5. IIMS Consolidated Feedback and Questions Responses.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 34 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 693JJ320R000017
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 3. Amend 1 Attachment 3 Pricing Proposal Template.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 2. Amend 1 Questions and Responses IIMS RFP May 29.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 1. SF30 Amend 1 May 29.pdf | ||
| 1. RFP 693JJ320R000017 May 14 2020 Final.pdf | ||
| 4. Attachment 3 Pricing Proposal Template.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 3. Attachment 2 Questions for RFP.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 2. Attachment 1 IIMS Performance Work Statement-Final.docx | DOCX document |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Feedback/Questions and Responses re: Draft RFP | |||||
| Question # | Document Reference | Section Reference | Discussion/Question | Response | Column2 |
| Question # | Document Reference | Section Reference | Discussion/Question | Response | |
| 1 | IIMS Draft PWS | 2.2.2 | In several sections throughout the draft PWS, the document specifically calls out a COTS solution. Would the government consider the implementation of a low code solution for IIMS vice a strict COTS solution? | No | |
| 1 | Page 3 - Draft IIMS PWS | 1.2 Background - line 93 | Besides 1,200 Federal employees, 13,000 MCSAP State Partners, are there additional personas to be developed for (i.e., motor carrier compliance employees, insurance providers, etc.) to view results of an inspections? | This offering is intended only for federal and state partners for data collection during roadside inspection. | |
| 2 | Page 3 - Draft IIMS PWS | 1.3 Objectives - line 108 | The sentence states, "allows for easier identification of high-risk carriers, drivers, and unsafe vehicle…" Which data should be considered while developing the system to ingest this information -- SMS, which is updated monthly or SAFER, which has updates roughly 48-72 hours after an inspection or violation has been documented? | Refer to section 2 of the PWS to address specific requirements. | |
| 3 | Page 5 - Draft IIMS PWS | 1.5.7 Security Requirements - line 260 and Appendix 5 | Is there a requirement for Federal staff and Federal contractors who use this system to have PIV authentication? “HSPD-12 / Identity, Credential and Access Management Requirements – The Offeror shall ensure that all systems that it develops for or operates on behalf of FMCSA support the use of Personal Identity Verification (PIV) smart cards, and PIV interoperable (PIV-I) smart cards as appropriate, for authentication and access to those systems, for the digital signature of documents and workflows, and for the encryption of documents and information, in accordance with NIST PUB 201 and related special publications.” - Does this requirement apply to mobile inspection-based users or only PC-based? | "PIV is not a required feature of FMCSA personnel to access IIMS at this time. Also see Security section 1.5.7 of PWS. DOT PIV Cards shall be required for those Contractors who have elevated rights in the DOT network. " | |
| 4 | Page 10 - Draft IIMS PWS | 2.2.1 Project Management | Will the government consider identifying a specific set of tools for requirements gathering and management, specifically Jira to use as the agency's requirement repository? | Current DOT approved tools are preferred. | |
| 5 | Page 10 - Draft IIMS PWS | 2.2.2 COTS System Implementation and Customization | Will the government consider the vendor completing EPMR documentation (e.g., system design), in an iterative fashion, to allow this information to be incorporated into FMCSA's Enterprise Architecture tool SPARX? | See evaluation factors section 12 of the RFP. | |
| 6 | Page 10 - Draft IIMS PWS | 2.2.2 COTS System Implementation and Customization | Will the government consider making sure the vendor has on staff a recognize enterprise architecture certification to ensure proper documentation? | See evaluation factors section 12 of the RFP. | |
| 7 | Page 10 - Draft IIMS PWS | 2.2.2 COTS System Implementation and Customization | Will the government consider a vendor's size and ability to scale to develop, function, train staff and partners, etc. to mitigate risk on behalf of the government? | See evaluation factors section 12 of the RFP. | |
| 8 | Page 10 - Draft IIMS PWS | 2.2.2 COTS System Implementation and Customization | Will the government consider a weighting factor for past performance with IT Modernization and Transformation within US DOT (i.e., specific with FMCSA) and state DMVs to mitigate risk on behalf of the government? | Past performance is always a part of the rating factors. Refer to section 12 of the RFP. | |
