IES DR-RUD Clarification Questions Responses.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 33 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 91990026R0010
About this file
This file contains clarification question responses for the IES Data Repository and Restricted Use Data (DR-RUD) Program solicitation, addressing 50 questions across technical, contract, and business categories submitted by prospective vendors.
The procurement is a firm-fixed price recompete that expands upon an existing InterAgency Agreement with NSF, with The Coleridge Initiative, Inc. as the current incumbent contractor (current contract value: $367,442.33 for 12 months). The solicitation is unrestricted and seeks a contractor to provide, host, configure, and operate a full virtual data enclave enabling secure remote access to IES Restricted Use Data for up to 5,000 users across approximately 1,000 licenses. Key deliverables include data ingestion of roughly 320 datasets (average 850MB each), secure upload functionality for authorized users with NCES approval, user access provisioning, license application review support, export request processing within 30 days, and disclosure risk reviews. The contractor must obtain FISMA Moderate authorization within 90 days of award and integrate with NCES's existing license tracking database and SAP (Standard Application Portal). The government requires full operational capability and remote access by September 30, 2026, though offerors may propose alternative timelines with compelling justification. Pricing must be structured under a Contractor-Collected/Price-Offset model where the contractor collects per-user fees from researchers for virtual workspace costs, with IES receiving invoice credits against the contract value; contractor compensation is independent of user fee collection volumes, though the government will not reimburse deficient pricing models. Labor rates may escalate by option year, and all contractor personnel must be U.S. citizens. Phase-out support should be priced separately and available for optional exercise. The government will evaluate small business participation based on 34.37% of total contract value, requires past performance references from the last five years (which may include subcontractor or key personnel experience), and allows compliance matrices and appendices to count toward the 25-page technical proposal limit.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| IES DR-RUD Pricing Template.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment 1 - DR-RUD PWS 5.21.26.pdf | ||
| 91990026R0010 - IES DR-RUD.pdf |
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
TRIO
Clarification Questions |
| Question No. | Document & Page No. | Question |
| 1 | ||
| 2 | ||
| 3 | ||
| 4 | ||
| 5 | ||
| 6 | ||
| 7 | ||
| 8 | ||
| 9 | ||
| 10 | ||
| 11 | ||
| 12 | ||
| 13 | ||
| 14 | ||
| 15 |
DEO
Clarification Questions |
| Question No. | Document & Page No. | Question |
| 1 | ||
| 2 | ||
| 3 | ||
| 4 | ||
| 5 | ||
| 6 | ||
| 7 | ||
| 8 | ||
| 9 | ||
| 10 | ||
| 11 | ||
| 12 | ||
| 13 | ||
| 14 | ||
| 15 |
ECRC
Clarification Questions |
| Question No. | Document & Page No. | Question |
| 1 | ||
| 2 | ||
| 3 | ||
| 4 | ||
| 5 | ||
| 6 | ||
| 7 | ||
| 8 | ||
| 9 | ||
| 10 | ||
| 11 | ||
| 12 | ||
| 13 | ||
| 14 | ||
| 15 |
IPEBA
Clarification Questions |
| Question No. | Document & Page No. | Question |
| 1 | ||
| 2 | ||
| 3 | ||
| 4 | ||
| 5 | ||
| 6 | ||
| 7 | ||
| 8 | ||
| 9 | ||
| 10 | ||
| 11 | ||
| 12 | ||
| 13 | ||
| 14 | ||
| 15 |
PCT
IES Data Repository and Restricted Use Data Program - Clarification Questions
| Question No. | Reference | Question Category | Question | Government Response |
| 1 | PWS, Section 4. Requirement Context. | Technical | Question: Does the Government require the proposed virtual data enclave to provide a secure "upload" functionality for authorized licensees? Specifically, should the system allow researchers to ingest their own external datasets into their private workspaces for the purpose of creating "subject data" through merges or matches with IES Restricted-Use Data (RUD)? |
| Background: Section 2.1 of the Restricted-Use Data Procedures Manual explicitly includes data resulting from "merges, matches, or other uses" with external sources in its definition of "subject data". A common use case for current licensees is merging external records (e.g., financial or administrative data) with IES RUD to support complex research. To successfully transition these users to a remote environment by the September 30, 2026 deadline, the enclave would need to support this specific analytic requirement. | Yes, the proposed virtual data enclave shall provide secure upload functionality for authorized users; all external data requests must be reviewed and approved by NCES before upload. | ||||
| 2 | PWS, Section 4. Requirement Context. | Technical | In the RFP, the Government indicates that remote access capabilities and full data availability must be operational by September 30, 2026. Based on our experience implementing secure systems within the Department of Education environment, including the time required to complete system implementation, security accreditation activities, and obtain an Authorization to Operate (ATO), we are concerned that the current timeline may not provide sufficient time for a successful transition and deployment. | ||
| Will the Government consider adjusting the required implementation date, or alternatively, permit offerors to propose alternate implementation timelines as part of their technical approach? | Yes, the government will consider adjusting the required implementation timeframe if there is compelling justification provided. Offerors proposing a different timeline for this aspect of the requirement shall submit adequate and compelling evidence to support that a longer timeline is required for a successful transition and deployment. | ||||
| 3 | General | Contract Question | Is this solicitation a recompete of an existing contract? If so, could you please confirm the incumbent contractor(s)? | This solicitation is a recompete, that expands and replaces services obtained via an InterAgency Agreement with NSF. The incumbent contractor for these services is The Coleridge Initiative, Inc. | |
| 4 | General | Contract Question | What is the current or historical contract value associated with this work? | The current contract is not comparable in scope to this new requirement however the value of the current contract is $367,442.33 for a 12 month period of performance. | |
| 5 | General | Contract Question | How has the incumbent performed on the current contract, particularly with regard to meeting performance objectives, deliverables, and timelines? | The current contractor has performed up to the Government's standards. | |
| 6 | General | Contract Question | May we include additional pages for abbreviations and references, and will those be excluded from the stated page limit? | No. These pages shall be included in the stated page limit. | |
| 7 | PWS / Technical Proposal Requirements | Technical Question | The RFP states that key personnel resumes are required, but the solicitation does not identify specific required key personnel roles. Will the Government please confirm whether offerors may propose key personnel roles based on their technical approach and staffing model? | Yes, offerors are encouraged to propose key personnel roles based upon their technical approach and staffing model. Please ensure all proposed personnel correspond clearly to tasks identified in the PWS. | |
| 8 | PWS / Labor Categories | Technical Question | The solicitation lists example labor categories by risk level, including Program Manager, Senior Software Engineer, Senior Data Scientist, Information Security Officer, Software Engineer, Data Scientist, SME, Developer, and Training Director. Are these roles mandatory, or are they provided only for security-risk designation purposes? | These roles are provided only for security risk designation purposes. | |
| 9 | PWS / Virtual Data Enclave | Technical Question | Will the Government provide the existing virtual data enclave environment, or is the contractor expected to provide, host, configure, and operate the full enclave platform? | The contractor is expected to provide, host, configure and operate the full virtual data enclave. | |
| 10 | PWS / Virtual Data Enclave | Technical Question | If the contractor is expected to provide the enclave platform, are there any required or preferred cloud environments, FedRAMP authorization levels, tools, or technical architecture standards? | All technical specifications must meet FISMA Moderate requirements. | |
| 11 | PWS / Restricted Use Data | Technical Question | Please provide the estimated number, size, and type of Restricted Use Data assets that will be hosted or managed under this contract. | As stated in Section 5.2 of the PWS: "The contractor shall ingest and host all data currently available in IES’s existing data repository (roughly 320 data sets, with an average file size of 850MB)." | |
| 12 | PWS / User Access | Technical Question | Please provide the estimated number of current and projected users/licensees who will require access to the virtual data enclave during the base period and each option period. | In accordance with Section 5.2 of the PWS, NCES estimates that up to 5,000 users should be expected at any time in the program. While the Government expects up to 5,000 users at any time, there may be a surge of applicantions due to the acceptance of new applications being closed for over 12 months. Please note: these estimates are based on historical information, provided for bidding purposes only and are not contractually binding. | |
| 13 | PWS / Remote Access Transition | Technical Question | The PWS states that IES seeks to transition all physical licensees to remote access by September 30, 2026. Will the incoming contractor be responsible for supporting this transition, and if so, how many physical-media licensees must be transitioned? | The contractor shall be responsible for ensuring all approved licensed users are given the appropriate access within the virtual data enclave. The contractor will not be responsible for retrieving or destroying physical data from current uers.Contractors will have no role in the transition of physical licenses to remote access other than to ensure all licensed users are provisioned access within the virtual data enclave to their approved RUD assets. | |
