Attachment_H_DCAS_Vendor_Day_Pre-Conference_Responses_to_Questions_11.17.14_Final.pdf

DCAS Vendor Day Pre-Conference – Responses to Offerors’ Questions RFP#ED-FSA-14-R-0028

New Attachment H November 17, 2014 Page 1

Nbr.

Document/

Page Offerors’ Questions Government’s Responses

1 General Who is the incumbent supplier for eCDR? eCDR Appeals system was developed by FSA. Operations and maintenance support services are currently provided by Dovel Technologies, Inc.

2 General (a) Is ED in support of a software-as-a-service delivery model for the software?

(b) Is ED open to receiving alternative proposals that include only the software and implementation solution?

(a) Yes.

(b) Yes.

3 General May the SSA Death Master feed be used in this solution to help resolve mortality-related challenges?

No. The alternative may be to use U.S. Department of Commerce National Technical

Information Service Death Master File (http://www.ntis.gov/).

4 General The current institutional CDR data challenge process allows for an appeal to the outcome of the challenge. Will Gainful Employment challenges also allow for appeals?

There are alternative earnings appeals for the GE Debt-to-Earnings metric as well as some appeals for pCDR as stated in the final regulation.

5 General Concerning training, please provide the number of people included in each target audience category: FSA staff, institutions personnel, data manager personnel.

Government anticipates approximately 40 FSA personnel staff and an estimated 2 staff personnel per each institution will require training.

6 General What are expected hours/ days or operation? Monday-Friday, 7:00am-7:00pm.

7 General Can the Department please provide detail regarding how many cases were processed in 2012, 2013, and 2014?

For CDR, the case volumes were: 828 cases for 2012; 1,064 cases for 2013 and 764 cases for

2014.

8 General What do you anticipate as the date of award for this contract? Government anticipates making the award decision late January 2015. Anticipated start date of January 29, 2015 may be used.

9 General Will the government consider amending its selection process and evaluation criteria as necessary to make demonstrations a formal part of its evaluation?

No.

10 General Would the DoED consider allowing offeror's to enter into a Co-Prime relationship under a

Contractor Teaming Arrangement (CTA) whereby one will sell their services and the other will sell products, such as software, off their respective GSA Schedules as appropriate?

There is no prohibition to proposing CTA; however, the Government intends to award a single contract pursuant to FAR Part 12, not FAR Part 8.

11 General Does the government intend to purchase licenses for new workflow processing, case management and customer service software solution(s), or does the government expect contractor to provide and/or develop any necessary software as part of their service?

Refer to amended Pricing Template Rev 1.

New Attachment H November 17, 2014 Page 2

12 General (a) What is the Dept of Educations preferred delivery model of the COTS solution? I.e.

Public Cloud or on premise/VDC?

(b) If on-premise will the hardware/capacity be provided by FSA/VDC or is the awardee responsible for HW infrastructure?

(c) If the preferred model is cloud, what are the Fedramp/Fisma compliancy requirements?

(d) If the vendor proposes a COTS-based Case management solution, is the expectation that it be fully designed, developed, and deployed to meet the initial production requirements by September 15, 2015?

(e) Will FSA be providing any telecommunication infrastructure directly to the service provider in support of data exchanges, call volume and or web/email/chat services?

(f) Will we be required to send out emails? If so, must they come from FSA.gov?

(a) While FSA VDC may be the Government’s first hosting option; it will equally evaluate any other hosting options proposed. That is for evaluation purposes, the Government has no preference.

(b) Refer to amended Pricing Template Rev 1.

(c) It is the Offeror’s responsibility to research and comply with all requisite NIST, FISMA, and other federal government standards regarding cloud solution.

(d) Yes.

(e) Refer to response (b) of this question.

(f) Yes to both questions.

13 General Can the Government validate the following assumptions?

(a) Once a case is submitted by the school borrowers can’t be added to that particular case (additional cases would need to be opened to account for new borrowers).

(b) Loan detail record data requests from servicers are not provided by a real-time electronic interface.

(c) Reporting includes predefined reports that can be executed on a schedule or on demand but does not include dynamic/ad-hoc query generations.

(d) Cases currently being worked at the time of the cut over to the new system will not be converted and will be worked to completion on the legacy system.

(a) Correct. The expectation is that institutions will only be allowed to submit one case for their institution for each challenge or appeal type.

(b) Correct. There is a batch request to NSLDS in order to extract the back-up detail

(probably a nighty run).

(c) Incorrect. It is expected that some reports may not be pre-defined and the system will have the ability to query for specific data conditions for needed information.

(d) Correct.

New Attachment H November 17, 2014 Page 3

14 General Can the Government validate the following assumptions?

(a) External interfaces assumed to require manual data requests/website visits by system users:

Social Security Administration

SCRA Validation

PACER (court records and bankruptcy verification)

3rd party servicers and FELP guarantors

LexisNexus Accurint (Public Records/Identity validation/Deceased)

TIVAS

(b) External interfaces assumed to be electronic

PEPS school feed

AIMS authentication

NSLDS FSA (“calculation system”)

(a)/(b) While some of these interface options may offer benefit, the Government will make the final determination during the DCAS requirement phase.

