SAM RFI QA 6.18.25.docx

Questions received by 6/12/25 11:30am

SAM RFI

Q: Could you clarify if this is a new requirement or if there is a contract in place? If so, could you please provide us with the contract number?

A: The incumbent is Thundercat Technologies (NNG15SC92B-15JPSS24F00000686) for supplying licenses for Salesforce/Recon. The services have not yet been awarded. No award of DMS licenses has been issued. It is expected that this will be submitted as a Small Business set-aside.

Q: What is the intent behind the multi-tenant requirement (4.4.1(a))? Who would the tenants be in this case? Generally, single tenant implementations are more secure and reliable since they have dedicated resources. They also simplify the requirements, eliminating requirements such as 4.4.3(b).

A: Currently ATR will likely be the only tenant in the platform, but we want to leave an opportunity to structure such that if other components within DOJ would like to work in the system, it is structured at the outset to accommodate that for efficiency and scalability and that instance level security is available if needed.

Q: What is behind the 1 petabyte requirement? Are you expecting to store a lot of HD video, since this is an immense amount of storage, even for that purpose.

A: The Division has more than 1 petabyte of existing data related to its matters in various repositories which it would like to consolidate and store with a matter tracking application, so that Staff has a unified user experience.

Q: Is the ATR expecting to have 1 PB of high performance storage or is this expected to be split among the tiers? How much storage will be needed in the high performance space?

A: The storage requirement does not require high-performance storage. It may also include data that is not accessed over 90 days and can be put into lower tier storage to save costs.

Q: What are the DOJ Cloud platform requirements mentioned in 4.2.9(a)?

A: The requirement refers to the ability of the platform to be functional at an enterprise level, meaning that all the functionality is scalable as the agency grows, that it meets performance requirements at an enterprise level and that it allows for integration with other enterprise level systems within ATR’s security boundaries, or outside its boundaries as permissible and required. See other requirements under Unified Platform, Integrations, Advanced Security, Scalability and Adaptability, and Compliance and Export Capabilities which are key components of an enterprise architecture.

Q: Could you clarify the 4.2.2(a) requirement for a CRM/API integration platform? Are you intending that the solution includes features of a CRM or that it integrates with CRMs that are hosted in FedRamp environments?

A: Yes, ultimately the features of a CRM platform for workflow, automation and API integration are of high value to ATR. If another product that is not classified as a CRM but has native capabilities to manage workflows, add automation to routine business tasks and integrate multiple diverse platforms where relevant data is stored (i.e. Relativity, ServiceNow, CourtLinks, etc.) it will be considered.

Q: Based upon requirements 4.4.7(a), and 4.3.21(a), it looks like the USDOJ is looking to host their own solution in one of the major cloud providers. Is the organization open to a SaaS/PaaS solution where the solution vendor handles hosting responsibilities?

A: Yes, a SaaS/PaaS provider is acceptable if the platform is FedRAMP-compliant and meets all FISMA and NIST security requirements.

Q: RFI Reference. Page 5, Section F. Vendor Responses. Point 1. "Respondent must select either Yes (it meets), No (it does not meet), or N/A (the requirement does not apply to the Respondent’s solution(s) within the three defined categories." Please note that Appendix A excel does not have the "N /A" option. Please confirm if the Department will provide a revised excel OR should we include a comment in "Column G", where "N / A" is applicable.

A: Please disregard the requirement for N/A. That was removed from the spreadsheet. All categories apply.

Q: Could you please elaborate on how we should approach the columns in Appendix A when considering features for the MVP? Specifically, should each column represent the complexity of implementing a particular feature, or should we focus on selecting specific features that we intend to include in the MVP? Any guidance on how to best represent our approach to the MVP in this appendix would be greatly appreciated.

Q: Appendix A refers to the features that come “out of the box” or through configuration in the vendor provided solution. Ultimately, ATR would like to see the majority of the features in Appendix A to be included in the MVP as out of the box, requiring minimal configuration. If 100% of the feature is straight out of the box with modest low-code configuration required, then it qualifies as “out of the box.”

A: If you can offer at least 80% of the features in an MVP with moderate development or through integrations with another product, identify the product you can use to integrate with in your response and you can mark it as a moderate (i.e., more complex than low-code/no-code, but modest development LOE) configuration.

If more than 80% of the feature is missing without significant development and cannot be met through integration with another product, mark as a significant (i.e., majority of work involves complex development LOE) configuration.

With respect to the MVP, it is up to each vendor to decide which features of Appendix A will be included as part of its MVP implementation. Each vendor should identify which parts of Appendix A will be included with respect to its response to Question F.2 through F.4 of the RFI.