7(a) - Question and Answer Responses (Amend. #1).pdf

Top of the Document

Page 1 of 4 Solicitation #: 503102-20-Q-0020 IT BOA

Question(s) and Answer(s) – Common/Relevant Questions

Summary of Change in Solicitation Amend. #1

1. It’s made clear in the amended Solicitation that SW Licenses will not be audited in the traditional sense, but the BOA Holder will be required to Track/Account the SW Licenses purchased through their BOA and on a semi-annual basis submit a report to the SEC.

2. The previously named Audit Method Template was change to SW Tracking/Accounting Method Template.

a. There is a substantive change in the question asked in the Template.

3. The “Prior Experience and Past Performance Template” was updated/amended. Please review.

a. In the “Reference” Sections (1-5), the word “Auditing” was removed and the word “Tracking” replaced it.

i. If the vendor has already completed the previous Template, they do not need to complete the new Template, but they accept the update by submitting the previous template.

4. The Vendor must be registered and active in SAM at the time of submission evaluations.

Please see the Solicitation (Amend. #1) and the 2 updated Templates (i.e. SW Tracking/Accounting Method and Prior Experience… Templates) for details.

Question # Respondent Questions and Answers

Vendor’s Question (Initial)

Is it the Intent of the SEC to have multiple awardees tracking SW licenses?

Does the SEC currently own any asset tracking COTS SW?

SEC’s Response (Initial)

No. The BOA Holder will track/account for only the license procured through their BOA and not another other BOA Holders.

No. The SEC doesn’t own software auditing SW. It has a rudimentary method of tracking licenses and is looking to improve its methods in the future.

Vendor’s Question (Initial) Software Audit – Is the SEC currently using a software utilization/auditing program, and if so what is it?

Page 2 of 4 Solicitation #: 503102-20-Q-0020 IT BOA

SEC’s Response (Initial) No.

Vendor’s Question (Initial)

Software Audit - There are tools that will monitor actual utilization of software licenses across the enterprise, but those tools require access to the network in order to provide utilization monitoring. Please clarify the expectation of the BOA holder when it comes to software utilization auditing?

Please review the updated solicitation (Amend. 1) and updated template (Tracking-Accounting Method Template) for current information.

The BOA Holder will not have access to the SEC network.

Please expand on the expectation of an offeror having software auditing capability, particularly the phrase from the Audit Method Template “keep track of the # of licenses purchased and used.” Specifically, to what extent is a BOA holder expected to track what is being used?

Purchased is straight forward, however to have visibility in to the usage of purchases licenses, it would require access to SEC systems not typically associated with a COTS supply contract.

Please clarify the “used” software tracking expectation.

Please review the updated solicitation (Amend. 1) and updated template (Tracking-Accounting Method Template) for current information.

The BOA Holder will not have access to the SEC network.

Program Manager – The expectation of the PM appears to be more like a technical resource (e.g., ensuring compatibility of purchased equipment) rather than a typical program manager that ensures the BOA contract is run properly and the contract holder is meeting performance expectations. Is this interpretation a correct reflection of the SEC’s expectation?

SEC’s Response (Initial) What the Program/Project Manager will be doing is described in the Cover Page of the solicitation.

Page 3 of 4 Solicitation #: 503102-20-Q-0020 IT BOA

Vendor’s Question (Initial)

Prior Experience – For the scope of MAV and contract value being a minimum of $200M, is that defined as the potential/ceiling contract value or the awarded/obligated value? If the latter, is it $200M obligated per year or over the life of the contract to date?

If the MAV is a Government procurement (e.g. Purchase Order, IDV, etc.) and reported in FPDS-NG, then it’s the amount stated in FPDS-NG under the “Base and All Options Value (Total Contract Value)” section.

If it’s a MAV that’s not reported in FPDS-NG or doesn’t have a stated value in the Award document that indicate it has a value of $200M or over, then it’s the reasonable belief that the amount could get to or pass the $200M amount within its Base and Option Periods.

Will the SEC please unlock their forms so spacing issues can be corrected so the SEC will not miss wording and will more easily read an offerors content?

Or, can the Vendor duplicate the various SEC forms… cleaning up the layout issues, would this be acceptable?

No. The Vendor can manipulate the paragraphs in the Template or the Vendor can also use another document to create the information, then cut and paste into the Template. Please make sure the formatting is in accordance with what’s required (e.g. New Times Roman, 12, and etc.).

No.

The instructions tab of the COTS Hardware / Software spreadsheet states “Other brands can and may be added to the lists.” Please confirm this applies to both hardware and software.

SEC’s Response (Initial) Yes. The BOA allows for other brands of HW to be added.

Vendor’s Question (Initial)

We see a few "Free Software" products on the OEM list, and would appreciate an additional column that allows offerors to designate the product as such. If an additional column is not possible please let us know the best way to respond.

Page 4 of 4 Solicitation #: 503102-20-Q-0020 IT BOA

SEC’s Response (Initial) Please mark the item as Free or whatever you believe the best answer would be.