15 RFP, Page 2

Could FSA clarify whether past performance references that were awarded more than 3 years ago that are still active are acceptable?

If the reference is still in performance by the Offeror, the Government may consider only one

(1) of the references that fall outside of the 3-year timeframe.

Although previously submitted client references may be used, Offeror shall submit a new Past

Performance Questionnaire completed by the client reflecting the updated submission deadline. (Refer to amended Attachment B Rev 1)

New Attachment H November 17, 2014 Page 4

16 RFP, Page 2 (a) Section D.2.a…staffing & program management controls…would the government amend the description of evaluation criteria to allow for consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of proposed workflow case management and customer service solutions?

(b) Section D.2.a paragraph 1 and Section D.2.b – In section (a) paragraph ...will the government clarify how it will treat organization and staffing under two separate evaluation criterions? In other words, would a perceived strength or weakness be counted twice?

(c) Section D.2.a paragraph 4 …would the government strike the phrase, “clearly defined security clearances and citizenship requirements,” from its description of evaluation sub-factor a?

(d) Section D.2.f …would the government clarify what it means by “independence of the

Offeror’s Quality Control Plan”?

(e) Section D.2.g…how will the proposals from small business primes be evaluated with regard to evaluation sub-factor g?

(f) Section D.2.g paragraph 2…how will the government evaluate “the relative success of methods the Offeror intends to use” before the methods are carried out? Would the government amend this reference along the lines of “Furthermore, the government will consider the likelihood that proposed small business utilization methods will result in achievement of the goals and objectives defined with the RFP.”?

(g) Based on the Section D Evaluation criteria listed in the RFP on pages 2 through 5, it is unclear how FSA intends to evaluate the preparation and delivery of the Deliverables in

Attachment C. Can FSA indicate which of the sub-factors would be used to evaluate the

Attachment C deliverables?

(a) No, the evaluation criterion remains unchanged.

(b) Refer to amended RFP Sections I and II.

(c) Due to the PII data inherent in performance of this work, this requirement remains unchanged.

(d) Government expects that quality control responsibility shall be conducted by a group, department, or individuals outside, hence independent, of the supervisory chain of the

Offeror’s DCAS program/project management.

(e) If Offeror is small business concern, this sub-factor will be evaluated as neutral.

(f) No, the evaluation criteria remain unchanged.

(g) Refer to D.2.C (Sub-factor C: Deliverables Schedule and Acceptance Criteria) on page 3 of the amended RFP.

New Attachment H November 17, 2014 Page 5

17 RFP, Page 2-

(a) The SOO does not specify any formal deliverables other than those associated with training, training materials and attachment C? Is there a list of minimum formal deliverables that are expected to be received from the offeror and the anticipate frequency of on-going deliverables?

(b) Can FSA please provide more details about SLA requirements and SLA reporting requirements?

(c) Section E.1 – Would the government provide more detailed instructions for the preparation and delivery of past performance questionnaires? Do offerors complete them on behalf of our customers? If not what section(s) do we pre-populate and what section(s) do customers complete on their own? Do customers send questionnaires directly to the CO or do they send them to us for submission?

(d) Section E.1 – Completing forms like this is a violation of internal policy for one of our commercial customers. Would the government accept scheduled phone interviews with our customers in lieu of completed questionnaires?

(e) Section E.2.b paragraph 2 bullet 3 – The government did not define any position titles / job descriptions for key personnel in the SOO. Would the government provide the list of position titles / job descriptions for which we must include 2 resumes each? Further, is the government requesting two electronic copies of the same resume for each position or does the government wish to see two candidates proposed for each key position? If the latter, what process will be used to select one candidate over another? Will the government evaluate two resumes per position or just its preferred alternative in each position when scoring evaluation sub-factor b?

(f) Section E.2.c – Should the proposed list of deliverables include non-LMM work products? For example, should we include delivery of the system itself as a deliverable?

(a) As stated in the Instructions to Offerors, Offeror should refer to the amended

Attachment C (DCAS LMM WBS) to select the deliverables appropriate to its DCAS proposed solution. There is no minimum list of formal deliverables with an anticipated delivery frequency.

(b) As stated on page 3 of the amended Section II, “The Government will evaluate the extent and manner in which the Offeror’s deliverable schedules sufficiently demonstrate or indicate with a high degree of confidence that the proposed solution will be successfully implemented to fulfill all performance objectives and requirements within the stated timeframes in the SOO.”

(c) Offeror shall complete Part Two of the amended Past Performance Questionnaire

(Attachment B) and include a copy of this partially completed form in its Volume I.A.

Then, Part Three of the questionnaire should be completed by its client and submitted to FSA points of contact by the proposal submission deadline.

(d) As long as the Offeror completes Part Two of the questionnaire and includes it in its

Volume I.A with a note requesting phone interview for this client based on internal policy requirement, the Government will accept this approach.

(e) Refer to page 12 of the SOO for key personnel requirements. In its Volume II.B

(Proposed Organizational Structure and Staffing), Offeror shall provide two (2) individuals’ resumes for each key personnel position titles and job descriptions. As for how the Government will evaluate these resumes, refer to page 3 of the amended

Section I under D.2.b.

(f) Offeror may propose non-LMM work products or deliverables, if deemed necessary for its proposed solution. As for the actual delivery of the system, that should be covered under the Solution Source Code and Deployable Artifacts and Solution User Manual.

18 RFP, Page 6 Does the above requirement mean that the offeror will be providing a minimum of two of each of these resources with their resumes – ie. Two Case Processing Specialist Is, Two Case

Processing Specialist IIs, and Two Certified Senior Trainers and that these six resources will be considered Key Persons as defined by the contract?

Refer to question #17e. Refer to amended Attachment A Rev 1.

New Attachment H November 17, 2014 Page 6

19 RFP, Page 5-

(a) Given that the Case Intake and Management Services are listed as not to exceed fixed labor hour activities in the pricing tables, how does the government envision SLAs, including incentives / disincentives, can work for these activities, especially given that the government has stated that there are peak periods for the volumes and the government has not provided work volumes for the different time periods?

(b) Is the contractor to assume that the government will automatically increase the not to exceed labor hour limitations in case volumes exceed the forecasted volume of 300,000 loan level challenges utilizing the government provided estimated low, medium, high complexity challenge percentages and estimated hours to resolve?

(a) Government anticipates that the selected contractor will submit monthly performance metrics/SLAs report in which the agreed-upon incentives and disincentives would be cited for each SLA under each objective.

(b) If necessary, such changes will be executed under bi-lateral modification.

20 RFP, Page 7 Is there a current Customer Service Desk or Help Desk and if so

(a) Where is it located, and does the successful bidder have to use the same location/facility?

(b) What are the current tools being employed (eg Remedy, ACD, etc) and processes

(ITIL v3)?

(c) What are the responsibilities – just for the O and M of the offerors CMS? And what and where are the Tiers of assistance (especially if off-site and geographically dispersed throughout the ED FSA locations.

(d) What do you mean by the statement ‘unlimited access to experienced multi-tier certified Help Desk technicians’ – especially with reference to offsite support if required, during what hours and days, and what are the expected Time to respond

(TTR) parameters? Are these to be reflected in Attachment F and become part of the evaluated ‘Best Value’?

No, there is no current customer service or helpdesk contract; therefore, the Government is unable to respond to this question.

21 RFP, Page 8 If the offeror Prime is a Small Business does it have to submit a Sub-contracting

Plan/Small Business Use?

No. Government will evaluate this sub-factor (Volume II.G) as neutral.

New Attachment H November 17, 2014 Page 7

22 RFP, Page 9 (a) Is this an electronic submission or is there a requirement for hard copies? If so, how many of each volume will be required?

(b) Understanding that orals may not occur, is there a projected date that orals are contemplated? How many weeks after RFP submission does the Government foresee that orals could be required?

(c) Section J paragraph 2 – Specific font size restrictions in graphics is prohibitive to the inclusion of screen shots that can be a very effective means of conveying technical approaches. Would the government amend its instructions to state that text in graphics must be legible while avoiding specific font sizes?

(d) Section J paragraph 5 – The scope of the changes in the amended RFP will result in extensive changes to our original submission. Would the government like to receive a clean copy of updated proposal in addition to the marked up version with each electronic change identified by date and revision number?

(a) Hard copies of the proposal volumes are not required. Only one electronic copy for each volume with the sections clearly denoted and in accordance to the page limitation is required.

(b) Government intends to make its decision on whether oral presentations will be held within 48 hours after receipt of proposals. Government will schedule these sessions and notify the Offerors as stated in the RFP.

(c) Government agrees to this request.

(d) As stated in Amendment #2 (posted date of September 30, 2014), the Government has rejected all proposals received on September 8, 2014. Therefore, it is expected that a completely new set of proposal volumes will be submitted by NLT 3pm (eastern) on

January 5, 2015 deadline.

23 RFP, Page 10 (a) If a client submitted a Past Performance Questionnaire as part of an Offeror’s response to the previously issued Data Challenges and Appeals Solution (DCAS) solicitation, and that client will be used as a past performance reference in responses to the updated solicitation, is the client required to re-submit the Past Performance Questionnaire?

(b) Inclusion of two past performance questionnaires would exceed the 6 page limit for this volume. Would the government clarify what should be contained in the offeror’s submission of volume I to remain within the stated page limit?

(c) Would the government confirm that the remaining 5 pages should be allocated to items

II.G and II.F at the offeror’s discretion?

(d) Volume II.E (paragraph 3, bullets 1 and 2) the government states that offerors must dedicate space within this volume (not more than a total of 8 pages) to discussion of training needs analyses and training monitoring. Would the government increase the total page limit for this sub-section to 18 pages or more (while increasing the overall limit for Volume II by the same number of pages) to allow offerors to address other aspects of technical approach?

(a) Refer to question #15.

(b) Amended Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment B) is a 3-page form; thus the page limit for Volume 1.A remains six (6) pages.

(c) Sub-contracting Plan/ Small Business Use (Volume II.G) accounts for the remaining five

(pages).

(d) Government agrees to this page limit increase to 18 excluding 4 pages for the required examples.

New Attachment H November 17, 2014 Page 8

24 RFP, Page 10 We assume that Volumes II.A and II.C are primarily focused on the system side of the solution; Volumes II.B, II.D, and II.E only pertain to the staffing side of the solution; and

Volume II.F relates to both systems and staffing. We ask for clarification if these assumptions are not in line with the Government’s goals.

These seem to be inaccurate assumptions since the staffing complement and system solution are intrinsically linked and necessary to meet the Government’s performance objectives and obtain its outcomes.

25 SOO,

General

The Statement of Objectives did not mention if there was a need to update the TIVAS’ or

Guarantors’ data after a challenge or appeal has been agreed upon by all levels. Is there an expectation of the contractor to supply any data to the TIVAS or Guarantors indicating a change should be made to their system as a result of a challenge?

Yes. This is an expectation that will be finalized during the DCAS requirement phase.

26 SOO,

General

The SOO references loans and the processing steps references cases. The pricing in

Attachment D is based on borrowers and intuitions. Can the Department please provide the average estimated relationship and ratio of loans to cases to borrowers to institutions?

During each challenge period, an institution may submit one (1) case per challenge or appeal type that may contain multiple borrowers/students who may hold one or more loans.

27 SOO, Page 2 (a) With the finalization of the Gainful Employment rules, FSA indicates …that it anticipates as many as 300,000 loan level challenges may be submitted. Please confirm that this is an annual number.

(b) In addition to the loan level challenges estimate of 300,000 during the first metric year, does FSA have an estimate of loan level challenges for subsequent years?

(c) Does FSA have any insights or assumptions on how the 300,000 loans may be distributed across the 6000 institutions?

(d) Is the expectation to have case intake/management staffing for approximately 300,000 challenges as of the award date, and if not, when does FSA anticipate requiring full staffing needs?

(e) Is a contractor supporting the current challenge process?

(f) What technology supports the current challenge process?

(g) Could FSA clarify the number of cases by Data Challenge type that will be reviewed per year?

(h) Can FSA please provide the detail for the metrics to be published, as well as detail on how the metric calculations are made and the expectation of the offer to contribute those metrics?

(a) Yes, this was an annual estimate based on volumes provided in the Paperwork

Reduction Act documentation.

(b) No. However, the Government anticipates that challenge volumes may decrease over time as institutions and data managers continue to correct and update data through

DCAS efficiencies and continued process improvement.

(c) No.

(d) No, again this is an annual estimate for all challenge types. The contractor would be expected to staff based on volumes needed for each challenge cycle.

(e) No.

(f) eCDR Appeals system currently supports Java, Oracle, and WebSphere.

(g) Refer to question #7. For example during 2011/12 for the Incorrect Data Challenge

(IDC) types, there were 353 cases from institutions with 9,145 borrowers/students for 2-year Cohorts and 358 cases with 7,834 borrowers/students for 3-year Cohorts.

(h) No. This will be defined during requirement sessions for the GE DCAS solution. Please note that the metric calculations will be handled by the NSLDS system.

New Attachment H November 17, 2014 Page 9

28 SOO, Page 3 (a) Is there any expectation that the system solution provided by the vendor will have the capability to perform Cohort related calculations?

(b) Can FSA share the vision for future College scorecard integration?

(a) No.

(b) Some items on the Scorecard, such as Median undergraduate debt by institution, are produced by FSA. In the event that the Department decides to allow challenges to the data in the future, the DCAS system will be used for those challenges.

29 SOO, Page 4 (a) Can the Department please provide the estimated or actual number of contacts offered to the help desk per month/year over the last year?

(b) Second bullet references operational and management reporting for FSA management and staff; are there known reporting requirements for institutions and data providers?

(a) Since there is no current helpdesk support, there is no basis on which to calculate any estimated or actual number of contacts.

(b) No, there are no known reporting requirements. Government expects that this will be determined during requirement gathering and validation phase.

30 SOO, Page 4 Which of the following two sentences best describes the scope of research activities?

(a) The scope of research activities is limited to comparison of structured data from FSA source systems (e.g., NSLDS) and institutions/data providers against data requirements as defined by individual challenge types to determine completeness of a challenge / appeal submission.

(b) The scope of research activities includes structured data (NSLDS, challenge data) and unstructured data (Web, unstructured documents) to determine completeness of a challenge / appeal submission.

The second sentence (b) best describes the scope of research activities.

31 SOO, Page 5 (a) Are there any changes to the notional schedule as a result of the Gainful Employment regulation publication?

(b) Institution Cohort Default Rate (iCDR) and pCDR draft season: March through May

2016” On the previous page, FSA forecasted the anticipated implementation date for these types of challenges as February 1, 2016. Should the draft season start in February?

(c) “Disclosures: December 2016 through March 2017” Is the Median Earning for

Disclosures an exception to this timeline? Line 5 on the same page suggests this type of disclosure must be supported by September 1, 2015.

(a) No.

(b) Yes.

(c) Yes, it is an exception to the timeline provided for disclosures. The Median Earnings disclosure challenges will follow the same timeline as Pre-Draft Debt-to-Earnings challenges.

New Attachment H November 17, 2014 Page 10

32 SOO, Page

5-8

Document indicates the outcomes for each of the Objective areas.

(a) Is there detail available to the offeror on how these outcomes are currently calculated?

(b) Is there detail available to the offeror on the minimum expected performance value?

(c) Will the Institution opening a challenge or filing an appeal continue to have access to the system once the case has started being processed?

(d) What is the typical volume of supporting case information that is associated and received when a case is filed, and is that supporting content stored in the case management system?

(e) Case Intake Services...would the government revise outcome descriptions as necessary to distinguish the two Data Provider roles from the Case Response

Preparer role?

(a) No. GE metric calculations will be defined during DCAS requirements sessions.

(b) No.

(c) Yes. It is expected that the institution will continue to have access to a case until it is officially submitted to the Department.

(d) The volume of additional information and documents will be dependent upon the case type, allegation type and volume. Yes, it is expected that the case management system will store all case information including the supporting content.

(e) Performance objectives drive the specific outcomes, not the user roles.

33 SOO, Page 6 (a) Since data will be driven off of business rules, will the contractor need to document, store and distribute the rules to the institutions? If so, is there a required delivery method of the offer. (Item J)

(b) Are there file formats other than PDF, TIF, JPEG, and XML that files could be submitted in to the vendor processing? (Item K)

(c) Should we assume that data communication between external systems will be in XML format and supporting documents uploaded by users will be in PDF /TIF/JPEG formats?

(d) Is there any document management system existing within FSA with which the new system will interact or will the contractor provide the Document Management System

Setup as well?

(a) The business rules for eCDRA are publically available at:

http://ifap.ed.gov/DefaultManagement/guide/attachments/CDRMasterFile.pdf

(b) No.

(c) Refer to question #14.

(d) Document management is not being used in the current eCDR Appeals system;

however, attachments associated to a given case are maintained in that application.

http://ifap.ed.gov/DefaultManagement/guide/attachments/CDRMasterFile.pdf

New Attachment H November 17, 2014 Page 11

34 SOO, Page 7 (a) Are text messages (SMS) a required communications and notification channel for alerts generated by the system? Is there any existing messaging service within FSA or this has to be set up by the contractor?

(b) What is the context around the mention of “instant message” regarding communications and notifications? Is this an additional communication channel?

(c) Will FSA provide current the baseline training documentation and content/materials?

(d) Is the government’s requirement only for four instructor-led training sessions to be developed and delivered during the base period along with the training plan? Request government clarification regarding the scope of the training support required

(a)/(b) There is no existing messaging service within FSA; however, the Government’s expectation is that the DCAS solution will offer automated alerts and notifications within that system.

(c) Refer back to Applicable References and Standards section of the SOO. Training documentation and content/materials will be discussed and finalized during the DCAS requirement phase. Also, refer to amended Attachment A Rev 1.

(d) Yes. Refer to response (c) of this question.

35a SOO, Page 7 (a) Could the Department provide more information on the electronic interfaces used by the current eCDR solution and which interfaces it anticipates will be required for the new DCAS solution?

(b) What are the underlying technologies in eCDR? What will be migrated from eCDR (ie;

data, metadata, supporting case documentation), volume metrics?

(c) Do you expect that the new case system will make use of the same workflows as eCDR, or will new business rules and processes need to be defined and implemented?

(d) Other than NSLDS, what are the other systems with which the new case solution would need to integrate?

(e) What are the underlying technologies in NSLDS? Is it a custom system? Are there exposed APIs for integration?

(f) Are all case intakes processed electronically, or do some institutions submit paper documentation which would need to be digitized and ingested into the case system?

(a) eCDR Appeals system currently uses Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) to interface with

NSLDS. Refer to question #14.

(b) Refer to question #27f.

(c) The workflows will be derived from the system requirement, which is yet to be determined. DCAS should bring new efficiencies and process improvements.

(d) These items will be discussed and finalized during the DCAS requirement phase.

(e) NSLDS is mainframe based, COBOL, DB2, custom written code application that supports the use of a fixed width format and a comma separated value (CSV) format. No exposed APIs.

(f) Refer to question #49a.

New Attachment H November 17, 2014 Page 12

35b SOO, Page 7 (g) How many interfaces are expected for the new system? And what technology stack is used for each interfacing system?

(h) Can the supplier assume the use of any existing ED-owned ETL tools? Or should suppliers assume that ED will need to purchase new ETL tools to fulfill interfacing requirements?

(i) Operation(s) Activity:

Who is responsible for ETL process?

Who is accountable for ETL process failures at FSA System?

(g) Refer to the response (d) of this question.

(h) The only ED-owned ETL tool is available within FSA VDC boundary and managed by the

VDC contractor.

(i) Refer to the response (h) of this question.

36 SOO, Page 8 (a) Could FSA confirm the expected volume (or volume range) by channel for the technical helpdesk support services?

(b) What hours of operation are required for technical helpdesk support services?

(c) Will FSA provide circuits and an 800 number for telephone calls supported by the IT help desk and any other associated business functions (i.e., Data Challenge intake/ outbound case follow up)?

(d) Should technical support services be available 24 hours a day/7 days a week?

(e) Can we have a detailed scope of the Technical/Non-Technical Support?

(a) Since there is no current contractor, no such volumes are available.

(b) Refer to question #6.

(c) Yes.

(d) Refer to question #6. After hour technical support for continuity of services may be required during peak periods.

(e) The Government seeks input on this matter from the Offeror.

37 SOO, Page 8 Could the government confirm if the regulations are finalized and, if not, offer a revised estimate for completion?

Regulations are finalized and published in the Federal Register.

38 SOO, Page 8 (a) Are organizations that perform direct loan servicing or private lending conflicted from bidding on this solicitation due to the potential financial gains as a result of the outcomes of the data challenges findings?

(b) Are the small business subcontracting goals determined as a percent of Total Contract

Value or is it limited to a percent of subcontracted dollars?

(a) Refer to page 8 of the amended Section II.

(b) Socio-economic small business subcontracting goals are determined as a percent of the total subcontracting dollars.

New Attachment H November 17, 2014 Page 13

39 SOO, Page

8-9

(a) Can FSA provide guidance of the vendor should accommodate any delays in regulatory approval implementation schedule?

(b) Can FSA please describe integration points to current FSA systems and databases that will be required by the vendor?

(c) What is the current Government and contractor provided staffing levels to handle case intake/management tasks?

(d) What is the planned Government and contractor provided staffing levels to handle case intake/management tasks?

(a) In the event of any implementation schedule delays, the Government will provide guidance and direction to the selected contractor.

(b) DCAS shall interface with NSLDS for metric calculations and AIMS for security data and system connectivity. Any additional integration points will be finalized during DCAS requirement phase.

(c) At present, approximately 15 FSA staff are assigned to work CDR cases, with an estimated 20% increase in personnel during peak periods.

(d) It is for the Offeror to propose the appropriate staffing levels for case intake/case management services based on its DCAS solution.

40 SOO, Page 9 (a) If a SaaS solution is provided, could a FedRAMP Ready System be considered?

(b) If a SaaS solution is provided, must the solution proposed already be FedRAMP certified, certified by September 2015, or demonstrate a path to certification?

(c) For respondents that are proposing a cloud-based Software as a Service (SaaS) solution, we understand that FSA requires the Cloud Service Provider to hold a FedRAMP certified

Authority to Operate (ATO) at the time of response to this RFP. Can FSA please confirm our understanding?

(d) Could FSA clarify if LMM templates such as DR plan, IT Contingency Plan, Performance

Monitoring, etc. are required for cloud-based SaaS solutions?

(e) Could FSA clarify the specific EVMS requirements for this contract? Can FSA explain the compliance with EVMS? Basic or Expanded?

(a) Yes.

(b) Yes.

(c) Confirmed. The selected contractor shall be required to obtain ATO from FSA’s Chief

Information Officer.

(d) It is for the Offeror to propose the appropriate LMM deliverables based on its proposed solution and in accordance to federal, ED, and FSA standards, policies, regulations, and guidance. Proposal of a cloud service does not automatically exclude the deliverables stated in this query.

(e) Refer to amended RFP Section I.

New Attachment H November 17, 2014 Page 14

41 SOO, Page 9 (a) What are the requirements for converting historical and configuration data from the legacy eDCR system to the new DCAS solution?

(b) What the technology stack is eCDR?

(c) Can the Government provide guidance on how much data will be converted, if a conversion is necessary, and what the format of the converted data would be?

(d) What is the expected volume of data that needs to be migrated?

(e) What is the volume of case data that will need to be migrated from the current eCDR system into the new system?

(f) Can FSA please describe the data migration process if any that will be required from the legacy systems including, data, images, and documentation? Will the contractor be expected to provide resources to support this activity?

(g) Data Migration Date(s): How many years / months of data expected to be migrated?

Volume of Data (GB or TB or other(s))?

(h) Data Migration:

Structured Data (Database(s)

Unstructured: File(s), Images, Logs and Other(s)

What types of Legacy Systems are currently in place? List out their name and version numbers

Who is responsible for Mapping Data Elements (for all Existing Systems)

(a) These items will be discussed and finalized during the DCAS requirement phase. The amount and type of data for migration will be based upon how much necessary eCDR

Appeals data elements are for the DCAS solution operations; however, DCAS is not intended to archive all data elements currently residing within eCDR Appeals application.

(b) Refer to question #27f.

(c)–(h) Refer to the response (a) of this question.

42 SOO, Page 9 (a) Is the Dept of ED planning on using any existing BPM or Business Rules Management

COTS solutions for this project?

(b) With the most recent cyber-attacks on the Federal Government and US companies how open is the Dept of Education to leveraging Open Source Software for this project? In other words what are the security pre-requisites for the COTS solution?

(c) How important is an Agile Methodology in building and managing the solution?

(a) No.

(b) Refer to the security compliance specification articulated in the amended RFP and

Attachment A.

(c) This decision is the sole responsibility of the Offeror.

New Attachment H November 17, 2014 Page 15

43 SOO, Page

(a) Will the 75% payment apply to all CLINS or just CLIN 1, Case Intake and Management?

(b) What are the metrics that define a ‘completed’ case for the remaining 25% payment?

(c) Since 25% of the awarded contractor’s price will be tied up until the case is approved and uploaded, is there a time frame that the FSA Case Manager has to take action on the case once it has been submitted?

(d) What the definition of a “case” is as provided…“Case intake and management services shall be billable at 75% of the total incurred expenses when the completed case is submitted to the government”? Is a case counted at the individual loan level, the program level, the educational institutional level, other?

(e) Given that the Case Intake and Management Services (CLIN 0001) are to be invoiced on a Fixed Labor Hour basis for the base period, option period 1, and option period 2, and the Statement of Objectives (Amended Attachment A), Page 10 of 18, item 12 states

“Case intake and management services shall be billable at 75% of the total incurred expenses when the completed case is submitted to the government.” This seems to imply that the government expects that fixed labor per labor category be tracked per case; a potentially large administrative burden and cost. Please clarify.

(a) Applies to Other Fixed Price Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) for Case Intake/Case

Management Services as outlined in the amended Pricing Template (Attachment B).

(b) Completed will be after the successful batch interface to NSLDS or after written notification to the Government that there was an unsuccessful batch interface due to no fault of the selected contractor.

(c) Refer to response (b) of this question.

(d) When the case is forwarded to FSA staff for adjudication, then 75% of the assumed processing expense can be invoiced. The case may contain challenges or appeals on either institutional or program level with several loans and borrowers involved.

(e) Refer to the response (a) in this question. The Government disagrees that this would pose ‘potentially large administrative burden and cost’ since the expectation for any proposed solution includes robust operational and management reporting capability for tracking case status on daily, weekly, monthly, etc. basis.

44 SOO, Page

In the Statement of Objectives, FSA indicates that contract will be awarded on August 31st, 2015 with 4 option years. Additionally, the vendors are expected to propose a case management system and vendors are to plan for time to confirm requirements and configure the case management system, per Attachment C deliverables. Keeping this in mind, what are

FSA expectations for Option Period 1 in terms of delivery of the case management system

(e.g,, what is the Department anticipating in terms of the time line to bring a case management system in operation during the first option year)?

The Government anticipates that there will be additional functionality and workflow development in the each iteration of the Case Intake/Case Management as well as within

Technical/Helpdesk and Training services during option periods One and Two.

45 SOO, Page

The training plan developed will presumably establish the training needed for each audience in the base year and for each option period. As the training plan has not yet been developed and approved, the full scope of training development and delivery support is unknown.

Please clarify the government’s requirement for specific scope of training services.

Refer to amended Attachment A Rev 1.

New Attachment H November 17, 2014 Page 16

46 SOO, Page

(a) In regards to the statement “No charge for any solution improvement and/or enhancement that costs $3,000 or less or requires 100 hours or less to complete, whichever is greater”…should the statement be changed to “… that either costs $3,000 or less or requires 100 hours or less to complete, whichever is greater.”

(b) Does the $3,000 / 100 hours limitation include the costs/hours for the entire solution lifecycle from requirements development through first live batch?

(c) Does the $3,000 / 100 hours limitation include the sum of all improvements and/or enhancements implemented during the same release?

(d) Is this charge back structure negotiable? (Item 6a)

(e) Will the 4 training sessions for FSA staff be held on differing dates (or will the vendor be required to have multiple trainers due to simultaneous training sessions)?

(f) Where are these training sessions to be held? If travel is required for the trainer, what

CLINs should the travel expenses be incorporated into?

(g) How many FSA training sessions should vendors assume will be required during the option periods?

(a) Government agrees to the following change: “There shall be no charge for any solution improvements and/or enhancements that cost $3,000 or less and/or require 100 hours or less to complete, whichever is greater.”

(b) This threshold comes into full force and effect at the beginning of Option Period One and concludes at the end date of the last option period exercised.

(c) No, it would include improvements and/or enhancements that arise from DCAS change requests approved within FSA change management process and submitted to the selected contractor for response.

(d) No.

(e) The Government expects that the initial training of FSA staff will be offered on different dates at FSA’s UCP headquarters; however for training of institution and data providers, it will be critical to execute multiple sessions in various modes (instructor-led, webinar, etc.).

(f) Once the Government determines the site locations for these training sessions, it will request estimated travel expenses from the selected contractor in a separate solicitation that will be negotiated and executed under bilateral modification.

(g) The number and location of training sessions during option periods has not yet been determined by the Government.

47 SOO, Page

(a) If a SaaS solution is provided, could FSA clarify if the personnel security clearance requirement applies to SaaS cloud system administrator staff as well as case research specialists and IT Help desk staff?

(b) Please quantify the operational efficiency gained when a Case Processing Specialist II handles an inbound case versus a Case Specialist I. Can they process the case 25% faster?

50% faster? No measurable gain?

(c) Are the Case Processing Specialists I and II covered by, or exempt from, the Service

Contract Act? If covered, please provide the Occupation Code and Title from the

Department of Labor’s current SCA Directory of Occupations.

(a) Refer to EDAR 3452.239.72: Department Security Requirements clause under Section I of the RFP.

(b) The possibility of obtaining operational efficiency can only be realized by expertise and experience of the selected contractor staff.

(c) These positions are exempt from SCA Directory of Occupation refer to link below:

http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/wage/ http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/wage/

New Attachment H November 17, 2014 Page 17

48 SOO, Page

(a) Does the government wish to see resumes only for key personnel? If not (i.e., include resumes for all roles defined in an offeror’s staffing plan) may offerors include representative resumes for non-key roles?

(b) Are the three roles described in this section (Case Processing Specialist I, Case

Processing Specialist II, and Certified Senior Trainer) considered key by the government?

(c) May offerors propose additional roles as key personnel?

(a) Only key personnel resumes required; that is, two individuals for the position titles and job descriptions stated in the SOO.

(b) Yes.

(c) Yes, along with requisite resume copies that will be excluded from the page count.

49 SOO, Page

(a) Could FSA confirm that challenge cases will be initiated via online channel exclusively or could cases also be initiated via alternate channel for submission by contractor (i.e., phone or email)?

(b) Assume the following roles are fulfilled via staff from institutions: Institution Case

Preparer, Institution Case Manager, Data Provider (DP) Response Preparer, and DP

Manager. Would the government please confirm?

(c) Would the government revise process step descriptions as necessary to distinguish the two Data Provider roles from the Case Response Preparer role? The description of process steps in Section II – Process Steps infers that challenges come directly to Case

Response Preparers from institutions (The institution inputs the data challenge information for the case and certifies and submits the information to the Case Response

Preparers.) while the description of roles in Section I – Roles and Responsibilities suggests that Data Providers play an intermediary role.

(a) Yes. DCAS will be the system of record for case submission and audit trail documentation of challenges and appeals.

(b) Institutions will fulfill the Institution Case Preparer and Institution Case Manager roles.

Data Providers are the current guaranty agencies and federal loan servicing processors that are the current servicer for the loans in the case.

(c) Institutions are responsible for the preparation and submission of challenge and appeal cases to the Department. In that capacity, the institution relies upon case preparers to input data and prepare the case, while the case manager reviews and finalizes the case for submission to the Department. It is correct that the Data Providers are an intermediary role, in that they provide current servicing information for the loans in the case.

New Attachment H November 17, 2014 Page 18

50 SOO, Page

17-18

(Processing Steps)

(a) In regards to the statement “Case Response Preparers review the case to determine merit of the data challenge by ensuring appropriate supporting data and information have been received from the institution and / or the Data Providers”, will FSA be providing explicit definitions of what is “appropriate supporting data and information” for each challenge-able data field for each challenge type?

(b) How many data challenge cases correspond to the 300,000 loan level challenges forecast by FSA?

(c) Are we correct in our understanding that the roles of Data Provider (DP) Response

Preparer and DP Manager are performed by an organization other than the DCAS solution provider?

(d) Can FSA please provide the current percentage of cases that are denied upon review by the case manager?

(e) Can FSA please provide the percentage of cases that are approved by the case manager but subsequently denied by the FSA Case reviewer?

(f) Can FSA please provide the percentage of cases reviewed by the FSA Case Reviewer which are returned to the Case Manager for additional information?

(g) What channel will be used to contact Data Providers when additional information is needed?

(h) When the phone channel is used by case response preparers or technical help desk support staff, is call recording/ monitoring required?

(i) (Statistics) Can FSA provide information regarding how many concurrent users would need access to the system? (Concurrent meaning logged in at the same time)?

(j) (Statistics) What does this case load reflect -- resolution of challenges related to the

CDR metrics? Please confirm that the percentage breakdown on the level of complexity is based on the 357 institutional challenges for 2011 listed on page 2 of the SOO.

(a) Yes.

(b) Each submission could range from data challenges on as few as 10 loans to more than

1,000 loans.

(c) Yes. Refer to response 49(b).

(d)-(f) Within the current eCDR Appeals system, such statistical data is not tracked;

however, the Government expects that the DCAS solution shall do so.

(g) Refer to question #34.

(h) Although it is not a requirement, this type of oversight by the Offeror may be beneficial in ensuring consistent quality and continuous process improvements.

(i) Based on the current eCDR Appeals system statistics, there are over 3,700 active users in more than 6,000 institutions (schools) who participate in the Title IV programs and have the potential to receive metrics that may have associated loan-level challenges submitted in a case.

(j) This is based on the current eCDR Appeals system statistics.

New Attachment H November 17, 2014 Page 19

51 SOO, Page

“Once all data and information is collected, the Case Response Preparers input their final determination into the challenge system…” Is the effort of determining the merits of a challenge or appeal a purely objective exercise (two individuals looking at the same data would reach the same conclusion based on the same justification every time) or is it necessary for Case Response Preparers to derive and defend opinions about the merits of a challenge or appeal?

Merits are determined through objective review and analysis of data from multiple sources to determine the correct data conclusion.

52 SOO, Page

(a) Could FSA clarify whether the estimated case work times by complexity include the end to end process (including FSA approval) or only the time for contractor research per case?

(b) Can one assume the mix between low, medium, and high complexity loan level challenges will remain the same for both staffing and pricing purposes?

(c) Which job description is required for each case complexity level? (i.e., Are only Case

Processing Specialist II resources able to complete High Complexity cases)

(d) Based on the information included throughout the SOO and the statement "Each institution may have 2 or more staff members that will work these cases in addition to approximately 100 data managers and 25 FSA staff personnel", could FSA clarify the number of estimated users by type (school (web), data preparer, help…