| 9 | Page 10 - Draft IIMS PWS | 2.2.2 COTS System Implementation and Customization | “All data contained in the IIMS shall be maintained in a cloud-based environment.” Does this mean that the COTS solution must be a PaaS, SaaS or installed within an IaaS Cloud hosted environment? If so, what security requirements are mandated using this environment? e.g., FedRamp Moderate? | The data will be contained in a DOT/FMCSA managed FedRamp certified cloud environment. | |
| 10 | Page 10 - Draft IIMS PWS | 2.2.2 COTS System Implementation and Customization | “The COTS product integration plan must include a back-up system to prevent system blackouts or crashes.” What SLA’s are required? Does the Government expect a hot/hot or Hot/Warm redundant DR Site? If so, what are the requirements around allowed distances for this? | Different Power grids and telecommunication providers | |
| 11 | Draft IIMS PWS | 2.2.3 - 2.2.7 | What is the defined or current SLA/SLO for each of the ingestion or export of data to application listed? | 24 hours. However, we need to get more towards real time updates. | |
| 12 | Page 11 and 12 - Draft IIMS PWS | 2.2.3 Importing Data - IIMS and SAFER | What is the defined SLA/SLO? | Depends on process flow. It should be within a regulation on getting the case/inspection submitted. | |
| 13 | Page 13 - Draft IIMS PWS | 2.2.4 Importing Data - IIMS and CDLIS | What is the defined SLA/SLO? | Vendor to provide recommendations. | |
| 14 | Page 13 - Draft IIMS PWS | 2.2.4 Importing Data - IIMS and CDLIS | When will the vendor be notified regarding the requirements for Canadian and Mexican Driver licenses'? | " Upon award, FMCSA will provide the contractor with detailed business and system requirements once the contract is awarded. Upon completion of their review, the contractor will provide a detailed plan for execution. " | |
| 15 | Page 13 - Draft IIMS PWS | 2.2.4 Importing Data - IIMS and CDLIS - line 567 and 568 | Will there be a requirement to import data from FMCSA's current NRCME solution to ingest this information or will this data already reside within one of the previously listed applications? | There are no current plans to ingest NCRME data into IIMS. | |
| 16 | Page 13 - Draft IIMS PWS | 2.2.5 Importing Data - IIMS and State specific data - line 578 | Will the government list all third-party vendors and software being used? | No, the approach and implementation plan will be addressed on a state by state basis. | |
| 17 | Page 14 -16 - Draft IIMS PWS | 2.2.8 IIMS Functionality | Are there additional requirements for collecting and maintaining evidence to be used in potential legal actions? | Not in the base roll out. | |
| 18 | Page 14 -16 - Draft IIMS PWS | 2.2.8 IIMS Functionality | “Ability to upload and store documents and information in multiple formats including video and photos (e.g., pdf, word, excel, wav, wmv, Jpeg, etc.)” What is the expected size of the files gathered currently on a yearly basis? How many are documents and photos vs. videos? As the Government is aware, video files can prove to be exceptionally large and therefore prevent rapid upload, especially in low bandwidth and cellular areas. In addition, videos can prove excessively expensive to store so understanding the overall average size of each video and number per year would be critical determining and accurate and most cost advantageous solution. | Item is listed in base rollout and under 2.2.9 #4. The FMCSA desires to have the functionality built into the COTS off the shelf software, storage is not part of this RFP. | |
| 19 | Page 14 -16 - Draft IIMS PWS | 2.2.8 IIMS Functionality | "Ability to archive data.“ What is the data retention policy for data, pictures, videos and documents? When can each of these data types be officially archived for limited access? | Retention of the current year plus two at a minimum. | |
| 20 | Page 14 -16 - Draft IIMS PWS | 2.2.8 IIMS Functionality | “Ability to interface with a secure single sign-on without utilization of a Virtual Private Network (VPN).“ Does the Government intend to provide the SSO tool/system for the IIMS solution to integrate with and if so, what software is this tool/system built with? | If the system is within a DOT/FMCSSA cloud environment, SSO should be able to integrate with SAML, LDAP and MS Active Directory. | |
| 21 | Page 14 -16 - Draft IIMS PWS | 2.2.8 IIMS Functionality | “Ability for users to register and authenticate authorized users via an FMCSA approved authentication service.“ Could the Government provide information on this service? | Awardee to use existing DOT/FMCSA LDAP | |
