Vendor Questions and Government Responses 12.3.2024 AMENDMENT 1.pdf

Vendor Questions and Government Responses

Government Response

Filename Pg #/Para #

86615525R00001 RFP eVault.pdf and

S14 Attachment 1 PWS - eVAULT Re-Compete (ALU Approved) 11.5.2024.doc

Is the “Tab 9 Quote Matrix” referenced on page 51 the same as the “Proposal/ Quotation Matrix” referenced on page 53?

86615525R00001 RFP eVault.pdf p. 51 & 53

Yes. For this solicitation the word Proposal and Quotation are the same.

The RFP states on page 51 that Offers shall include a “Tab (1) Cover Letter – Company Information (not included in page limitation)” and on Page 52, “Quotations shall be accompanied by a cover page providing the following information:

1. The Request for Quotation (RFQ) number.

2. The name, address, telephone and fax numbers of the firm submitting the quotation.

3. The name, title, telephone and fax numbers, e-mail address of the point of contact for obtaining clarifications, discussions, or making contract award, etc.

4. The quotation shall include a cover page with the quoter’s name and address, solicitation number, DUNS number, Cage code, and Tax Identification Number (TIN).”

Would the Government please clarify the difference between the Cover Letter and the Cover Page and, if they are two different things, specifically what “company information” is the Government looking for in the Cover Letter?

Tab listing for the Technical Quotation goes from Tab 5 to Tab 7, skipping Tab 6. Is there a Tab 6? If not, will the Government please renumber the Tabs in the next amendment?

86615525R00001 RFP eVault.pdf p. 51

Corrected to add TAB 6.

Removed bullet

# Vendor Questions Reference

The RFP states, “The offeror shall submit a technical approach that demonstrates logical and feasible methods for meeting the requirements described in the Performance Work Statement

3.5.1 through 3.5.9 and meeting the performance objectives outlined within the solicitation.” The PWS does not have Sections with those numbers. Would the Government please update to reflect the correct PWS requirements Offerors are to address in their Technical Approach?

p. 56

The RFP states, “The Offeror shall provide a narrative describing its relevant experience and the number of years providing such services. Describe any specialized expertise and capabilities, including those provided by teaming partners or subcontractors that may enhance the Offeror’s ability to meet or exceed the work requirements.” Is this in addition to the narratives written in support of the past performances referenced in Attachment 7?

86615525R00001 RFP eVault.pdf p. 58

The RFP states, “The Offeror shall describe experience performing legal services for private firms and public sector agencies on mortgage-backed securities and Multiclass programs, including the development and implementation of new programs.” Can the Government please explain the rationale for this requirement as it has nothing to do with the Digital Collateral eVault effort.

86615525R00001 RFP eVault.pdf p. 58

The RFP states, “All Key Personnel must be attorneys in good standing with the bar of at least one jurisdiction. The Offeror shall provide resumes for all proposed key personnel with the names, position descriptions, and information to support the qualifications, including relevant experience in the last three years and any relevant specialized education such as a LL.M in tax law. Include names of employers and dates of employment.”

The RFP states, “The Offeror shall describe experience representing parties in administrative or judicial tribunals on matters involving mortgage-backed securities, structured finance, or other complex financial or securities matters.” Can the Government please explain the rationale for this requirement as it has nothing to do with the Digital Collateral eVault effort.

86615525R00001 RFP eVault.pdf p. 59

The RFP states, “The Offeror shall describe experience providing securities tax law advice on mortgage- backed securities and structured finance programs. Offerors should have specialized securities tax expertise to handle the responsibilities listed in the Performance Work Statement/Statement of Work.” Can the Government please explain the rationale for this requirement as it has nothing to do with the Digital Collateral eVault effort.

86615525R00001 RFP eVault.pdf p. 59

Updated to say Performance work Statement 5.1through 5.4

They should be the same narratives.

Removed bullet

Removed bullet

Removed bullet

The Cover Page is the same as the Cover Letter and shall include vendors UEI number in lieu of the DUNS number.

7 86615525R00001 RFP eVault.pdf p. 51 & 52

9 86615525R00001 RFP eVault.pdf p. 56

Added to solicitation page 28

Will the eVault provider be required to obtain FedRAMP certification? If not, what does it mean to be "aligned with" the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRamp) guidelines as described in the RFP?

No, Ginnie Mae recognizes that this category of cloud-based “eVault” service does not currently reside within the FedRamp marketplace offerings; therefore, the provider is not expected to achieve FedRamp certification as a condition of this contract. To ensure proper “alignment” with FedRamp guidelines, contractors will be required to comply with section {add applicable section} within the RFQ, Requirements for Safeguarding Information and Information Systems, and demonstrate that applicable Federal IT laws and standards are being met to ensure the protection and privacy of federal data. The Contractor must provide the required A&A artifacts within the first six months of award of the contract to demonstrate adequate security controls are in place to enable Ginnie Mae to make a

Risk-Based Decision that the services are adequately secure.

Provides in relevant part that “[t]he Contractor must provide necessary A&A artifacts (section 1.3.4, b) in accordance with contract terms (not to exceed six (6) months) to obtain a favorable ATO.” The PWS does not have a “section 1.3.4, b). If “section 1.3.4, b” is meant as an internal reference, can you please provide a revised internal citation to the adequate section, or alternatively, if “section 1.3.4, b” refers to a document other than the PWS, can you provide the document name containing the relevant “section 1.3.4, b”? PWS Section 5.2.17.4, Assessment & Authorization (A&A)p. 26

Changed to: The Contractor must provide necessary A&A artifacts in accordance with contract terms (not to exceed six

(6) months) to obtain a favorable ATO.

Provides that “[t] he offeror shall submit a technical approach that demonstrates logical and feasible methods for meeting the requirements described in the Performance Work Statement

3.5.1 through 3.5.9 and meeting the performance objectives outlined within the solicitation. The PWS has a section 3.5 Quality Assurance, but does not have subsections 3.5.1 through 3.5.9. Can you please confirm the sections or subsections that are referenced under Factor 1- Technical Approach?”

The first bullet under Section “Factor 1- Technical Approach of the RFP p. 56 Changed to: Performance work Statement 5.1through 5.4

Provides that Cloud Platform Provider must conform to the security requirements outlined in Section 6.4.2. The PWS does not contain a section 6.4.2. If this is meant as an internal cross reference, please provide the revised citation to the PWS that should have been reflected.

Alternatively, if this is a reference to another document, please provide the name of the document other than the PWS. Section 5.2.1 of the PWS

Changed to: Contractor must comply with information technology security requirements as stated in contract terms.

Require that bidders submit descriptions of past performance related to the provision of legal services related to matters including multiclass securities programs, tax law advice, structured finance legal matters, and other specialized legal advisory services. The provisions appear to reflect requirements for a different solicitation. Can you please confirm whether respondents to the RFP for this Digital Collateral eVault solicitation for software services must reflect the relevant experience for its in-house legal team or whether the referenced bullets were included by accident. If the referenced bulleted paragraphs were not intended for this solicitation, could you please inform us whether other requirements not reflected in the RFP as published must be considered.

The last three bullet paragraphs under the “Factor 3- Past Performance” section of the RFP pages 58 through 59 Removed bullets

The Ginnie Mae specific clauses detail Requirements for Safeguarding Information and Information Systems, which provide that vendors must maintain, enhance and develop all information technology software and systems in accordance with Ginnie Mae Policy 4060.02.2001, IT Security Policy, and Ginnie Mae Policy 4060.02.3001, Vulnerability Management Policy, or current versions of the same. Ginnie Mae Policy 4060.02.2001 is retrievable from www.ginniemae.gov, but policy 4060.02.3001 is not able to be retrieved. Can you please provide an attachment or link to Ginnie Mae Policy 4060.02.3001, Vulnerability Management Policy? RFP p. 42

Removed the reference to Ginnie Mae Policy 4060.02.3001, Vulnerability Management Policy as it is not available to the responding contractors.

The solicitation rating standards for Factor 4 provide that “a Low Confidence Rating for any single criteria will make the quote ineligible for award, with no further evaluation of the technical and price quote conducted by the Government.” The evaluation rating definitions do not include a “Low Confidence” for Factor 4. Can you please inform whether Low Confidence is the same standard as “Unsatisfactory”. If it is not, can you please provide the evaluation criteria that would result in a “Low Confidence Rating” Factor 4 - Socioeconomic Participation ratings have been updated.

Would the Government please provide a copy of HUDAR 2452.239-71 Information Technology Virus Security. The RFP states “A copy of the provision is provided in this solicitation,” but it was not.

86615525R00001 RFP eVault.pdf p. 52

The RFP appears to indicate, whether the presence of a subcontracting plan is treated as a pass/fail criteria. If a quoter submits the an explanation of why it cannot meet the agency’s subcontracting goals, would this result in failing to meet the criteria for Factor 4?

This is applicable to Large Business only. The factor has been revised to reduce the requirement.

Can you please provide instructions or otherwise clarify how the agency would evaluate a Quoter’s proposal if a quoter submitted an explanation the agency deems acceptable for why there is no realistic opportunity to subcontract labor as the other definitions for evaluation ratings do not include this situation.

This is applicable to Large Business only. The factor has been revised to reduce the requirement. The unsatisfactory rating has been removed.

It is also unclear if the agency is permitting offerors to include narrative explanations with the socioeconomic participation plans addressing efforts to identify subcontractors for each category.

Additionally, while the plan submission requirements state that commitment letters are only required from subcontractors that will perform morre than 10% of the total labor, the evaluation criteria would assign an unacceptable rating if offerors do not submit subcontracts or teaming agreements, both more than letters of commitment, from most businesses with whom they intend to subcontract.

This is applicable to Large Business only. The factor has been revised to reduce the requirement. The unsatisfactory rating has been removed.

The submission instructions provided in the RFP, as reflected in page 51 require quoters to submit their response(s) in a total of 8 tabs...The document omits naming/labeling a Tab 6. Can you please confirm whether the quoter’s submission must reflect a tab numbering system as detailed (omitting Tab 6) or whether the submission should renumber Tabs 7, 8, and 9 to Tabs 6, 7, and 8. Corrected to add TAB 6.

Sheet1