47QMCB23R0011_QuestionswithAnswers_2023-12-05.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 94 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 solicitation requests proposals for a Travel and Expense (T&E) Technology Managed Service to replace the current E-Gov Travel Service (ETS2) as the U.S. government's shared travel and expense solution. Key details include that the General Services Administration (GSA) seeks to establish a single-award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract for a base period of three years plus four one-year options. Offerors must propose firm fixed prices for transaction volumes up to three million per year as well as fixed implementation costs. Transaction volumes are estimated at 2.3 million for FY2023 and escalating in FY2024, though volumes are not guaranteed. The selected contractor must meet requirements for travel and expense capabilities, implementation services, and ongoing solution, data, and customer support management. Transition to the new ETSNext shared service is expected to begin with initial operating capability agencies representing approximately 10-15% of total transaction volume.
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 and Answers GSA ETSNext Generation
47QMCB23R0011
Questions & Answers Please Note: This is a stand alone document and is not incorporated by reference into the solicitation
| No. | RFP Section | RFP Page No. | Industry Question/Comment | Official Response | Does this require Solicitation Amendment? |
| 1 | Attachment J-1 |
Attachment J-4.10 Attachment J-4.11 Attachment J-5.2 Attachment J-5 GSA Order ADM J-1 CSCRM N/A Seven of the files do not have CUI labels. Can you advise if they ALL should have CUI labels?
Or if there is a mixed bag of CUI non-CUI? Which are CUI?
| Or if all are truly Non-CUI? | All files that are CUI have been marked with CUI identifiers. There is a combination of CUI/Non-CUI. Some files were too large to send via SAM and some file types were not supported by SAM. | No | ||||
| 2 | B.05 Schedule of Items (Pricing) | 5 | Will the Government disqualify bidders that propose minimal guaranteed transaction volumes for each volume band? | A proposed a minimum will not disqualify an offer. If an offeror includes a minimum transaction volume, they would identify this assumption in volume 5 item D Pricing Narrative, a detailed description of their assumption. | No | |
| 3 | N/A | N/A | What ETSNext deliverable will provide the detailed integration specifications that Financial Management (FM) systems will need to scope and begin development of the FM side of the ETSNext integration? Below are examples of some of the detailed specifications that FM providers will need: |
- What would be sent through the integration for a $10 decrease? Would it be a -$10 or the new updated amount (so the original amount less the $10)
- What specific BIE fields would ETSNext send if a travel specific element changed such as Travel Start or End Date? For example, would only the changed field be populated and all others be blank?
- What would the ETSNext integration send if a value on the line of accounting changed, for example if the object class changed from A to B. Would it send ; - $100 Object Class A, $100 Object Class B, One line with all fields blank except for the field that changed (Object Class), Something Else?
- What would the integration send if a combination of these things happened at one time? For example, what would happen if Line 1, Object Class A $100 changed to Line 1, Object Class B $90?
| If these types of details are currently available, in what document can they be found? | The solicitation requires design decisions for agency transition (including interfaces) to be documented in the agency transition plan (AT-3). The template for this planning documentation, where the vendor can design the best means for capturing this information, is deliverable AT-2. | No | |||
| 4 | N/A | N/A | What is ETS Next plan for supporting testing of FM system integrations,including providing a test environment and performing ETSNext transaction entry for transmission to FM Systems? | It is expected that the vendor will test the APIs to perform FM Integration for each IOC release. Vendors should refer to the RTM to align API requirements with implementation phases. It is expected that the selected vendor will use a Test Environment of their platform to connect to agency business system testing environments for purposes of testing the API Integrations prior to production use. | |
| 5 | B.05 Schedule of Items (Pricing) | pages 4-8 | ETSNext differs from the purchase of a SaaS OBT offering in that the T&E managed service described in the RFP requires an integrated platform of services and technologies that supports GSA's Shared Travel & Expense Service. Similar to other technology buys, SaaS OBT pricing largely scales with transaction volumes. However, unlike a simple OBT acquisition, ETSNext includes required, ongoing services and costs the vendor will incur regardless of the scale of transaction volumes. These costs are not necessarily covered if ETSNext transaction volumes decline due to events we can predict, such as a global pandemic, an extended Government shutdown, and more. These services could include: |
- Management of unused tickets purchased prior to any travel disruption
- Travel policy assessment and updates necessary to adapt to restrictions to a constrained travel environment
- Travel & Expense tool reconfiguration to adapt to revised policy and pre-trip approval requirements
- Change management strategy execution to adopt to the new travel environment
- Assist in the communication strategy and execution to help suppliers travelers adapt to near/long term expected changes in travel transactions
- Support traveler tracking for duty of care efforts necessary to support travelers' safe return in a timely manner, and more.
| The RFP pricing model potentially restricts ETSNext competition. By structuring pricing around the business model of SaaS technology providers, the Government is introducing risk to Federal professional and technology service providers that their costs may not be eligible to invoice. To enable ongoing and consistent service levels from the ETSNext vendor and to preserve competition for such a substantial award, will the Government allow vendors to propose monthly minimum transaction volumes that enable the necessary support and sustainment of the ETSNext service? The benefit to the Government is the quality of ETSNext services to Federal employees will remain consistent regardless of transaction volumes and that ETSNext will be awarded through competitive bidding from a diversity of qualified vendors. | The Government will evaluate any proposed minimum volume conditions, as part of its overall risk assessment and best value determination. If a bidder proposed such a minimum guarantee, it needs to clearly be articulated in Volume 5 item d pricing narrative as an assumption. | No | |||
| 6 | B.05 Schedule of Items (Pricing) | ||||
| CLIN 0001 and CLIN 0002 - Managed Service T&E Transactions (Travel Reservation, Authorization and Voucher Transactions) | 4 | Will GSA confirm, as it did for the Draft RFP, that it will accept proposals that require the Government to pay on a monthly basis. | |||
| (Reference: DRAFT RFP 47QMCB23R0009, 10/25/2023 answers to question, question #30.) | RFP Section L.02.1 Volume 5 item d is the pricing narrative. Offerors can include in their pricing assumptions items that support the offeror's approach to price. This includes requesting payment on a monthly basis, if the offeror is requesting this. The Government will review and either accept, reject, or negotiate. | No | |||
| 7 | M.04.1 Phase 1 Evaluations | ||||
| Phase 1 Factor 2 - Non-Technical Volume 4 - Past Performance | 134 | Given the breadth of essential services required in the RFP to support GSA's Shared Travel & Expense Service across all Federal agencies, will GSA consider revising its past performance evaluation criteria to include highly evaluating offerors who demonstrate expertise with shared service programs providing cross-agency support? | RFP Section M.04.1 Phase 1 Evaluations has been updated to reflect revised evaluation criteria for high that states "The evaluated past performance demonstrates that the offeror’s past performance is current (within the last 3 years) and is of similar size and complexity as the ETSNext requirement. 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. The Offeror thoroughly addressed Volume 4 submission requirements outlined in section L.02.1 in a manner that gives GSA high confidence in the proposed past performance volume." | Yes - Reflected in Solicitation Amendment A0002 | |
| 8 | PART II - CONTRACT CLAUSES, Sect I, I.01 Provisions and Clauses, 52.216-4 Economic Price Adjustment-Labor and Material (JAN 2017) and FP-EPA Section B, B03; B.05.01, CLIN 3, CLIN 0004, OP 1-4 CLIN tables, 52.216-1 | 81 and 4-8, 118 | Under 52.216-4(4), Will the Government agree to use the similar threshold of limitations for the Vendor of 3%-10% when tracking and calculating decreases? | FAR 52.216-4(3) States: "(3) There shall be no adjustment for any change in rates of pay for labor (including fringe benefits) or unit prices for material which would not result in a net change of at least 3 percent of the then-current total contract price. This limitation shall not apply, however, if, after final delivery of all line items, either party requests an adjustment under paragraph (b) of this clause." |
FAR 52.216-4(4) States: "The aggregate of the increases in any contract unit price made under this clause shall not exceed 10 percent of the original unit price. There is no percentage limitation on the amount of decreases that may be made under this clause." This is what will be utilized when calculating EPA's.
| Additionally, Section L.02.1 Volume 5 item d Pricing Narrative states d. Pricing Narrative - 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). | No | |||
| 9 | PC: 8TVK | N/A | As requested, here is Amex GBT’s PCC for the upcoming “at evaluation” exercise for ETSNext which will need to be provided to all suppliers for us to be able to access Government and CPP fares along with FedRooms rates. |
PC: 8TVK
We will need the car rental contract discount numbers (CD #s) along with the ticketing instructions from the airlines. Please provide them with the instructions that are expected to be sent out tomorrow. GSA currently plans to provide access to supplier content after the proposal submission deadline of Jan 31. Please let us know if you need access to content earlier and we will evaluate options.
The car rental contract discount numbers will be published to Sam.gov this week, in the Configuration Guidance attachment.
| We do not believe airline ticketing instructions are necessary to complete the Demonstration Scenarios. Please let us know, after reviewing the Configuration Guidance attachment, if you believe ticketing instructions are required. | No | |||||
| 10 | Contract Clauses | 81 | The clause 52.219-9 Alt 1 is listed. Will the government update the clause to Alt IV (Sept 2023) which will include all 15 elements of the subcontracting plan and also breakdown the subcontracting plan goals by base year and option periods? | No. FAR 52.219-9 Alt 4 is only incorporated due to a modification. However, Alt 1 will be removed as this is contract by negotiation and not sealed bidding. | Yes - Reflected in Solicitation Amendment A0002 | |
| 11 | Volume 3: Small Business Subcontracting | 120 | Will the government consider removing large business ODCs from the Individual Subcontract Report (ISR) requirement to allow prime contractors to demonstrate their good faith efforts to small businesses and other socioeconomic categories? | The Individual Subcontract Report (ISR) does not mention "ODCs". The Government cannot remove something that is not present. Please clarify the question if there is different intent. | No | |
| 12 | L.2.01 RFP Instructions | 118-119 | Will the government consider allowing a font size of Arial Narrow 8 point pitch be allowable for graphics and tables? | Font should be a minimum of 10 pitch or point size. The solicitation will be amended to reflect that tables, charts, and graphics/images are allowed a minimum of 8 pitch or point size. | Yes - Reflected in Solicitation Amendment A0002 | |
| 13 | B.05.1 DEFINITIONS (PRICING) and G.05 Invoice Processing Platform (IPP) | 5 & 61 | CLIN 0001 and CLIN 0002—Managed Service T&E Transactions (Travel Reservation, Authorization and Voucher Transactions) |
| The number of completed transactions will be assessed on a quarterly basis; however, per G.05, the Contractor may invoice for items or services upon their delivery. Please confirm that completed transactions may be invoiced monthly. | Updated Section G to Remove "Upon their delivery" and replace with "in accordance with the contractor’s accepted delivery schedule". The number of transactions will be assessed on a quarterly basis. | Yes - Reflected in Solicitation Amendment A0002 | ||||
| 14 | B.05.1 DEFINITIONS (PRICING) and Section M; Phase 1 Volume 5 Price Evaluation | 5 & 123 | CLIN 0003, B-table requires annual (one year) price, please confirm whether evaluation will be for the value entered or the entire base period ( value x 3 years). | A solicitation amendment will be issued to revise CLIN 0003 to reflect the entire base period | Yes - Reflected in Solicitation Amendment A0002 | |
| 15 | C.02.01 Service Management Deliverables | 18 | When the RFP refers to due dates such as "15 days after award", can the government clarify if "days" refers to calendar days or business days? | Calendar days. Where the calendar day falls on weekend or Federal holiday, it will be due the next business day. | No | |
| 16 | Attachment J-4.2 | BIE Principles and Assumptions Tab, TRT-14 | The Business Information Exchange documents indicate that traveler payment information (e.g., payee bank routing and account numbers) will be provided via Federal Financial Management systems. Has the Federal Financial Management community agreed to this as a standard approach? | This is a design decision that will need to be finalized after award based on the future vendor's API capabilities and FM community final decision on this standard. The community input to-date is that it is information that should reside in the agency FMS. The government offices involved in this decision are meeting on a quarterly basis to support the needs for our implementation. These include the Office of Governmentwide Policy [FTR + Office of Shared Solutions and Performance Improvement], FM Standards and QSMO, and HR QSMO. | No | |
| 17 | Attachment J-4.2 | BIE Principles and Assumptions Tab, TRT-14 | Has the Human Capital Management line of business agreed on a standard for exchange of traveler information between HCM systems and FFM systems? | No, there is not currently a standard for exchange of traveler information between HCM systems and FFM systems. Discussions are underway but there is no timeline on when it will be available. | No | |
| 18 | Attachment J-4.2 | BIE Principles and Assumptions Tab, TRT-14 | Is GSA open to an approach that sources traveler and bank information for ETSNext directly from the authoritative source, i.e., HCM systems, using whatever standard Business Information Exchange is or will be agreed upon by all three (TRT, FFM, and HCM) lines of business? | This is a design decision that will need to be finalized after award based on the future vendor's API capabilities and FM community final decision on this standard. The community input to-date is that it is information that should reside in the agency FMS. The government offices involved in this decision are meeting on a quarterly basis to support the needs for our implementation. These include the Office of Governmentwide Policy [FTR + Office of Shared Solutions and Performance Improvement], FM Standards and QSMO, and HR QSMO. | No | |
| 19 | B.05.1, CLIN 0002 | 5 | The government states that "Offerors should be aware that the Government reserves the right to exempt select individuals and agencies from mandatory use of ETSNext in accordance with FTR 301-73.102, 301-50.4 (individuals) and 301-73.104 (agency-wide)." Can GSA please share the following: |
1. What is the anticipated applicability and impact of this statement for the ETSNext vendor?
2. Are there current select individuals and agencies that are exempt from mandatory use of ETS2?
| 3. Are there plans to exempt for any select individuals and agencies from mandatory use of ETSNext? | Under 301-73.104, there is a process to request an exemption from the required use of the E-Gov Travel Service, which will apply to the ETSNext Shared Service. Exemptions are not planned, and have rarely been requested over the 20 year history of E-Gov. There are no approved waivers at this time. | No | |||
| 20 | B.05.1, CLIN 0004 | 6 | Are there any known or anticipated custom/enhancements that GSA is contemplating as part of ETSNext? | All known requirements are incorporated in Attachment J-3, Requirements Traceability Matrix. Whether these requirements are met via configuration or customization is to be clarified by future offerors. |
| The RFP requires a continuous improvement approach. The best means of meeting future needs will be based on vendor recommendations, and governance prioritization processes. | No | |||
| 21 | C.01.2 Background | 12 | GSA states that the PMO will: "Maintain tools for integrated project management across agencies and ETSNext T&E Technology Managed Service Provider." |
Can GSA please clarify what tools and how they are intended to be used?
Will there be a limit to the number of users allocated to the contractor?
Will the contractor need to support the technical configurations for the tooling provided by the PMO? The primary tools we use today for gathering and tracking customer data (e.g., requirements, user stories, schedule information) are collected by our PMO team using Smartsheets. We are open to working with the awarded vendor on the preferred methods to exchange data gathered through their real-time issue request and tracking tool (PWS, C.02.4 #33 to track issues, defect and related resolutions) as well as electronic exchange of schedule and contractor performance management information (PWS, C.02.1). GSA has access to JIRA tool and similar to consider integration to streamline information sharing and reporting processes to the maximum degree possible. It is possible for GSA to create a small number of gsa.gov accounts for approved contractor personnel, and establish Smartsheet creator licenses if needed. Otherwise, collaborator access would be granted for applicable approved personnel.
| This statement cited was to address an overall PMO function for tracking data related to shared service performance and user needs. It is not intended to replace any tools the managed service provider needs to provide related services and reports as outlined in the PWS. For example, the awarded vendor is expected to maintain application lifecycle management tools for their service / solution development work (or similar tool for tracking feature delivery). | No | |||
| 22 | C.01.2 Background, Figure 1 | 11 | In Figure 1, GSA depicts the "GSA ETSNext Shared Service PMO" is responsible for "API & Data Services." |
| Can GSA please clarify the roles and responsibilities for the PMO vs. Managed Service Provider relative to API & Data Services? | It is the responsibility of the vendor to use the published design documents to implement and manage the APIs. | Yes - Figure 1 is edited to reflect this clarification that API Services are responsibility of the Vendor. The Shared Service PMO will provide oversight, and coordination of agency requirements, facilitate governance decisions related to these services. Amendment A00002 addresses the updated figure | ||
| 23 | C.01.3 Vision and Objectives Figure 2 | 13 | In Figure 2, GSA depicts that the PMO will be responsible for "TMC Vendor Performance Management, T&E Vendor Management, Customer Shared Services, and Governance Management." |
| To help the contractor understand separation of roles and responsibilities, can GSA please describe what tasks will be covered by the PMO under the noted areas of responsibility? | Roles and responsibilities of the ETSNext PMO are described in Figure 1. C.01.3 Vision and Objectives. Figure 2 has been updated to remove TMC Vendor Performance Management, T&E Vendor Management, Customer Shared Services, and Governance Management. | Yes Solicitation Amendment A00002 addresses the updated figure | ||
| 24 | C.01.4 | 16 | GSA states that there may be a future need to incorporate DoD requirements into ETSNext. |
| Is GSA considering incorporating any intel agencies or allow state and local governments to use ETSNext? | There are no current plans to incorporate unique requirements related to either the federal intelligence community, or State and Local governments. | No | ||
| 25 | B.05 | 6 | CLIN 0004 states in part, "Offerors should propose a unit of incremental work (e.g. sprint), and include a description of the team composition and duration of the unit of work." |
| Would GSA consider providing additional CLINs or sub CLINs to support different team compositions for varying types of custom requirements or enhancements? | The unit of incremental work (e.g. sprint) can be as proposed by the offeror as best fits their approach and anticipated needs for the phase of the program. Assumptions (length of the unit of incremental work, hours, labor categories, etc.) made should be documented clearly in the pricing volume and the government will evaluate using the criteria outlined in the amended RFP section M.04.1 (Fairness and reasonableness). | No | ||||
| 26 | C.02.3 Service Delivery - Implementation Requirement 13a | 21 - 22 | How will GSA help mitigate the risk of FM and HR system agency contractors incentive to support IOC and FOC implementation timelines? | GSA has involved customer agencies in the design of the API specifications, and has incorporated feedback provided by those agencies. GSA has also distributed data field mappings for each of the 3 largest FM systems in use, to help agency FM system teams in their planning and design. Prior to award, GSA will be working with IOC and FOC agencies to continue to socialize the new API specifications and approach. Additionally, GSA is developing a transition toolkit to support agencies in executing their own FM and HR integration. | No | |
| 27 | Cover Page | 1 | Will offerors have the change to ask additional questions during the Pre-Proposal Conference? | If time is available, additional questions during the pre-proposal conference will be allowed. A second question and answer period will be given for questions. | No | |
| 28 | Phase 1 Volume 5 Price Evaluation | 123 | Total evaluated price will be calculated by adding the total quoted price for all CLINs; however, excluding CLIN 0003, each sub-bullet, it states ..."For evaluation purposes, CLIN...will be evaluated against one transaction unit (1 EA)." |
Will the single Unit Price for each CLIN be added together with CLIN 0003 to create the Total Evaluated Price or will each CLIN be multiplied against a quantity other than one and then added to CLIN 0003 to create a Total Evaluated Price? If the latter is correct, please provide what that transaction quantity will be. Please see revised price evaluation which states:
Price Factors: The total evaluated price will be calculated by the following:
Adding the total quoted price for T&E Managed Service Transactions up to 3 million per year (CLIN 0001, CLIN 1001, CLIN 2001, CLIN 3001, CLIN 4001, and Continuity of Services (which is six months of CLIN 4001)). For evaluation purposes:
CLIN 0001 will be evaluated against 2 million transactions.
CLIN 1001 will be evaluated against 8.1 million transactions (2.7M per FY x 3 FYs).
CLIN 2001 will be evaluated against 8.1 million transactions (2.7M per FY x 3 FYs) CLIN 3001 will be evaluated against 8.1 million transactions (2.7M per FY x 3 FYs) CLIN 4001 will be evaluated against 8.1 million transactions (2.7M per FY x 3 FYs) Continuity of Services will be evaluated against 1.35 million transactions (6 months of CLIN 4001)
Note: Transaction volumes are for evaluation purposes only and are not guaranteed.
Adding the total quoted price for T&E Managed Service Implementation (CLIN 0003)(1 lump sum for the base period only).
| The T&E Managed Service Transactions above 3 million, CLIN 0002, CLIN 1002, CLIN 2002, CLIN 3002, and CLIN 4002, will be evaluated for fair and reasonableness but not included in the total evaluated price. The T&E Managed Service Implementation (Option Years), CLIN 1003, CLIN 2003, CLIN 3003, and CLIN 4003, will be evaluated for fair and reasonableness but not included in the total evaluated price. The Customer Requirements/Enhancements, CLIN 0004, CLIN 1004, CLIN 2004, CLIN 3004, and CLIN 4004 will be evaluated for fair and reasonableness but not included in the total evaluated price. Direct Reimbursable Travel CLIN 0005, CLIN 1005, CLIN 2005, CLIN 3005, and CLIN 4005 will not be evaluated. | Yes - Reflected in Solicitation Amendment A0002 | |||
| 29 | B.05.1 DEFINITIONS (PRICING) | 5 | The historical transaction volumes for FY22 and FY23 (when extrapolated for a full year) as provided in J-5.1 and J-5.2 appear to be lower than the FY22 (actuals) and FY23 (projected) as listed on RFP page 5. In addition, the historical transactions represented by the three IOC Agencies collectively compared to all Agency totals in J-5.1 and J-5.2 appear to be less than the percentage range listed in RFP page 24. These historical and RFP projected differences suggest that total transaction volumes may be lower than RFP projections. In addition, the final RFP notes that “transaction volumes are estimates only and are not guaranteed.” This creates significant risk for the Contractor if projected volumes are not realized. The result will be less competitive pricing for the Government. |
| Therefore, we recommend the Government add CLINs with additional transaction level breakdown (e.g., CLIN x0001 <1M; CLIN x0002 1M-2M; CLIN x0003 2M-3M; CLIN x0004 >3M) to address this risk of lower-than-expected transaction levels which mitigates some of the Contractor’s risk, resulting in the most competitive pricing for the Government. | The government will stick to the CLIN structure as provided in the RFP. If a vendor would like to propose any alternative pricing models, they will do that in the pricing volume 5 and show the benefit to the government of the alternative pricing model. | No | ||
| 30 | B.05.1 DEFINITIONS (PRICING) and Section M; Phase 1 Volume 5 Price Evaluation | Section B | 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. |
| Please advise if the Contractor may add CLINS to Section B as part of its pricing adjustments for the ramp-up period. If that is not acceptable, we recommend that the Government add a separate Solution Management CLIN to the Base Period for costs associated with PWS C.02.1, C.02.2, and C.02.4. This will avoid inflated transaction pricing which would penalize early onboarded Agencies as they would absorb a disproportionate share of the managed service costs incurred during the IOC to FOC transaction ramp up period. | Offerors will not add CLINS to Section B. The pricing volume 5 will be the offeror's opportunity to describe any pricing assumptions, or to suggest any alternative pricing approaches. This will include any reflection on the ramp up period, any pricing discounts if annual volumes increase over the life of the contract, any decreased transaction volume during transition out, minimums, etc. | No | |||
| 31 | J-5.1_Agency Profiles | Summary Tab | Can GSA provide, within the J-5.1 Agency Profiles, agency Financial Management system status with regard to the financial management system maturity and readiness for an API interface approach? | These CFO Act Agencies have reviewed the FM API and provided feedback which has been incorporated into the standard API templates: Department of Agriculture, Department of Energy, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Homeland Security - Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Department of Justice, Department of Labor, Department of State, Department of the Interior, Department of Treasury - Fiscal Service and IRS, Department of Transportation, Department of Veteran Affairs, Environmental Protection Agency, General Service Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Science Foundation, and Social Security Administration. |
| These agencies represent agencies with more complex ETS2 interfaces and also provide a cross-section of the government's Financial Management Systems and ETS2 solutions. | No | |||
| 32 | Section C: Description/specifications/statement of work. | |||
| Data and Reporting Operations (APIs, Quality). | 39-40 | What is the current reporting tool? | Because current ETS2 contract scope typically includes TMC services, reporting capabilities currently include booking, authorization, voucher data. Under ETSNext, agencies will have reporting capabilities from both ETSNext, and their selected TMC. ETSNext reporting requirements are described in the RTM. | No |
| 33 | Section C: Description/specifications/statement of work. | |||
| Data and Reporting Operations (APIs, Quality). | 39-40 | How many unique reports are there? | ETSNext will require all regulatory reports described in the RTM, and in addition, up to 5 custom reports for each agency. | No |
| 34 | Section C: Description/specifications/statement of work. | |||
| Data and Reporting Operations (APIs, Quality). | 39-40 | How many unique users are there? | 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 |
| 35 | Section C: Description/specifications/statement of work. | |||
| Data and Reporting Operations (APIs, Quality). | 39-40 | How many reports are ran per month? | Unique reports created and run vary by agency and sub-component. We don't track the total number of reports at each specific agency. | No |
| 36 | Section C: Description/specifications/statement of work. | |||
| Data and Reporting Operations (APIs, Quality). | 39-40 | What is the average amount of data transferred via reporting per month? | Unique reports created and run vary by agency and sub-component. We don't track the total number of reports at each specific agency. | No |
| 37 | Section C: Description/specifications/statement of work. | |||
| Data and Reporting Operations (APIs, Quality). | 39-40 | What is the source of the data sets, e.g. T&E Credit Card Charges | The data source will be the ETSNext, which will include Authorization and Voucher data, ETSNext usage data (for purposes of UX improvement), and SmartPay credit card transaction data via integration. | No |
| 38 | Section C: Description/specifications/statement of work. | |||
| Data and Reporting Operations (APIs, Quality). | 39-40 | How how would the data be provided to the Data Warehouse, or by what method would it be obtained? | Per Requirement 18 on p40, vendor shall provide full API access to data. | No |
| 39 | Section C: Description/specifications/statement of work. | |||
| Data and Reporting Operations (APIs, Quality). | 39-40 | What is the total number of reports that would need to be replicated across all Agencies? | Vendors are responsible for all reporting requirements described in the Reporting Requirements tab of Attachment J-3 and Data and the Reporting Operations section of the RFP (p39-40), which includes up to 5 custom reports for each agency. | No |
| 40 | Section C: Description/specifications/statement of work. | |||
| Data and Reporting Operations (APIs, Quality). | 39-40 | When do all requirements have to be operational? | The API operational delivery should align with feature delivery schedule in the RTM, but in a cadence that supports related readiness testing by agencies for business systems integration and reporting services. | No |
| 41 | Attachment J-4.9 ETSNext G-Invoicing API v2.0.pdf | Pages 7-8 | The embedded links are inaccessible. Please provide direct links and/or copies of the following files: |
openapi3_0_GInvoicing for ETSNext_v1.yaml openapi3_0_GInvoicing for ETSNext_v1.json API Service Activity G-Invoicing Mapping Template ETSNext FM Standard APIv1.9.docx
| TRT.010 Travel and Expense Management Business Standards | The links in Attachment J-4.9 will be loaded to sam.gov and provided to all vendors that completed their coverletter. | No - Attachments are CUI and will be sent to all vendors that request CUI Documents | ||||
| 42 | PRS-19 | Attachment J-2 | What time periods are identified as the core service hours during which peak traffic is anticipated? What is the expected number of help desk contacts during those peak hours? What are the time periods during core service hours in which peak traffic is anticipated ? | The core help desk service hours are 7a ET to 10p ET Monday through Friday. We cannot anticipate more specific peak traffic times since travel is based on each agencies mission. The peaks are typically experienced during national emergency events. Refer to other large enterprise commercial experience volumes and provide related assumptions and performance parameters as part of their offer. | ||
| No | ||||||
| 43 | C.02.04 | 41 | On item 33 - Considering GSA's previous indication of 60,000 annual calls/contacts to the Help Desk, which Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) should be used for pricing calls/contacts exceeding this amount? | The vendor can include pricing assumptions related to this volume based on their past performance history and what is appropriate for their approach. The government will continue to use the CLIN structure as provided in the RFP. If a vendor would like to propose any alternative pricing models, they will do that in the pricing volume 5 and show the benefit to the government of the alternative pricing model. | No | |
| 44 | C.02.04 | 41 | On item 34 - Should the offer include a rate for 24/7/365 service in our response, and if so, which CLIN should be used, and what volume of calls/contacts should we assume? | Proposed pricing should include 24/7/365 technical system support for agencies with OCONUS travelers. | No | |
| 45 | B.05.1 | 5 | RFP specifies that IOC agencies collectively will represent approximately 10-15% of total TDY transaction volume. The ROM framework presented a line item to incorporate a revenue ramp-up during base period in order for The Contractor to face the costs of operating the platform while voucher volume is still very low. The RFP also specifies that The Contractor is encouraged to describe any pricing adjustments to reflect ramp-up period, but does not specify under which CLIN this should be described. Given the absence of a specific CLIN for upfront costs, is it correct to assume that these costs would be incorporated into the implementation CLIN (0003)? | CLIN 0003 should include all work required to fully implement the managed service, including "upfront costs". It should be noted that the volume of transactions from the IOC agencies may be closer to 5 percent of total volume. | No | |
| 46 | C.02.1 | 33-37 | Deliverables IX-1 - IX-14 Due dates do not coincide with stated MiSaaS and FedRAMP authorization timelines of 9 months of award and 12 months of MiSaaS ATO, respectively. Please clarify. For example, a completed FedRAMP SAR is due 240 days of contract award, but FedRAMP Authorization is due NLT 12 months of MiSaaS ATO, i.e. 21 months from contract award. | Deliverables IX-1 through IX-14 and IX-15 through IX-50 are addressing two possible security authorization scenarios: |
1) a vendor starting the FedRAMP authorization process with GSA sponsorship as part of this award; OR
2) a vendor already in the process of obtaining a FedRAMP authorization or already FedRAMP authorized prior to award.
If the offeror falls under scenario 1, the offeror shall follow the MiSaaS authorization process as per the details in the GSA MiSaaS Process Guide and is expected to obtain a MiSaaS authorization within 9 months of award and deliver IX-1 through IX-14 prior to the IOC. Simultaneously, the offeror would also be pursuing a full FedRAMP authorization within 21 months of award and deliver IX-15 through IX-50. Any references to FedRAMP templates for deliverables IX-1 through IX-14 for the MiSaaS authorization is to avoid duplicating efforts by the vendor by utilizing different templates during the MiSaaS authorization and subsequent FedRAMP authorization processes. The MiSaaS authorization is based on a subset of the moderate NIST SP 800-53 rev. 5 baseline controls required for FedRAMP authorization. Therefore, the expectation is that only the controls required in the GSA MiSaaS Process Guide would be completed in the FedRAMP templates required for the MiSaaS authorization deliverables IX-5 through IX-14.
| For offerors pursuing scenario 2, the expectation is that a complete FedRAMP package would be submitted and not just the MiSaaS required elements. Regardless of whether an offeror is pursuing MiSaaS initially or already in process for FedRAMP, the offeror will provide IX-1 through IX-6 within 90 days of award. In addition, an offeror pursuing only FedRAMP authorization (skipping MiSaaS), would also need to deliver IX-15 through IX-49 within 90 days of contract award as well. These deliverables due within the first 90 days of contract award will allow GSA to determine if the offeror will be able to obtain FedRAMP authorization in time for the IOC or if the offeror will need to pursue MiSaaS authorization. If the offeror is opting to skip MiSaaS and is already in process for a FedRAMP authorization, the offeror should follow the FedRAMP deliverables and timelines defined in IX-15 through IX-50 for "skipping MiSaaS ATO". IX-7 through IX-14 are only required if the offeror needs to pursue MiSaaS prior to FedRAMP authorization as described for scenario 1. | No | |||||
| 47 | C.02.04 | 51-65 | Please clarify IX deliverable due dates between this table and previous table (pg 33-37) and stated ATO award timelines, e.g. MiSaaS within 9 months of contract award and FedRAMP ATO within 12 months of MiSaS ATO. | Please refer to answer for question #46. | No | |
| 48 | Section L | 121 | Concerning Volume 4 - Past Performance, we are requested to provide the Customer contract value and duration. Given that this information is typically protected under a NDA, how does the GSA suggest we proceed? Would it be acceptable to use a proxy, such as 'annual transaction levels', to convey this information? | A proxy can be used, such as "Annual Transaction Levels", however, the Government may reach out to the customer and ask specific past performance questions. | No | |
| 49 | M.05.1 | 137 | Can you confirm if the expectation of the API, which we understood was not required until post-award, needs to meet all requirements for FM integrations for Phase 2 Evaluation? | Referring back to J-10 Scenario 7, states that APIs are not expected at the time of Phase 2 Evaluation demonstrations. It is expected that the vendor will utilize the APIs to perform FM Integration as part of IOC. | No | |
| 50 | B.05.1 | 5 | What is the peak transaction capacity per second for both the online booking tool and the expense management solution on ETS2? Given the importance of this data for scaling our solution to accommodate expected demand, does the GSA anticipate that the transaction volumes for ETSNext will be comparable to the peak transaction capacities per second experienced on the current ETS2? | We do anticipate average and peak usage volumes to be similar to ETS2, however ETS2 does have two incumbent vendors providing technology solutions and ETSNext will provide a managed technology service to support all current ETS2 customers. We do not have data on current usage levels, however it may be useful to consider a rough formula of 2.7m trips/280 working days = approx 9600 trips per day, or approx 1200 users an hour assuming 8 hours a day. Please note, this is average data and not peak. | No | |
| 51 | Section M | 126 | What is meant by 'commercially comparable capabilities' as referenced in Element 1, item D, when evaluating sustainability opportunities? Are there data/functionality or capabilities that the GSA is specifically looking for? | The government is looking for a description of offerors capabilities regarding sustainabilities. Examples include but are not limited to displaying carbon emissions in availability to allow for customer choice, reporting on carbon emissions, etc. | No | |
| 52 | RFP: Pre Proposal Conference Information | 1 | Would the Government please provide the Agenda and format for the Pre-Proposal conference to include the Government's intent to respond to questions, whether one-on-one breakout sessions will be scheduled with interested bidders, and to post a recording of the conference on SAM.gov following its conclusion? | 1-on-1 sessions will not be scheduled with the interested bidders. An agenda will be provided at the pre-proposal conference. Top level questions will be provided and if time is allotted, additional questions may be answered. The pre-proposal conference will be recorded and posted to GSA's YouTube Channel at https://www.youtube.com/usgsa. | No | |
| 53 | RFP: B.05 Schedule of Items (Pricing) | 4 - 8 | The RFP Schedule of items does not provide either a minimum transaction volume or a CLIN dedicated to ongoing operational costs apart from the per transaction price. Operational costs required from RFP requirements will begin during implementation in the Base Period as agencies are onboarded to the ETSNext solution, and persist throughout the Option Periods with or without any transaction volume. Without these safeguards, the ability of the contractor, subcontractors, and T&E software providers to scale efficiently to support the ETSNext program will be eroded. This would be further exacerbated if Federal travel is disrupted by circumstances such as another pandemic or a prolonged government shutdown. As written, the RFP is forcing industry to revisit bid / no-bid decisions. To protect the Government and ETSNext contractors in the absence of a minimum transaction volume commitment from the GSA, will the Government include the addition of a CLIN in the Base and Option periods where bidders can price ongoing operational activities to be able to provide the T&E capability? | The government will continue to use the CLIN structure as provided in the RFP. If a vendor would like to propose any alternative pricing models, they will do that in the pricing volume 5 and show the benefit to the government of the alternative pricing model. | No | |
| 54 | RFP: B.05 Schedule of Items (Pricing) | 5 | The RFP projects the FY'23 transaction volume as approximately 2.3 million transactions, which escalated further in FY'24. Will the Government amend the RFP to specify a minimum transaction volume commitment of 2.3 million transactions per year? | The actual FY23 Transaction Volume will be updated in Solicitation Amendment A00003 to reflect the actual transaction volume of 2,468,738. The government will not amend the RFP to specify a minimum transaction volume commitment of 2.3 million transactions per year. If a vendor would like to propose any alternative pricing models, they will do that in the pricing volume 5 and show the benefit to the government of the alternative pricing model. | Yes - Will be reflected in Amendment A00003 | |
| 55 | RFP: B.05 Schedule of Items (Pricing) | 4 | Please confirm that the description of a transaction contained in "CLIN 0001 and CLIN 0002 - Managed Service T&E Transactions (Travel Reservation, Authorization and Voucher Transactions)" also applies to the corresponding Option Period CLINs. | Confirming that the description of a transaction contained in CLIN0001 and CLIN0002 - Managed Service T&E Transactions (Travel Reservation, Authorization, and Voucher Transactions) also apply to the corresponding option CLINs. Updated CLIN0001 and CLIN0002 to reflect CLIN 1 and CLIN 2 (which encompasses CLINS 0001, 1001, 2001, 3001, 4001, and 0002, 1002, 2002, 3002, and 4002) | Yes - Reflected in Solicitation Amendment A0002 | |
| 56 | RFP: B.05 Schedule of Items (Pricing) | 4 | Please clarify if any of the following scenarios constitute a transaction for invoicing purposes under GSA's definition: |
1) Inclusive of an Authorization, Reservation, and Voucher
2) Inclusive of an Authorization and Reservation that is subsequently cancelled with no Voucher
3) Inclusive of an Authorization and Reservation that is subsequently cancelled with a Voucher (if for example a TMC fee was charged to a traveler's IBA card)
4) Inclusive of Multiple Authorizations and Reservations for one trip with a single Voucher submitted after the trip
5) Inclusive of a Local Travel Voucher only 1) yes
2) no
3) yes
4) yes (one voucher transaction)
5) yes
| Yes - Added in Solicitation Amendment A00002 | |
| 57 | RFP: B.05.1 Definitions (Pricing): |
CLIN 003
| CLIN 004 | 45052 | To enable an equitable price evaluation for CLINs in which the scope has yet to be defined for bidders, would the Government please provide a defined level of capacity of labor hours and labor categories on an annual basis or a plug price estimate for all bidders to use for CLINs X003 and X004? | The unit of incremental work (e.g. sprint) is normally comprised of a two week period. The unit of incremental work (e.g. sprint) can be as proposed by the offeror as best fits their approach and anticipated needs for the phase of the program. Assumptions (length of the unit of incremental work, hours, labor categories, etc.) made should be documented clearly in the pricing volume and the government will evaluate using the criteria outlined in the amended RFP section M.04.1 (Fairness and reasonableness). | No | ||
| 58 | RFP: C.01 Performance Work Statement - Travel and Expense (T&E) Technology Managed Service | |||||
| C.01.3 Vision and Objectives | 12 | In light of the commitment by Federal agencies to provide agency-level mission-specific T&E policy rules and various agency-specific activities, can you elaborate on the readiness and availability of external support entities during discovery, design, configuration, development, deployment, and validation? If such support is not readily available, could you please outline the process and approximate timeline for engaging and collaborating with external support for these activities? | The Federal Integrated Business Framework (FIBF) process resulted in OMB-approved Travel and Expense business standards that all agencies must adhere to, and that will serve as the base business requirements for ETSNext. GSA is conducting discovery with agencies, prior to award, to define common configuration settings that comply with T&E Standards and any agency-specific policies. Agencies would be responsible if any additional external support is required to participate in discovery, design, configuration, development, deployment and validation. | No | ||
| 59 | RFP: C.01 Performance Work Statement - Travel and Expense (T&E) Technology Managed Service | |||||
| C.01.3 Vision and Objectives | 12 | What specific types of work (Enhancements, Defects) and what level of work (Epics, Features, User Stories) will require review and approval by the Change Advisory Board (CAB) in the context of ongoing ETSNext change management and customer needs integration? Additionally, can you clarify how the government plans to ensure that the CAB review process is aligned with Agile development principles and does not impede the agile workflow? | GSA expects smaller enhancements and defects will be implemented without a need for governance review. The CAB will be established during the implementation of IOC. Prior to the CAB's formalization, GSA will work with vendor to define reasonable thresholds that allow the managed service provider to be responsive to users, ETSNext program priorities, and operational needs. Governance will set overall priorities, and will review and approve changes, establish acceptance criteria for the changes, and accept completed work. Enhancements will be prioritized with the vendor evaluating cost, benefit and impact. | No | ||
| 60 | RFP: C.01 Performance Work Statement - Travel and Expense (T&E) Technology Managed Service | |||||
| C.01.4 Scope | 14 | Will the contractor have access to customers and various user types who actively participate in planning activities, iteration reviews, solution reviews and demos to directly measure satisfaction and gather feedback as development and configuration work progresses, ensuring real-time assessment of customer satisfaction across applicable agencies and user types? | The ETSNext PMO will coordinate with participating agencies to ensure users representing various roles and types of travel needs are available for all phases including discovery, planning, testing, reviews, demos, etc. | No | ||
| 61 | RFP: C.01.4 Scope: | 14-16 | Will the contractor be able to utilize GSA ServiceNow licenses as GFE? If so, would the Government please confirm the ServiceNow modules that will be made available to the contractor? | No, contractor proposal should not assume any GSA-provided software licenses. | No | |
| 62 | RFP: C.01.4 Scope: | 14-16 | Please provide the historic inbound contact volumes for customer support in terms of: |
a. Call volume
b. Email volume and chat
| c. Self-service and chat bot | GSA does not have access to current contact center data broken out by channel. | No | ||||
| 63 | RFP: C.02.1 Service Management | |||||
| Performance Standard | 19 | Is the government currently operating within a scaled Agile framework (SAFe, Scrum@Scale), and if so, which framework is being used and to what extent is it employed in the organization's operations? | Agile SAFe and other Agile methods are used across GSA and the Government, however the current ETS2 contract does not apply an agile approach enterprisewide. Customer have expressed support and interest in taking an iterative, agile approach. | No | ||
| 64 | RFP: C.02.3 Service Delivery - Implementation Services | 23 | Is the government currently operating within an Agile methodology (Scrum, Kanban), and if so, which methodologies are being used and to what extent is Agile being employed? | No | No | |
| 65 | RFP: C.02.3 Service Delivery - Implementation Services |
Solution Design and Delivery
| 1 | 23 | We acknowledge that technical expertise will be required to provide draft Acceptance Criteria recommendations for technical Epics, Features, and User Stories; can the Government confirm that dedicated government portfolio managers, solution managers, and product owners will collaboratively define acceptance criteria with the ETSNext contractor for business epics, features, and user stories? | Subject Matter Experts will be assigned to contribute to, and finalize acceptance criteria wherever required. The ETSNext PMO will have a single accountable manager responsible for any final product related approval decisions, including acceptance criteria and acceptance of solution-related services. | No |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .