Questions_and_Answers_for_910031-19-R-0003.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 24 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Enterprise Middleware Architecture and Services
- Solicitation number
- 910031-19-R-0003
About this file
This request for proposal solicits proposals for middleware architecture and services to support the Department of Education's Office of Federal Student Aid. The RFP seeks to award an indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract with a ten-year term to one or more vendors to provide middleware services described in Attachments 1 and 2 of the RFP. Along with the ID/IQ award, the RFP anticipates awarding two initial task orders to provide middleware support for FSA's Information Technology Architecture and Enterprise Service Bus. The procurement is set aside for small businesses under NAICS code 541519 for Other Computer Related Services. The incumbent contractor is PPS InfoTech, LLC under contract number ED-FSA-14-O-0006/GS35F0372L. Proposals are due by the date specified in the RFP. Award is anticipated within six months of the closing date with a period of performance of approximately two and a half years for the initial task orders.
Questions and Answers for 910031-19-R-0003
View the file
Other files
Show all 29
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
| Question Number | Question | Response | |
| 1 | In Section 4.2.1, the Government requires Experience Evaluation Documents in Attachment 3. Please provide instructions for how and to whom evaluators should submit Section B directly to the Government, and a due date for submission. | Offerors are responsible for completing Section A of the Experience Evaluation Document. FSA will contact references listed in Section A and FSA will complete Section B based on responses from references. Offerors shall not complete Section B. | |
| 2 | In Sections 4.2.3 and 4.2.4, the Government has specified a requirement to include in each of Volumes Three and Four a “schedule for accomplishing work in the first year. (detailed response).” Due to the page constraints for those volumes, and the page count needed for a detailed schedule, will the government allow a detailed schedule to be included for each volume as a Microsoft Project file attachment to be excluded from page counts? | See Amendment 0002, which excludes the referenced schedule from the page limitations and permits a PDF or Microsoft Project format for the schedule. | |
| 3 | In Section C.4 Support Capacity Planning & Capacity Management, the government has included Section IX, Item 50. Release Management Support/Requirements (Work Task). Will the Government consider moving the requirement for Item 50 to Section C.3 Build and Deploy Pre-Production Application Environments, which is directly related to release management? | The referenced requirement (Section C.4 - Item 50. Release Management Support/Requirements (Work Task)) will not be moved and therefore will remain unchanged. | |
| 4 | Will you please post attachments 1 & 2 as soon as possible? This solicitation references requirements in attachments 1 & 2 which were not posted with the solicitation. | ||
| a. | middleware requirements described in RFP Attachments 1 and 2 | ||
| b. | Attachment 1 – ITA Performance Work Statement (This document contains the work requirements for Task Orders 0001.) | ||
| c. | (2) Attachment 1 – ESB Performance Work Statement (This document contains the work requirements for Task Order 0002.) | Attachments 1 and 2 are included in the RFP document. Please review the RFP headers to identify Attachments 1 and 2. Some of Attachment 1's pages inadvertently did not include the header information and therefore Amendment 0002 adds the header to these pages. | |
| 5 | Will you please extend the deadline for submitting questions to allow review and consideration of requirements listed in attachments 1 & 2? | Because Attachments 1 and 2 were provided in the RFP, FSA will not add a new question-and-answer period. | |
| 6 | What are FSA’s current plans/ expectations for Next Gen Enterprise-wide engagement layer? (“contact center platform and CRM”)? When is that solicitation anticipated? | This question will not be answered because it is not relevant to the RFP. | |
| 7 | For 'Total Small Business" set-asides, does the business owner need to be a U.S. Citizen? | U.S. citizenship of the owner(s) is not a requirement for qualifying as a small business to be eligible for award of this RFP; however, the Contractor is required to meet all regulatory requirements for qualifying as a small business. | |
| 8 | On "FAR 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting", if I were to sub-contract out the work to another qualifying Small Business, could I sub-contract out more than 50% of the work? Not that I plan to sub-contract 100% of the work, but just to understand the limitations, could I even sub-contract 100% of the work to a qualifying small business? | Yes, under the new version of FAR clause 52.219-14 added to the RFP by means of Amendment 0001, up to 100% of the work could be subcontracted to qualifying small businesses. | |
| 9 | "Certain services as described in FAR 22.1003-4(d)(1). The offeror [_] does [_] does not certify that— (i) The services under the contract are offered and sold regularly to nonGovernmental customers, and are provided by the offeror (or subcontractor in the case of an exempt subcontract) to the general public in substantial quantities in the course of normal business operations;" In the context of this project, what defines an exempt subcontractor? I definitely will be using at least one subcontractor, and I need to know if I should be checking this box or not. | It is the Offeror's responsibility to review clauses and complete them correctly; FSA will not provide guidance on the completion of Offeror Representations. | |
| 10 | Regarding 4.2.3 VOLUME THREE: TASK ORDER 0001 (ITA SUPPORT) TECHNICAL APPROACH, the PWS states “(1) PWS C.1 Document ITA Current State Technical Architecture,” what architecture framework does the Government want the contractor to use? Example: Federal Enterprise Architecture Framework (FEAF) | FSA does not have a prescribed architecture framework Offerors must follow and therefore Offerors may propose a suitable architecture to document the current state. | |
| 11 | The solicitation lists “all senior or higher technical leads” as key personnel. Would the government clarify to which LCAT in Attachment 4 the Senior Technical Leads refer to? | It is the Offeror's responsibility to determine which labor categories any Technical Leads are assigned to, and if Technical Leads are assigned to a labor category of Senior or Higher, they will be considered Key Personnel. | |
| 12 | The solicitation lists “The primary lead for security requirements” as key personnel. Would the government distinguish if this position maps to Security Manager (Senior) or Security Architect (Senior) in Attachment 4? | It is the Offeror's responsibility to determine which labor category the primary lead for security requirements is assigned to and that position will be considered Key Personnel. | |
| 13 | Regarding Section VI, 4.1; Section VI, 4.2.1, do the letters of intent for subcontractors and teaming agreements apply to the 26-page limit for Volume One – Relevant Experience? If so, what would the government like offerors to do if the teaming agreements exceed the 26-page limit? | See Amendment 0002, which excludes letters of intent for subcontractors and teaming agreement from each volume's page limit. | |
| 14 | Regarding Section VI, 4.2.3 & 4.2.4, the government indicates deliverables should not be addressed separately, but addressed in the narratives for the PWS sections; however, several of the deliverables refer to “all of PWS,” “LLM,” “FSA 35-9,” etc. In what sections of the response should offerors address these items? | The Offeror may decide to address such deliverables where it finds it most appropriate. | |
| 15 | Regarding Attachment 1, C.10.1; Attachment 2, C.10.2, the government references ID/IQ Contract Section IX “56. SUPPORT IT RESOURCES RETIREMENT (WORK TASK)” in both the ITA PWS and the ESB PWS. However, ID/IQ Contract Section IX does not appear to include this requirement. Would the government please provide the full text for this requirement? | Amendment 0002 removes the referenced requirement (56. SUPPORT IT RESOURCES RETIREMENT (WORK TASK)) from the RFP. | |
| 16 | Could you please advise if the set aside for small business is a necessary requirement? | This procurement will remain a full Small-Business set-aside. | |
| 17 | From reading the solicitation, our understanding is that we can use as many past performances from a major subcontractor as we wish. Please confirm. | Yes, the prime and/or subcontractors’ experience and past performance may be submitted. However, the Offeror must intend to use that/those subcontractor(s) for task orders awarded under the ID/IQ contract and that involvement must be substantial; for the specific requirements see RFP Section VI, 4.2.1, (3) Letters of Intent for Subcontractors, and Attachment 3, Experience Evaluation Document. | |
| 18 | Does the prime contractor need to provide any of the past performance, or can all of the past performance be from a major subcontractor? | Yes, the prime and/or subcontractors’ experience and past performance may be submitted. However, the Offeror must intend to use that/those subcontractor(s) for task orders awarded under the ID/IQ contract and that involvement must be substantial; for the specific requirements see RFP Section VI, 4.2.1, (3) Letters of Intent for Subcontractors, and Attachment 3, Experience Evaluation Document. | |
| 19 | How many contracts does the government intend to award? | FSA does not have an estimate on the number of ID/IQ contracts that it intends to award. | |
| 20 | Who is the current incumbent, contract number, and how long have they supported this program? | The current Contractor is PPS InfoTech, LLC and the current contract number is ED-FSA-14-O-0006/GS35F0372L. | |
| 21 | Is direct award a possibility? | FSA will not issue a direct, sole-source award for this solicitation. | |
| 22 | How many past performance examples are required for this solicitation? Will govt consider past performances as a subcontractor supporting the prime contractor? | RFP Section VI, 4.2.1, limits the number of Experience Evaluation Documents to six and at least one must be submitted. The prime and/or subcontractors’ experience and past performance may be submitted. However, the Offeror must intend to use that/those subcontractor(s) for task orders awarded under the ID/IQ contract and that involvement must be substantial; for the specific requirements see RFP Section VI, 4.2.1, (3) Letters of Intent for Subcontractors, and Attachment 3, Experience Evaluation Document. | |
| 23 | What are the current Labor Categories of the staff to date? | The answer to this question is contractor proprietary and therefore will not be answered. | |
| 24 | How many incumbent's staff members are currently supporting the program? | The answer to this question is contractor proprietary and therefore will not be answered. | |
| 25 | Since the RFP will be issued a SB set-aside, will the agency consider issuing the RFP as an 8(a) requirement? | FSA does not intend to not change the socioeconomic set-aside of this RFP. | |
| 26 | What is the current workload of staff to date? | The answer to this question is contractor proprietary and therefore will not be answered. | |
| 27 | What is the name/version of the of the COTS application and who is the software vendor? | Please refer to the COTS products listed in (1) Attachment 1, B.3 Overview of ITA Platform and Enabling Technologies; and (2) Attachment 2, B.3 Overview of ESB Architecture. | |
| 28 | What type of clearance is required if it is required? | The Contractor is required to submit its proposal and FSA will determine the requisite background investigation needed. As no classified work is expected under this procurement, no Secret or Top Secret clearances are expected. The Government will review the proposal, including the completed EDAR 3452.239-71 – Notice to Offerors of Department Security Requirements (MAR 2011), to determine the appropriate clearance levels for proposed staff. | |
| 29 | Is govt currently using or selected any COTS middleware software, if yes who is the software vendor? | FSA's current list of middleware products technologies are listed in (1) Attachment 1, Section B.3 Overview of ITA Platform and Enabling Technologies; (2) Attachment 2, B.3 Overview of ESB Architecture; and (3) in the EITA Current State documentation, which has been added under Amendment 0002. | |
| 30 | If the answer for the above question is no, is govt looking for contractor to choose/select middleware COTS product or research and provide best software for the DOE’s need? – We are providing middleware architecture/implementation and production support on large govt programs over 20 years. We are in a position to evaluate best available software that will meet agency’s requirements. | It is FSA's expectation that the vendor will continue to provide O&M and enhancement support for the existing middleware technologies and capabilities. FSA's current list of middleware products technologies are listed in Attachment 1, Section B.3 Overview OF ITA Platform and Enabling Technologies, and Attachment 2, B.3 Overview of ESB Architecture, as well as in the EITA Current State documentation and supporting appendices, which has been added under Amendment 0002. |
In addition, per Attachment 1 and 2, Section C.2 Research, Architecture Strategy, Technology Evaluation, and Planning, the Offeror shall support continual evaluation of existing technologies, provide market research support and recommendations for evolution of enterprise middleware capabilities and products, and a roadmap for its evolution.
31 RFP mentions for Service are 1 – one of the requirements is to enhance share platform of COTS products and services. Can govt specify COTS product name and version number? It is FSA's expectation that the vendor will continue to provide O&M and enhancement support for the existing middleware technologies and capabilities. FSA's current list of middleware products technologies are listed in Attachment 1, Section B.3 Overview OF ITA Platform and Enabling Technologies, and Attachment 2, B.3 Overview of ESB Architecture, as well as in the EITA Current State documentation and supporting appendices, which has been added under Amendment 0002.
In addition, per Attachment 1 and 2, Section C.2 Research, Architecture Strategy, Technology Evaluation, and Planning, the Offeror shall support continual evaluation of existing technologies, provide market research support and recommendations for evolution of enterprise middleware capabilities and products, and a roadmap for its evolution.
| 32 | How many FSA applications (current and estimated future) will be integrated with the middleware? Are any of these applications currently integrated with any middleware software? | The current list of Applications integrated with middleware and supported by EITA/EMAS are listed in Attachments 1 and 2 under Section B.3. Please also refer to EITA Current State document and supporting appendices, which have been added by Amendment 0002. Future applications slated for integration with ESB or hosting in the ITA are subject to evolving requirements and cannot be estimated at this time. |
| 33 | Has the govt decided cloud platform providers? If yes who is it? | No the Government has not decided cloud platform providers. |
| 34 | Is the Govt expecting Key personnel resumes? Can vendors provide resumes from resources with intention to hire? | The RFP requires the submission of resumes for key personnel. Yes resumes can be provided for resources with intention for hire. |
| 35 | Can vendor specify “Planned work location”? | Offerors are responsible for specifying their work location, which cannot be the Government location. |
| 36 | Is the sub-contractor teaming agreement considered as part of the page limit? | See Amendment 0002, which excludes teaming agreements from each volume's page limit. |
| 37 | Is the sub-contractor letter of intent considered as part of the page limit? | See Amendment 0002, which excludes subcontractor letter of intents from each volume's page limit. |
| 38 | For the task order 1 – is the draft project plan included in the page limit? If so, would the government consider removing that from the page limit? | See Amendment 0002, which excludes the draft project plan from each volume's page limitations. |
| 39 | For the task order 2 – is the draft project plan included in the page limit? If so, would the government consider removing that from the page limit? | See Amendment 0002, which excludes the draft project plan from each volume's page limit. |
| 40 | Our experience includes supporting similar size and effort both as a prime contractor and a sub-contractor. We understand that we can use our experience as a prime contractor as one of the past performances. However, we are not clear if we can use our experience as a sub-contractor as one of the past performances. Can you clarify if we can use our experience both as a prime and sub-contractor as part of the past performance? | Yes, the prime and/or subcontractors’ experience and past performance may be submitted. However, the Offeror must intend to use that subcontractor for task orders awarded under the ID/IQ contract and that involvement must be substantial; for the specific requirements see RFP Section VI, 4.2.1, (3) Letters of Intent for Subcontractors, and Attachment 3, Experience Evaluation Document. |
| 41 | Can we use one of our team members experience as a past performance? | Yes, the prime and/or subcontractors’ experience and past performance may be submitted. However, the Offeror must intend to use that subcontractor for task orders awarded under the ID/IQ contract and that involvement must be substantial; for the specific requirements see RFP Section VI, 4.2.1, (3) Letters of Intent for Subcontractors, and Attachment 3, Experience Evaluation Document. |
| 42 | Can we use the commercial client experience as one of the past performances? | Yes, commercial and/or government experience may be submitted. See the RFP Section VII, 5.1 (Go/No Go Factor 1: Experience) for requirements for comparable experience. |
| 43 | On page 19 under section 5.1, we are not clear on the following: “The experience submitted on the Experience Evaluation Documents.“ Is this referring to Volume 1 or ‘Experience or PP section’ provided at the end of the RFP as Attachment 3?If it is attachment 3, is it the expectation of the government to have vendor fill all details for volume 1 in that attachment? | Regarding the first question, as indicated by the RFP, one component of Volume One is the Experience Evaluation Document(s), which is Attachment 3. Regarding the second question, see the instructions for Attachment 3. Only Section A is completed by Offerors as Section B indicates that it will be completed by the Government. |
| 44 | On page 19 under section 5.1, we are not clear on the following: For the duration, it was stated “2.5 years” What is the rationale for choosing 2.5 years? | FSA will not provide its rationale for selecting the term of 2.5 years as referenced in RFP Section VII, 5.1 (Go/No Go Factor 1: Experience). |
| 45 | On page 19 under section 5.1, we are not clear on the following: For the duration, it was stated “2.5 years” Is this duration of the task order or BPA? | As specified in RFP Section VII, 5.1 (Go/No Go Factor 1: Experience), the term of 2.5 years pertains to Task Orders 0001 and 0002 and Sample Task Order 0003. See RFP Section VII, 5.1 (Go/No Go Factor 1: Experience) for the complete requirements. |
| 46 | On page 19 under section 5.1, we are not clear on the following: For the duration, it was stated “2.5 years” In the attachment 3, it was stated as 1-year duration? Which one is accurate (2.5 years or 1 year)? | The one-year duration requirement, specifies that only projects with at least a one-year duration may be submitted, but because the Contractor may submit multiple Experience Evaluation Documents, it may demonstrate meeting FSA’s 2.5 year requirement across multiple Experience Evaluation Documents. |
| 47 | On page 19 under section 5.1, we are not clear on the following: For the duration, it was stated “2.5 years” If we have a task order under a BPA with a duration of 1-year, is that valid? | The one-year duration requirement, specifies that only projects with at least a one-year duration may be submitted, but because the Contractor may submit multiple Experience Evaluation Documents, it may demonstrate meeting FSA’s 2.5 year requirement of comparable experience across multiple Experience Evaluation Documents. |
| 48 | We are not clear on ‘experience evaluation documents’ and ‘past performance.’ Is volume 1 considered as ‘experience evaluation document’ or is it attachment 3? | As indicated by the RFP, one component of Volume One is completed Experience Evaluation Document(s) (see RFP Attachment 3 for the required form). Completed Experience Evaluation Documents will be first used for Go/No Go Factor One (Experience). Offerors eligible for evaluation Factor Three (Past Performance) will then have eligible Experience Evaluation Documents used again but instead for the evaluation of Factor Three (Past Performance). |
| 49 | Page 21: Factor 3: Past Performance – it was stated that “The ratings assigned will be based on the average score of all ratings provided by references and comparable ratings for other past performance information collected by the Government (such as information collected from the Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)). Offerors that have no record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will be rated with the rating “Neutral." |
a.Does this mean even if FSA allows commercial past performance, the vendor will still get a ‘Neutral” rating because no CPARS ratings are available?
b.How about projects where we performed work as a sub-contractor? In this case, there will not be any CPARS rating available. Will that be rated as ‘Neutral” as well? Regarding the first question (a.), only Offerors with no single record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will be rated “Neutral”; therefore, if an Offeror is determined to submit comparable/relevant experience/past performance and no CPARS ratings are available the Offerors will not be rated “Neutral.”
Regarding the second question (b.), Attachment 3, Experience Evaluation Document, allows the actual work performed as part of a subcontract to be used as experience and past performance.
| 50 | On page 10 it is stated ‘All Volumes, except Volume Six’. What is volume Six? Does it mean Volume Five? | Yes this is a clerical error; Amendment 0001 corrects this typographical error to reflect “Volume Five” instead of “Volume Six.” |
| 51 | Volume One – Experience Evaluation Document. Page 10 of 209 notes that the experience evaluation documents are reflective of the experience for all three task orders? Should they all be in the same document or can they be independent? | Comparable experience must be demonstrated across all Experience Evaluation Documents when combined; as a result, all of the required experience does not need to be in one single Experience Evaluation Document. See RFP Section VII, 5.1 (Go/No Go Factor 1: Experience) for the complete requirements. |
| 52 | Volume Three and Four – Requires that key personnel qualifications and resumes need to be provided. Will FSA determine the key personnel or should the contractor make that determination? | No key personnel are required for the ID/IQ contract. See the following clause from RFP Section VII (ID/IQ Contract Clauses), for the applicable key personnel for Task Orders 0001 and 0002: “EDAR 3452.243-70 – Key Personnel (MAR 2011) (Applicable to Individual Task Order).” |
| 53 | In the Evaluation and Down Select Process for the First Down Select, the Go/No Go Factor One says Experience. Does this mean Volume One? | See each evaluation factor in RFP Section VII, 5.0 (Evaluation Factors), to learn which proposal volume is used to evaluate each factor. |
| 54 | In the Evaluation and Down Select Process for the First Down Select, the Go/No Go Factor Two says Cloud Services Support. Does this mean Volume Two? | See each evaluation factor in RFP Section VII, 5.0 (Evaluation Factors), to learn which proposal volume is used to evaluate each factor. |
| 55 | In the Evaluation and Down Select Process for the Second Down Select, the Go/No Go Factor One says ITA Support. Does this mean Volume Three? | The RFP distinguishes Go/No Go Factors from other factors by starting the title of Go/No Go Factors with “Go/No Go.” See each evaluation factor in RFP Section VII, 5.0 (Evaluation Factors), to learn which proposal volume is used to evaluate each factor. |
| 56 | In the Evaluation and Down Select Process for the Second Down Select, the Go/No Go Factor Two says ESB Support. Does this mean Volume Four? | The RFP distinguishes Go/No Go Factors from other factors by starting the title of Go/No Go Factors with “Go/No Go.” See each evaluation factor in RFP Section VII, 5.0 (Evaluation Factors), to learn which proposal volume is used to evaluate each factor. |
| 57 | In the Evaluation and Down Select Process for the Second Down Select, the Go/No Go Factor Three says “Past Performance”. Does this mean Volume One? If so, why is this being reviewed again after first down-select? It is our understanding that only when it was acceptable, FSA would move to the Go/No Go Factor Two of the Down Select. | The RFP distinguishes Go/No Go Factors from other factors by starting the title of Go/No Go Factors with “Go/No Go.” See each evaluation factor in RFP Section VII, 5.0 (Evaluation Factors), to learn which proposal volume is used to evaluate each factor. The Past Performance Evaluation Factor is not evaluated more than once; it is evaluated following the second down select as stated by the following excerpt from RFP Section VII: |
“Proposals rated “Acceptable” for Go/No-Go Factor 2 (Cloud Services Support) will then be evaluated against Factor One (ITA Support), Factor Two (ESB Support), Factor 3 (Past Performance) and Factor 4 (Price). (All other proposals will be disqualified from award.)”
| 58 | In the Evaluation and Down Select Process for the Second Down Select, the Go/No Go Factor Four says “Price.” Does this mean Volume Four? Will you be reviewing price proposal separately for ITA Support, ESB Support, and IDIQ or is it a combination or just the IDIQ pricing will be evaluated? Please clarify | Each Factor is evaluated separately. Go-No Go Factors (Go-No Go Factors One and Two) are used for down-select purposes, as indicated in RFP Section VII. In determining Offeror(s) selected for an ID/IQ award and Task Orders 0001 and 0002 awards, please refer to RFP Section VII, 2.0 Basis of Award Information. |
| 59 | What is the pass criteria for the Second Down Select process? | Regarding the Second Down Select, RFP Section VII states the following: “Proposals rated 'Acceptable' for Go/No-Go Factor 2 (Cloud Services Support) will then be evaluated against Factor One (ITA Support), Factor Two (ESB Support), Factor 3 (Past Performance) and Factor 4 (Price). (All other proposals will be disqualified from award.)” Based on this solicitation language, the second down select will eliminate the Offerors from further evaluation that do not achieve the rating of “Acceptable” for Go/No-Go Factor 2. |
| 60 | What are the Proposal Ratings for Factor One and Factor Two? | FSA’s proposal ratings will not be provided as part of this RFP. |
| 61 | What are the technical merits of Factor One and Factor Two? | See RFP Section VII for all information regarding evaluation criteria for Factors One and Two. |
| 62 | Can FSA provide the server breakdown of the current infrastructure managed by ITA and ESB? |
a. # of Supported Servers
i. ITA
ii. ESB
b. Type of Operating System
i. ITA
ii. ESB
c. How many environments need to be supported for ITA?
i. Dev elopment
ii. Test
iii. EPT
d. How many environments need to be supported for the ESB?
i. Development
ii. Test
| iii. EPT | Please refer to EITA Current State document and supporting appendices, which were added by means of Amendment 0002. | ||
| 63 | Please provide any planned future additions to the infrastructure broken down by a number of servers, operating systems, and environment (dev, test, and EPT)? | There is currently no planned increase. Future requirements for ITA and ESB are subject to evolving requirements and cannot be estimated at this time. It is FSA's expectation that the EMAS vendor(s) will provide ongoing support for strategic evolution of the architecture, capacity planning, and other activities outlined in the ID/IQ contract and task orders. | |
| 64 | Under the section ITA Platform and enabling, there is a requirement for CRM functionality. Is this the current requirement or future? | As stated on Attachment 1, B.3. (9), functionally has been supported in the past and may be again, and the contractor will need appropriate skills, but no CRM platform technologies are hosted in the ITA. However, FSA reserves the right to deploy CRM technologies and capabilities in EMAS in the future. This section has been revised by Amendment 0002 to specify that should FSA support under B.3. (9), the support would be added by a negotiated modification. | |
| 65 | How are the current help desk calls currently routed? | Tier 1 calls are handled by the NGDC vendor. Tiers 2 and 3 support shall be provided by the EMAS vendor(s). Refer to Attachments 1 and 2, C.5 Incident and Problem Management Support and 40. Incident and Problem Management Requirement (Work Task). Amendment 0002 revises C.5 for Attachments 1 and 2. | |
| 66 | What are the tools used for? |
a. Configuration Management
b. Installation Management
c. Change Management
| d. Incident Management | For existing tools approved for use at FSA, please refer to the current FSA IT Standards Library at https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/about/contracting-info/it-standards as well as the EITA Current State documentation, which has been added as part of Amendment 0002. | |
| 67 | Please provide a current state SLA’s for: |
a. Code deployment
| b. New instances deployment | SLAs in the current contract are unchanged from those in Section G in Task Orders 0001 and 0002 with the exception of Help Desk SLAs, which are included in the current contract but not in Task Orders 0001 and 0002. | ||
| 68 | How many applications are being supported by the ITA? | 44 applications are supported by ITA. Please refer to EITA Current State document and supporting appendices, which were added as part of Amendment 0002. | |
| 69 | How many applications are being supported by the ESB? | ESB is supporting 21 discrete FSA systems and interfacing external partners; refer to EITA Current State document and supporting appendices added under Amendment 0002. | |
| 70 | How many average releases are planned for ITA in the current state? | ITA is projected to support 10 COTS product releases and 4 application releases in a year. | |
| 71 | How many average releases are planned for ESB in the current state? | ESB is projected to support 6 COTS product releases and 4 application releases in a year. | |
| 72 | Who is the incumbent for the ITA scope? | The incumbent contractor is PPS InfoTech, LLC. | |
| 73 | What is the current contract # for the ITA work? | The current contract number for the solicited ITA task order is ED-FSA-14-O-0006/GS35F0372L. | |
| 74 | Who is the incumbent for the ESB scope? | The incumbent contractor is PPS InfoTech, LLC. | |
| 75 | What is the current contract # for the ESB work? | The current contract number for the solicited ESB task order is ED-FSA-14-O-0006/GS35F0372L. | |
| 76 | Please provide the number of servers for each application. | ITA has 117 servers. ESB has 59 servers. Please refer to EITA Current State document and supporting appendices, which is added as part of Amendment 0002. | |
| 77 | Please provide the number of concurrent users for each application. | ITA & ESB supports FSA applications which are over 40 million per year. Concurrent user information is provided as follows: |
#, Application Name, # of Peak Users EPT tested
(1) FAFSA, 90,000 logins/hour, 18,000 submits per hour. Equivalent of 40,000 users.
(2) PAS, 8 Creates/sec, 43 login/sec and ~1.4 changes/sec
(3) ISE, 600 Logins/hour with 50 concurrent users.
(4) IFAP, 1500 concurrent users
(5) Participation Management, 1800 Submits/hour with 80 concurrent users.
(6) NSLDS, 700 concurrent users
(7) AIMS, 16,373 logins/ hour with 600 concurrent users
(8) CPS Business Services, 641 web service requests per hour
| 78 | How many help desk tickets are handled on by ITA within a month? | A monthly breakdown of ITA tickets is provided as follows: ITA Request for Change = 26; ITA Request Management = 4; ITA Non-Prod Incidents = 10; Production Incident Support = 10; and Production Change Management = 10. |
| 79 | How many help desk tickets are handled on by ESB within a month? | A monthly breakdown of ESB tickets is provided as follows: ESB Request for Change = 3; ESB Request Management =1; ESB Non-Prod Incidents = 6; Production Incident Support =1; and Production Change Management = 2. |
| 80 | Is the place for performance mostly contractor site? If so, does that include supporting any help desk tickets? | Yes, the place of performance is mostly the Contractor's site, which includes supporting any help desk tickets. |
| 81 | Regarding RFP section 4.2.5 (Volume Five: Price Proposal), if an offeror enters into a JV or is part of an SBA mentor-protégé program, do all parties need to be a small business under NAICS 541519, Other Computer Related Services? | Joint Ventures under an SBA mentor-protégé program only require the protégé company to be a small business under NAICS 541519 while all other joint ventures require both companies to be small businesses under NAICS 541519. |
| 82 | Regarding RFP Section 1.0, are there any specific qualifications necessary for the key personnel, i.e.? |
a) Education
b) Experience
c) Certifications
| Will the Government consider education in lieu of years' experience? | The RFP does not contain mandatory education, experience, or certification requirements. It is the responsibility of Offerors to decide what "demonstrative information" to include in its Staffing Approaches. | ||
| 83 | Regarding RFP Section 1.0, will the government consider experience in lieu of education? | FSA does not have experience requirements for the solicited ID/IQ contract or task orders 0001 and 0002. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to decide what "demonstrative information" to include in its Staffing Approaches. | |
| 84 | Is there a Program Manager personnel requirement for the overall ID/IQ? | No, there is not a Program Manager personnel requirement for the overall ID/IQ contract. | |
| 85 | Can a small business team with a large business for this effort? | Offerors may subcontract to large businesses as long as the Offerors meets the limitations on subcontracting identified in FAR clause 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting (Deviation 2019-01). SBA-approved mentor protégé joint ventures are allowed, which allows a small business and a large business to form an enterprise (owned and operated by both companies) and still qualify as a small business for small business set-aside procurements. | |
| 86 | Regarding RFP Section 4.2, can the Cross Walk be included as an appendix? If not, what is the page count for the Cross Walk. | The cross walk required by Volume One is not excluded from Volume One's page limit. Offerors may include the cross walk in an appendix but the pages will count toward the page limit for Volume One. | |
| 87 | Regarding RFP Section 4.2, can hyperlinks be used in the Cross Walk? | FSA will not visit hyperlinks for information to supplement proposals. | |
| 88 | If awarded a task order under NextGen, as either a prime or subcontractor, will an award create a conflict of interest with this initiative? | FSA does not anticipate an organizational conflict of interest will be created if an Offeror is performing on the solicited requirements and other Next Gen initiatives. However, should the Offeror perform on a NextGen contract/subcontract that gives rise to an organizational or personal conflict of interest, as described in EDAR clause 3452.209-71, then then Offeror will have a conflict. | |
| 89 | In Section 1.0 ID/IQ CONTRACT LABOR CATEGORIES AND RATES, it is stated, “…FSA’s ID/IQ contract only recommends experience requirements and it is responsibility of the Offeror to propose appropriate experience requirements for each task order when appropriate.” Are experience requirements assigned at the ID/IQ or the task order level? | The RFP does not include experience requirements for the ID/IQ contract. However, experience requirements may be established at the task-order level, primarily based on whether a solicitation for a task order requires Offerors to propose experience requirements. | |
| 90 | In RFP Section 2.2 Section 3.0 All-or-None Procurement Notifications, it states, “The ID/IQ contract award is an all-or-none procurement; therefore, Offerors are competing for an ID/IQ Contract for all items solicited in the ID/IQ’s SOW. | ||
| The procurement of Task Orders 0001 (ITA) and 0002 (EBC) are all-or-none procurements; therefore, one vendor will be awarded a task order for each requirement.” How many task orders is the Government anticipating for this ID/IQ? | See the cover page of the RFP and RFP Section I for the answer to this question. |
&"-,Bold"&26Questions and Responses for RFP No. 910031-19-R-0003
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .