service provider.
| Before CLIN 4 is exercised, GSA would have mutual agreement with the awarded vendor on the number of units of incremental work and what the scope will look like. | No | Yes | |||
| 2 | Preproposal Conference | N/A | Will agencies use a different contract to do any integration work needed? | This is specific to integration with the financial management systems. The scope of ETSNext managed service contract is to stand up an API interface and operate/maintain the API interface. |
The customer agencies would be responsible for connecting to the API Interface. Customer agencies would already have contractor support underway, or initiate a new contract support for that interface work.
| The integration work that the customer agencies would need to connect to the API interface is not part of the ETSNext scope of work. | No | Yes | |||||
| 3 | Preproposal Conference | N/A | Do you have estimates of the minimum level of travel? | GSA is not guaranting a minimum level of travel, GSA does want to point out that travel levels are back to pre-COVID volumes. The solicitation shows our projections for transactions across our civilian agency user base. | No | Yes | |
| 4 | Preproposal Conference | N/A | Please confirm the updated minimum pitch/point size for graphics also include tables? | Yes. we will update the verbiage to reflect the minimum pitch/point size for images, tables, and graphics to be a minimum pitch/point size of 8 | Yes - Will update with Soliciation Amendment A00003 | Yes | |
| 5 | Preproposal Conference | N/A | When do you expect to issue Travel Management Centers (TMC) Requests for Proposals (RFP)? | GSA expects to start issuing the solicitations for the TMC Services for agencies that are participating in the Initial Operating Capability (IOC) phase around Q2FY24 but no later than March 2024 | No | Yes | |
| 6 | Preproposal Conference | N/A | The updated timeline that was provided in this preproposal conference for the IOC where the award has moved into November 2024, does this impact when the FOC is starting and when will you start doing the acquisiton for the rest of the TMC's? Do we still plan on having the rest of this awarded by February 2027? | For the Full Operating Capbility (FOC), there are three phases of implementation for agencies. GSA anticipates the acquisition process to procure TMC services to take around 6-9 months. GSA is recomending agencies to have their TMC services awarded no later than one month before they begin the transition process and as early as three months prior to transitioning from ETS2 to ETSNext. GSA is asking that the TMC Services period of performances to begin when the agency begins with ETSNext so that the TMCs are availble to have the appropriate meetings with the Agency and ETSNext Awarded vendor. There is guidance in attachment J-7 TMC Service Integration and Relationship Plan Guidance. | No | Yes | |
| 7 | Preproposal Conference | N/A | Does it impact the timing to award by February 2027? | ETSNext must be implemented three months inside of the ETS2 contract end date of June 2027. All implementation work must be complete by February 2027. TMC Services will be awarded well before the February 2027 date in accordance with the implementation schedule. | No | Yes | |
| 8 | Preproposal Conference | N/A | When are Phase 1 Offers due? | Phase 1 offers are due by 2300 hours EST on January 31, 2024 to erin.lush@gsa.gov with a copy to onthego@gsa.gov | No | Yes | |
| 9 | Preproposal Conference | N/A | Will these presentation slides be distributed? | GSA posted the slides to www.sam.gov Contract Opportunities under 47QMCB23R0011 on December 13, 2023. | No | Yes | |
| 10 | Preproposal Conference | N/A | Will the Phase 1 submission be extended based on the extension to the submission of the questions? | GSA has not received a formal request for extension. GSA does not plan on extending the current submission due date and it remains January 31, 2024 at 2300 hours EST. Most of the information that changed in solicitation Amendments A00001 and A00002 did not change submission requirements. | No | Yes | |
| 11 | RFP: B.05 Schedule of Items (Pricing) | 4 | Can GSA please provide the percentage or number of transactions that fall within each of the seven (7) stated scenarios from the most current fiscal year of available data? | Domestic and international volumes are included in the profile data. We do not have visibility into the percentage of changes prior to ticketing. Unlike the corporate model, most of our refund and exchange activity occurs before as opposed to after ticketing. This is because the government typically tickets 2-3 days prior to departure compared with the corporate norm of within 24 hours of booking. Our visibility into refund/exchange activity is therefore limited because the tickets were never issued. |
| Government post ticketing activity is extremely limited. For FY23, based on 4.8 million tickets issued, refunds amounted to 43k or 0.9% and exchanges came to 1.4k or 0.03%. | No | Yes | |||||
| 12 | Data and Reporting Operations (APIs, Quality) | 40 | Does GSA want the ETSNext solution provider to import 6 years of historical data into the reporting system, that is to prepopulate the ETSNext reporting system with data from ETS2, and, if so, would the data source be one or more ETS2 reporting solutions? | We will not be utilizing prior ETS2 reporting solutions as data sources for ETSNext. The historical data extracted from ETS2 for future use is for records management purposes, and will be provided for each agency in a format for their reference / access as they choose. | No | Yes | |
| 13 | M.04.1 Phase 1 Evaluations | ||||||
| Phase 1, Non-Technical Factor 4, Volume 4 - Past Performance | 129 | The "High Confidence Rating" for Phase 1, Non-Technical Factor 4, Volume 4 - Past Performance states, "The ratings assigned on previous or current efforts exceeded satisfactory ratings in one or more areas with no marginal or unsatisfactory ratings or negative feedback." Commercial clients may not use these specific terms in their performance ratings. May offerors provide performance ratings in terms presented by the past performance client? | Offerors may present in terms presented by the past performance client. GSA reserves the right to clarify ratings with the past performance commercial clients. | No | Yes | ||
| 14 | L.02 Instructions: |
L.02.1 Phase 1 Volume 2: Solution Attestation
| Element 5 - Section 508 Compliance | 120 | Requirement states "Each offeror must also complete and submit a Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT) to create and submit an Accessibility Conformance Report (ACR)." Our solution consists of multiple COTS products/modules from multiple vendors. Would it be permissible to submit multiple individual VPAT/ACRs to be able to describe the components of the product, rather than the complicated structure of the whole in a single ACR? | Yes this is permitted. When using the VPAT to create an Accessibility Conformance Report for complex products, it may be helpful to separate answers into multiple reports. For example, when a product is an Authoring Tool that also has web content and documentation. When multiple reports are used for a complex product, it is required to explain this and how to reach the other reports in the Notes section of each report. | No | Yes |
| 15 | J-19.1 Demonstration Configuration Guidance | N/A | The updated J-19.1 Demonstration Configuration Guidance provides configuration details for seven (7) scenarios while the J-10 ETSNext Demonstration Scenarios document lists nine (9) scenarios. Can GSA please provide details for the other two scenarios in J-19 (API and Reporting)? | Please refer to Attachment J-10 Scenario 8 Technical & Security Demonstration and Scenario 9 Reporting, which state the vendor should demonstrate their solution's general capabilities and features that meet the requirements in the RTM and the expected outcome of the demonstration scenarios. Based on these scenarios, GSA does not require specific configuration to evaluate the vendor's solution demonstration. However, during the demonstration it is expected that the vendor will use data generated in Scenarios 1-7 to provide an overview of the features and functions of their service that satisfies the requirements of the scenario 8 and 9. If the vendor needs to configure their solution to meet the requirements in Scenarios 8 and 9, it is at their discretion. |
| For guidance on demonstrating API integration, please refer to Scenario 7 in both the J-10 and J-19 Attachments. It is not expected that vendors build integrations for the demonstrations, but show how the integrations will work based on Scenario 7. | No | Yes | |||||
| 16 | N/A | N/A | Request for Extension to February 16, 2024 | The offer due date currently remains January 31, 2024 at 2300 hours EST. | No | Yes | |
| 17 | Preproposal Conference | Timeline | According to the timeline shared during the pre-proposal call, the deployment of agencies for the IOC starts before the MiSaaS ATO, is this GSA's intent? | The notional schedule depicts a parallel effort with both ATO and IOC agency configuration and onoarding work done at the same time. The ATO is intended to be in place prior IOC production use of the solution. Production "go-live" usage is expected to begin at the end of the IOC phase. Notional reflects some degree of unknown - e.g., depending on the security readiness of the awarded vendor's solution, the IOC phase, including the ATO process, could be completed more quickly. | No | Yes | |
| 18 | G.04 | 74 | Are contractor or subcontractor personnel required to be U.S. citizens or U.S. Permanent Residents in order to perform work on the contract resulting from the RFP? | All contract and subcontract employees are required to be compliant with section H of the RFP, specifically GSA Order ADM 2181.1, “Homeland Security Presidential Directive-12, Personal Identity Verification and Credentialing, and Background Investigations for contractors”. | No | Yes | |
| 19 | G.04 | 74 | Are contractor or subcontract personnel required to perform work on the contract resulting from the Solicitation within the U.S.? | The place of performance for this contract is located in Section C.01.5 Place of Performance of the solicitation. | No | Yes | |
| 20 | H.01 | 76 | Does the government intend to utilize any background IP in this project? If so, could you please clarify whether the government would be willing to accept a license regarding any non-custom source code, background IP, or commercial software used in the solution? As opposed to passing all IP rights to the government | H.01 Technology clause is removed. Clauses 52.227-14 Rights in Data-General and 52.227-19 Commercial Computer Software License remain incorporated to retain the government's rights to design documents and avoid being charged again in future procurements for custom software developed for ETSNext. | Yes - Updated with Solicitation Amendment A00004 | Yes | |
| 21 | L.02.1 | 120 | Could the GSA please confirm whether the 30-page limit for Volume 1 excludes cover pages, table of contents, and other administrative pages | Volume 1 cover page, table of contents, and narrative technical assumption/index is not included in the page-limit count. please number these sections prefix i, ii, iii, iv, v, vi. etc. before beginning the page numbering of 1 | Yes - Will update with Soliciation Amendment A00003 | Yes | |
| 22 | L.02.1 | 120 | Could the GSA also clarify if the 30-page limit for Volume 1 excludes any narrative sections that set forth technical assumptions made? | Volume 1 cover page, table of contents, and narrative technical assumption/index is not included in the page-limit count. please number these sections prefix i, ii, iii, iv, v, vi. etc. before beginning the page numbering of 1 | Yes - Will update with Soliciation Amendment A00003 | Yes | |
| 23 | L.02.1 | 120 | Would the GSA consider expanding the page limit for Volume 1 to 40 pages in order to comply with all requirements outlined in the PWS, and enable a comprehensive response to all four different elements? | Volume 1 will be expanded to 40 pages not including the cover page, table of contents, and narrative of technical assumptions/Index | Yes - Will update with Soliciation Amendment A00003 | Yes | |
| 24 | L.02.1 | 120 | The RFP states, 'Volume 1 may include an administrative cover letter with GDS, Pseudo City Code, and IATA number for use in Phase 2 evaluation,' could the GSA please confirm whether this information will be exempt from the page limit count? | Volume 1 cover page, table of contents, and narrative technical assumption/index is not included in the page-limit count. please number these sections prefix i, ii, iii, iv, v, vi. etc. before beginning the page numbering of 1 | Yes - Will update with Soliciation Amendment A00003 | Yes | |
| 25 | L.02.1 | 121 | Could the GSA please confirm if the 'Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT) to be used for this project is the 'VPAT 2.5 508' edition dated November 2023? | Yes, the International Version of the VPAT - VPAT 2.5 INT (November 2023) is the correct VPAT template. The solicitation is amended to clarify this. | Yes - Will update with Soliciation Amendment A00003 | Yes | |
| 26 | L.02.1 | 121 | Does the GSA view the experiences of potential subcontractors from both private and public sectors as equivalent in terms of the types of experience considered? | Subcontractor experience will be evaluated based on relevance and alignment with the specific requirements outlined in the RFP. The government does not inherently favor experiences from either the private or public sector. | No | Yes | |
| 27 | L.02.1 | 122 | Is there a minimum or maximum number of past performance references that offerors are allowed to submit when preparing our response for Volume 4? | Three | No | Yes | |
| 28 | L.02.1 | 122 | Regarding Phase 1, Volume 5 of the RFP, which states 'Completion of all representation and certification via www.sam.gov,' could the GSA clarify if offerors are expected to include the completed representations and certifications from RFP Section K in Volume 5, or will the GSA refer to the latest information available on sam.gov? | Offerors may provide a copy of their representations and certifications as completed in SAM, or Offers can reference that the SAM Representations and Certifications are completed and up to date under Offerors listed SAM UEI Number | No | Yes | |
| 29 | M.04.1 | 129 | In the description of confidence ratings under Phase 1, Volume 4 (Past Performance), the RFP indicates that ratings will depend on whether '[t]he ratings assigned on previous or current efforts' exceeded satisfactory ratings in one or more areas, without any marginal or unsatisfactory ratings. Could the Government please clarify its approach to evaluating satisfaction ratings on past or current efforts that are not public procurements and, consequently, do not appear in a government-wide database like the CPARS? | If the submitted past performance reference does not have a CPARs reference, the government has the right to reach out to all past performance references and obtain additional information to evaluate past performance. The Government will evaluate references based on the confidence rating chart as outlined in section M.04.1 Phase 1, Technical Factor 4, Volume 4 Past Performance | No | Yes | |
| 30 | I.01 | 82 | The RFP includes the clause at FAR 52.244-6, addressing subcontracts for commercial products and commercial services, which outlines various contract terms for commercial item subcontractors. Apart from this clause, could the GSA clarify whether the successful offeror will be required to flow down any additional Section I clauses to subcontractors of commercial products or services? | The Prime Offeror is responsible for ensuring that all subcontractors are performing in accordance with the contract terms and conditions. GSA will not direct the prime to put items in their subcontracts, but GSA will ensure that all employees (prime and subs) are performing in accordance with the contract terms and conditions. | No | Yes | |
| 31 | C.02.04 | 41 | As a follow up to number 43 of the Questions and Answers documented filed on 12.05.23, we recommend that GSA provide two CLINs related to Help Desk services. The first CLIN should be for a minimum of 60,000 annual calls/contacts and the second CLIN should be for calls/contacts above 60,000 per year. Since GSA has no historical data on which to base their assumptions and new-entrants have no way to determine how federal traveler help desk behavior differs from corporate travelers, we believe the proposed dual structure will provide GSA and the federal agencies with the best possible service and protect the Offeror from a possible large variance between actual and estimated usage of the help desk. Vendor help desk costs are largely dependent on transactional volume and thus like vouchers, should be priced accordingly | All Offerors are to price items in accordance with the CLIN schedule provided on the SF1449 and subsequent SF30's. However, alternative proposals are allowed and will be considered. Vendors should submit any alternate price proposal in Volume 5. | No | Yes | |
| 32 | C.02.04 | 41 | As a follow up to number 44 of the Questions and Answers documented filed on 12.05.23, we recommend that GSA provide a mechanism (i.e. CLIN) for federal agencies to order “live” support services for days and times outside of the core operating hours. With no information regarding the number of federal agencies with OCONUS-based travelers coupled with no information on the actual number of travelers/voucher users, it is impossible for Offerors to propose pricing and staffing levels for this extended service. | All Offerors are to price items in accordance with the CLIN schedule provided on the SF1449 and subsequent SF30's. However, alternative proposals are allowed and will be considered. Vendors should submit any alternate price proposal in Volume 5. | No | Yes | |
| 33 | 1. In various responses to vendor Questions (see, e.g., questions 2, 5, 6, 29, 30, 43, 53, 54, 81, and 100) | Q&As | a. How will the Government evaluate all such items contained in each offeror’s pricing narrative? | Price will be evaluated in accordance with FAR Part 15, specifically FAR Part 15.404-1(b) Price Analysis. |
The Total evaluated price will be evaluated in accordance with section M.04.1 Phase 1 Evaluations Phase 1 Factor 5 Price Evaluation.
| All items not included in the total evaluated price will be evaluated for fair and reasonableness | No | Yes | |||||
| 34 | 1. In various responses to vendor Questions (see, e.g., questions 2, 5, 6, 29, 30, 43, 53, 54, 81, and 100) | Q&As | b. Will such items be included in the calculation of an offeror’s total evaluated price? If so, how? | If alternative price proposal is considered to be in the best interest and best value for government, it could be considered as part of total price evaluation, per section M.04.1 Phase 1 Evaluations: Phase 1 Factor 5 Price Evaluation | No | Yes | |
| 35 | 1. In various responses to vendor Questions (see, e.g., questions 2, 5, 6, 29, 30, 43, 53, 54, 81, and 100) | Q&As | c. Will all such items be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness? | Yes. All items not included in the total evaluated price will be evaluated for fair and reasonablness. | No | Yes | |
| 36 | 1. In various responses to vendor Questions (see, e.g., questions 2, 5, 6, 29, 30, 43, 53, 54, 81, and 100) | Q&As | d. If the Government determines that any such item is not fair and reasonable, what impact will that have on the Government’s overall evaluation of that vendor? | All Offerors are to price items in accordance with the CLIN schedule provided on the SF1449 and subsequent SF30's. However, a vendor is allowed to offer an alternate item proposal in Volume 5. These items will be considered and either accepted or rejected. If an alternative item proposed, these items will be considered and evaluated if deemed in best interest of government. | No | Yes | |
| 37 | 1. In various responses to vendor Questions (see, e.g., questions 2, 5, 6, 29, 30, 43, 53, 54, 81, and 100) | Q&As | e. Will the Government accept or reject such items prior to the best value determination? | The Government will review items proposed and deterine fair and reasonableness. The Government may accept or reject alternative proposal items prior to best value determination. | No | Yes | |
| 38 | 1. In various responses to vendor Questions (see, e.g., questions 2, 5, 6, 29, 30, 43, 53, 54, 81, and 100) | Q&As | f. If the Government rejects any such item, will the offeror be notified and provided an opportunity to submit a revised proposal? | If an alternative item is rejected, the offeror will be notified that the alternative item is rejected. The Government may or may not provide an opportunity to submit a revised proposal. | No | Yes | |
| 39 | 1. In various responses to vendor Questions (see, e.g., questions 2, 5, 6, 29, 30, 43, 53, 54, 81, and 100) | Q&As | g. Will such items be included in the best value determination? If so, how and under what factor(s)? | If alternative price proposal is considered to be in the best interest and best value for government, it could be considered as part of total price evaluation, per section M.04.1 Phase 1 Evaluations: Phase 1 Factor 5 Price Evaluation | No | Yes | |
| 40 | 1. In various responses to vendor Questions (see, e.g., questions 2, 5, 6, 29, 30, 43, 53, 54, 81, and 100) | Q&As | h. If the government intends to consider such items in the best value determination, what price will be utilized and how will it be calculated for comparison to other offerors? | Price will be evaluated in accordance with FAR Part 15, specifically FAR Part 15.404-1(b) Price Analysis. | No | Yes | |
| 41 | 1. In various responses to vendor Questions (see, e.g., questions 2, 5, 6, 29, 30, 43, 53, 54, 81, and 100) | Q&As | i. If an alternative pricing model or approach is submitted, and the Government determines that it is not fair and reasonable, or rejects it, will the vendor’s price proposal still be evaluated based upon the prices provided on SF 1449 blocks 19-24? | Yes | No | Yes | |
| 42 | 1. In various responses to vendor Questions (see, e.g., questions 2, 5, 6, 29, 30, 43, 53, 54, 81, and 100) | Q&As | j. If an alternative pricing model or approach is submitted and not rejected by the Government prior to the best value determination, will the best value determination utilize the total evaluated price calculated pursuant to M.04.1 or instead somehow utilize the alternative pricing model/approach? | If an alternative pricing model is submitted and not rejected by the Government, the best value determination will utilize the total evaluated price in accordance with Section M.04.1 Phase 1 Evaluations: Phase 1 Factor 5 Price Evaluation. If an alternative model is submitted and not rejected by the Government, the solicitation may be amended to add the alternative line item Section M.04.1 | No | Yes | |
| 43 | 2. Section B.05.1 states, with respect to CLINS 1 and 2, that “The Contractor is encouraged to describe any pricing adjustments to reflect ramp-up period, and also any pricing discounts if annual volumes increase over the life of the contract.” | 4 | a. The Government’s response to question 101 appears to indicate that such pricing adjustments or pricing discounts, if offered, will be evaluated to determine whether they are fair and reasonable, but that these will not be considered in the calculation of the total evaluated price. Is this correct? | If alternative price proposal is considered to be in the best interest and best value for government, it could be considered as part of total price evaluation, per section M.04.1 Phase 1 Evaluations: Phase 1 Factor 5 Price Evaluation | No | Yes | |
| 44 | 2. Section B.05.1 states, with respect to CLINS 1 and 2, that “The Contractor is encouraged to describe any pricing adjustments to reflect ramp-up period, and also any pricing discounts if annual volumes increase over the life of the contract.” | 4 | b. Section M.04.1 appears to exclude any such adjustments or discounts from the total evaluated price calculation. Please explain whether and, if so, how, such proposed pricing adjustments and/or pricing discounts will be considered in the best value determination. | All pricing assumptions, to include discounts should be explained by the Offeror in Volume 5 and will be considered and evaluated in accordance with FAR Part 15.404-1(b) Price Analysis. | No | Yes | |
| 45 | 2. Section B.05.1 states, with respect to CLINS 1 and 2, that “The Contractor is encouraged to describe any pricing adjustments to reflect ramp-up period, and also any pricing discounts if annual volumes increase over the life of the contract.” | 4 | c. If the government determines that any such adjustment or discount is not fair and reasonable, does the government intend to treat the vendor’s SF 1449 pricing as its offer and for purposes of the best value determination? | The SF1449 CLIN submission would be the Offeror's pricing and should include the Offeror's price with discounts and adjustments applied with discounts and adjustments explained in Volume 5. | No | Yes | |
| 46 | 2. Section B.05.1 states, with respect to CLINS 1 and 2, that “The Contractor is encouraged to describe any pricing adjustments to reflect ramp-up period, and also any pricing discounts if annual volumes increase over the life of the contract.” | 4 | Define reimburseable items for payment for development that is post POC to delivery of IOC - we understand that bespoke development will be address in CLIN # (i.e.FedRamp etc.) | The only cost reimbursable CLIN is CLIN 5 (Travel). CLINs 1 and 2 are FFP/FP-EPA should be priced to include capacity for development (see Section C.02.4 - Service Operations 2). CLINs 1 and 2 are FFP for base period and FP-EPA for option periods. | No | Yes | |
| 47 | H.02.b | 79 | What is the VRAP? When will the assessment occur? | Vendor risk assessment program (VRAP) is part of the Cyber-Supply Chain Risk Management (C-SCRM) process. This program looks to identify and assess risks from available supply chain risk information. FAS uses third party tools to perform this process. Per M.07.1 Assessment of Cyber-Supply Chain Risks, the assessment will occur prior to award for the apparent awardee. | No | Yes | |
| 48 | H.02.b | 79 | Is the C-SCRM Plan due at the time of proposal submittal or is it due upon award? | For L.02.1 Volume 2, Element 3 C-SCRM: Only the completed Basic Safeguarding Questionnaire is required at the time of proposal submission. The Apparent Awardee will go through an additional cyber-supply chain risk assessment as outlined in Section M.07.1 Assessment of Cyber-Supply Chain Risks. Then the Final Awarded Offeror will be required to submit the C-SCRM Plan. | No | Yes | |
| 49 | B.05 SCHEDULE OF ITEMS (PRICING - CLIN 3 – T&E Managed Service Implementation | 6 | Since there will be a substantial cost that will be incurred during implementation to stand up components of the managed service, and since the government is not willing to make any transaction committments at this time, bidders are taking on a substantial amount of financial risk. |
| Given that many requirements and services found in C.02.1, C.02.2 and C.02.4 are necessary to support the T&E managed services implementation, can GSA please confirm that activities found in C.02.1, C.02.2, C.02.4 can be invoiced against CLIN(s) 0003, through FOC? | CLIN table will be amended to reference that CLIN 0003 pricing should include applicable tasks from C.02.1, C.02.2 and C.02.4 that are required for implementation. | Yes - Will update with Soliciation Amendment A00003 | Yes | |
| 50 | 47QMCB23R0011_QuestionswithAnswers_2023-12-05.xlsx, Question 8 | Section L.02.1 Volume 5 item d Pricing Narrative states - The price offered shall reflect the complete costs to perform the stated requirements and achieve ETSNext objectives. If any price assumptions are made, provide a narrative that describes the price assumptions. This pricing assumption should include if the offeror provided escalation and should include the rates of pay for labor (including fringe benefits that support the unit prices). |
Since the required pricing to be provided consists of CLIN transactional pricing per unit, with no labor (nor fringe benefits) information required to support the unit pricing, can the government please expand on this newly added requirement?
• Please provide the format this data is to be provided. (e.g., Is the government seeking total fringe dollars per hour per labor category, per CLIN/contract period, or the fringe percentage, or a description of which benefits are included in fringe? If fringe dollars per hour per labor category, per CLIN/contract period are being requested, are labor dollars and fringe dollars to be shown separately or in a single combined rate?)
• Please identify how this information will be evaluated.
• Please define the relationship of this data to the EPA clause if it is invoked. All prices should be complete in accordance with the schedule CLIN pricing outlined in the SF1449, and Section B.05 of the solicitation. For example, CLIN 1 is T&E Managed Service Transactions up to 3 million. The Offerors will price the transaction up to 3 million, then will break out all the pricing assumptions that led the offeror providing this price (labor, fringe benefits, operating costs, discounts, assumptions, profit and overhead, etc). Another example would be CLIN 3, Implementation. The Offeror will provide their lump sum price for the entire base period to implement ETSNext. The Offeror will then break out all the pricing assumption that led to the offeror providing this price (labor, fringe benefits, discounts, operating costs, assumptions, profit and overhead, etc.). GSA is not telling the Offerors how to provide their assumptions, but these are examples of assumptions, provided as a general idea on what an Offeror can provide.
Price will be evaluated in accordance to Section M, and in accordance with FAR Part 15, specifically FAR Part 15.404-1(b) Price Analysis.
| The price that is awarded will have the EPA clause applied in the option years. The Awarded Offeror may request an EPA IAW FAR 52.216-4. The Government may also utilize the EPA Clause IAW FAR 52.216-4. | No | Yes | |
| 51 | Attachment J-4.1 Exhibit 1-2: GSA ETSNext FM Standard Interface Architecture | Can the Government confirm that the scope of services of the ETSNext contract as it relates to the API Interface is limited to the setup and delivery of the 4 standard API interfaces and functionality described in Exhibit 1-3: ETSNext – FM Standard API Services |
| . | Exhibit 1-3 of the ETSNext FM Standard API v1.9.1 summarizes the APIs into 4 different service categories however each category may have multiple API interfaces (Endpoints). It is the responsibility of the ETSNext Vendor to host, setup, and deliver these API Interfaces in the Gateway which will be an integral part of the ETSNext solution. The solicitation also includes API related tasks in C.02.04 Solution Delivery - Solution Management, C.02.3 Service Delivery - Implementation Services, and Section H. | No | Yes | ||||
| 52 | Attachment J-4.1 Exhibit 1-2: GSA ETSNext FM Standard Interface Architecture | Can the Government provide additional information as to who is responsible for providing the connectivity from the Agency FMS systems to the 4 standard interfaces ? | Connecting to the API Gateways will be the responsibility of the agency. It is the responsibility of the ETSNext Vendor to host, setup, and deliver these API Interfaces in the Gateway which will be an integral part of the ETSNext solution and provide relevant connection information including transmission protocols, security, and authentication requirements to the agencies for their internal use when developing the APIs. | No | Yes | ||
| 53 | Attachment J-4.1 Exhibit 1-2: GSA ETSNext FM Standard Interface Architecture | Depicted in the diagram is the Agency Enterprise Service Bus . Can the Government provide additional information as to who is responsible for providing the connectivity from the Agency ESB? | Each agency will be responsible for connecting their Financial Management System to the API Gateway. Agencies may or may not utilize an Enterprise Service Bus. The ETSNext vendor will be responsible for operation and maintenance of the API Gateway, which includes full documentation (see C.02.04 Service Delivery - Solution Management: "Provide API Documentation that includes detailed information on how to use the API, including examples of code snippets and best practices for integration. The documentation should be comprehensive, easy to understand, and updated regularly.") | No | Yes | ||
| 54 | 47QMCB23R0011_QuestionswithAnswers_2023-12-05 (Q31) | What is the Contractor responsibility if the Agencies FMS systems have not been updated to integrate with the proposed ETSNext 4 standard API interfaces? | The ETSNext Vendor will be required to support Flat File Integrations via sFTP or manual loading of data for agencies that are unable to connect to the API. GSA has provided guidance and sample mapping templates to help agencies prepare for this integration, has solicited and incorporated agency feedback into the API specifications and will continue to promote agency utilization of the API. | No | Yes | ||
| 55 | Attachment J-3 RTM | Can the Government confirm that all reporting are limited to agency specific data? | If the question is pertaining to reporting and data access controls, this will be managed by user heirarchy, with agency users only having access to view reports and data specific to their agency, and their location in the heirarchy. However, GSA as shared service provider, may need to access data from across all agencies. If the question is pertaining to the data elements within reports, those data elements will include both agency user provided data and other relevant data from the booking, travel and authorization process. | No | Yes | ||
| 56 | Attachment J-3 RTM | Can the Government confirm if there are Multiple Agency reporting requirements? Are there additional requirements for the number of standard and custom reports required? | Attachment J-3 Requirements Traceability Matrix includes two tabs (Regulatory Reporting Requirements and Reporting Requirements) that detail the reporting requirements for ETSNext. The solication also describes a requirement for up to 5 custom reports per agency (Section C.02.4 Data and Reporting Operations). As a shared service, ETSNext will use governance to define standard travel and expense reporting requirements as much as possible, however it is expected that agencies will have unique reporting needs as well. | No | Yes | ||
| 57 | Attachment J-3 RTM | Can the Government please provide an estimate as to the number of users that will be generating custom reports per agency or relative to the ETSNext overall user base?. | Number of unique users of reporting tools varies by size of agency and sub-component. We don't track the total size of the reporting users or the # of reporting users at each specific agency. It varies, but we recommend a rule of thumb as 1-2 reporting users at the smaller agencies and 10-20 or more reporting users at larger agencies. | No | Yes | ||
| 58 | Attachment J-3 RTM | What are the surety requirements/arrangement/MOU that we are required to have agencies share their Travel and Expense data with other data? | GSA will establish Inter Agency Agreements (IAAs) with each federal agency, which will include terms and conditions regarding data access and usage, among other topics. | No | Yes | ||
| 59 | Attachment J-4-1- Financial Management | ||||||
| (FM) Application Programming Interface | 4 | “TRT standard data elements” appear both in the T&E System and the ETSNext – FM Standard API Services sections of the diagram. Please clarify why the TRT data elements are included in the T&E system. | It was presumed that the T&E system would be the source for the required TRT data elements in the API. Proposal should indicate how the TRT data elements would be sourced in the API, if not from the T&E system. | No | Yes | ||
| 60 | Attachment J-4-1- Financial Management | ||||||
| (FM) Application Programming Interface | 4 | Is the ETSNext vendor expected to transform its data elements in the T&E system to standard TRT data elements before delivery to the API Gateway? Is it acceptable to transform data from the T&E system to the standard FFM elements in the API Gateway? | The API Gateway must provide access to the data in correct format to the Agencies. How data transformation is done, as required, can be described in vendor's solution. | No | Yes | ||
| 61 | Attachment J-4-1- Financial Management | ||||||
| (FM) Application Programming Interface | 4 | Will the standard FFM data elements/FFM data structure be the same for agencies using either file-based (SFTP) or web services (API) transmissions? | The Data Elements and Data Structures are interface agnostic and will be the same for sFTP and APIs. | No | Yes | ||
| 62 | |||||||
| 63 | |||||||
| 64 | |||||||
| 65 | |||||||
| 66 | |||||||
| 67 | |||||||
| 68 | |||||||
| 69 | |||||||
| 70 | |||||||
| 71 | |||||||
| 72 | |||||||
| 73 | |||||||
| 74 | |||||||
| 75 | |||||||
| 76 | |||||||
| 77 | |||||||
| 78 | |||||||
| 79 | |||||||
| 80 | |||||||
| 81 | |||||||
| 82 | |||||||
| 83 | |||||||
| 84 | |||||||
| 85 | |||||||
| 86 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .