6.10.26_RFI 47QRAB26N0002 Q&As.pdf

RFI: GSA SmartPay 4 - 47QRAB26N0002 Question Answer

Has the GSA engaged vendors with non-US headquarters in the past? If yes, what were some of the conditions which made GSA comfortable with the engagement?

The GSA Payment Solutions Service Center (PSSC) has provided open opportunities for prospective contractors to provide information and demonstrations related to the next iteration of the GSA SmartPay master contract and related efforts. The opportunity to respond to a request for information (RFI) and for demonstrations related efforts have not been limited to US headquartered companies.

Provide background on proposed technology requirements for GSA SmartPay 4 including any changes from SmartPay 3?

PSSC is currently conducting market research. As such, there are no firm technology requirements to share at this time.

Is a separate technology instance required to partition GSA business from a provider’s other Commercial Card programs?

PSSC is currently conducting market research. As such, there are no firm requirements at this time. However, PSSC intends for the next iteration of the GSA SmartPay program to be as closely aligned with commercial standards as possible, taking into account the unique needs of the overall GSA SmartPay program and the unique mission critical needs of the program customers.

Is GSA open to migrating individually billed / individually paid programs to individually billed / agency paid programs?

PSSC is currently conducting market research and would consider suggestions or recommendations for commercially available alternatives to individually billed accounts that take into account the following:

- The need for contractors and the Government to recognize accounts under the GSA SmartPay program (e.g., state sales tax exemption, GSA City Pair eligibility, GSA FedRooms eligibility)

- Customer-specific human resource and financial management policies

- Current challenges resulting from multiple and/or aging financial management systems

Is GSA willing to mandate split disbursement for all large-ticket travel items such as common carrier charges (flights, trains, buses), hotel accommodations, and rental car expenses to significantly reduce the profile of individually billed / individually paid travel expense?

Section 2.5. Travel Card Internal Controls in OMB Circular A-123 Appendix B states, "The ability for travelers to 'split' reimbursements and salary offset are mandatory; however, agencies may request a waiver to these requirements if it is determined that the cost of implementing split disbursement and/or salary offset exceeds the benefits of implementation."

GSA does not have the authority to enforce this policy or to mandate customer financial management policy and processes. However, PSSC acknowledges that IBAs -- as administered under the current GSA SmartPay program -- may not align to commercial practices. As such, PSSC is committed to aligning to commercial standards as much of possible for the next iteration of the GSA SmartPay program and would consider suggestions or recommendations for commercially available alternatives to IBAs being used for transactions such as common carrier charges, hotel accomodations, and rental cars.

Question Answer

What background can GSA provide on individual billed accounts and credit loss impact to rebate rates?

PSSC does not currently collect this data as this is the responsibility of program customers to manage this issue.

Is GSA open to offshore servicing models for SmartPay 4? If yes, which functions are eligible and what data access/vetting requirements would apply?

PSSC is currently conducting market research. As such, there are no firm requirements to share at this time. However, PSSC would consider suggestions or recommendations for offshore servicing models that take into account the following:

- Government system security and background investigation policies

- Potential risks for offshoring services

Can GSA provide current spend profile by Government agency (i.e. annual spend for Department of Defense including B2B volumes)?

All publicly available spend data for GSA SmartPay program customers are currently available at

Is a provider required to bid on GSA fleet programs to participate in SmartPay4 or can this be modularized?

PSSC is currently conducting market research. As such, there are no firm requirements to share at this time. Under the current GSA SmartPay 3 program, offerors were allowed to submit proposals for one of the following options:

- All four business lines (i.e., purchase, travel, fleet, integrated)

- Purchase, travel, and integrated

- Fleet only

If GSA migrates off individually billed/individually paid to agency paid programs, does that alleviate concerns with tax exemptions?

States have the ultimate authority in determining the states sales tax exemption status and documentation requirements for both IBAs and CBAs; there are no uniform procedures for every state. As such, GSA would consider feedback for alleviating customer burdens in mangaging the state sales tax exemption process for all business lines, including how accounts are identified (e.g., BIN recognition).

Does a provider need to bid on all program agency task orders or is there an ability to selectively bid on specific task orders under specific card and account categories?

PSSC is currently conducting market research. As such, there are no firm requirements to share at this time. Under the GSA SmartPay 3 contract, GSA SmartPay 3 master contract awardees are not required to submit proposals on all task order requests for proposal.

What is GSA doing to reduce population of inactive cardholders for SmartPay4?

PSSC is currently engaging in a communications effort to educate customer charge card managers on the processes for reviewing account activity and closing out inactive accounts.

PSSC does not currently manage day-to-day operations for customer charge card operations.

PSSC is currently developing a shared service model for implementation.

https://smartpay.gsa.gov/about/statistics/#program-statistics.

What areas of your card program do you see as the biggest opportunity for AI to reduce administrative burden, and where are your teams currently the most resource constrained in day-to-day processes?

How are you hoping to replicate your shared services model successes in Smartpay 4? How will this facilitate higher program adoption?

Question Answer

How is GSA thinking about the overall program architecture for SmartPay 4, and what are the tradeoffs the government is weighing between a unified single-award framework, a multi-award approach, and a more modular structure?

Are there any particular challenges in SmartPay 3 that are of focus, in which the GSA sees potential areas to seek innovations? Whether in the form of new capabilities to develop or inspiration from commercial solutions?

PSSC is currently conducting market research. As such, there are no firm requirements to share at this time. The previous iterations of the GSA SmartPay contracts have been structured for multiple awards to encourage competition, innovation, and re-investment.

The focus areas of the next iteration of the GSA SmartPay program are as follows:

- Commerciality

- Security

- Innovation

This RFI is seeking information from the payments industry to address questions as posed, which are based on current program challenges and customer challenges.

What is the government's roadmap for as the federal travel booking platform, and what level of integration are you expecting contractors to support between the card program and for things like pre-trip authorization, per diem validation, and reconciliation?

PSSC does not manage . As such, we are not able to address a Go.gov roadmap. Currently, the interaction between Go.gov and GSA SmartPay contractor banks are as follows:

- BIN recognition

- Card transaction data

According to the background information provided, the GSA SmartPay3 Master Contract extends through November 2031. It appears from the first bullet that the requirement for FedRAMP is to be attained by November 2013; however the second bullet talks about November 2028.

Kindly clarify whether FedRAMP is to be attained by November 2028 or November 2031.

Secondarily, as FedRAMP is not a commercial requirement, is there an opportunity for the government to consider PCI and SOC1 and SOC2 certifications as sufficient?

The GSA SmartPay 3 master contract period of performance ends November 29, 2031, with all base and option periods exercised. However, should the Government decide to award the next iteration of the GSA SmartPay master contract prior to the last option period being exercised, the Government is seeking feedback from prospective offerors about their FedRAMP readiness in the event of an award for the new GSA SmartPay master contract in 2028.

PSSC is currently conducting market research. As such, there are no firm security requirements to share at this time. However, PSSC would consider recommendations, suggestions, and compelling and robust feedback for PCI and SOC 2 certifications as an alternative to FISMA requirements and FedRAMP certification.

Is there an official government definition of the term artificial intelligence ?

We ask, because we would like to be sure we properly answer. For example, does this include things such as machine learning, language processing models as well as the new “bot” technologies?

Secondly, are we to include the technologies being considered and/or planned for, since SmartPay4 is going to be implemented years from now?

The intent of the RFI is for prospective offerors to provide feedback for PSSC market research efforts into commercial payments. As such, please provide any commercial definitions available, including what is included or excluded. Additionally, PSSC would consider any feedback about current or emerging technology. Any proprietary information submitted should be clearly marked.

Go.gov

Go.gov

Go.gov

Question Answer

The RFI is asking about barriers for new companies to enter SmartPay 4.

Would GSA be willing to change the entry requirements to allow medium size banks (offering the same security and strong infrastructure as larger / current SmartPay providers) to bid on all or some subset of agencies? The bidding process could be by agency spend size or by business line. As the non-global banks may be as or more structurally sound as the largest, global banks, and given the government’s commitment to small businesses, would the government allow bidders to identify the agencies it can comfortably support from a lending perspective? Would it permit 2-4 bidders to form a type of consortium to join and bid as one? We recognize that SmartPay has evolved from 5 banks to just 2 over time. Unless barriers are reduced or changed to allow more bidders, the GSA could face having limited selection and overreliance on a small number of bidders.

Please define what entry requirements should be changed to allow medium size banks to compete for the next iteration of the GSA SmartPay master contract.

The Government has not restricted competition for the current and previous iterations of the GSA SmartPay contract based on the size of bank.

Furthermore, the Government fully encourages prospective offerors to team and partner to submit proposals for commercial payment services.

The Government is seeking specific feedback about barriers to entry including identification of those barriers and considerations for how to remove those barriers to entry. The priority of the Government is to identify and award to offerors that are able to provide commercial payment services at the size, scale, and complexity of the GSA SmartPay program and customers.

Would GSA consider eliminating Individual Liability Accounts (IBA)? With the significant technology and transaction monitoring advancements, the government would have greater control with a Split disbursement with agency paid programs, as well as with government (aka, corporate) liability.

It reduces the burden and overhead for both the issuer and the government.

PSSC is currently conducting market research and would consider suggestions or recommendations for alternatives from the payments industry for alternatives to individually billed accounts, that take into account the following:

- The need for contractors and the Government to recognize accounts under the GSA SmartPay contract(s)/program (e.g., state sales tax exemption, GSA City Pair eligibility, GSA FedRooms eligibility)

- Customer human resource and financial management policies

- Current challenges resulting for multiple and/or aging financial management systems

Additionally, Section 2.5. Travel Card Internal Controls in OMB Circular A-123 Appendix B states, "The ability for travelers to 'split' reimbursements and salary offset are mandatory; however, agencies may request a waiver to these requirements if it is determined that the cost of implementing split disbursement and/or salary offset exceeds the benefits of implementation."

GSA does not have the authority to enforce this policy or to mandate customer financial management policy and processes. PSSC acknowledges that IBAs -- as administered under the current GSA SmartPay program -- may not align to commercial practices. As such, PSSC is committed to aligning to commercial standards as much as possible for the next iteration of the GSA SmartPay contract(s)/program and would consider suggestions or recommendations for commercially available alternatives to IBAs.

Question Answer

Would GSA consider simplifying both the Master Contract and Task Order bidding process? Responding to both the Master Contract and up to 250 task orders, many which are tailored task orders, is a huge task for any bidder. We would be pleased to offer suggested approaches, if this is a viable consideration for SmartPay4.

PSSC is currently conducting market research and would consider suggestions or recommendations for alternatives that take into account the following:

- Government procurement laws, regulations, policies, processes

- The need to document customer requirements and awarded contractor responses and obligations

Note: there are not 250 task orders for the GSA SmartPay 3 program as many customers are consolidated under the GSA pool task order and/or tagging with other customer task orders. There are currently no more than 60 task orders. Most agencies also have standard task orders.

While a 13-year contract has some advantages in terms of contract management, we believe unforeseen situations (such as COVID) can raise a barrier to the government’s program and the bidders’ ability to bring technology innovations in a timely, cost-effective way. The extended contract duration may prohibit the introduction of innovation that would benefit the government mid-contract performance period, as there is no way to price it; and in some cases, would not be available with the Master Contract’s parameters. Would GSA consider a shorter baseline period of performance with longer option periods; or a less strictly defined agreement that allows a bidder to adjust its pricing during the performance period?

PSSC is currently conducting market research and would consider suggestions or recommendations that take into account the following:

- Government procurement laws, regulations, policies, processes, and the associated timelines related to complying with the aforementioned

- Customer transition complexities and needs

- Fixed price contracting considerations