25_-_Response_to_Vendor_Questions_3.pdf

1 Is it possible for FSA to provide a redline of Amendment 3 for the above referenced solicitation? The version that was released on Friday, September 20, 2019 appears to be a restricted, clean version, making it somewhat difficult to effectively identify changes made from the prior version.

No, a redline of Amendment 0003 will not be provided. See Amendment 0004.

2 Section K.3 (a)-We are respectfully requesting that FSA consider changing the assigned NAICS code for the OPS RFP. The assignment of a NAICS is determined by “what best describes the principal purpose of the product or service being acquired”. The OPS RFP is currently assigned to NAICS code 522390, Other Activities Related to Credit Intermediation. According to the NAICS Association, this code represents industry establishments primarily engaged in facilitating credit intermediation (except mortgage and loan brokerage; and financial transactions processing, reserve, and clearinghouse activities). Examples of services are: Check Cashing, Money Order Processing, Payday Services, and Commercial Loan Servicing. Loan Servicing is only one part of the OPS scope and the actual work supporting loan servicing will be performed under a separate BPA contract, which has been assigned the NAICS code 522320, Financial Transactions Processing, Reserve, and Clearinghouse Activities.

The primary scope of the OPS RFP is to provide a highly adaptable technical solution set which supports current and future processes across the entire student financing life-cycle from application, to origination and disbursement, to processing and servicing and pay-off or default. It is indented to be a modern technical backbone set of solutions to facilitate the tracking and reporting on financial transaction processing of Federal student financing. The work primarily to be performed under OPS is both technical and financial, including systems deployment, systems operations and financial transaction processing.

The NAICS code that best describes and supports this primary work is 522320, Financial Transactions Processing, Reserve and Clearinghouse Activities. This code represents establishments primarily engaged in providing one or more of the following: (1) financial transaction processing (except central bank); (2) reserve and liquidity services (except central bank); and/or (3) check or other financial instrument clearinghouse services (except central bank). Examples of the type of services performed by companies under 522320 are: Automated clearinghouses, bank or check (except central bank), credit card processing, electronic financial payments, and financial transaction processing.

Companies which operate under NAICS code 522320 are financial transaction processors (i.e. First Data, Master Card, Global Payments, Fidelity National Services, etc.). These are the type of commercial companies that fit the FSA NextGen operating vision.

Therefore, we request that FSA consider changing the NAICS code for the OPS RFP from 522390 to 522320.

See Amendment 0004. The NAICS Code for OPS has been changed from 522390 to 541519.

3 K.3 52.204-8 Annual Representations and Certifications (JAN 2018), page 87-The NACIS code listed for the small business standard is 522390, Other Activities to Credit Intermediation. This code applies primarily to payday services and check cashing not really applicable to the lifecycle processing solutions that under the vision of the OPS NextGen contract. OPS is a primarily a technical/financial processing service solution delivering student financing from eligibility, through origination through collections. NextGen is not a money payday process.

We would propose a more appropriate NextGen processing NACIS code would be 522320, Financial Transaction Processing. This code includes credit card processing, payment clearing, electronic funds processing and clearinghouse activities. These functions are much more aligned with actual work activities required for the NextGen system solution.

See response to Question 2.

3 Attachment 19, L.15.4.1.7 Is there a page limitation for the completed Attachment 19 Performance Measurement Template? No. See Amendment 0004, L.15.2 Proposal Volume Requirements 4 C.2.2 General Operating Requirements; page 14-Partner & Participation Oversight (PPO) The Contractor shall provide technical solutions in support of FSA’s future Partner &

Participation Oversight." What is Partner & Participation Oversight? What is its function? The solicitation has a requirement for “Partner & Participation Oversight (PPO). What is meant by “Partner”? Is it meant to refer to contact centers and/or BPO providers only? Or is it meant to refer to schools? Or does it refer to all of the above? Can the Department clarify the scope of work required to fulfill future support needs for PPO as described in this section?

See Amendment 0004, Section C.2.2 General Operating Requirements, Partner and Participation Oversight (PPO)

5 C.2.2 General Operating Requirements; page 14-Can the government specify the roles and responsibilities of the outside performance testing contractor? At this time the role and responsibilities of the outside performance testing Contractor are unknown.

6 L.15.4.1.4-Offeror shall submit a Microsoft Project Schedule (version 2010 or newer) that follows best practices in GAO Schedule Assessment Guide

(https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/674404.pdf) and includes activities, resources, dependencies, milestones (GAO Guide IV), and all deliverables captured in the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS).

As this is a Firm Fixed Price effort, is the government requiring a resource loaded schedule?

This is a Firm Fixed Priced Procurement. Offerors are not required to provide a resource loaded schedule.

7 Attachment 18 Can the government please confirm the vendor is required to include hosting in their quote for all OPS Elements? Yes. Offerors shall include hosting in their proposed pricing for all OPS Operating Elements/Milestones.

8 C.2.2 General Operating Requirements- Please confirm internal FSA users and/or supporting contractors will have access to the OPS system; there is no direct access to OPS by external end users.

See Amendment 0004, Section C.2.2 General Operating Requirements, Digital Engagement Layer. Through the PPO portal, OPS data will need to be accessible.

9 I.9-1.10- Would the Government please provide documentation of FSA’s master data management initiative and OCIO-14 Handbook for Information Security Incident Response and Reporting Procedures for further review?

Please see Amendment 0004, Attachment "25 - Information Resource Elements Program Standards".

10 Attachment 18-Does the government want vendors to price the data migration of the 200M+ active accounts currently being serviced? Yes, Offerors are encouraged to propose pricing for over 200M+ accounts that are currently being serviced.

11 Attachment 18-Please confirm the scope of the NextGen data center contract will be for pricing hosting data services but does not include any infrastructure management services.

The pricing for hosting should include infrastructure management services, such as security management and monitoring, infrastructure/architecture/application monitoring, capacity planning, disaster recovery support, incident management, security incident/breach management, service management, 24x7 help desk and troubleshooting/triage support, DevOps support, etc.

12 Attachment 18- In an instance where the offeror is proposing a FedRAMP-approved Software as a Service construct (a combined software and hosting solution), would the Government accept combined software and hosting pricing that provides the most optimal pricing for the Government?

SaaS is more of a commodity IT and it's acceptable to combine hosting and software into one price.

FSA's Responses to Questions 2

13 C.2.2, page 12, numbered items 2- This section includes the sentence “The solution may not be hosted in a shared, multi-tenant environment”. This is contradicted by the next sentence that makes reference to a FedRAMP-approved cloud, which is s shared multi-tenant environment. In addition, Attachment #8, “Hosting Environments and Approved Agency ATOs.docx” includes references to shared multi-tenant environments. Can the FSA clarify this requirement?

The shared multi-tenant environment is one that does not share the data storage, applications, and major infrastructure with other tenants. This requirement would be applicable in a traditional data center or private cloud model. Under current Federal polices, the infrastructure components and some shared services are authorized if they are accredited under the FedRAMP program. In this case FedRamp solutions will meet the hosting intent. The attachment was intended to provide an example reference of the existing FSA hosting environments. Not all of these environments will meet the requirements outlined in this solicitation.

14 Attachment 23; 3 L.15.4.4 Volume 4 Small Bus. FAR 52-219-9 (d) states that small business plans shall include goals “expressed in terms of total dollars subcontracted, and as a percentage of total planned subcontracting dollars”. The small business subcontracting goals listed in L.15.4.4 match those listed on Department of Education’s website (https://www2.ed.gov/policy/fund/reg/clibrary/sbgoals.html) as a “Percentage of Total Subcontract Dollars.”

Will the government please confirm that the small business goals provided in L.15.4.4 are as a percentage of total planned subcontracting dollars?

Yes, see Attachment '23 - Small Business Participation Plan'

15 Attachment 23; 3-L.15.4.4-b states “Subcontracting plans shall reflect and be consistent with the commitments offered in the Small Business Participation Plan.” The small business goals listed in L.15.4.4 are expressed as “Percentage of Total Subcontracted Dollars” on the Department of Education’s website. Attachment 23 instructs offerors to use “TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE as a baseline” to express the small business category participation. The baseline in the goal percentage is different from the baseline in the participation plan. Therefore, the % participation (using total contract value as a baseline) on Attachment 23 will be lower than the stated goals (using total subcontracted value as a baseline) in the subcontracting plan. Will the government please revise the instructions in Attachment 23 to use Total Subcontracted Value as the baseline in section C?

Please see updates in Attachment '23 - Small Business Participation Plan'

16 C.3.2.1 (8.D) The RFP states that the solution shall "provide capabilities for school and trading partner interfaces… inclusive of replacing EDESuite". Given that p11 states all Digital Experiences will be provided by the Enterprise Digital Experience provider, could the government please confirm whether it intends the new EDESuite front end Digital Experience to be developed and deployed as part of OPS scope, or built by the DCC provider.

See See Amendment 0004, Section C.2.2 General Operating Requirements, Digital Engagement Layer. The Digital Engagement Layer of OPS shall inlclude a Partner Portal in which the PPO solution will be responsible for the front end of EDESuite. OPS shall facilitate the access of the electronic data exchange.

17 Section C.2.3.3.3 (item a) states solutions shall perform the following function: "Payment processing, including, receipt and applications of cash and non-cash payments accounts as well as research and resolution of lost or misapplied payments;". Please confirm that system-based capabilities for research and resolution of lost or misapplied payments are to be provided by OPS, with human-based support provided by BPO.

The vendor must execute all tasks necessary to deliver the functions necessary to meet the Government’s needs. At present, the only items that may require borrower contact are Loan Consolidation Origination & Disbursement and Unapplied Payments. There may be other functions being delivered by the EPS or BPO vendor that may require additional outreach and human-based support in the future that OPS will need to support.

18 L.15.2.2 The RFP states "Print shall be of a minimum 12-point font size (Times New Roman or equivalent)." Please confirm the Arial family of fonts is considered equivalent to Times New Roman?

Yes, as long as its size and legibility is equivalent to Times New Roman.

19 L.15.4.4 The RFP states: "Subcontracting must meet a minimum total of 32%, which is inclusive of all small businesses, regardless of subcategory." Is the 32% a minimum for small business as a total subcontracted dollars?

See response to Question 14.

20 Pricing Template-Elig. Det- For consistency, would the government consider aligning the pricing structure for eligibility to the same as the O&D and servicing pricing model subcomponents? Like O&D and servicing, use the same subcomponent structure: Development, O&M - Hosting, O&M - Tier II Technical Help Desk, O&M - All Other Requirements.

No. The pricing for Operating Element 1/Milestone 1: Eligibility Processing Solution has to be structed differently due to nature of services that will be provided. Offerors are free to propose their own pricing structure under the 'Proposed Alternative Pricing' tab.

21 2b and 3B- The instructions tab of the pricing template states, "Offerors shall propose prices based on pricing models (e.g., firm fixed, price per customer account, etc.) stated in Column C in each worksheet." Column C is currently blacked out in the worksheets. Is the offeror to assume that all work should be proposed as a firm fixed price?

Yes.

22 Pricing WITH Dev tab & Pricing WITHOUT Dev tab- How should offerors propose pricing for year one O&M (as applicable). The existing pricing template (with and without development pricing sheets) currently doesn't accommodate O&M year 1 pricing.

There will be no O&M under Year 1, since the expectation is that the Contractor will develop, implement, integrate, and deploy the solution during the first year.

23 Solicitation Section 2.1, Page 11, notes “All school, partner and FSA Digital Experiences (Mobile and Web) for Eligibility Processing, Origination and Disbursement Processing, and Servicer Processing System will be provided by the Enterprise Digital Experience provider.” However, Solicitation, Section C.2.3.1.9.d and C.2.3.1.9.e, Page 21 indicate that the OPS awardee is responsible for requirements associated with both FAA and EDExpress Suite. These two statements/requirements appear to be in conflict. Please confirm that the DCC and/or the PPO are responsible for the user interfaces for all partner applications excluding EDExpress, while OPS provides the APIs to the related business functionality and data.

Through API's, including FAA Access and EDEXpress, OPS is responsible for the processing data and providing the business functionality and edits to DCC/PPO who will be responsible for user front-end interfaces.

24 Amendment 0003, section C.2.3.3, does not mention the existing HOPS solution for the management of HEAL. Should offerors assume that the optional Servicer Processing System task includes functionality currently included in HOPS? If yes, when will detailed requirements related to HOPS be shared with offerors allowing offerors to plan appropriately for effort and cost?

See Amendment 0004, Section C.2.2 General Operating Requirements, Digital Engagement Layer. HOPS will be provided by another Next Gen solution. If FSA decides to proceed using the OPS vendor for the HEAL program, OPS solution shall be flexible to provide these functions to include specialty programs.

25 While the quoted language from the solicitation referenced in this question is unchanged from the prior OPS amendment (3/27/2019), the EPS solicitation has since been amended and proposals will be resubmitted on 10/4/2019. Accordingly, we ask the following question in case FSA’s plans for EPS have potentially changed its expectations for

OPS.

On page 7 of Amendment 0003, the solicitation states “FSA anticipates the near-term need for multiple servicing solutions while moving towards the future state of a single servicing platform operating environment. FSA will need to migrate, through conversion, nearly 200 million loan accounts from existing Servicers …”. Does FSA not intend to award the EPS contract, or is this language a carryover from previous versions of the NextGen procurements (and can be disregarded)?

OPS servicing principal responsibility will be for all new loan accounts. At the discretion of FSA, OPS should be prepared to convert loans from the EPS solution.

26 Referring to “near-term need for multiple servicing solutions” on page 7, does FSA anticipate awarding and implementing OPS Operating Element 3/Milestone 3 (Servicer Processing System) prior to the completion of the customer account migrations to EPS?

OPS servicing will be responsible for all new loan accounts. Loan conversion of existing accounts will happen under the EPS contract.

At FSA's discretion, the Optional Task for Servicer Processing System may or may not be exercised.

27 Referring to “existing Servicers” on page 7, is this a reference to some or all of the current TIVAS and NFP federal servicers? Does this reference also include the EPS vendor? Yes, this references TIVAS and NFPs including the EPS vendor.

28 To support both schedule creation and cost estimating OPS customer account migrations, how many existing servicers should the OPS offerors assume will be converted from? OPS servicing principal responsibility will be for all new loan accounts. OPS should be prepared to convert loans from the EPS solution. Migration, if at all necessary will be determined at a later date. OPS solution will be receiving the total volumes of all new loans currently being sent to FSA Servicers.

29 Page 4 of the solicitation refers to “allowing up to 12 months for Development, Implementation, Integration, and Deployment." How many months in duration should offerors assume for the conversions / customer account migrations of the “nearly 200 million loan accounts” after deployment of OPS is complete? Or, does the conversion need to complete as part of “deployment” and within the 12 months from the optional task being ordered?

OPS servicing principal responsibility will be for all new loan accounts. OPS should be prepared to convert loans from the EPS solution. Migration, if at all necessary will be determined at a later date.

30 L.15.4.1.2, Pages 103 - 104-This section is labeled as Performance Work Statement. However, the instructions request the offerors to describe within the PWS approaches related to compliance to regulations, meeting financial technical requirements, technical architectures of the solution, and acceptance criteria. There is no specific subsection for the PWS, or instructions to describe the activities to accomplish the work, typically found in a PWS. Does the Department want offerors to detail the Performance Work Statement activities under #4 (Offeror will provide a more efficient, effective, and flexible solution to meet FSA’s requirements for eligibility, origination & disbursement, and servicer processing)? If not, where should PWS tasks be described?

It's at the Offeror's discretion to determine where in the Offeror's Performance Work Statement the requirements under Section L.15.4.1.2, Performance Work Statement should be addressed.

31 C.2.3.1 Operating Element 1, page 16, item 3d-The RFP states that the solution shall provide a singular view of a student’s history with FSA (multi-year applicant data). Can the Department clarify what it means by “with FSA”? Second, in terms of storing the base PII data of the student name, address, and FSA ID, has this database been created as part of FSA DCC or other NextGen related effort and should the FSA OPS leverage this database for building the singular view of the student’s history?

The history refers to the self-reported student data with FSA collected to determine eligibility. OPS Eligibility and O&D processing system (if awarded) will replace legacy system. EDMAPS will be the data warehouse that will store data collected from the OPS Eligibility Determination solution.

32 Responses to Questions 2, Question #5-The question asked was, “Can FSA confirm if NSLDS will continue to serve as the main data warehouse for eligibility, O&D, and Servicing after implementation of OPS?” The response by the Department was OPS awardee will provide as the data warehouse function for OPS solution. OPS will also have capability to export data to external data warehouse via APIs. Please confirm that the Department is not seeking OPS to build a data warehouse and essentially the OPS awardee will need to feed data into the data warehouse

Correct, OPS is not to build a data warehouse. OPS will need to feed data into FSA's EDMAPS data warehouse solution.

33 C.2.2. General Operating Requirements, page 14-The RFP states that the solution shall provide transactional level data into FSA’s Enterprise Data Management and Analytics Platform Services (EDMAPS) environment. Solution shall be responsible for developing the retrieval and processing solution working within the overall EDMAPS architecture. Is EDMAPS the same as the Data Warehouse referenced in question #5 in the Q&A #4 (see above)?

Yes, EDMAPS is the FSA's Data Warehouse solution.

34 C.2.3.1 Operating Element, Milestone 1, Item 8 Additional Tasks, page 20 and 21- On Item 8d (page 20-21), the solicitation states that this requirement is inclusive of replacing the EDESuite. However, the following paragraph (i) states that the offeror could offer a solution that continues with the standalone EDESuite. Please confirm that (i) and the integration of existing PC based solution into OPS is an acceptable approach for the Department.

As all other functions and elements of this solicitation, EDExpress functionality should be module and severable. Offerors can propose anything from an integrated approach to a new standalone software. Any new approach (integrated or standalone software based) should be able to demonstrate significant advantages to the Department over the current software, preserve existing functionalities and capabilities, if deemed essential in the solution, and be cost-competitive with what the Department currently pays to offer this functionality to our user community.

35 C.2.3.1 Operating Element, Milestone 1, Item 8 Additional Tasks, page 21- On Item 8d. iv (page 21), confirm that the solution needs to simply generate the files to pass to COD and there are no specific edit checks that need to be in place. If there are set of edit checks that need to be processed on the file prior to transmission to COD, can the Department specify the number of edit checks.

See Amendment 0004. No, the solution will need to have business requirements and logic that will include edit checks. The solution should decide what edits will be needed to transmit to COD.

36 Section H.7 Option to Exercise Optional Task, page 47- The RFP states that the optional Task is exercised, Development, Implementation, Integration, and Deployment or that Operating Element/Milestone shall occur up to XX months from the date of execution. What is the “XX” months?

This clause will be updated to reflect the specific number of months proposed in the contract awardee's proposal.

37 Given some of the changes in the Amendment, we would like to request a 2 week extension? See Amendment 0004. Proposals are due November 4, 2019.

38 C.2.3.1, page 17- In the numbered list of items on page 17 the term “back-end” has been removed from the RFP. Does this signal a change in scope of the OPS system by FSA as it relates to other FSA initiatives including DCC?

FSA’s requirements for OPS are included in the most recent solicitation amendment.

39 With the work that formally Component G being developed and delivered under a separate contract, to provide a level playing field across all vendors, can FSA describe the data layer work that is being performed and the specific services and capabilities that OPS will have available for use from this work effort?

EDMAPS is the FSA Data Warehouse solution.

40 C.2.2, Page 14, Data Conversion-Can the Department define the existing data to be converted to meet the requirements of the RFP? How many years of FAFSA and COD data needs to be converted and what data was already converted under the DCC contract and does not need to be converted under the OPS contract.

Existing data to be converted include Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant (IASG) and Pell (PL) open years. To date there are open years in COD from IASG starting in year 2013 and PL starting with 2015. OPS will not need to convert fully closed years in COD, but a process needs to be created for post year close out activities.

41 Pricing Template, Instructions Tab: Item 2.0 and 3.0 – Item B-The instructions state "Offerors shall propose prices based on pricing models (e.g., firm fixed, price per customer account, etc.) stated in Column C in each worksheet". This data is not in Column C. Please clarify.

Please see updates in Attachment '18 - Pricing Template'.

42 L.15.4.2, Page 106, Past Performance-Please confirm that the completion of Attachment 15 forms the basis of the response for requirement #2 a-d on page 106 and #4 on page 107 as part of Volume 2 response? Or is the Department expecting Volume 2 to contain a 3 page narrative of each past performance and then a separately completed Attachment 15 for each past performance.

In accordance with Section L.15.4.2, Volume 2: Past Performance, supplemental narrative shall include the information being requested in Attachment '15 - Past Work Experience Cover Memo'.

43 18 - Pricing Template-Given the Milestone 1 objectives to preferably deliver the solution by October 1, 2020 but no later than October 1, 2021, we would ask that the Department would modify the “Pricing with Development” Tab so that it is a 2 year base versus 1 year base. This would also make it consistent with “Pricing without Development” Tab.

Pricing without Development allows for development costs to be incorporated into the Operation & Maintenance price; which will begin in Year 2. As a result, Pricing without Development will have a 2 year base period.

44 18 – Pricing Template-For both tabs – With and without Development --, the spreadsheets have a line for pricing called “ All other Requirements”. Does this map to a specific set of miscellaneous requirements in the solicitation that offeror should price? If so, can the Department refer to the pages in the RFP that contains these requirements? Or is this meant to serve as a plug number for unknown requirements. If so, can the Department provide a plug number or parameters against which a price can be developed.

All Other Requirements' refers to the requirements identified under each Operating Element/Milestone under Section C.2.3, Operating Elements and Related Requirements, that FSA has NOT requested separate pricing.

45 How many types of record edits are processed by the legacy backend CPS? How many types of record edits are performed against the legacy COD record prior to Disbursement?

Where is the legacy O&D system hosted?

OPS’ Eligibility processing system and COD will replace the legacy system. Legacy processing resources can be found on the Information for Financial Aid Professional (IFAP) website at https://ifap.ed.gov/ifap/processing/edeSuite.jsp

46 As stated in the Introduction, "FSA seeks an Optimal Processing Solution addressing functions across the full lifecycle of student financial aid, from application to pay-off or default, inclusive of: a) FAFSA/Eligibility Determination, Origination & Disbursement Processing, and Servicer Processing System (inclusive of default processing)." That said, please explain why the Origination & Disbursement Processing Solution and the Servicer Processing System are "FSA Optional Tasks". Further, please indicate the number of months from the exercise of the Optional Task the successful vendor will have to deploy the Operating Element (per Clause H.7).

The OPS Elements Origination & Disbursement Processing Solution and the Servicer Processing System are FSA Optional Tasks that at the Government's discretion may or may not choose to exercise within the first five years after award. Offerors are still expected to submit proposals for both of these Operating Elements/Milestones. These FSA Optional Tasks, if exercised, FSA will allow up to 12 months for Development, Implementation, Integration, and Deployment.

47 Section H.7, Option to Exercise Optional Task, provides that the Department can exercise it's option to have the awardee provide Operating Elements/Milestones 2 and 3 for five year from the date of execution of the base contract for the OPS. However, the base contract and options to extend are all based on one-year or two-year periods. Will the Department confirm that this 5-year period in which to exercise these options expires as of the termination or expiration date of the base contract, in the event that such termination or expiration occurs prior to the expiration of the five-year period in Section H.7?

FSA may execute its Optional Tasks within 5 years of execution of the base period as long as there is a valid contract under the base period or any subsequent option periods.

48 Please clarify FSA's expectations around the timeline for the Eligibility Processing Solution - O&M - Operating Element 1/Milestone 1 as there appears to be a conflict between the information in Amendment 3 and Q&A #8. More specifically, Amendment 3 states in part, that the O&M for Operating Element 1/Milestone 1 "will begin no later than the conclusion of the Development, Implementation and Integration by no later than October 1, 2020, preferred; or no Later than October 1, 2021" as compared to FSA's response to Q#8, which states in part, "Subsequent O&M shall begin no later than October 2, 2020."Please clarify in general that where past answers in Q&A or language in any other Amendment conflict with Amendment 3, the conflict will be resolved in favor of Amendment 3.

See Amendment 0004. To the extent that any conflict exists between amendments, Offerors should rely on the information in the most recent amendment. Before Deployment we are in the Development phase of the cycle. After deployment we are in the Operation & Maintenance phase of the cycle. For example, if the Deployment date for the FAFSA 2022-2023 cycle is October 1, 2021, the cycle is then considered to be in the Operation & Maintenance phase.

49 In light of FSA's General Operating Requirements which states in part, "the solution shall be portable as modules which at the discretion of FSA, may be further developed and operated separately by a different vendor or third-party provider. This includes, but is not limited to: separate code management, build and deploy process, support environments, and/or production environment,” we request that FSA please change and/or clarify certain contract business and legal terms, especially by expanding the initial one or two year base period and by clarifying the software / intellectual property ownership and use terms, in order to enable offerors to create their best pricing.

The Contractor cannot incorporate something with less than unlimited rights unless they represent such in FAR 52.227-15; either at the time of proposal submission or receive the Contracting Officer’s approval to do so post award.

50 In order for the offeror to submit an accurate proposal that is responsive to FSA's Optimal Processing Solution Solicitation, please advise when FSA intends to provide the detailed information that was requested in prior questions. More specifically, this includes, but is not limited to: the software or tools used for the Digital Engagement Layer, the software or tool used for the Customer Care Platform, estimated volume of student identity conflicts that are currently resolved manually, error rates requiring manual review/intervention of the 35K FAFSA printed forms, 117K SAR correction forms, and the 307K signature pages?

DCC will deploy Salesforce Service Cloud as its Customer Relationship Management. Enterprise-wide, the EPS solution shall receive, image, and route physical mail to the appropriate destination and be responsible for all printing and outbound correspondence across the full life cycle of student financing (from application through pay-off or default). OPS solution will provide the EPS vendor with the document procedures and requirements for the manual processing of paper applications to determine eligibility.

51 In regards to the OPS Servicer Processing System, please confirm that FSA's reference to "net new accounts" means brand new borrowers that are not presently serviced by the EPS vendor or any of FSA's prior servicers.

OPS servicing principal responsibility will be for all new loan accounts. OPS should be prepared to convert loans from the EPS solution. Migration, if at all necessary will be determined at a later date.

Amend 003 10.21.19 Responses