| 14 | PWS / License Applications | Technical Question | Please provide the estimated monthly or annual volume of RUD license applications the contractor should expect to review for completeness, accuracy, feasibility, and soundness. | As the RUD program has been closed to applicants for over 12 months, NCES expects a surge of applicants, though NCES cannot precisely estimate how many of the applications that would have occurred under an open program over the last year will occur when the program reopens. In December 2022, there were an average of 5,000 active users. Licenses are granted for up to 5 years, and researchers may renew licenses. Licenses often hold more than one user on the license; while some work is required for each additional user, additional research reviews are *not* required for additional users to each license. Please note: these estimates are based on historical information, provided for bidding purposes only and are not contractually binding. | |
| 15 | PWS / Research-Plan Review | Technical Question | Will IES subject matter experts continue to perform final research-plan reviews, or is the contractor expected to provide subject matter experts who make feasibility and soundness recommendations independently? | All judgements regarding soundness and feasibility of research applications (in Task 3 of the PWS) are ultimately determined by NCES; the contractor shall work with NCES to determine an efficient system to provide NCES the ability to maintain meaningful oversight of the review process. | |
| 16 | PWS / Export Review | Technical Question | Please provide the estimated monthly or annual volume of export requests, manuscripts, presentations, tables, or other work products requiring disclosure risk review. | Due to changes in the RUD program, it is not known at this time how many export requests or disclosure review requests will occur per month. Bidders should explain in their technical approach how they will support this task, which may not be tied to specific volume levels, such as total number of users at any given time. Based on historical information, 250-300 users are expected to close their 5-year licenses in any given year, and some portion of those will submit documents for proposed export and disclosure review. Please note: these estimates are based on historical information, provided for bidding purposes only and are not contractually binding. Additioinally, some portion of the researchers holding licenses that are not expiring may also submit items for review and export. Contractors should explain how they will staff the project so that the total volume of reviews -- which is unknown -- will be accommodated, as well as the likely concentration of proposed exports at certain times of year. | |
| 17 | PWS / Disclosure Risk Review | Technical Question | Please clarify whether the contractor’s export review role is limited to preliminary review within the enclave, or whether the contractor is expected to perform formal Disclosure Risk Review on behalf of IES. | Similar to the review of applications for restricted use data, the contractor shall work with IES and NCES to develop a process enabling IES and NCES to maintain meaninful oversight of the review process while undertaking all activities associated with the reviews, themselves, including a recommendation for approval. | |
| 18 | PWS / Service Levels | Technical Question | Are there required turnaround times or service level expectations for reviewing export requests and disclosure-risk materials? | In accordance with Section 5.4 of the PWS, "Unless otherwise and specifically permitted by NCES, the contractor must process each export within 30 days of submission by the user," which includes disclosure risk reviews. | |
| 19 | PWS / NCES Standards | Technical Question | Please confirm whether offerors should describe their approach to applying NCES Statistical Standards and disclosure limitation practices within the Technical Approach section. | Yes, offerors should describe their approaches to applying NCES Statistical Standards and disclosure limitation practices within the Technical Approach section of their proposals. | |
| 20 | PWS / License Tracking Database | Technical Question | Will the contractor be required to use or integrate with the existing internal license tracking database referenced in the PWS? If yes, please provide high-level information on the technology, access method, and expected integration requirements. | Yes, the contractor will be required to use or integrate with the existing internal license tracking database referenced in the PWS. This system communicates with the SAP (standard application portal), which serves as the entry point for all agencies' statistical Restricted Use Data assets. | |
| 21 | PWS / Standard Application Process | Technical Question | Will the contractor be required to directly access, download, or integrate with the Standard Application Process system at researchdatagov.org, or will IES provide application information to the contractor through another method? | A separate system is used to manage and maintain the license database of RUD users for NCES; that system is also the system that communicates with SAP. The contractor will need to interface with NCES' internal license system in order to correctly assign access to RUD files to specific users associated with a license, and to alert NCES of export requests associated with the license. | |
| 22 | PWS / Transition-In | Technical Question | The RFP requires the contractor to assume full contractual responsibility within 30 days of award. Will an incumbent transition period or knowledge-transfer support be provided before or after award? | NCES will make all RUD files available to the incoming contractor, and work with the contractor to establish a secure ingestion process. There will be no transition support associated with the incumbent system. | |
| 23 | PWS / Phase-Out Support | Contract Question | The RFP requires phase-out support for up to 90 days. Should offerors price phase-out support as part of each contract period, or only in the final option period? | Offerors should price one option for phase-out support that is not tied to a particular contract period and can be exercised when necessary. This requirement has been added as an optional task to the revised PWS under Optional Task 8. | |
| 24 | Pricing Instructions | Contract Question | The RFP requires pricing by task/subtask and contract period. Will the Government provide a pricing template, or may offerors develop their own pricing workbook format? | The Government has provided a pricing template with RFP Amendment 1. Offerors may use this template and format as a starting point in developing their own pricing workbook. | |
| 25 | Payment Terms | Contract Question | The RFP states that payments must be tied to completed deliverables or actions rather than the passage of time. For recurring operational services, may offerors propose monthly deliverable-based payments tied to accepted monthly status reports or service completion reports? | Yes. | |
| 26 | Business Proposal / Labor Rates | Contract Question | Should the fully loaded labor rates proposed in the Business Proposal remain fixed for the full five-year period, or may offerors propose escalation by option year? | Offerors may propose esclation on labor rates by option year. | |
| 27 | Security / FIPS 199 / PII / CUI | Technical Question | The solicitation indicates that the requirement involves PII and CUI and has a Moderate FIPS 199 categorization. Please confirm whether the contractor system must obtain a Department-specific ATO before full performance. | In accordance with Subtask 7.2: Technical Requirements for System Authorization in the PWS: "The Contractor shall have the associated authorization documentation as outlined below completed no later than 90 days after contract award." | |
| 28 | Personnel Requirements | Contract Question | Please confirm whether all contractor personnel must be U.S. citizens, or only personnel requiring Department system access, facility access, or access to PII/CUI. | All contractor personnel providing direct labor in support of this requirement are required to be U.S. citizens in accordance with the Department of Education Contractor Vetting Security requirements, "Only U.S. citizens will be eligible for employment on contracts requiring a Low Risk/Public Trust, Moderate Risk/Public Trust, High Risk/Public Trust, or a National Security designation." | |
| 29 | Past Performance | Contract Question | The RFP requires three past performance references within the last five years. May offerors submit references from subcontractors or key personnel if the prime does not have three directly comparable projects? | In accordance with Section L, under Volume II - Past Peformance, paragraph 2, "The Government may consider information regarding the past performance of predecessor companies, key personnel with relevant past performance, or subcontractors that will perform key aspects of the requirement." | |
| 30 | Past Performance | Contract Question | For past performance examples, should “similar in dollar value” be interpreted based on annual value, total contract value, or scope complexity? | "Similar in dollar value" refers to the total contract value. | |
| 31 | Technical Proposal / Compliance Matrix | Contract Question | Please confirm whether offerors may include a compliance matrix as an appendix to the Technical Proposal and whether it will count against the 25-page limit. | Any additional attachments or spreadsheets included in the Technical Proposal that have not been already been identified for exclusion will count towards the 25-page limit. | |
| 32 | PWS, Factor 4, Page 32 | Contract | Factor 4 states that the Government will evaluate small business participation “in terms of the percentage of the offeror’s Total Contract Value.” The same section also states that ED’s FY2026 Small Business Subcontracting Goals are “reflected as a percentage of total subcontracting dollars.” Will the Government clarify whether the small business participation percentage will be evaluated using total contract value or total subcontracting dollars as the denominator? | The Government will use Total Contract Value as the denominator when assessing the proposed small business participation percentage. | |
| 33 | PWS, Factor 4, Page 32 | Contract or Technical | Will the Government confirm that the sole criterion for a "Pass" rating under Factor 4 – Small Business Participation is meeting or exceeding the 34.37% small business goal as a percentage of total subcontracted dollars, and that no additional factors would result in a fail rating? | Offerors will receive a rating of "Pass" if they meet or excced ED's small business contracting goal of 34.37% of the proposed total contract value and no additional factors would result in a fail rating. | |
| 34 | PWS, Factor 4, Page 32 | Technical | Will Total Contract Value include the dollar value of user fees paid to the vendor after users are onboarded, or will those user fees be excluded from Total Contract Value calculations at award? If such fees are included, will the Government provide the expected number of users by contract year for pricing and planning purposes? | The Total Contract Value shall include the dollar value of user fees paid to the vendor. The administrative structure of the program is changing in a way that updates the requirements to move into alignment with digital access rather than physical access to Restricted Use Data. These changes will lower the number of users per license. However, an estimate of users from a time period with normal traffic is 5,000 users across 1,000 licenses. Please note: these estimates are based on historical information, provided for bidding purposes only and are not contractually binding. | |
| 35 | PWS, Task 2, Page 40 | Technical | Regarding Task 5.2 user fees: Please clarify how the payment flow will work between IES, the contractor, and end users. |
· Will IES pay the contractor for all user workspace costs under the contract, according to the contractor’s specific pricing model?
· Will IES then collect fees from users through the contractor-managed portal to recover these costs?
| · Will the per-user license IES charges users in the portal match the contractor's pricing to provide each workspace? | The contractor shall propose a payment flow under a Contractor‑Collected/Price‑Offset model— the contractor charges users for enclave services under government-approved schedules and ED receives invoice credits tied to documented collections. The PWS has been revised. Specific answers to questions: 1. Yes, IES will pay the contractor for all user workspace costs under the Contractor-Collected/Price-Offset model. 2. No, the contractor shall collect fees from users under the contractor's Contractor-Collected/Price-Offset model. 3. The per-user license fee that will be charged shall follow the contractor's proposed pricing model under the Contractor-Collected/Price-Offset methodology. The PWS has been revised accordingly. | ||||
| 36 | PWS, Task 5, Page 43 and PWS, Task 6 Page 44 | Technical | Could clarification be provided on the expected sequencing between Task 5 and Task 6 deliverables? Task 5 requires reviewer logins and training materials within one week of award, while the formal Training Plan under Task 6 is not due until two months after award. Should training materials be provided prior to submission of the formal Training Plan? | Task 5 requests logins and training materials for NCES/IES reviewers of export requests; Task 6 requests training materials for licensed users of RUD data who must access, analayze, and communicate with fellow license holders from within the virtual data enclave, and learn the NCES Statistical Standards and CIPSEA law. | |
| 37 | PWS Task 2, Page 40 | Technical | The PWS says "IES anticipates 5,000 users and 1,000 licenses". Can you provide the number of active users (individuals currently using RUD) and number of active licenses currently in use? | The number of current users in the program, which has been closed to new applications for over 12 months, is not at all reflective of the number of users when the program is fully open. | |
| 38 | PWS, Task 3, Page 40 | Technical | Can the Government share an expected number of RUD applications that will be reviewed under this task each year? | When the program was operating at full capacity, IES had approximatley 1,000 active licenses and 4,000 additional users or roles associated with each of those licenses. These licenses are valid for a maximum of five years. Therefore, an estimate of traffic from normal conditions suggests roughly 200 license applications per year. Each license, however, may hold multiple research questions. Please note: these estimates are based on historical information, provided for bidding purposes only and are not contractually binding. | |
| 39 | PWS, Page 38 and 40 | Technical | Can the government share how many physical media licenses exist? Page 38 refers to physical media license holders. Are these licenses included in the overall assumption for 5,000 users on page 40? | The number of existing physical media licenses is not relevant to this procurement, as the contractor will not be responsible for the license management activities associated with moving a physical license user to a digital license user. The govenrment has provided ample information about the total number of users the contractor should expect to process. Please note: estimates are based on historical information, provided for bidding purposes only and are not contractually binding. | |
| 40 | PWS, Task 3, Page 40 | Technical | Can the government share the average number of output reviews generated from restricted use data? | Please refer to the response provided to question 16. | |
| 41 | PWS Section 5.2 | Business | The PWS directs user fees to IES via a contractor-managed portal and references OMB Circular A-25 that users should recover the full cost of providing services or data. Is contractor compensation independent of user fee collection volumes? Specifically, if there is not sufficient user revenue to cover costs, will the contractor be paid according to the deliverables schedule? | Contractors shall identify the per-user cost of virtual data enclave use, to enable to the government to accordingly collect the full cost of the direct, dynamic user costs associated with use. The contractor shall ensure the per-user fee is not excessive, but covers actual costs. The government will not reimburse costs associated with a deficient pricing model. | |
| 42 | PWS Section 5.2 | Business | PWS Section 5.2 references OMB Circular A-25 for the per-user account price, while stating that user fees are intended to cover “the costs associated with user workspaces” and that IES will bear the cost of data infrastructure. Will ED clarify whether the A-25 cost recovery is intended to recover the full cost of contractor services or only the variable workspace-related costs. | User fees shall cover only the variable workspace-related and usage related costs. | |
| 43 | PWS Section 5.2 | Business | Section 5.2 states that the contractor is responsible for determining the fee structure annually under deliverable 2.1 and states that the user fees will be OMB approved. Please clarify the approval process and any constraints put by OMB. | The contractor shall propose the pricing structure; this proposal shall contain cost assumptions per user, which may be applied to different usage scenarios (for example, usage of a large data set versus a small data set; usage of high computing power vs low computing power). The government wide user charge statute (31 U.S.C. § 9701) and OMB Circular A-25 permit cost based fees for services or “things of value” that confer a special benefit. No further contraints from OMB exist. | |
| 44 | PWS Section 5.2 | Business | For pricing purposes, would statisical software other than Stata need to be available? | Yes; the Virtual Data Enclave is the only access point for NCES RUD users. Therefore, multiple statistical software must be made available. | |
| 45 | PWS Section 5.2 | Business | Will the government consider adding an additional task to scale up support if the number of users exceeds the government's estimates to account for additional software licesnses, security, and infrastructure costs? | No. These costs are dynamic infrastructure costs directly associated with use; therefore, these costs should be embedded in the pricing model propsoed by the contractor for user fees. | |
| 46 | Performance Work Statement, Task 2 | Technical | The PWS describes the "historical" process for accessing NCES restricted use datasets. Will the Government confirm that the process for accessing data starting on June 15, 2026 is to use the new SAP Portal? | No. The SAP interface is not the feature that is changing from 'historical' access of NCES RUD; the feature that is changing is the access of NCES Restricted Use data in the virtual data environment. | |
| 47 | Performance Work Statement, Task 3 | Technical | Should vendors assume that training for research applicants is provided within the SAP Portal? | No. The contractor shall be required to provide user training for the virtual data enclave, as the SAP is not associated with the virtual data enclave, nor does it operate in the same way. | |
| 48 | Performance Work Statement, Task 3 | Technical | Will the government confirm that the vendor will have access to the SAP platform to review the applications? | The contractor does not require access to the SAP platform to obtain access to the NCES RUD applications. While applications are processed initially through the SAP portal, decisions regarding applications occur outside of the SAP. | |
| 49 | Performance Work Statement, Task 5 | Technical | Are the government users verifying the completion of reviews or conducting the export reviews for a certain number of projects? | The contractor shall be responsible for conducting the dislosure risk review of proposed exports from the virtual data enclave and recommending approval or denial. The contractor shall also work with NCES and IES to ensure the government maintains meaningful oversight of the application review and disclosure risk review phases. | |
| 50 | PWS - Page 1 (SF1449) and page 32 (Factor 4 – Small Business Participation) | Contract | Could the government please clarify, whether this requirement is unrestricted or Small Business? | Unrestricted |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .