EFiMS_Responses_to_Vendor_Questions_10-30-19.xls
XLS spreadsheet 50 KB Posted
- Attached to
- DHS Enterprise Financial Management Systems (EFiMS) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- DHS-70RTAC18RFI000004
About this file
Responses to Vendor Questions
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 38
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| # | Doc | Section | Comment | Response | |
| 1 | SOW | 5.2.5 | Can we get a Network diagram showing the data flow from multiple agencies (more than 1) to a common application hosted by the DHS HQ or hosted by a Vendor’s cloud environment today? Do all agencies under DHS operate under the same network? Will this information be available in the reading room or in a future attachment? | This section of the SOW outlines the general overarching DHS Enterprise Architecture requirements. More details on specific configurations may be provided at the Task Order level, however, DHS does not release sensitive network information. | |
| 2 | SOW | 5.2.5 | Will the documents referenced in 5.2.5 be made available in the reading room or will they be included in the final SOW? | DHS has included many of these items in the Reading Room. | |
| 3 | SOW | 5.2 | Will DHS HQ manage the data security? Or each agency will have its own ACLs and security controls? | ||
| Will this information be made available in the reading room or will it be included in the final SOW? | DHS HQ will work with the components to manage data security. More details may be provided at the Task Order level. | ||||
| 4 | SOW | pg 25 | This section mentions the following bullet: “Flexibility to transfer licenses from DHS to the Quality Service Management Office (QSMO) for financial management” under License Transfer Requirement. Please confirm that, in the event the license ownership is transferred from DHS to QSMO in the future, the use of these licenses will still be restricted to existing DHS users only and cannot be reused by other agencies / departments outside DHS. | Confirmed. Any licenses transferred from DHS to the QSMO will still be restricted to use by DHS. | |
| 5 | RFP | Section L, pg 153 | Page 153 on the RFP document highlights that under Section 3 - Factor 5: Attachment J-2 (Pricing Structure) “Vendors shall complete Attachment J-2, EFiMS Pricing Structure, including all worksheets within the Attachment.” Specifically, | ||
| - | Tab 7. Scenario provides an assumption (f) that the software will be installed on a DHS data center. This would apply to a perpetual license and not for a subscription/vendor hosted model. | ||||
| - | Tab 8.Pricing Scenario requests vendors to complete a perpetual license and associated maintenance fees. If vendors offer only subscription and SaaS solutions will this tab be applicable? Could you provide an equivalent scenario for subscription and SaaS solutions? |
| Are vendors expected to provide pricing under all license models(COTS, COTS subscriptions, SAAS)? | The RFP has been updated to clarify what is required for this factor. | ||||
| 6 | SOW | 1 | Discrepancy in SOW on page 4 with information in the J-CONOPS (page 47, Attachment B) | The following two items have been updated in the J-CONOPS assumptions: | |
| 1. | The software shall replace the current disparate financial systems within DHS including financial, procurement, and asset management. | ||||
| 2. | There shall be dependencies and integration among financial, procurement, and asset management systems followed by similar changes to Component business processes. | ||||
| 7 | RFP | Please confirm DHS will assign NAICS 511210, Software Publishers, to the EFiMS solicitation. This most accurately reflects the contemplated contracting requirement, "COTS software licenses, SaaS subscriptions, software documentation, and accessory products (only if incorporated into the proposed software), and professional services" where "professional services" are those needed in support to "address software issues escalated through Component's services desk process". | The NAICS code assigned to this solicitation is 511210 Software Publishers. | ||
| 8 | RFP | Attachment J-2. To more accurately reflect market dynamics, please confirm the government will revise Attachment J-2 asking bidders to provide discounts based on total purchase volume (i.e. gross dollar amounts). | DHS will not be revising the Pricing Structure attachment. Vendors should reflect all discounts into the existing Pricing Structure. | ||
| 9 | RFP | Attachment J-3. It is assumed that bidders may provide solutions from one or more software publishers. Software publishers may have more than one offering that meets requirements (i.e. on-premise COTS license, SaaS). Each solution may meet requirements in different ways (out of the box, configuration, extension, combination). Please provide guidance on how bidders should approach filling out Attachment J-3 if they are bidding multiple solutions for the same requirement(s). | Vendors must submit separate proposals for each solution. Each proposal must include a completed attachment J-3. | ||
| 10 | RFP | Attachment J-4. Please confirm the government will allow past performance references of the prime bidder as well as the software provider(s) it may represent. | Confirmed. The government will allow past performance references from both the prime and software provider. | ||
| 11 | SOW | In the EFiMS Vendor Question Responses posted to FBO on July 2, 2019, the agency represented in response to question #202 that “A vendor that receives an EFiMS software contract award is not precluded competing for the EFSI contract award.” Is the inclusion of HSAR 3052.209-74 and HSAR 3052.209-73 a reversal of the agency’s prior representation that a vendor that receives an EFiMS award is not precluded from competing for the EFSI contract award? | A vendor that receives an EFiMS software contract award is not precluded from competing for the EFSI contract award. In addition, please reference Homeland Security Acquisition Regulation (HSAR0 clause 3052.209-73 (Limitation of Future Contracting) and HSAR provision 3052.209-72 Organizational Conflict of Interest in the solicitation. | ||
| 12 | SOW | If the inclusion of these provisions is intended by the agency to preclude a single vendor from competing for both contracts, what is the reasoning behind the agency’s decision to create this barrier to competition? | Please see the response under question number 11. | ||
| 13 | SOW | Upon information and belief, three of the five contractors currently deployed at the agency’s components have a business model that successfully provides both software and services, so why is the government refusing to accept a contractor’s bid that includes both software and services? | Please see the response under question number 11. | ||
| 14 | SOW | What is the business case for preventing one vendor from competing for and being awarded both the EFiMS and the EFSI contracts if that vendor is both the best software provider and the best systems integrator? | Please see the response under question number 11. | ||
| 15 | SOW | What is the criteria the agency intends to use for deciding when to grant an “exception” under HSAR 3052.209-74? Would granting such an exception permit a contractor to compete for both the EFiMS and the EFSI contract? | HSAR provision HSAR 3052.209-74 is not in the final EFiMS solicitation. | ||
| 16 | SOW | HSAR 3052.209-74(b) states that “Unless an exception is granted, no contractor performing lead system integrator functions in the acquisition of a major system by the Department of Homeland Security may have any direct financial interest in the development or construction of any individual system or element of any system of systems.” (emphasis added). Given that the EFiMS SOW seeks commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) software how did the agency reach the conclusion that EFiMS is a procurement for the development or construction of a major system? | HSAR provision HSAR 3052.209-74 is not in the final EFiMS solicitation. | ||
| 17 | SOW | What is the Organizational Conflict of Interest that prevents one contractor from providing both software and integration services? Where has an agency previously determined that an Organizational Conflict of Interest exists under such circumstances? | Please see the response under question number 11. | ||
| 18 | SOW | Under what other circumstances has an agency divided software and integration services in a procurement when the agency had incumbent contractors offering both the software and integration services? | Please see the response under question number 11. | ||
| 19 | General | As we asked previously—but have yet to receive a response—has DHS performed a full lifecycle cost analysis of the EFiMS procurement for each component that takes into account the cost of license fees; yearly maintenance; and implementation—including training? Has DHS compared the total lifecycle cost of the EFiMS procurement to the cost of the current system over the past five years? | This is a requirement of the DHS acquisition process and we have an LCCE for the FSM Program. | ||
| 20 | RFP | pg 151 | Section 4, Factor 3 could be improved if the government outlines similar terms for SaaS. | RFP has been updated to reference service and software terms and conditions. | |
| 21 | RFP | pg 153 | If the current Scenario for COTS is considered 7A, suggest DHS provide a Tab 7b for SaaS in the Pricing attachment. This would allow DHS to have a common format for evaluating SaaS pricing scenarios. In addition, suggest providing a Tab 7c to provide a way for the government to compare total lifecycle costs for SaaS vs. COTS (e.g., How are SaaS costs accounted for including all of the underlying infrastructure and the software maintenance and then compared to a COTS Scenario?) | This is a procurement for an IDIQ contract. The Pricing Scenario represents a notional order under the contract. The notional order for price evaluation purposes only is for a COTS purchase. Offerors are still required to provide SaaS pricing in accordance with the Pricing Schedule. The SaaS pricing will be evaluated for price reasonableness. | |
| 22 | SOW | 5.2.2 | Is the current ATO for FMS sufficient to satisfy the SaaS requirement in SOW 5.2.2? | No, the current ATO for FMS is not related to SaaS and does not cover FedRAMP. | |
| 23 | SOW | 5.2.2 | If vendor has existing DHS ATO can that be leveraged? | Vendors must either (i) demonstrate that they have a documented plan to migrate existing software to SaaS or (ii) meet one of the following three FedRAMP requirements: (a) Provisional Authority to Operate (P-ATO), (b) Agency Authority to Operate (ATO) or (c) FedRamp Ready. | |
| 24 | SOW | 5.2.2 | Will the government validate either Joint Advisory Board or Agency Authorization approved methods for approval? | Please see the response under question number 23. | |
| 25 | SOW | 5.2.2 | Would CIO and JPMO consider FISMA boundry expansion to include additional components? | DHS anticipates initial orders under the IDIQ will be for COTS. Considerations regarding FISMA boundaries for SaaS would be handled in the future at the Component Task Order level. | |
| 26 | SOW | 5.2.3 | Will the JPMO control approval of roles or will the vendor manage? | DHS will control the approval of roles. This may be performed by JPMO, components, or a collaborative approach. | |
| 27 | SOW | 5.2.3 | Generally client is responsible for Cloud and SaaS. Is this requirement specific to acquisition option for hosting or for all options? | This requirement applies to all software procured under this SOW. | |
| 28 | SOW | 5.2.3 | Does security management to include incident management? | The requirements in Section 5.2.3 apply to the software capabilities that must be available. Incident management will be performed outside of EFiMS. | |
| 29 | SOW | 5.2.7 | Is this a requirement specific to the acquisition option for hosting, or for all options? | The requirements in Section 5.2.7 apply for any software procured under EFiMS. The SLAs only apply to COTS. Additional SLAs, including those for SaaS, may be included at the Task Order level. | |
| 30 | SOW | Add a fourth category of software called “Augmenting Software”. | EFiMS will be limited to COTS software licenses, SaaS subscriptions, software documentation and accessory products. Only those accessory products incorporated into the proposed software will be included in the scope of EFiMS. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .