MRMSS Industry QA Responses.xlsx

XLSX spreadsheet 58 KB Posted Apr 17, 2020

Attached to: Minerals Revenue Management Support System RFP Federal contract opportunity
Solicitation number: 140D0420R0005
Issued by: Department of the Interior Departmental Offices Interior Business Center

About this file

Written by GovTribe AI · Dec 31, 2023

This document package includes a request for proposal for operations and maintenance support services for the Minerals Revenue Management Support System. The Department of Interior is seeking proposals due no later than June 18, 2020 to provide ongoing support and maintenance for the MRMSS IT infrastructure and applications, which are used for custodial accounting of federal and American Indian mineral leasing revenues. Key responsibilities will include application management and maintenance, infrastructure support, help desk support, security management, and transition services to ensure continuity of operations. The contract term consists of a one year base period and nine one-year options, to be awarded as a single-award IDIQ against which task orders will be issued, including an initial operations and maintenance task order. Pricing terms include fully burdened labor rates by labor category and other direct costs.

View the file

Other files for this federal contract opportunity

Other files attached to Minerals Revenue Management Support System RFP, newest first.
File	Type	Posted
Section J Technical Exhibits_10 docs.zip	ZIP file	Apr 17, 2020
Section J Attachments_11 docs.zip	ZIP file	Apr 17, 2020
Sol_140D0420R0005.pdf	PDF	Apr 17, 2020
MRMSS Solicitation_Final.pdf	PDF	Apr 17, 2020

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

Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

Industry Q&A

	Q&A Number	Document	Page No.	Paragraph No.	Contractor Question	Government Answer	Corresponding Document
	1	Attachment 1	2	1	Page 2 of the task order PWS states, "The contractor shall submit, with its Task Order proposal, a comprehensive Performance Work Statement (PWS) to detail O&M tasks in support of the MRMSS." Section L does not instruct an offeror to provide a PWS for this task order. Will the Government please confirm that offerors are not expected to provide a PWS in response to the task order PWS in attachment 1?	The Government is requesting the contractor to submit a technical solution (IAW Section L and Section M) detailing how the contractor expects to meet the requirments of the PWS. The Contractor does not have to submit a PWS but rather simply respond with a technical and/or management IAW the Section L and Section M.	J_Attachment 1, item 1 updated.
	2	Attachment 8	9	3.2.2	In accordance with section 3.2.8, will the Government please allow offerors to provide a Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms in Volume III? Table 3.2 in Section 3.2.2 does not indicate that glossary is permissible for inclusion.	3.2.7 - List of Tables and Figures, and 3.2.8 - Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms have been included.	J _Attachment 8, table 3.2 & item 6.2.2 updated.
	3	Attachment 8	10	3.2.3	Will the Government please confirm the this statement should refer to section 3.2.2: "For example, if an Offeror submits an appendix in support of Factor 1 – Technical Solution, the Government will only evaluate the page limit specified in 2.2.2. above"?	Yes, this statement is correct.	N/A
	4	Attachment 8	11	3.5	Section 3.5 states, "The electronic copies of the proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Word, MS Excel, MS Project, MS Power Point and Adobe Acrobat (PDF)." Will the Government please confirm that it is appropriate for offerors to provide proposal documents in Adobe Acrobat (PDF) or MS Excel format, as opposed to all of the formats, as a strict requirement?	Yes, it is appropriate to only provide proposals in Adobe Acrobat (PDF) or MS Excel verses "ALL" of the formats. All of the formats were listed as acceptable. Paragraph 3.5 has been revised to add "as applicable" for clarity.	J_Attachment 8, paragraph 3.5 updated.
	5	Attachment 8	19	7.0	Section 7.0 defines the contents that offeror's should include in the Price Volume (Volume IV, Factor 4). This list does not align with the list in table 3.2 (section 3.3.2), which also defines the contents that should be in this volume. Will the Government please review and update these lists to allow offerors to meet the Government's expectations for Volume IV, Price?	Corrected Section 7.0 to reflect the required documents found in the table under section 3.3.2	J_Attachment 8, section 7.0 updated.
	6	Attachment 8	20	7.1.1	The bulleted instructions for Volume V - Price for the “Task Order 1 Pricing Table” include bullets a, c, d, and e. Will the Government please confirm whether or not the instructions for this requirement are complete?	Corrected the formatting.	J_Attachment 8, updated.
	7	Attachment 8	20	7.2.1	The bulleted instructions in section 7.2.1 include bullets a, b, and d. Will the Government please confirm whether or not the instructions for this requirement are complete?	Corrected the formatting.	J_Attachment 8, updated.
	8	Attachment 9		2.4.2.2 (b) ii)	We recommend a third consideration be added when determining Past Performance with regard to magnitude:
3. Transactional dollar value	Comment considered and third element added, regarding magnitude and experience with applications/components as it pertains to “financial” or “monetary” elements.		J_Attachment 9, item 2.4.2.2 (b) (ii) updated.
	9	Attachment 10			Please confirm that the $3,986,332.14 is a plug figure for Other Materials that should be used by all offerors.	Confirmed	N/A
	10	Attachment 10			Please confirm that the $1,050,000 is a plug figure for Travel that should be used by all offerors.	Confirmed	N/A
	11	Attachment 10			Please confirm that offerors must use all the hours by labor category on the IDIQ Pricing Table tab for the price evaluation.	Confirmed	N/A
	12	Attachment 8		3.4	Would the DOI consider removing the hardcopy/binder submission requirement and consider electronic email submissions instead? We have found electronic submissions to be easier for both our clients and bidders.	Understood. The Government has reduced the number of hardcopy binders.	J_Attachment 8, table 3.2 revised.
	13	Attachment 8		3.5	Please confirm if electronic submission includes both email and CD/DVD submission or just CD/DVD submission?	Electronic submission is solely CD/DVD submission. Emailing is not required.	N/A
	14	Attachment 8	23	8.3.3	Section 8.0 defines the contents that offeror's should include in the Contract Documentation Volume (Volume V). This list does not align with the list in table 3.2 (section 3.3.2), which also defines the contents that should be in this volume. Will the Government please review and update these lists to allow offerors to meet the Government's expectations for Volume V, Contract Documentation?	Yes, the Government has revised Volume V (Section 8.0). Section 8.0 now aligns with the list in Table 3.2.	J_Attachment 8, table 3.2 revised.
	15	Draft RFP	26	8.4	The ONRR program would be put at risk if the required skills and years of experience for certain roles are not in alignment to support the complex nature of the MRMSS. With this in mind, we recommend the requirement for Program Manager be updated as follows:

o Increase total years of experience to 15+ (aligned with J Attach 10 Labor Categories) o Add 10+ years of experience supporting complex technologies including:

- PeopleSoft Financials

- Oracle databases

- Oracle Exa-engineered hardware

- Microsoft .NET platforms

- Oracle OBIEE and BIP

- Custom Oracle BPM and ADF applications

- Integration of IAM applications with the above technologies	Noted. However, the Government believes current requirements are sufficient.		N/A
	16	Draft RFP	27	8.4	The ONRR program would be put at risk if the required skills and years of experience for certain roles are not in alignment to support the complex nature of the MRMSS. With this in mind, we recommend the requirement for Operations Manager be updated as follows:

o Increase total years of experience to 10+ o Add PMP certification o Add 10+ years of experience supporting complex technologies including:

-PeopleSoft Financials -Oracle databases -Oracle Exa-engineered hardware -Microsoft .NET platforms -Oracle OBIEE and BIP -Custom Oracle BPM and ADF applications

-Integration of IAM applications with the above technologies	Acknowledged. PMP or PgMP certification for the Operations Manager has added to Section 8.4.3.		MRMSS Solicitation, section 8.4.3 revised.
	17	Draft RFP	27	8.4	The ONRR program would be put at risk if the required skills and years of experience for certain roles are not in alignment to support the complex nature of the MRMSS. With this in mind, we recommend the requirement for Functional Leads be updated as follows:

o Add 5+ years of managing O&M and development activities

o Add 5+ years of experience in developing in-depth functional and technical knowledge of custom Oracle applications and various supporting technologies.	Noted. However, the Government believes current requirements are sufficient.		N/A
	18	Draft RFP	26	8.4	The ONRR program would be put at risk if the required skills and years of experience for certain roles are not in alignment to support the complex nature of the MRMSS. With this in mind, we recommend the requirement for Certified Information System Security Manager be updated as follows:

o	Add 3+ years of experience in vulnerability identification, tracking, and remediation
o	Add 3+ years of patching coordination experience between the government and technical teams.
o	Require experience coordinating communications and providing recommendations to government, contractor, and other entities.		Noted. However, the Government believes current requirements are sufficient.		N/A
		19	Draft RFP	26	8.4	The ONRR program would be put at risk if the required skills and years of experience for certain roles are not in alignment to support the complex nature of the MRMSS. With this in mind, we recommend the requirement for Microsoft System Engineer/Developer Lead be updated as follows:
o Add 5+ years of experience in custom development and support of .NET applications		Noted. However, the Government believes current requirements are sufficient.		N/A
		20	Draft RFP	26	8.4	The ONRR program would be put at risk if the required skills and years of experience for certain roles are not in alignment to support the complex nature of the MRMSS. With this in mind, we recommend the requirement for Identity and Access Management (IAM) Engineer be updated as follows:

o Require experience with OAM and OIM products. This includes experience creating and maintaining API’s from OAM products.

o Require experience with integrating OAAM/OAM with AD (Active Directory) to work with user applications that utilize technologies such as, Java, .NET or PeopleSoft.

o Require LDAP support/administration/implementation experience

o Require experience with application Integration for both Oracle based applications (PeopleSoft, OBIEE, ADF) and/or .NET applications running on IIS.	Noted. However, the Government believes current requirements are sufficient.		N/A
	21	Attachment 10			The hours total on the IDIQ Pricing table (column/row AK8-AK37) does not include the hours for the 6 month extension. Will the government update their formula to include these hours.	The Pricing Model was corrected to include the 6 month extension	J_Attachment 10, updated.
	22	Attachment 10			The hours total on the Task Order 1 Pricing table (column/row AK8-AK37) does not include the hours for the option period 9. Will the government update their formula to include these hours.	The Pricing model was updated to include the hours for Option Period 9.	J_Attachment 10, updated.
	23	Draft RFP	19	3.1.12	Contract/TO Management--What are the criteria for determining whether Task Order is to be FFP or T&M?
	At the task order level, the Governance will decide if the task order will be FFP or T&M by considering the following: the predictability of the work, potential workload fluctuations, potential volatilities, any unknowns, historical data and/or trend analysis.		N/A
	24	Draft RFP	9	B.8	Contract/TO Management--Paragraph a. states that Task Orders may only allow for a 5 day proposal turn-around. The risk to meeting this requirement would be greatly reduced if the government requires only the minimal technical and cost information to award the TO. Please describe the TO proposal requirements in the RFP to ensure that offerors are aware of the anticipated effort and can plan accordingly.	The Government has revised from 5 to 15 days.	MRMSS Soliciation, section B.8 (a) updated.
	25	Configuration Management (CM) Plan			Contract/TO Management--The documented change process is to be used for tasks under 160 labor hours. What process is in place for an effort that is over 160 labor hours? Would this be the stand up of a separate task order?	When in excess of 160 labor hours, a new task order may be issued.	N/A
	26	Draft RFP	20	C.3.4.1	Contract/TO Management--The Transition Plan requirements include describing the approach for completing an application, module inventory, and a source code baseline. This appears to be effort that would be part of TO performance, not transition.

3.4.2 states that the contractor shall be prepared to begin full performance 6 months after award of the first TO. Will the government please clarify if the 6 month transition effort is to be performed concurrently with TO performance or prior to beginning TO performance.

Since Transition is a separate CLIN, and the work for transition may be different than the actual TO work, it will be important to maintain line item integrity by charging the time to the appropriate line item. This requires government clarification of the TO work versus the transition work to ensure proposals accurately respond to the RFP. The Transition-in period will start the day of first TO award. As of right now, this contract is scheduled to be awarded late 2020. The Government anticipates transition elements starting at the time of TO award irrespective of the fact that the final Transition Plan is not required for 20 days.

Section J_Attachment 2 has been updated to provide additional clarity regarding transition dates. Also in Attachment 2, additional information has been provided regarding how transition elements can be happening simulatanously as work towards the final Transition Plan is being approved.	J_Attachment 2, item 1 & 2.1 updated.
	27	Draft RFP	23	C.6.3	Contract/TO Management--This section requires kickoff meetings for Task Orders and Projects. Please clarify if there is a difference between task orders and projects for purposes of performance and kickoff meetings?	The Government does not intend to a issue a separate Task Order for the post-award meeting.	N/A
	28	Attachment 9	1	1.1(c)	Contract/TO Management--This section states that award of the IDIQ will be followed by task order awards, including O&M support. Please clarify what other Task Orders will be awarded, and how long after IDIQ award the government will award the initial task orders.	The only Task Order to be issued at the time of award is for the O&M (see Section J Attachment 1, PWS for O&M Task Order and Section J Attachment 2, Transition SOO). In the future, the Government may need to issue task orders for developments or enhancements in relation to the O&M workload and this would be conducted via a new Task Order -- see paragraph for 3.1.12 and 3.1.13 of the RFP. Developments and enhancements are NOT the same thing as a complete system modernization redesign. A complete system modernization redesign is outside the scope of this IDIQ.	N/A
	29	Draft RFP	28	C.10	Contract/TO Management--Please clarify if a Task Order will be issued for the post-award meeting.

What is meant by the statement that the meetings shall be at no additional cost to the Government?	The Government does not intend to a issue a separate Task Order for the post-award meeting. The statement regarding the no additional cost to the Government means that the costs to support the post-award meeting will not be "directly" reimbursable.		N/A
	30	Attachment 9	9	2.4	Fair Competition--Allowing offerors to submit as few as one past performance example (Sect L, 6.1)--particularly if more recent contract examples may have a greater impact on the confidence assessment--favors an incumbent because:

1) There is a greater likelihood of meeting the highest relevancy rating.

2) The incumbent is currently performing the same work and is therefore highest on the recency scale.

Would the government consider requiring a minimum of 3 past performance examples from each offeror? The Government is NOT encouraging offerors to submit "one" example. The Government is requesting each Offeror submit past performance information for a target of three (3) recent and relevant contract examples for the prime and two (2) recent and relevant contract examples for each significant subcontractor (as applicable) proposed to perform the efforts outlined in this solicitation.

Per Section M, "A strong record of relevant past performance information will be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral” confidence rating." Also as stated in Section M, "The Government may consider past performance contract examples in the aggregate, as well as on an individual basis."

The following statement has been added to Section L, "However, if an offeror chooses to provide less than the target number of contract examples, the Offeror risks being assigned a lower confidence rating as the Government will have less information available." J_Attachment 8 , item 6.1 & 6.2.1 updated.

J_Attachment 9 -- No change.

31 Draft RFP 30 12.3 Fair Competition--Given the long tenure of the incumbent, the government should consider the following measures to help assure a fair and open process:

1) Provide expanded access to all relevant information in the Reading Room related to a vendor’s assessment of the current environment; and

2) Permit offerors to meet with Department experts, enabling them to better understand the current landscape, ask questions about the Reading Room documentation, and better ascertain the government's needs.	For the RFP period, offerors will be granted temporary access to a read only DOI repository where documents will be available for review. Please see Section L for additional insturctions on the Reading Room.		Section L updated
	32	Attachment 2	5	1.1.1 Execute Transition In	Fair Competition--If the incumbent is not required to propose transition-in, then the Government should remove the transition-in from the Total Evaluated Price, to prevent the incumbent from attaining undue advantage.	The Government is not telling the incumbent one way or the other as it relates to transition pricing. How the incumbent proposes the transition pricing is entirely a business decision on their end as it is a business decision for any non-incumbent offeror. The discretion on how to propose transition pricing, as well as how the Government will evaluate transition pricing, is equal for all. An offeror may posses unique information, advantages, and capabilities due to its prior experience under a government contract—either as an incumbent contractor or otherwise—and the government is not necessarily required to equalize competition to compensate for such an advantage.	N/A
	33	Attachment 8	13

19 - 20 4.2.4

7.1.1 - Pricing Table Fair Competition--In the pricing table, offerors must "c. ... fill in the license unit pricing and monthly hosting servicing costs under CLIN 0020 – Other Direct Costs for the base year and all nine (9) option periods".

Are we correct in assuming that the current hosting strategy will continue for the first year? If so, please provide the technical details and financial terms so offerors can adequately address this important evaluation criterion. Otherwise, this information is available only to the incumbent. Offerors need to describe and propose their own Hosting strategy. Hosting strategies should be proposed IAW Technical Section L, Paragraph 4.2.4 and Section M, Paragraph 2.2.2.

During the transition period, the incumbent would remain responsible for the Hosting. During the transition period, the winning offeror, would implement their own Hosting strategy as proposed IAW Section L and Section M.	N/A
	34	Attachment 9	9	2.4	Fair Competition--Please confirm that all past performance references with a period of performance occurring in the past five years will be equally considered “recent.”	Section M does not state all recent examples are "equally" recent. Section M states, "More relevant contract examples may have a greater impact on the confidence assessment than less relevant contract examples, while more recent contract examples may have a greater impact on the confidence assessment than less recent contract examples."	N/A
	35	Attachment 10			Fair Competition--Software licenses and hosting may be available from a limited number of sources (one source in some cases). This may mean that only the incumbent can obtain valid and competitive quotes from the software or hosting providers for its proposal, due to the terms of the arrangements signed with the software or hosting providers that include exclusivity provisions.

To promote competition, would the government consider providing a plug figure for software licenses and hosting for evaluation purposes and negotiating the cost of software and hosting post-award? This action would put all offerors on an equal footing with the incumbent, and would allow the government to obtain more competitive prices from all offerors once the exclusivity contracts with current software/hosting providers have expired.	The Government intends to evaluate Offerors proposed software/hosting services. The Government will not provide plug numbers for this portion of the evaluation. The Governmnet has provided the CSI numbers for assistence in the Offerors proposal.		N/A
	36	Attachment 8	14	4.2.5	Fair Competition--Subfactor 3, subparagraph 3 - Transition Plan evaluation language states the proposal will be evaluated "for its ability to demonstrate, in detail, the Offeror’s understanding of logistics, schedule, and any other miscellaneous issues of which the Government should be aware." We recommend that this focus on "issues" be deleted. If the Government has specific issues of concern, these should be identified in the evaluation criteria, so that offerors can address them and understand how the Government will evaluate this part of the proposal.
	Paragraph 4.2.5 Subfactor 3: Transition Plan has been revised to remove the word "issues."		J_Attachment 8, item 4.2.5 updated.
	37	Draft RFP	38	F.2	Fair Competition--The Draft RFP states, "This IDIQ contract contains a ten (10) year ordering period which begins on the day of the IDIQ award." With a rapidly evolving technology landscape, would the government consider either or both of the following strategies for fostering competition and innovative thinking:

1) Multiple awards to vendors who can provide a variety of expertise and ensure reasonable price competition throughout the next decade

2) A shorter period or performance to incentivize a competitive environment The Government intends to award a single-award IDIQ with a ten year ordering period as planned. To address both points:

1) This IDIQ will provide the necessary continuation of the MRMSS support activities while ONRR engages in a long-term modernization effort to improve efficiencies and mitigate technological obsolescence – the modernization effort is not part of the scope of this IDIQ. As modernization efforts progress, certain MRMSS components may be decommissioned, de-scoped or option periods under the O&M task order may not be exercised – which will allow the modernization effort to be contracted separately. The efforts and the potential scope of those modernization efforts are NOT defined. Therefore, the Government cannot effectively evaluate offerors for something that is not defined. At this point in the acquisition process, the Government believes the single-award IDIQ is the best avenue.

2) The advantage of issuing an "IDIQ," regardless of the number of years, verses issuing a standalone "C" type contract, aligns with the question. By issuing an "IDIQ" the Government can simply not Order against this IDIQ at any point in the future. This means if in the future the Government is ready to explore modernization then it is possible Ordering under this vehicle would not run the full ten years. As for the first O&A Task Order issued, this is being issued with option periods in the event the Government decides to go a different direction those option periods will not be exercised.	N/A
	38	TE04	3		Licensing--Please confirm the number of licenses for "Oracle® DB Enterprise Edition - Named User Multi Server " is 250,000,000.
	TE04 is updated with the correct information. It is not a number of liceneses but rather a dollar amount.		TE04 updated
	39	Configuration Management (CM) Plan			Licensing--Does DOI or the current contractor own the ServiceNow, SharePoint, and other tool licenses?
	ServiceNow is owned & administered by BSEE as the Tier 1 support desk. ONRR & the awardee are allocated ServiceNow licences in accordance with Tier 2 request processing and other functions. Office 365, to include SharePoint, is an enterprise software licencse provided by DOI to ONRR and the offeror.		N/A
	40	TE07		SLA Descriptions_2020	Licensing--Please confirm that the government has executed or will execute a direct license agreement for all commercial products, including software, hardware, cloud, and hosting services, to provide the Government:

1) Control and flexibility over the use and transfer of such solution elements

2) Allow for better pricing and terms offered by providers to the Government.

A direct contractual arrangement with third-party providers could allow the Government to use the license for its internal business purposes, provide access to such licensed products to necessary contractors and streamline the Government’s ability to use the third-party products upon completion of the task order.	The Government is unsure of what the question is. However, there is additioanal information on SLA's elsewhere. See answer to question number 80 for more details. Additioanlly, see TE07 for more information on SLA expectations.		N/A
	41	Attachment 1	12	8	Licensing--Regarding the software licenses to be procured and priced, please clarify whether the intent is for the Government or the contractor to sign/own the end-user license agreements.
	Government will own the licenses; the offeror will manage licensing.		N/A
	42	TE03	All	All	Licensing--There are several references to software (e.g. Windows 2K8 R2 64bit, RHEL 5, Oracle 11g R2, etc..) that are already past end-of-life.

1) Has the government purchased extended support for these systems?

2) Is there a plan to make sure that all hardware and software that is beyond end-of-life be migrated to currently supported versions? Yes, we are on Windows2016, Oracle 12c database and probably newer versions of other items listed. TE03 has been updated accordingly.

1) No

2) This is offeror's responsilbiltiy.		TE03 upated
		43	TE03	All	Section J
Technical Exhibit (TE03)	Licensing--What hardware and software licenses are expiring within the next year?
		The Government assumes that all of the licenses provided will expire in the next year. Therefore, each license will need be renewed (see paragraph 8 in the PWS). It is the Offerors responsibility to coordinate and develop a strategy to provide the Government with all necessary licenses requested.		N/A
		44	TE03	5,11	Section J
Technical Exhibit (TE03)	Licensing--Will IBM continue to provide the licenses identified in table "IBM Provided Software Licenses"?
		It is up to the offeror to maintain FEDRAMP services.
		45	Attachment 8	17	6.1	Past Performance--"The Government requests that each Offeror submit past performance information for a target of three recent and relevant contract examples for the prime and two recent and relevant contract examples for each significant subcontractor (as applicable) proposed to perform the efforts outlined in this solicitation."

Please define "significant."	Subcontractors performing critical portions of the work, as it relates to the technical and management factors outlined in the solicitation.		J_Attachment 8, item 6.1 updated to include definition of critical/significiant
	46	Attachment 9	9-12	2.4	Past Performance--The past performance evaluation has three separate rating approaches--1) recency, 2) relevancy and 3) quality--that the Government will integrate to determine an overall confidence rating. Based on the definitions of confidence ratings provided, it is unclear how the Government will combine recency, relevance and quality evaluations to derive "substantial confidence" or "satisfactory confidence."

Please provide the methodology for how the relevancy and quality factors will be weighted to determine the overall confidence rating.	Evaluation of past performance shall be consistent with the stated evaluation criteria, applicable statutes, and regulations identified in the RFP. Determining the relative merit or relevance of past performance is within the Government’s discretion. Evaluation of past performance, by its very nature, is subjective; therefore, no formal methodology applies, that would substitute judgement for reasonably-based evaluation ratings.		N/A
	47	Attachment 9	9-12	2.4	Past Performance--The past performance evaluation has three separate rating approaches--1) recency, 2) relevancy and 3) quality--that the Government will integrate to determine an overall confidence rating. Based on the definitions of confidence ratings provided, it is unclear how the Government will combine recency, relevance and quality evaluations to derive "substantial confidence" or "satisfactory confidence."

Please further clarify how offerors’ recency, relevancy and quality will be weighted in relationship to each other.

N/A – No formal weighting applies. See "Government Answer" for Q&A Number 46 for further detail.		N/A
48	Attachment 9	9-12	2.4	Past Performance--The past performance evaluation has three separate rating approaches--1) recency, 2) relevancy and 3) quality--that the Government will integrate to determine an overall confidence rating. Based on the definitions of confidence ratings provided, it is unclear how the Government will combine recency, relevance and quality evaluations to derive "substantial confidence" or "satisfactory confidence."

If the more recent contract examples within the five year window are rated more favorably, please provide evaluation criteria for such ratings which would ensure fair consideration of past performance of offerors other than the incumbent.	Since no formal methodology or weighting shall be applied, the Government may consider recency, relevancy, and quality of contract examples in the aggregate, as well as on an individual basis, when assigning an overall confidence rating at the past performance factor; therefore, fair consideration is already provided.		N/A
	49	Attachment 10	7	IDIQ pricing table	Pricing--For CLIN 0020 - OTHER DIRECT COSTS, Other Materials, there is already a value of $345,218.66 entered. Is this an oversight or is it the actual price of materials purchased in the past?	The CLIN 0020 price is what the Government Anticipates in material over the course of the contract based on historical needs and will be used by all offerors.	N/A
	50	Attachment 10		Task Order 1 Notes to Offerors	Pricing--Instruction #3 states that "Offerors are requested to provide discounted rates from the established IDIQ NTE labor rates found in the "IDIQ Labor Pricing Matrix" and ODC prices found in the "IDIQ Pricing Table" tab."

The Task Order 1 pricing table does not provide for a place to enter discounts. Please clarify whether offerors should modify the Task Order 1 Pricing Table to introduce the discounts offered.	The Task Order pricing table labor rates are not locked and the offeror can adjust this table to update the labor rates for each labor category.		J_Attachment 10, Pricing Model changed from Grey to Green to indiciate fill-in.
	51	Attachment 8 and Attachment 10	22	7.2	Pricing--Reference is made to the following statement which appears in Section 7.2 - Pricing Information Requirements - "A “no bid” or omitted rate may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation. An incomplete Price Model will be considered unreasonable since completeness is part of the price reasonableness criteria."

Please confirm that in the event that one or more labor categories detailed within Section J - Attachment 10 are included within the offeror's indirect rate structure in accordance with its disclosed practices, that the indication of a $0.00 value will not be construed as "no-bid" but rather construed as Not Separately Priced (NSP).	The Government suggests stating within your pricing support documentation those stated labor categories your organization covers through the indirect rates to show that the labor is still accounted for under this contract.		N/A
	52	Draft RFP	8	B.6	Pricing--The second paragraph states the ceiling shall not exceed the offeror's total proposed price. Since modifications may impact the ceiling of the contract, recommend adding, "… unless modified by mutual agreement of the parties."	The Government does not intend to make this change.	N/A
	53	Draft RFP	8	B.6	Pricing--The Draft RFP states that the contract ceiling for the entire POP for this IDIQ contract shall not exceed the offeror's total proposed price. Is the total proposed price equivalent to the total evaluated price - i.e. the price generated by the IDIQ pricing table?	The total price for the IDIQ is not the same as the total evaluated price (TEP). The total price will not include the cost for the evaluation of FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, six month extension for either the IDIQ or Task Order 1. Attachment 8 is updated to correctly reflect that 52.217-8 is for evaluation purposes only.	J_Attachment 8, section 7.1.1 updated.
	54	Attachment 8	20	7.1.1	Pricing--The IDIQ Pricing Table Tab instructions, subparagraph d states that "All other ODC costs shall be included in the fully burdened labor rates and will not be allowed under this contract."

Will the government please clarify what "other ODC costs" are being considered for this requirement?

Including ODC costs in labor rates may create conflicts with contractor accounting systems and government cost allowability requirements. Would the Government consider removing this requirement?		The Government views other ODC costs as costs that would be required in the ordinary course of business (i.e paper, utiilities, training, ect.). These ODC costs must be captured within the proposed direct labor rates.		N/A
		55	Draft RFP	8	B.10	Pricing--The requirements for justifying ODC price reasonableness include reporting pricing information and justifying reasonableness. If a firm has a government approved Contractor Purchasing System, and provides evidence of the status of the system, would the government add that "offers with current, government approved purchasing systems are not required are exempt from the reporting requirements of B.10?"	Added FAR 52.244-2 and 52.244-5 to the IDIQ.	MRMSS Solicitaiton Revised.
		56	Draft RFP	31	C.12.5	Pricing--Please consider rewording this section as the costs for training of personnel specific to the contract tasks are allowable costs and should not be restricted outside of the FAR and a company's approved accounting system.	The Government agrees that training costs are an allowable cost; however, it is the Government's intension that offerors account for these ODC costs within the proposed direct labor rates.	N/A
		57	Attachment 8	5	3d	RFP Clarification--Please specify the validity period required for Section A of the proposal.	Attachment 8 has been revised to include langauge regarding the proposal acceptance period. Please reference paragraph 3.0 (d).	J_Attatchment 8, item 3.0 (d) updated
		58	TE05	1	J	RFP Clarification--DRAFT or FINAL Transition Plan is not listed as deliverable. Is the Transition plan a contract deliverable
		Yes, the Transition Plan is a delverable -- see paragraph 2 of item 1 .		J_Attachment 2, item 1 - paragraph 2 updated.
		59	Attachment 8	15	5.2.4	RFP Clarification--Please confirm that the Quality Assurance Plan is excluded from page count and can be provided as an appendix.
		Section L has been updated as follows: "An offeror’s proposed Quality Assurance Plan will be exempt from the page count."		J_Attachment 8, item 3.2.3 updated.
		60	Draft RFP	18	3.1.2	RFP Clarification--Sections 3.1.2 - 3.1.6 and 3.19 - 3.1.11 are blank within the DRAFT RFP. When will the content of these sections be distributed?
		These items are further detailed at the task order level. The SOO in the RFP states the high level need.		N/A
		61	Draft RFP	38	F.3	RFP Clarification--Services will predominately be on-site at ONRR’s Denver Federal Center location, Denver, Colorado. Will the Government allow remote contractor staff to perform on this contract? If so, what are the requirements for remote contractor staff?	Yes. Via VPN or another authorized secure access medium to MRMSS, contractors would be authorized to access MRMSS remotely. Current onboarding requirements include: Entry on Duty (EOD) process, and a Personal Identity Verification (PIV) issuance will be steps to allowing contractor access to MRMSS, to include approved VPN method. Updated RFP Section C.5 to better clarify.	Updated RFP Section C.5
		62	Attachment 8	16	5.2.5	RFP Clarification--Subparagraph (2) (f) and (2) (g), concerning the Small Business Commitment Document are written in past tense. It is not clear if it is mean to be applied to the proposed Small Business Commitment Document or past compliance with the FAR clauses cited. Additionally, both subparagraphs are written to be evaluation criteria versus instructions. Please clarify what is required and what will be evaluated for these 2 subparagraphs and consider moving the evaluation language to Section M.	The solicitation has been updated to provide clarity to both the Small Business Subcontracting Plan and the Small Business Commitment Document. Please note: there are two required, and separate, Small Business documents. A Small Business Subcontracting Plan and a Small Business Commitment Document.	J_Attachment 8, small business subcontracting plan and commitment document elements updated.
		63	Attachment 8	12
	4.2.3	RFP Clarification--The subparagraphs (1), (2) and (3) provide the evaluation criteria for Volume 1, Subfactor 1. This normally appears in Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award. Section M also has criteria for Subfactor 1 and language that appears appropriate for Section L Instructions. Please clarify Section L and M instructions versus evaluation criteria. This same comment applies to Subfactors 2 and 3.		The solicitation (Section L and Section M) have been updated to provide clarity to both the Techical and Management Sub-Factors.		J_Attachment 8 and J_Attachment 9 updated.
		64	Attachment 8	14	5.2.3	RFP Clarification--The subparagraphs (1), (2), (3) and (4) provide the evaluation criteria for Volume II, Subfactor 1. This normally appears in Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award. Section M also has criteria for Subfactor 1 and language that appears appropriate for Section L Instructions. Please clarify Section L and M instructions versus evaluation criteria. This same comment applies to Subfactors 2 and 3.	The solicitation (Section L and Section M) have been updated to provide clarity to both the Techical and Management Sub-Factors.	J_Attachment 8 and J_Attachment 9 updated.
		65	TE02	1, 27	8.4	RFP Clarification--There appears to be a discrepancy between the desired skills and/or credentials between these two documents.	Removed TE02. Please reference the RFP for Key Personnel and the Pricing Model for all other Labor Categories.	Removed TE02
		66	Draft RFP	30	C.12.3	RFP Clarification--Will the government please clarify the sentence stating that the Government "will not furnish, or be responsible for the cost of, office supplies, office furnishings or other technologies (cameras, headsets, etc.) that may be utilized in the performance of tasks."

Does this refer only to remote work? Or does it also apply to work done in government spaces?		Clarified RFP Section C.12.3.		MRMSS Solicitaiton, item 12.3 updated.
		67	Attachment 9	16	5.2.5	Small/Disadvantaged Business Subcontracting--Please provide the Department's subcontracting goals against which the subcontracting plan will be evaluated?	DOI Subcontracting goals are located in Attachment 9 paragraph 2.6.1. Please note: there are two required, and separate, Small Business documents. A Small Business Subcontracting Plan and a Small Business Commitment Document.	J_Attachment 9, paragraph 2.6.1 updated.
		68	Draft RFP	59	I.3	Small/Disadvantaged Business Subcontracting--Can the government remove the DIAR 1452.280-3 Subcontracting Limitations clause as this RFP is not set-aside for Indian Economic Enterprises?	Correct, this clause will be removed. It does not apply. Added 52.244-2 and 52.244-5 to cover subcontracting.	MRMSS Solicitation updated.
		69	Attachment 8	15 - 16	5.2.5	Small/Disadvantaged Business Subcontracting--How do you define "significant" small business?
		The instructions (Section L) and the evaluation criteria (Section M) for both the Small Business Subcontracting Plan and the Small Business Commitment Document have been revised.		J_Attachment 8 and J_Attachment 9 updated.
		70	Attachment 8	1	1.1	Small/Disadvantaged Business Subcontracting--This section includes DIAR clause 1452.280-1 Notice of Indian Small Business Economic Enterprise Set-aside. Will the government please confirm if this requirement is restricted or unrestricted?	1452.280-1 is not included as part of this RFP. Clause 1452.280-3 has been removed.	MRMSS Solicitation updated.
		71	Attachment 8	15 - 16	5.2.5	Small/Disadvantaged Business Subcontracting--Please confirm the subcontracting goals for this opportunity to be 50% to Small Business, 5% Small Disadvantaged Business, 5% Women-Owned Small Business, 3% HUBZone Small Business, 3% Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business, as they align to DOI’s subcontracting goals.	DOI Subcontracting goals are located in Attachment 9 paragraph 2.6.1. Please note: there are two required, and separate, Small Business documents. A Small Business Subcontracting Plan and a Small Business Commitment Document.	J_Attachment 9 updated.
		72	Draft RFP	31	C.12.6	Technical Clarification-- Please provide a list of the companies whose proprietary data may be provided to the MRMSS contractor during performance of the work. Contractors may require this information to conduct its "independence" check.	The list of industry users of MRMSS includes more than 3,000 entities. We cannot provide reporter / payor information prior to the award of a contract.	N/A
		73	General			Technical Clarification--Are PeopleSoft File Attachments stored in the database, or do they reside in an SFTP server?	There are no PeopleSoft file attachments.	N/A
		74	TE01	ALL	SECTION J
TECHNICAL EXHIBIT (TE01)	Technical Clarification--Are there any outstanding or recurring performance issues across the MRMSS software portfolio?		Outstanding Performance Issues - The Government is always seeking continuious improvement with performance in the MRMSS environment. Recurring Performance Issues - To date there are no recurring performance issues of note.		N/A
		75	Draft RFP	13	1.3	Technical Clarification--Are there scheduled disaster recovery and/or continuity of operations tests required over the performance period?
		Yes, typically once a year for both disaster recovery / continuity of operations. This is referenced in PWS paragraph 6, Emergency Preparedness.		N/A
		76	TE03	1	1	Technical Clarification--Can we review PeopleSoft Security roles matrix?	Yes, added "PeopleSoft Role Permissions Listing" to the reading room library.	J_Attachment 8, item 3.1.5 updated.
		77	General			Technical Clarification--Outside of the Reading Room, please provide the inventory of custom reports, interfaces, enhancements/extensions, and workflows, with detailed descriptions so offerors can understand the level of system customization.	This information is already included in the end to end documents provided in the reading room. See document number 22, MRMSS End to End Documentation WebCenter Portal 12c - Portal, in the reading room.	Added redacted document 22 in the MRMSS reading room, along with attachements.
		78	Configuration Management (CM) Plan and TE07		SLA Descriptions_2020	Technical Clarification--Please confirm whether ServiceNow is the tool for all configuration management and software change control activities and tracking?	No it is not. The offeror can propose which software lifecycle management tool to use for the O&M contract. HP Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) is the current tool used for this purpose.	N/A
		79	Application Design Detail Documentation			Technical Clarification--Please confirm that OMT, PeopleSoft, IAM, MART, and WebCenter are the only system components currently on virtual machines.	OMT, PS, I&AM, and WebCenter Portal are all on Exalogic vServers, as is Autosys and OBR. MART is on the physical Exalytics boxes. The .NET applications are on SCG Windows-based vServers	N/A
		80	TE07		SLA Descriptions_2020	Technical Clarification--Please confirm that the SLAs listed in the J_TE07_SLA Monthly OandM Metrics_1.xlsx are the only SLAs required.	SLAs are reviewed and updated on an annual basis. Final SLAs for first year of the O&M task order should be included in the Offerors proposal per Technical Subfactor 1 (4.2.3 Subfactor 1). Additioanlly, see TE07 for more information on SLA expectations.	J_Attachment 9, item 4.2.3, Subfactor 1, Element 1 is updated.
		81	Configuration Management (CM) Plan			Technical Clarification--Please confirm the current production and disaster recovery locations. The CM Plan states that IBM hosts the production site in Annapolis, MD and its disaster recovery site is in San Diego, CA; the DRAFT RFP states the production site is in Raleigh, NC and the disaster recovery site is located in Boulder, CO.	PROD - Research Triangle Park in Raleigh, NC; Non-PROD - Boulder, CO. The determination of the future PROD and DR sites are up to the offeror.	Updated CM Plan (replaced 11/2018 version w 2/2020 version), document 2 in Reading Room.
		82	Configuration Management (CM) Plan			Technical Clarification--Please explain what is meant by the statement that "outside emergency deployments are release on a triannual basis."	Currently the prime uses a triannual 3x per year release cycle. The offeror can propose a different release cycle, if desired.	N/A
		83	General			Technical Clarification--Currently what financial statements are produced? What other federal reporting requirements does the system respond to?	These are Government utilized documents. The Offeror must provide a system compliant with references listed in TE06.	N/A
		84	Attachment 1	15	4.1	Technical Clarification--What Testing Tool is used for performance Testing? Does the Department use Peoplesoft PTF for application testing?	Determination for which specific testing tool to use is up to the offeror.	N/A
		85	TE04	3	Section J	Technical Clarification--Does the Department follow a release cycle for PUMs and enhancements? If yes, what is the release cycle frequency (e.g., Monthly, Quarterly)?	Yes, we are following Oracle's guidance for PUMs and enhancement. This is a responsibility of the offeror to manage.	N/A
		86	Draft RFP	17	C.2	Technical Clarification--Does the O&M scope include infrastructure, network, system administration, as well as application O&M?	Yes.	N/A
		87	Draft RFP	29	12.1	Technical Clarification--Have the required Security Technical Implementation Guides been applied?

Will they be provided as part of the transition?

At the award of the contract how much time will be remaining before the system is up for revalidation? Yes, STIG are currently applied to MRMSS operating systems, web servers and data-bases.

Yes, it is expected that configurations will stay the same during transistion without deviation.

ONRR expects revalidation to occur immediately, as we maintain a continuous authority to operate (ATO). A new service provider will be expected to deliver a compliant system within contract specified requirements.	N/A
	88	TE05	7 to 28	Section J	Technical Clarification--How many jobs are scheduled to run on daily/weekly/monthly/quarterly/annual basis?

Please specify the numbers by tool, application and frequency.		Refer to Section L Paragraph 3.1.5 reading room document 25, title: Workload Automation Agent Module Detail Design, attachments A & B.		N/A
		89	TE08	1,2	Section J
Technical Exhibit (TE08)	Technical Clarification--What are the user counts for the following systems and what is the degree usage (high, medium, low)?

MRMSS FINANCIAL - By Module if possible

MRMSS - DW

DW-Oracle HYPERION WebCenter Portal

MART	Please reference information provided in TE01 for approximate user counts.		N/A
	90	Attachment 8	5 - 6	3.1.5	Technical Clarification--In our reading room visits we found that some of the technical documentation was not as complete as needed and would require us to make many assumptions about the system. Would the government consider in-person conversations with offerors to fill in those gaps during the Pre-RFP phase?	The Government reserves the right to conduct in-person communications during the "Discussion" phase of the RFP. If the Government does decide to conduct Discussions the discussions will be meaningful -- which means Deficiencies, Significant Weaknesses and Strengths would be discussed.	N/A
	91	Technical Architecture Blueprint			Technical Clarification--Is HEAT the current Help Desk tool?	No, ServiceNow is the current Help Desk tool, as stated in the Tech Arch Blueprint.	Update Document 1, Technical Arhiciecture Blueprint in the Reading Room
	92	Draft RFP	13	1.3	Technical Clarification--Does the Department expect that the awardee would cover Tier I and Tier 2 helpdesks/support teams? What is the area of responsibility for each tier?	See Attachment 1, PWS for Tier information (Paragraph 9).	N/A
	93	General			Technical Clarification--Does MRMSS follow standard Government accounting to arrive Proprietary and Budgetary accounting?	No. MRMSS is used for custodial accounting purposes. Budget accounting is outside of MRMSS and does not pertain to this contract.	N/A
	94	Attachment 1	16 - 17	12	Technical Clarification--Is the current risk management documentation complete, accurate, and valid? Where is the documentation currently stored?	Yes, it is current. It is maintained in the Cyber Security Assessment Management (CSAM) application.	N/A
	95	General			Technical Clarification--Is the Government using Commitment control module in PeopleSoft?	No.	N/A
	96	Technical Architecture Blueprint			Technical Clarification--Is there a Help Desk Tier 3? What is the escalation for Tier 2?	Paragraph 9.1 of the PWS (Attachment 1) has been revised to include additional information on Tier 3.	J_Attachment 1, PWS (Paragraph 9 has been updated).
	97	General			Technical Clarification--Is there a PeopleSoft Data Archival process? If so, how often is data archived?	Not at this time.	N/A

This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated Apr 18, 2020.