| 22 | Page 14 -16 - Draft IIMS PWS | 2.2.8 IIMS Functionality - Line 621 | What is the defined SLA/SLO? There will need to be some amount of downtime for patching, maintenance, etc. | Defined 4-8 hour scheduled maintenance per month. Special deployments would be negotiated. | |
| 23 | Page 14 -16 - Draft IIMS PWS | 2.2.8 IIMS Functionality - Line 623 through 625 | Will the government consider as a weighting factor that vendors with strong customer experience/ human-centered design experience to optimize technology adoption of FMCSA and State Partners, reduce reliance on training and technical assistance, and lower organizational change management risk? | See evaluation factors section 12 of the RFP. | |
| 24 | Page 14 -16 - Draft IIMS PWS | 2.2.8 IIMS Functionality - Line 640 through 643 | Will the government consider as a weighting factor that vendors with pricing structure that do not have a per user license cost? That is to mean, will the government give more weight to technical solutions which do not directly tie to a per user cost? | See evaluation factors section 12 of the RFP. FMCSA requires offeror to determine and explain its intended user access model and associated pricing method. | |
| 25 | Page 14 -16 - Draft IIMS PWS | 2.2.8 IIMS Functionality - Line 649 | Currently reads, "ability to allow data entry via electronic or automated technology." Is there an additional requirement that would require the vendor to have a solution that can ingest handwritten inspections forms or just that the solution must use an online form for FMCSA and State Partners to enter data? | There is no additional requirement at this time. | |
| 26 | Draft IIMS PWS | Does the government intend for the awardee to utilize the Governments existing User Repository/LDAP or provide their own? | If the system is within a DOT/FMCSSA cloud environment, SSO should be able to integrate with SAML, LDAP and MS Active Directory | ||
| 27 | Draft IIMS PWS | Appendix 2 | To Be – Could the Government provide the expected number of systems that the IIMS solution is expected to integrate with? | States, as well as approximately 20 other applications. This is the data, not IIMS. SAFER is the main system that will be the connection to other FMCSA systems. | |
| 28 | DRAFT RFP | Page 11 | F.6 Place of Performance – Will Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration allow bidders to propose the use of their US based development centers (not located in the Washington DC region, but within CONUS, assuming the centers and personnel meet FMCSA’s security standards? | Yes | |
| 29 | DRAFT IIMS PWS | Page 5 of 25 | Can the government please confirm that IIMS has the FIPS 199 classification of HIGH for Availability, HIGH for Integrity, and HIGH for confidentiality as specified in Section 1.5.7 Security Requirements? Also does the current system(s) meet the above classification? | HIGH | |
| 30 | Draft IIMS PWS | Page 20 of 25 | 6 PRIVACY - Can the government ensure the guidelines in Appendix aligns to “Cybersecurity- Privacy Requirements for Unclassified Information Technology (IT) Resources” | The contractor should ensure that they adhere to the guidelines in Appendix 5 - Cybersecurity and Privacy. The Government will ensure the guidelines aligns to the requirements in Appendix 5 - Cybersecurity and Privacy. | |
| 31 | Draft IIMS PWS | Page 3 of 35 | 1.3 Objectives - Can the government clarify if the process reengineering/design work will be part of the scope of this solicitation as it relates to the modernization of FMCSA’s inspection processes and data management systems? | Yes | |
| 32 | Draft IIMS PWS | Section 2.2.2-2.2.7 | 2.2.2 - 2.2.7 - Given the vast amount of integration requirements (especially real-time) with FMCSA, industry, state and local systems, we believe the government should consider a system implementer/integrator that has not only experience with such systems but understanding and presence across state and local industry. | See evaluation factors section 12 of the RFP. | |
| 33 | Draft IIMS PWS | Systems such as CDLIS are managed by organizational entities outside DOT/FMCSA. Can the government please describe the contractor's role in establishing communication with these stakeholder groups? Does the government expect the contractor to develop and execute a communication plan to address this level of communication as well as all other necessary forms of communications with the various stakeholder groups for the project? Can the government confirm appropriate APIs are available for real-time data access? Are there single sign-on capabilities between the system inside and outside the FMCSA boundary? Lastly, has the government confirmed points of contact for all other relevant stakeholder groups/members of the end user community? | "1. Vendor will coordinate with FMCSA. 2. Communication plan not needed from vendor. 3. Vendor will coordinate with FMCSA. 4. Not currently 5. Vendor will coordinate with FMCSA" | ||
| 34 | Draft IIMS PWS | If the questions around specific technical solutions (e.g., SLA/SLO, business process reengineering completed prior to development, security requirements, availability requirements, number of integrations, etc.) cannot be resolved by the government at the time of RFP/RFQ issuance, would the government consider moving this procurement from FFP to T&M to better balance the risks to the contractor and price premium to the government? | No | ||
| 1 | Draft RFP | F.6 PLACE OF PERFORMANCE | The paragraph states that "The primary place of performance is expected to be offsite at the Contractor’s facility; however, the Government may designate some tasks to be performed at the Department of Transportation facility in Washington, DC". We are requesting the agency to give us clear scope of work that is required to be performed from DOT Washington, DC facility. | "Face to face events at DOT headquarters may include: 1. Project Kickoff meeting 2. Quarterly reviews 3. Train the trainer hosted at National Training Center in the Washington DC/Northern VA area No technical work would be done on site at DOT." | |
| 2 | Draft RFP | L.4 PROPOSAL CONTENT AND CONFIGURATION (FFP) | We are requesting the agency to allow us to add an Executive Summary in Volume 1 so that we can better represent our proposal; and subsequently increase the page limit of the overall proposal. | Executive Summary in Volume 1 is fine. The page limit does not change. | |
| 3 | Draft RFP | L.7 AWARD | Please mention the estimated award date in the paragraph. | The estimated award date is July 2020. | |
| 4 | Draft RFP | M.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA | "The section states that ""2) The Proposal clearly demonstrates an approach to fully addressing task areas outlined in Section 2.2 of the PWS: o IIMS Core Functionality o COTS System Implementation & Customization o Importing/Exporting Data o Testing (planning, internal/external, remediation) o Training (planning, delivery style, timing, evaluation) o Transition"" Whereas Draft PWS section 2.2 has two other area's (Help Desk and Operations and Maintenance) We request that the agency include these two areas in Factor 1 of the RFP. " | "Helpdesk and Operations and Maintenance evaluation factor positioning has been reconsidered and changed to the following: Help desk remains in Factor 2. Operations and Maintenance has been moved to Factor 1." | |
| 5 | Draft RFP | L.4 PROPOSAL CONTENT AND CONFIGURATION (FFP) | Can the government include the requirement of draft project schedule in the RFP response? For IIMS team - We mention the Contracting providing the Project Plan under Volume 1 Technical approach. Suggest adding evaluating the Project schedule in Section M.2 Factor 1 (Technical Approach). | We added evaluating the Project schedule in Section 12.2 Factor 1 (Technical Approach) | |
| 6 | Draft RFP | L.4 PROPOSAL CONTENT AND CONFIGURATION (FFP) | What is the expected validity period of the proposal? | 120 days | |
| 7 | Draft PWS | 1.4 Scope | The scope does not specify if the solution should be available on Tablet, Smartphone, or both. Please clarify. | Both | |
| 8 | Draft PWS | 1.5.16 Access to FMCSA Applications/Data | "Please share details about the technical aspects of the interfaces with applications such as CDLIS, ISS, QC, MCMIS, L&I, PIQ, and SAFER. We request agency to please share the preferred data exchange formats of the interfaces, such as SOAP or REST based? Can you please clarify if interfaces are real time or batch (one time or daily)?" | Will share the technical aspects with applications upon contract award. | |
| 10 | Draft PWS | 2.2.8 IIMS Functionality | "Will agency require a browser interface for business users to add/edit inspection forms i.e. addition of form field, workflows, or business rule? Is it possible to get sample templates of the forms, letters, messages, and notifications? Please share any workflows involved when inspections are submitted." | No | |
| 11 | Draft PWS | 2.2.8 IIMS Functionality | "Artificial Intelligence (AI) can be used to improve the data accuracy and productivity. Can the agency clarify if there are any requirement/use cases about the need of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and if that capability is required in offline mode?" | Any solution must work online and offline. There are no requirements/use cases for Artificial Intelligence (AI). If you have an AI solution, you are more than welcomed to include it in your proposal. | |
| 12 | Draft PWS | 2.2.8 IIMS Functionality | The section states "for electronic data transfer from ELDs and eRODS". Can you please share a sample use case for reading data from Email and USB 3.x+ perspective? | "The current use of eRODS for receiving data from an ELD and performing a roadside inspection involves the following steps: 1. Roadside inspector ask Driver to send the ELD logs to the inspector depending on the transfer methods supported by an Electronic Logging Device (ELD). Four options available a. Webservice Transfer (FMCSA preferred) b. Email Transfer c. Blue-tooth Transfer d. USB 2.0 local Transfer (only method that doesn’t require internet) 2. Driver initiates the transfer to FMCA via the ELD device 3. Inspector opens eRODS (either desktop version or accesses the Web Based version at https://eld.fmcsa.dot.gov. a. If the transfer method was webservice, email, Bluetooth OR is using web version of eRODS - Inspector logs in using FMCSA Portal Credentials and pulls the file down the ELD file from the eRODS web service. b. If USB is transfer method, inspector inserts device into laptop and opens file within eRODS. 4. Inspector reviews the hours of service and the potential HOS violations identified by eRODS 5. Inspector cites appropriate HOS violations within the inspection system.For the initial launch of the IIMS system the following integration is proposed: The IIMS software should allow for integration with the eRODS system either via a panel/window that is available within the IIMS or launch the eRODS application from within IIMS. This would occur at Step 3. " | |
| 1 | RFP | Section B, page 3 | Can the government please provide further background on what 'provide User Access Fees' entails? Any information you can share would be very helpful for bidders. | FMCSA requires offeror to determine and explain its intended user access model and associated pricing method. See section 2.1 Basic Services | |
| 2 | RFP | Section L, page 54 | Can the government clarify what is meant by 'selective build of table-based database'? | Where applicable, data should utilize tables that are easily updateable as modifications become necessary rather than having hard coded data that would require programming changes. | |
| 3 | RFP | Section L, page 55 | What confidential policy is the government seeking the contractor to provide? | As noted in Part 3 “Past Performance,” an offeror with no previous contract history may optionally submit additional documentation that could include a copy of its company’s confidentiality policy. | |
| 4 | RFP | Section L, page 59 | Can the government clarify what is meant by 'Smart Logic' and why it is in caps? Also, can you clarify what is meant by 'business edits solutions'? | Smart logic and business edits are software guides that can direct the user to appropriate responses ensuring data quality and consistency. In some cases questions will be directed to the user for response to allow the software to validate, suggest or create violations. It is in caps as it is an industry term to identify the need for these requirements. | |
| 5 | N/A | N/A | Now that the DOT Sofware Engineering Services (SWES) has been awarded, will FMCSA considering leveraging this DOT enterprise BPA to obtain the required IIMS services? It appears that the IIMS services required closely align to the SWES BPA SOW. | FMCSA is seeking to purchase a COTS software solutions independent of the BPA. | |
| 6 | N/A | N/A | To ensure the prime contractor is properly equipped and skilled to provide the required services, it is recommend that the government consider requiring the prime contractor to have CMMI Dev L3 certification. | See evaluation factors section 12 of the RFP. | |
| 7 | N/A | N/A | Can the government please provide the name of the incumbent vendor and the contract number? | There was no incumbent or contract number as software was developed in house. | |
| 1 | IIMS DRAFT PWS.doc | 1.5.13 - Data Rights | Suggests adding a clarifying statement in the event there is a conflict between state data ownership and federal ownership under this contract. In the current environment, states own CVIEW data which is uploaded to SAFER and imported into an inspection. | The purpose of the data rights section 1.5.13 describes the relationship of data rights between the Government and the contractor. It does not change data rights between FMCSA and the States. | |
| 2 | IIMS DRAFT PWS.doc | 1.5.13 - Data Rights | Recommend changing the last sentence in this section to state "The use of IIMS data by the contractor for any purposes not covered within this performance work statement is prohibited without written permission of FMCSA." This would allow for continued support of e-screening vendors whether the state utilizes the IIMS application or a third-party inspection solution. | Noted and updated the PWS has been updated. | |
| 3 | IIMS DRAFT PWS.doc | 2.2.8, #51 | Recommend clarifying the functionality that is expected. "Other enforcement activities" could include electronic citation integration, forms applications, interfaces to state and local records management systems (RMS), integration with Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD), exports for courts and traffic reporting, etc. We would recommend identifying a few key components to be included as a "core" functionality with any additional integrations to be addressed at the state level. This approach insures key functions are provided while minimizing the cost and risk to the Government. | See evaluation factors section 12 of the RFP. | |
| 4 | IIMS DRAFT PWS.doc | 1.5.4, Hours of Operation | Recommend expanding the support requirements beyond an IT Lead Developer to include support staff and business operations to ensure the fastest, most accurate resolution possible. These services should be available 24/7/365. | While we recognize the importance of great customer service, this contract scope is not expanded to 24x7x365 support. Your recommendation for more responsive service is welcomed. | |
| 5 | IIMS DRAFT PWS.doc | Appendix 7 is missing. | Appendix 7 is included in the PWS. | ||
| 6 | IIMS DRAFT PWS.doc | 1.5.13, Data Rights | Suggest that FMCSA allow the selected contractor to license the solution or product including modifications under the awarded contract to other CVSA constituencies including Mexico and Canada. | FMCSA does not concur with the change. As stated in section 1.5.13, "All modifications to Government Off-The-Shelf (GOTS) or COTS software, hardware, or source code will be the sole property of the Government. | |
| 7 | IIMS DRAFT PWS.doc | 2.5 Help Desk | Suggest expanding the Help Desk operation to support enforcement activities 24/7/365. | "See evaluation factors section 12 of the RFP. " | |
| 8 | IIMS DRAFT PWS.doc | Technical exhibit 1, deliverables schedule, #23 | Recommend expanding the specific technical domain reference beyond just GitHub and allow FMCSA and the selected contractor to design and implement the best fit solution based on the needs established in discovery and design. | Offeror will work with FMCSA with the tools to design and implement the best fit solution based on the needs established in discovery and design. | |
| 1 | RFP | "Page 3 B.5.0 Base Period CLIN 0003" | """CLIN #10003: The contractor shall provide User Access Fees in accordance with Section 2.2.8 of the PWS. (# of users RBD)"" Reading 2.2.8 of the PWS, the only reference we could find was bullet #18 ""Contractor to provide recommendations on user access structure to best handle between 10k-14k users. For each user access option, the contractor will provide: total cost, cost per user and number of concurrent users."" Can the Agency please provide additional information regarding the User Access Fee? Will the Agency provide a range for the User Access Fee?" | FMCSA requires offeror to determine and explain its intended user access model and associated pricing method. See section 2.1 Basic Services | |
| 2 | PWS | "Page 2 1.1 Description of Services/Introduction" | """The contractor shall provide all personnel, equipment, supplies, facilities… in this Performance Work Statement. Exceptions are item specified in Part 3 Government Furnished Property and Services…"" Respectfully, there is no Part 3 Government Furnished Property and Services section in either the RFP or PWS. Can the Agency please provide?"" " | Removed sentence about "exceptions are items…" | |
| 3 | PWS | "Page 3 1.3 Objectives 3rd Paragraph" | """The contractor's principle responsibility will be to provide a COTS solution, project management, training, selective customization of COTS…"" Can the Agency please clarify whether equipment is in scope as described in Section 1.1 Description of Services/Introduction? " | The contractor will not be providing equipment to FMCSA to complete work for this contract. | |
| 4 | PWS | "Page 3 1.4 Scope" | """FMCSA will purchase/lease base COTS software from vendor at no cost to state partners."" Is FMCSA requiring the use of IIMS by all state partners? For states that have invested in other COTS inspection systems, is FMCSA requiring that those systems be replaced by IIMS?" | No | |
| 5 | PWS | "Page 3 1.4 Scope" | "Both the draft RFP and PWS indicate that the rollout of IIMS will be staggered with 2400 users in the base year, up to 9000 total users in option year 1 and up to 14,000 total users in option years 2 through 4. What approach will FMCSA take with regards to the rollout? Will the rollout be simultaneous in all 50 states with a 2400 ""super-users"" in the base year, or will it be more focused on individual states and regions?" | The rollout will be staggered. | |
| 6 | PWS | "Page 3 1.4 Scope" | """Additional add-ons that State partners may want to be included in the base software may include…"" Please confirm that this work is out of the scope of the IIMS. Will FMCSA approval be required for the ""add on"" work even if the State partner is paying for it? " | Confirmed. State requested add-ons is out of the scope of the IIMS. | |
| 7 | PWS | "Page 3 1.4 Scope" | """All equipment and installation must meet manufacturers and FMCSA requirements."" Can the Agency please clarify what equipment and which manufacturers are being referenced here?" | This sentence was removed from the PWS | |
| 8 | PWS | "Page 4 1.4 Scope" | """The general requirements of the software include:"" specifically the 2nd bullet ""Automatic and concurrent single log-on to FMCSA systems…"" Can the Agency please clarify what is meant by ""automatic and concurrent single log-on?"" Will the IIMS software integrate with the single sign-on solution (SSO)? Which SSO solution does FMCSA systems, CDLIS, NLETS and other national/state databases all use currently?" | If the system is within a DOT/FMCSSA cloud environment, SSO should be able to integrate with SAML, LDAP and MS Active Directory | |
| 9 | PWS | "Page 4 1.4 Scope" | """The general requirements of the software include:"" specifically the 4th bullet ""The Contractor is responsible for any missing parts and components not included to carry out the installation."" Can the Agency please clarify what is meant by ""missing parts?""" | Changed this sentence to "The Contractor is responsible for the successful installation of this product." | |
| 10 | PWS | "Page 8 1.5.13 Data Rights" | "“The Government will retain unlimited rights to all intellectual property and technical data produced in the course of developing, deploying, training, using and supporting FMCSA or other Federal agencies under this contract. All modifications to Government Off-the-Shelf (GOTS) or COTS Software, hardware, or source code will be the sole property of the Government” We understand that the Government seeks unlimited rights to COTS enhancements developed during the term of the contract. We also understand that the Government will own all data traversing the COTS system. However, we respectfully request that the Agency strike the second sentence of the Data Rights clause, which states that any software modifications will be the “sole property” of Government. Government should have all the rights it needs to utilize the COTS enhancements through the unlimited rights clause. Contractor seeks the ability to also reuse the COTS enhancements, so it can improve the COTS product for use by other governmental entities. Please confirm that it is the Government’s intention to own the data, not the COTS." | FMCSA does not concur with the suggestion. As stated in section 1.5.13, "All modifications to Government Off-The-Shelf (GOTS) or COTS software, hardware, or source code will be the sole property of the Government." | |
| 11 | PWS | "Page 14 2.2.8 IIMS Functionality Bullet #8" | "Ability to generate standardized and ad hoc reports."" Does the Agency anticipate that the inspectors will run reports on the devices or is reporting functionality directed to HQ / Administrators?"" " | Yes | |
| 12 | PWS | "Page 14 2.2.8 IIMS Functionality Bullet #16" | """Ability to have customizable reports…"" Can the Agency confirm that integration with BI tools with the ability for each Federal or State user to create their own reports based on user profiles satisfies this requirement? Or, does the Agency envision that Contractor would develop customized reports on the Federal Government's behalf, State Government's behalf or both?" | There will be several canned reports developed as part of the initial process and additional reports may be desired by the FMCSA and states. States should have the option to request custom reports at their expense. Canned user reports and query capabilities will be based on user profiles. | |
| 13 | PWS | "Page 14 2.2.8 IIMS Functionality Bullet #18'" | """Contractor to provide recommendations on access structure to best handle between 10k to 14k user? Can the Agency please provide more detail? Does the FMCSA intend to assess a fee for each of the users / inspectors? Is this fee a one-time ""registration"" or licensing fee or would the fee be assessed at each login to the IIMS system? " | FMCSA requires offeror to determine and explain its intended user access model and associated pricing method. See section 2.1 Basic Services | |
| 14 | PWS | "Page 14 2.2.8 IIMS Functionality Bullet #20" | """Ability to allow data entry via electronic or automated technology."" Does the Agency have an inventory of the technology and vendors? " | No | |
| 15 | PWS | "Page 15 2.2.8 IIMS Functionality Bullet #24" | """The Contractor shall provide a solution to standup disaster recovery and high availability across multiple sites if the solution is server based."" On page 10 of the PWS, 2.2.2 COTS System Implementation and Customization, 1st paragraph ""All data contained in the IIMS shall be maintained in a cloud-based environment."" Please confirm IIMS hosting environment. " | All data contained in the IIMS shall be maintained in a DOT/FMCSA cloud-based environment. | |
| 16 | PWS | "Page 15 2.2.8 IIMS Functionality Bullet #31" | """Ability for the product to be hosted by the USDOT/FMCSA."" (1) Please confirm that this is the USDOT/FMCSA Cloud. (2) Will FMCSA accept a cloud backup / disaster recovery approach that uses the Contractor's Cloud as the backup and recovery? If not, which Commercial cloud backup / disaster recovery is acceptable to the Agency? e.g. AWS, Azure? (3) If Contractor places the COTS solution in FMCSA Cloud, could FMCSA please confirm that Contractor's customary commercial item Terms and Conditions associated with Contractor's SaaS/COTS solution govern access?" | (1) Yes, confirmed (2) No, AWS. (3) Yes, confirmed | |
| 17 | PWS | "Page 15 2.2.8 IIMS Functionality Bullet #32" | """Ability to receive documents and data through outside sources so that it can be connected to State systems."" Are the State systems all based on single standard specifications in terms of data fields, permissions, and APIs or will the contractor need to obtain each State's unique specifications?" | The base IIMS system will not be connecting to State systems. | |
| 18 | PWS | "Page 16 2.2.8 IIMS Functionality Bullet #45" | """Product shall allow for barcode scanners, tablets and smartphones."" Does the Agency have an inventory of the barcode scanners and their vendors? " | No | |
| 19 | PWS | "Page 16 2.2.8 IIMS Functionality Bullet #51" | """Ability to allow user to enter roadside enforcement stop data…"" Can the Agency provide more information on roadside enforcement stop data?" | Users will be able to enter their stop data, driver information, vehicle information etc. | |
| 20 | PWS | "Page 16 2.2.9 IIMS and Emerging Technologies Last Bullet" | """Future technology yet to be developed."" Is the Agency able to provide any other details or specifics? " | No further details. | |
| 21 | PWS | "Page 18 2.5 Help Desk" | """Customer Service calls will come in through FMCSA's IT Support call center. FMSCA IT Technical Support will then route calls to the contractor's Help Desk…"" To facilitate and support outstanding customer service with minimal transferring from center to center, will the FMCSA consider having a stand-alone call center that has outstanding qualifications, experience, and expertise to address all questions concerns from citizens, drivers, state officials, and law enforcement alike? Can the Agency provide metrics based on current state on what to expect in terms of call volume, length of contact, and types of issues to allow for accurate planning of the Contractors call center?" | Due to integration with other FMCSA systems, a comprehensive Help Desk outside of IIMS is out of scope for this contract. | |
| 22 | PWS | "Appendix 5 - Cybersecurity and Privacy 1.5.2.1.2 Security Categorization" | "Security Categorization states, “FMCSA has determined that the security category of the information or information systems housed within the CSE [cloud services environment] is HIGH.” Can the Agency please clarify whether or not IIMS will be categorized as a HIGH system in accordance with FIPS-199. " | The current the level for the FMCSA Cloud Environment is Moderate. The collection of data within the cloud pushes the level up to High, but due to monetary constraints, the cloud environment has not been migrated to a high level. | |
| 23 | PWS | "Appendix 5 - Cybersecurity and Privacy 3.5.3.1.6 Annual Deliverables Section XII User Guide…" | """User Guide for the FMCSA Security Operations User Interface - the Offeror shall complete a User Guide for the FMCSA Security Operations User Interface for FMCSA. The Offeror shall also perform demos of the interface used for these services for FMCSA personnel."" Can the Agency please provide further clarification on this statement and what specifically does the interface entail?" | No further clarification. | |
| 24 | PWS | Optical Character Recognition | Does the Agency anticipate the need for Optical Character Recognition to convert images or PDFs with text into machine-readable text data? | Offeror is open to innovative suggestions/recommendations that meets and addresses the scope and successful performance of the solicitation. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .