Addendum No 2 to RFP No. 6-JV79-P-00084-00 Questions and Answers for RFP.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 25 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 6-JV79-P-00084-00
- Issued by
-
Department of Energy Office of Science
About this file
This is a Questions and Answers addendum to RFP No. 6-JV79-P-00084-00 issued by Argonne National Laboratory (Department of Energy Office of Science) on February 17, 2026. The solicitation seeks assessment, analysis, and planning services for an Enterprise Compliance Management System (ECMS) and Governance, Risk, and Compliance (GRC) capability. The engagement is strictly limited to advisory services and explicitly excludes system implementation, configuration, customization, software development, data migration, testing, deployment, training, or operational support. Proposals were originally due February 13, 2026, but received a one-week extension to February 20, 2026. The anticipated contract award is March 2026 with project kickoff shortly thereafter. The engagement must be completed by mid-September 2026 (Argonne's fiscal year end).
The contractor must deliver a current-state assessment, requirements matrix (both high-level business and detailed technical specifications, excluding code-level detail), vendor landscape analysis, evaluation framework, and implementation roadmap with system-level design and interface specifications. Deliverables should be provided in MS Office or PDF formats, with a briefing deck and report combination preferred. The contractor will coordinate and facilitate vendor demonstrations and provide a ranked shortlist of vendor recommendations rather than scoring and ranking vendors. Argonne will provide existing business requirements, stakeholder assessment results, and business process documentation completed within the last two years, but contractors must create artifacts that do not yet exist and should be prepared to recreate current-state architecture diagrams and system inventories. The contractor has access to approximately a dozen business systems, existing risk and controls matrices mapped to multiple frameworks, a partial enterprise document/records management solution, and an on-premises SQL Server-based Enterprise Data Warehouse. This is a full and open competition with no small business set-asides. All tooling and accelerators must be internal to the contractor with no external licensing costs permitted. Future implementation procurements have not been determined, and organizational conflict of interest eligibility for any follow-on work will be evaluated at that time based on specific facts and circumstances.
View the file
Other files
Show all 11
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
RFP Questions
| Addendum No. 2 to RFP No. 6-JV79-P-00084-00 | ||
| 2/17/26 | ||
| Topic or Document | Question | Argonne Response |
| SOW | How many review-and-comment cycles does Argonne anticipate for each major deliverable under this engagement? | At this time we don't know. It is likely dependent upon the solution. |
| SOW | Are there preferred formats or templates (e.g., Word, PowerPoint) for deliverables such as the Final Assessment Report and Implementation Roadmap? | MS Office formats (Word, PowerPoint, etc.) and PDF acceptable. |
| SOW | Please confirm the complete list of expected deliverables for this engagement (e.g., current‑state assessment, requirements matrix, vendor landscape, evaluation framework, roadmap). | See Deliverables section of the Statement of Work |
| SOW | What are the acceptance criteria for each major deliverable? | The acceptance criteria is as stated in the Statement of Work tasks and deliverables. |
| SOW | Will the contractor be provided access to existing functional requirements, stakeholder assessment results, business process documentation, and prior benchmarking materials referenced in Section 4.2 of the Statement of Work? | Yes, existing business requirements will be made available. We do not have system functional requirements. |
| SOW | Will current-state architecture diagrams, system inventories, and data flow documentation be made available to the contractor, or should offerors assume responsibility for recreating these artifacts as part of the assessment? | Offerors must be prepared to create artifacts that do not yet exist. |
| SOW | Please confirm that system configuration, customization, software development, integrations, data migration, testing, and deployment are explicitly out of scope for this solicitation. | Correct, excluded as stated in the Statement of Work |
| SOW | Please confirm that the scope of this contract is limited strictly to assessment, analysis, and planning activities, and that no system configuration, prototype development, data migration, tool setup, testing, training, or operational support is expected under this effort. | Correct, implementation activites are excluded per the Enclosure Statement of Work |
| SOW | At what level should requirements be documented — high‑level business and functional requirements, or detailed technical specifications intended for direct use in a future implementation RFP? | Both. Detailed technical specifications are intended, but code-level is not expected. |
| SOW | Please clarify the expected level of technical detail for the implementation roadmap deliverable (e.g., conceptual architecture and sequencing versus system-level designs and detailed interface specifications). | System-level design, with interfaces included, but no code-level interface detail specifications expected |
| SOW | Is the intent of this engagement to remain vendor‑agnostic, without prescribing a specific product or platform? | Yes. The intent of this engagement is to remain vendor-agnostic, but as mentioned in the Statement of Work, we are looking for a summary of all findings, analysis, and actionable guidance with recommendations. |
| SOW | Should the contractor recommend a single preferred vendor, or provide a ranked/short‑listed set of options? | Preferably ranked short listed set of options |
| SOW | Does the agency expect the contractor to develop the vendor evaluation framework only, or also to score and rank vendors? | Expected to recommend short list of set of options, not score and rank vendors. |
| SOW | Does Argonne have any preferred, incumbent, or in-scope vendor platforms that should be included in the market analysis and vendor demonstrations? | No upfront preference |
| SOW | Will vendor demonstrations or proof‑of‑concepts (POCs) be required as part of this engagement? | Probably. |
| SOW | Should the contractor assume responsibility for coordinating and facilitating vendor demonstrations, or will Argonne manage vendor logistics once candidate platforms are identified? | As stated in the Statement of Work, the contractor will assume responsibility for coordinating and facilitating vendor demonstrations |
| SOW | If demos or POCs are in scope, who will be responsible for providing environments, data, and demo scripts — the vendors or the agency? | It depends on the specifics. It could be both. |
| SOW | Are there any preferred or incumbent ECMS/GRC vendors that the agency expects to be considered as part of the market research? | No upfront preference |
| SOW | For the vendor evaluation task, should the focus be limited to compliance- and document-management software platforms, rather than third-party operational vendors? | No. |
| SOW | For purposes of the market analysis and recommendations, is FedRAMP Authorization required at the time of evaluation, or is FedRAMP “In Process” acceptable for roadmap consideration? | If any of your recommendations would involve FedRAMP approval, the status FedRAMP "In Process" is acceptable for roadmap consideration. |
| SOW Task 4.2 | The SOW references "existing functional requirements, stakeholder assessment results, and business process outputs already produced." What is the format, volume, and completeness of these existing artifacts? Will they be provided to the selected contractor at kickoff? | The formats for different artifacts differ. Some artifacts will be provided at kickoff, such as business requirements. We do not have system functional requirements. |
| SOW | SOW p. 2, task 4.2: Argonne desires that the contractor will, “Review and validate existing functional requirements, stakeholder assessment results, and business process outputs already produced. Engage stakeholders only as needed to confirm technical integration assumptions, implementation constraints, and sequencing. The intent is to avoid re-performing earlier assessment work and instead translate existing outputs into a technically executable integration plan.” a.) Can Argonne describe the depth, breadth, and approximate age of these existing materials, as well as the nature and time of the “earlier assessment work”? b.) Was a third party previously retained to perform an assessment? | a.) Relatively complete within the last two years. Actual system functional requirements are incomplete. b.) No. |
| SOW Task 4.4 | How many COTS vendors does Argonne expect the contractor to evaluate? Is there an existing shortlist of ECMS/GRC vendors Argonne has already identified for consideration? | The offeror must be familiar with ECMS/GRC vendors in the marketplace. |
| SOW Task 4.1, 4.7 | Can Argonne provide an overview of the current Enterprise Data Warehouse platform, document management system, and records management system that will require integration? What authentication/authorization systems (e.g., Azure AD, Okta) are currently in use? | That would be part of the onboarding |
| SOW Task 4.3 | The SOW references "existing DOE site and national laboratory benchmarking." Has this benchmarking already been completed, and will it be provided to the contractor? | Yes. |
| SOW | For the final report and supporting artifacts, does Argonne have a preferred format or structure (e.g., specific templates, briefing deck + report combination, or required sections)? | Briefing deck + report combination is preferred. |
| SOW | The milestone tasks reference vendor engagement and total cost of ownership analysis. Should offerors assume Argonne has preferred vendors/systems already in place, or is Argonne open to proposals that include recommended tooling and/or integration frameworks? | No upfront preference |
| SOW | Should the proposal focus strictly on developing an integration strategy and roadmap, or is Argonne also open to optional implementation support (e.g., pilot execution, proof-of-concept validation, or technical onboarding support)? | No upfront preference. Open to pilot execution, proof-of-concept validation, or technical onboarding |
| Schedule | Is Argonne open to offeror-proposed milestone sequencing if it improves risk reduction, stakeholder alignment, or delivery efficiency? | Yes |
| Stakeholder Engagement | Is there an anticipated or estimated number of stakeholder interviews or working sessions to be conducted as part of this effort, and should offerors assume these will be primarily individual sessions or group workshops? | There may be a need for individual or group workshops, but we do not have an anticipated or estimated numbers of interviews or sessions. |
| Intellectual Property | Will all deliverables be considered work‑for‑hire and owned by the agency? | The resultant contract will not be a staff augmentation contract. See Enclosure Appendix D-8 for Intellectual Property Provisions. Unless otherwise provided in the contract, the Laboratory/Government will have unlitmited rights in data first produced in performance of the contract, and contract deliverables/work products produced under the contract shall be the property of the Laboratory. |
| Intellectual Property | May the contractor retain rights to non‑confidential methodologies, templates, and accelerators used to develop the deliverables? | See Enclosure Appendix D-8 for Intellectual Property Provisions. Deliverables/work products produced under the contract shall be the property of the Laboratory. Any limited rights data must be identified on Enclosure No. (ANL-70B Pre-Award Information and Representations and Certifications) |
| Evaluation Criteria | Please provide the proposal evaluation criteria and associated weighting. | See Instructions Enclosure No. 1 and Evaluation Crtieria Enclosure No. 4 for basis of evaluation and instructions on what offeror is to provide |
| Evaluation Criteria | Can Argonne clarify the relative weighting of the “Timely Response” and “Sample Report Template” evaluation criteria in comparison to Technical Approach and Experience Performing Similar Work? | As stated in Enclosure No. 4, Evaluation Criteria, Technical Proposal Criteria is listed in the document in descending order of importance. For example, Criterion 1 is more important than Criterion 2, and so on. |
| Evaluation Criteria | Please clarify the intent of the Sample Report Template requirement—should it represent a current-state assessment example, a vendor comparison artifact, or the proposed structure of the Final Assessment Report? | The intent of Criterion 5 is for a sample report that your company provided a customer in the past. As stated in the evaluation criteria, it should be relevant to the Statement of Work. If you don't have a sample, a template would be acceptable. |
| Contract Type | What is the anticipated contract type for this engagement (e.g., fixed price, time and materials with not‑to‑exceed)? | See Enclosure No. 2 for sample fixed price contract |
| Small Business | Are there any small business, MWBE, or local participation requirements or preferences applicable to this solicitation? | There are no small business set-aside requirements |
| Future Procurement (Phase 2 – Implementation) | Does the agency anticipate issuing a separate competitive procurement for ECMS/GRC system implementation following this advisory engagement? | The Laboratory will reassess following the advisory engagement to determine next steps |
| Future Procurement (Phase 2 – Implementation) | If a future implementation procurement is planned, does the agency anticipate using an open competitive RFP, a cooperative contract, or an existing contract vehicle? | It's unkonwn at this time the type of RFP for the implementation phase |
| Future Procurement (Phase 2 – Implementation) | If participation in a future implementation is permitted, will the agency require knowledge transfer from the advisory phase under defined information‑barrier controls? | At this time, the Laboratory has not determined whether a future implementation effort will be pursued or how it would be structured. Any future procurement would include an evaluation of organizational conflict of interest considerations at that time. If appropriate, the Laboratory may require OCI mitigation measures, such as internal firewalls, to address any identified risks. |
| OCI / Future Contracting | Please confirm whether the contractor awarded this advisory engagement will be eligible to bid on any subsequent ECMS/GRC system implementation procurements. | The Laboratory has not made a determination regarding eligibility for any potential future implementation procurement. Eligibility, if applicable, would be evaluated in connection with the specific scope, structure, and OCI considerations of any future solicitation. |
| OCI / Future Contracting | Does Argonne anticipate issuing a follow-on solicitation for implementation of an Enterprise Compliance Management or GRC solution based on the results of this assessment? | The current solicitation is limited to assessment and advisory services only. The Laboratory has not made a determination regarding whether a follow-on implementation solicitation will be issued. |
| OCI / Future Contracting | If there are restrictions on future participation, please clarify which specific activities under this engagement (e.g., requirements definition, vendor evaluation, roadmap development) would preclude participation in a future implementation. | No determinations have been made regarding restrictions on future participation. Any such determinations would be based on the nature of a future procurement and an OCI analysis conducted at that time, consistent with applicable requirements. |
| OCI / Future Contracting | Will firms that participate in this assessment be eligible to compete for any future implementation effort without restriction, assuming appropriate OCI mitigation where applicable? | The Laboratory cannot confirm eligibility for any future procurement at this time. If a future implementation effort is pursued, eligibility and any applicable OCI mitigation requirements would be evaluated as part of that procurement. |
| OCI / Future Contracting | If a potential Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) exists, will the agency consider an OCI mitigation plan (e.g., separate teams, information firewalls, no participation in source selection) to allow future participation? | If OCI considerations arise in connection with a future procurement, the Laboratory may consider mitigation approaches, as appropriate, based on the specific facts and circumstances of that procurement. |
| OCI / Future Contracting | Will the advisory contractor participate in vendor scoring or source selection activities, or will those activities be retained solely by the agency? | No. |
| OCI / Future Contracting | If the advisory contractor supports vendor evaluation or demos, does that participation automatically disqualify the contractor from bidding on a future implementation? | Participation in advisory activities under this engagement does not automatically result in disqualification from any future procurement. Any potential OCI concerns would be evaluated in the context of the specific future solicitation. |
| Security / Access | At what point during the period of performance should the contractor expect access to Argonne Business Information Systems necessary to perform the assessment activities? | As soon as practical |
| Security / Access | Are there any personnel clearance, badging, or additional security requirements beyond standard Argonne system access for this engagement? | No. |
| Security / Access | Are there any known security, network, or access constraints that offerors should assume when planning stakeholder interviews, system reviews, or data collection (e.g., remote access restrictions, enclave limitations, or controlled data environments)? | Argonne is not aware of any unique access constraints beyond standard Laboratory and DOE site access, cybersecurity, export control, and information protection requirements. Access to Argonne facilities, networks, systems, or data will be provided only as necessary for contract performance and will be subject to applicable requirements, including Enclosure No. 2.A., Appendix A – Terms and Conditions (Fixed-Price Contracts). Non-U.S. citizens will be subject to applicable Argonne review and vetting processes prior to being granted access. Offerors should not assume unrestricted remote access to internal systems. When feasible, the Argonne project team will provide exported data or alternative means of review to support performance. |
| What is the anticipated timeline for vendor selection, contracting, and project kick off? | We estimate the award of a contract in March 2026 and the project kick off would be soon after. The timeline is estimated, subject to change, and contingent upon funding approval. | |
| Timeline, Resourcing & Logistics | What is the anticipated overall duration of the engagement and key milestones? | See Evaluation Criteria Enclosure No. 4, Criterion 4 - Timely Response. Offerors are to propose a feasible timeline, milestones, etc., that would be complete as soon as pracitacal to complete the project but not later than mid-September (Argonne's fiscal year end deadline). |
| Timeline, Resourcing & Logistics | Will the contractor have access to key stakeholders across Compliance, Risk, Legal, Audit, IT, and Procurement for interviews and workshops? | Yes, as needed. |
| Timeline, Resourcing & Logistics | Are onsite workshops or meetings required, or is the engagement expected to be performed primarily remotely? | Primarily remotely. |
| RFP Due Date | Would Argonne kindly grant a one-week extension of the proposal deadline? | Yes. |
| Compliance Baseline Artifacts | Does Argonne currently maintain a centralized risk and controls matrix (or similar control library), and if so, which framework(s) is it mapped to (e.g., ISO 9001 only or multiple frameworks)? | Yes, there is a project risk matrix and there is an enterprise matrix. |
| Scope of Business Systems | Approximately how many business systems are considered in scope for this assessment, and are they grouped by common processes or system categories? | Approximately a dozen. |
| Compliance Scope and Boundary | Is the compliance scope and boundary already formally defined, or should confirmation of scope and boundary be considered part of the assessment? | Compliance scope and boundary should be part of the assessment. |
| Repositories for Compliance Artifacts | Does Argonne currently utilize an enterprise document or records management solution as an authoritative repository for compliance artifacts (e.g., policies, procedures, evidence), or should fragmentation and manual workarounds be assumed as part of the current state? | Partial. |
| Existing Data | At this point in the RFP process are you able to share any of the existing functional requirements, stakeholder assessment results, and business process outputs already produced as referenced in Appendix B Statement of Work? | No, since that is considered business sensitive information and would be provided to the awardee during the project |
| Optional Software Licensing / Use of Accelerators: | If an offeror uses internal tools, automation frameworks, or validation environments to support analysis and testing, is Argonne open to proposals that include optional licensing (as a separate line item) or should all tooling be treated strictly as part of the contractor’s internal delivery approach? | We are not open to licensing. All tooling should be internal to the contractor. |
| General | Was this RFP sent only to a select list of firms, or may any qualified firm meeting Argonne’s requirements submit a proposal? | The RFP was posted in SAM.gov for full and open competition |
| General | We would appreciate clarification on whether this is a new requirement or if there is an incumbent contractor. If applicable, kindly share the relevant contract details? | This is a new requirement |
| General | What platform does Argonne's Enterprise Data Warehouse run on? | EDW based on SQL Server On-Prem (Relational, Dimensional Datasets), BUT the core Documents and Records would be hosted in different systems. The details are part of Onboarding |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .