Amendment_2_-_OAM16047S.pdf

Question Number

Page, Document, Section Reference, if applicable Question USHR Response

General Is a new requirement or there is an incumbent? If so, would you be able to provide the contract details (such as: Vendor Name, Contract Number, Award Date, Value)?

This is not a new requirement. Similar contracts are currently in place with Beacon IT, Capitol Idea Technology, ComputerWorks, Fireside21, HouseCall, iConstituent, Lockheed Martin DSI, Metro Data Networks, Professional Technicials, and Symfodium. Additional information is not available.

Section L.1

Will the Government please clarify if offerors can bid one, two, or all three services areas, can the offerors be awarded fewer than the number of services areas that are bid upon? E.g. if an offeror bids two areas can they only be awarded one of the two, etc.

Offerors can bid on (and be approved for) any combination of one, two, or all three service areas.

Section J.1

Will the Government please clarify where license costs/fees should be included in the Price/Cost tab? The monthly service fee should be inclusive of all license costs/fees.

Section J.1, Cell A7

What costs pertaining to CMS stand-up would the government expect to be captured in this line? The cost of standing up a CMS for a new Member. If none, enter N/A.

5 Section L.1 - page 48 and Attachment J.3 (SOW) Page 9-11

Section L.1 (Pg 48) describes the proposal requirements for submission. Tab 3 - Technical approach, bullet i, states that "contractor shall identify...See additional requirements in Section

6.0 in the SOW". When reading Section 6.0 in the SOW (Attachment J.3) it implies that a CMS package must be submitted at the time of the proposal submission. Can the government please state whether the "CMS Package" is required to be submitted with the proposal?

The CMS package does not necessarily need to be submitted with the proposal; however, new CMS packages/vendors must pass both the CMS software evaluation and proposal evaluation to be approved for award and sign a contract.

6 Section M.1 - pg 50 and Attachment J.3 page 9 -

Section M.1 does not include any evaluation criteria/factors for the CMS package...does that mean that offerors are not required to submit this in response to this RFP? If the CMS package is required for a proposal submission, what evaluation factors should we use? Do we utilize the requirements/descriptions in Section 6.0 - 6.2?

The CMS software evaluation is a separate process as outlined in attachment J.10(B). Vendor CMS software packages are required, at a minimum, to have the basic features outlined in attachment J.10(A).

Both documenta are available upons submission of a signed non-disclosure agreement.

SOW.Page 11

Section 6.2 of the SOW (Attachment J.3) states that "the house reserves the right to waive testing requirements for CMS versions that have previously passed a CMS evaluation." Can the government please clarify if the CMS must be evaluated by HoR or can it have passed a CMS evaluation by another agency?

The CMS must be evaluated by the House of Representatives prior to contract approval and award. CMS versions that have previously been through this process and approved are exempted.

Number

Page, Document, Section Reference, if applicable Question USHR Response

General

Section L.1 (page 48) states "the electronic submission by email should be divided and organized as follows: each proposal shall be divided into the following distinct and marked tabs..." and Section L.2 (Pg 50) says that "offerors shall submit all proposal documents as separate files in electronic format...", can the government please clarify if they want each "tabbed" section to be its own document/file...i.e. do we need to submit each tabbed section as it's own document? Yes, each Tab should be its own document.

Att. J.10-D

In Section J - List of Attachments, attachment J.10D is listed as "reserved". This document was not provided. Can the government please provide offerors with Attachment J10D?

"Reserved" is listed in order to maintain numbering references elsewhere in the solicitation and attachments. There is no Attachment J.10.D.

General Will there be an enterprise contact repository from which people or users plug in?

We are unclear as to the exact nature of the question. We do maintain an intranet page (on HouseNet) that lists vendor and contract contact information.

Att. J.10-A Pg 5 What does the Government mean by context-based searching?

Search results based on the relevance to the query. This is an advanced function and not required.

Att. J.10-A Pg 6

Is the Government requesting and/or requiring that offerors provide Voter Registration Data lists? No

Att. J.10-A Pg 9

Per Attachment J.10-A (page 9), does the Government require offerors to integrate with Active Directory? No, but it is preferred.

RFP Pg. 15

In section G.5 -Invoices (pg 15) bullet B says "reserved" can the Government please provide the content or terms associated with that bullet point or section?

"Reserved" is listed in order to maintain numbering references compared to the House standard contract clauses. There is no applicable information missing from this section.

SOW Pg 6

What kind of surveys, as mentioned in the SOW on page 6, will the CAO conduct? Will offerors be allowed to craft or create them? Is the data collected in the survey expected to be stored in the CMS Package?

The CAO will conduct customer service surveys. Offerors may conduct their own surveys and must provide the results via their monthly reports.

The data is not required to be stored in the CMS.

Att. J10A Pg 2

Can the Government please provide clarification around what they mean by "Household Info" in the People table?

List members of a household where constituents share the same address.

Typically a designation is given to one as head of the household.

17 Attachment J.10-A Does the HoR have an in-house encryption engine? No 18 Attachment J.10-A Does the Government currently have any data archiving solutions/services? (Data Warehouse) Not at this time.

Number

Page, Document, Section Reference, if applicable Question USHR Response

Attachment J.10-A What is the "multi-track work flow" in Advanced Capabilities?

This is an advanced function and not required. The intent is for the CMS product to allow multiple persons in the office to be working on the same issue/casework/etc. at the same time.

20 Attachment J.10-A Does the Government need to report on saved searches? No

Attachment J.10-A Can the Government please clarify or expand upon the requirement/verbiage regarding "householding and having to search and replace the householded records with a single record?

Reference the following example: (John Doe is a member of a household. J Doe writes to the office with the same address. The office searches and finds both records. The office then merges the two records together retaining the household membership.) This is an advanced function and not required.

Attachment J.10-A Does each office have their own server?

This is dependent on the CMS product system architecture. Office data may not co-mingle with any other office's data.

Attachment J.10-A Will HOR administer the orgs?

The House authorizes advocacy vendors which the organizations hire to send communications using the Communicating with Congress (CWC) system.

General

What process must Contractors go through to seek HoR approval to release Confidential Information provided under the RFP NDA to teaming partners and subcontractors?

Teaming partners and subcontractors must also submit signed NDAs prior to receiving Confidential Information.

SOW, pg 5, Section 3.0 y p p p g p y one proposal with a 35 page limitation applies to each offeror regardless of the number of Technology Services the offeror is proposing. As an example, if an offeror chooses to submit both a CMS Services offer and a Maintenance Services offer then how many proposals would the offeror be submitting? What is the total page count limitation for these two offers combined? One proposal limited to 35 pages.

RFP, pg. 49, Tab 6, Corp Capabilities (i)

Given that the current proposal is for a contracting vehicle that will then be utilized for individual client orders, please clarify whether or not offeror's are required to name key personnel with our proposal response. To allow the best assignment of resources on an as needed basis, it may be advantageous for the government to allow key personnel to be assigned at the individual client order level.

Key Personnel are required as part of the overall contract management.

Individual Client Work Orders will not require Key Personnel to be reviewed and approved by the CAO.

Number

Page, Document, Section Reference, if applicable Question USHR Response pg 40 of RFP

Section I.14 states that this contract is an IDIQ, however further section in the RFP describe this contract as a type of "BPA" that offices in the House can use to procure services. Can the government please clarify what the procurement process is once awardees for this effort are made? Will offices within the HoR be able to solicit a solution directly from any vendor or must they compete it to all awardees?

Offices can solicit services directly from any contracted vendor through signing a Client Work Order, which is generally facilitated by the contracted vendor. Services are fixed price and are not competed on an office-by-office basis.

General

Please confirm that an award made in regards to this RFP allows the offeror to be considered an "authorized company" from whom "Member, committee, and leadership offices" can order the specified services from. Any award made in response to this RFP does not guarantee that the awarded offeror will receive work or a task order in response to this RFP. This is correct.

Section L.1 - page 49

Section L.1, Tab 6 states that "offer shall provide organization charts showing the chain of command of supervision and management staff proposed for the contract." Given that there is no specific task/client order to base staffing requirements on, it will be difficult to create staffing plans, org charts, etc. when the offeror does not know what specific work will be required in each "client order". Can the Government please provide clarification on what they are looking for with regards to this proposal requirement? Will a general org chart, staffing plan, etc. be sufficient to meet this criteria?

A general org chart will be sufficient. The vendor should indicate how they would "ramp-up" as the workload increases.

Section L.1 - page 49

Section L.1 - Tab 6 requires offerors to provide resumes for all senior technical staff and key personnel who will be assigned to this contract. Given that there is no specific task order for which offerors are responding to, will the government allow offerors to submit "general resumes" or some document that list the minimum requirements/experience that each employee must meet for each role/LCAT we may propose in our staffing plan? Without a specific task order, project timeframe, or SOW that has specific requirements, as they relate to the three services being solicited in this RFP, it will be difficult for an offeror to propose any specific personnel (especially key-personnel) without knowing what work may be required, timelines, security assignments, etc.

Offerors are expected to provide resumes for those senior technical staff and key personnel that are to perform work under this SOW.

Section L.2 - page 50

Section L.2 states that the proposal shall not exceed 35-pages...does this page count include assumptions, the CMS package, and the support plans that are required for each service (CMS, Maintenance, and System Admin service)?

Per section L.2(a) the proposal shall not exceed 35 pages, excluding financial information and resumes.

Number

Page, Document, Section Reference, if applicable Question USHR Response

Section L.3 - page 50

Can the Government please clarify what they mean by "after initial award, the solicitation will remain open for subsequent submission of CMS packages for testing and evaluation and, upon approval, a proposal to provide the respective service for the duration of the then-current contract period and any available extensions." Does this Clause in Section L.3 only apply to offerors who submitted a proposal and were awarded a contract during the initial award? Or can any offeror, even those who didn't submit during initial period or weren't awarded a contract during the initial award, submit a CMS package for consideration?

After initial award, the Technology Services Contract will remain open.

Any vendor (including those vendors that may have submitted proposals during the initial period and weren't awarded a contract) may submit a CMS package for consideration at any time during the life of the contract.

Section M.1 - page 52

Are there specific scoring criteria/cards or ranking "descriptions" that the Government will use when evaluating offeror's proposals...i.e.. meets, exceeds, fail, green, red, etc.? If so can the Government please provide?

For the technical evaluation, factors will be rated as one of the following: Blue (Outstanding), Green (Satisfactory), Yellow (Marginal), or Red (Unsatisfactory).

Section M.1 - page 52 and Attachment J.3 -

Can the government please clarify the evaluation process for this RFP? Section M.1 describes the evaluation and award process for the proposal, however Section 6.2 - Evaluation Process states that "an offeror must submit its CMS packages for a formal evaluation by the House...once the technical portion of the [CMS package] evaluation is successfully completed, the procurement process will evaluate the Offeror's Management and Technical Capabilities. If the procurement portion of the evaluation is successful, the offeror is eligible for award of a contract for CMS services with the HoR". This implies that offerors CMS packages will be evaluated first/prior to our written proposal and that the written proposals will only be evaluated if our CMS package passes the technical portion of the evaluation.

The CMS package and the procurement process are two separate evaluations. The CMS evaluation evaluates the software, the procurement process evaluates the offeror's proposal.

Section 6.2 - Attachment J.3 - page

Does the evaluation process described in Section 6.2 apply to this current RFP or to Client Orders that are issued after an award for this solicitation has been made?

Evaluation is made on this current RFP and not on an individual Client Work Order basis.

Section 5.0 and 6.0 - Attachment J.3

Section 6.0 in the SOW requires offerors submit a support plan for each service that they would like to bid. In Section 5.0.A - General Requirements (Attachment J.3 - pg 6) . list out several deliverables/requirements regarding the "support plan" that the offeror must meet or submit. Can the Government please confirm if the Support Plans and the corresponding deliverables/requirements are only required to be submitted after an award for this RFP has been made? Or must each offeror submit the Support Plan and the requested items with their proposal submission? The offeror must submit the support plan as part of the proposal.

Number

Page, Document, Section Reference, if applicable Question USHR Response

Section 5.1.1. - page 7 (Attachment J.3)

Section 5.1.1 list out pricing requirements for each Service, however some of those requirements/line items are not included in the pricing matrix. Does the Government want offerors to create their own "pricing list" document or add lines to the pricing matrix to cover the missing line items?

Offerers are not to create their own pricing list. Please specify what line items are missing.

Section 6.2.B - Attachment J.3 - pg 11

Can the Government please clarify the requirement and/or process that is described in Section 6.2.B (Attachment J.3 - pg 11). Is the Government stating that offerors must provide a demo/presentation of the proposed CMS package to the Government prior to the evaluation of our proposal or a contract award? Or does this requirement occur after an offeror receives a "client order?"

New CMS packages must go through a two step process: the proposal evaluation, followed by a CMS software evaluation. The contract award is contingent upon successful completion of both.

Section, 6.4-6.7 - Attachment J.3

Section 6.4, 6.5, 6.5.2.D, and 6.7 describe deliverables or materials that the offeror must submit to the Contracting Officer. Can the Government A) please confirm whether these deliverables must be submitted with either the CMS package or the Support Plan and B) Confirm if they are supposed to be submitted with the proposal submission or after an award has been made

Deliverables described in sections 6.4, 6.5 and 6.52(d) should be submitted with the proposal. Deliverables in section 6.7 should be provided to the client, contingent upon contract award.

Section 11 - Attachment J.3

Section 11 states that "contractors must respond before 3 hours have elapsed", however Section

11.1 requires contractors to respond within the first hour of being contacted. Can the Government please clarify if the response times stated in Section 11.1 supersedes the response times listed in Section 11.0.B-C?

Section 11.0(b) refrers to response times requirements to communications from the CO or COR. Section 11.1 refers to response time requirements to customers.

Number

Page, Document, Section Reference, if applicable Question USHR Response

Attachment J-3, SOW - Section 23.0.j.i

The Cloud Service Provider (CSP) utilizes one incident response process for all customers.

Utilizing one approach allows for scalability and ease of operations. As such, we would like to request that the requirements for security incident notifications align with the existing CSP reporting requirements which align with FedRAMP and allow for notification to be up to 48 hours.

The House would be one of hundreds of thousands of customers using the service. As the service provider, the CSP has the responsibility to report security incidents that result in an actual or potential breach of Customer Data to the House.

The CSP contractually commits to incident response reporting timeframes in the customer contract. One component driving the timeframes are the CSP’s ability to communicate to a wide customer base in the event of an incident. In a multi-tenant cloud environment, the CSP could be reporting to thousands of customers if there is a security incident impacting multiple customers.

Additionally, due to the nature of the CSP's service, the CSP can only report actual breaches, not attempted breaches not suspected, threatened, or foreseeable breaches. As a multitenant environment, an attempted breach against another tenant would not be reported to the House.

In the event of a security breach and if negotiated in the agreement, the CSP can notify the House’s identified points of contact. The CSP cannot notify affected parties because the CSP does not view customer data. The CSP is responsible for maintaining access in terms of performance and availability to the data. The data is owned by the customer.

Therefore, can the House please adjust this requirement accordingly?

This question is under review and the House intends to answer in a future Amendment.

Attachment J-3, SOW - Section 6.1.2

We are proposing a SaaS solution to achieve the House’s requirements. The infrastructure is fully hosted and managed by the Cloud Service Provider. Additionally, all upgrades, patches, and other system maintenance are provided as part of the subscription service with no additional cost to the House. Therefore, can the House please adjust this requirement accordingly?

This will not be modified. The CMS will be expected to continue to interface with House systems after changes to the environment.

Number

Page, Document, Section Reference, if applicable Question USHR Response

Attachment J-3, SOW - Section 6.9.a

Is it a requirement that the House have complete ownership of the system source code for this solution? For SaaS solutions, a Cloud Services Provider would be responsible for maintaining access in terms of performance and availability to the House’s data. The House’s data would be owned by the House. The House would have access to its data and metadata, but not all of the SaaS solution underlying source code. The House would have full rights to extract their data at any time during the subscription service. However, the Cloud Services Provider does not typically offer system source code because it is inapplicable to software delivered as a service subscription through a multitenant architecture. While it is possible to provide the source code in an escrow account for a configured solution, the source code would only be able to operate in the Cloud Service Provider's SaaS environment. Therefore, can the House please adjust this requirement accordingly?

This question is under review and the House intends to answer in a future Amendment.

RFP Section H.7.c and H.7.d

As a Cloud Services Provider, the solution is delivered via the web and no physical goods or equipment are being offered to the House. The Cloud Service Provider will maintain all of the hardware needed. We believe the goods, equipment, and services warranty does not apply to Cloud Service Providers. In terms of software, part d, the Cloud Service Provider uses commercially reasonable efforts to make its on-demand services available to its customers 24/7. Additionally, all aspects of the solution are configured in an N+1 redundant configuration, where N is the number of components of a given type needed for the service to operate, and +1 is the redundancy, allowing for a seamless transition if any component was to fail. The Cloud Service Provider runs anti-virus checks, conducts hardening processes, uses firewalls, implements port restrictions, and more to protect customers from harmful code and attacks. Therefore, can the House please adjust this requirement accordingly?

This question is under review and the House intends to answer in a future Amendment.

Number

Page, Document, Section Reference, if applicable Question USHR Response

RFP Section H.17 and Attachment J.3, SOW - Section 7.3

As a multi-tenant cloud service provider, we do not typically offer a Right to Audit clause as part of the base service offering. As a multi-tenant service, compartmentalization is virtual, not physical. Annual site visits can be arranged at the Houses expense, but in consideration of our other customers, random access cannot be permitted. The Cloud Service Provider has third party auditors inspect and review our security. We undergo annual audits for compliance with additional frameworks such as SSAE 16 SOC 1, SOC 2, SOC 3, ISO 27001, and PCI-DSS Level 1. The results of these audits can be provided to the House as desired under NDA.

Therefore, can the House please adjust this requirement accordingly?

This question is under review and the House intends to answer in a future Amendment.

RFP Section H.22.b

We assume this only applies to contractor personnel that are performing the solution implementation services and not the Cloud Service Provider (CSP) personnel that are hosting the solution.

For example, CSP engages the services of a background screening vendor to conduct background checks on employees at the time of hire in the U.S.

CSP also performs background investigations in certain foreign countries. The scope of these checks is subject to local laws in the jurisdictions in which the employee is hired.

Therefore, can the House please adjust this requirement accordingly?

This question is under review and the House intends to answer in a future Amendment.

Attachment J.10-A, Page 3 (General Data Entry - Advanced Capabilities/Features, Line 2)

Please list the names of the social networking sites that will need to be integrated to by the CMS. This is up to the vendor.

Attachment J.10-A, Page 3 (Work Flow - Basic Capabilities/Features, Line 5) Please provide examples of when routing will be changed on a one-time basis. Example: normal process for letter approval

Attachment J.10-A, Page 3 (Work Flow - Advanced Capabilities/Features, Line 2) Please define ‘multi-track’ workflow.

This is an advanced function and not required. The intent is for the CMS product to allow multiple persons in the office to be working on the same issue/casework/etc. at the same time.

Number

Page, Document, Section Reference, if applicable Question USHR Response

Attachment J.10-A, Page 4 (Search - Advanced Capabilities/Features, Line 3) Please define 'advocacy campaign' codes.

The <CampaignId> is a unique identifier specific to each advocacy campaign transmitted to congressional offices. Multiple campaigns from the same Organization would each have a different advocacy campaign code.

Attachment J.10-A, Page 7 (Management and Security - Basic Capabilities/Features, Line 7)

Does the House know the number of invalid attempts allowed before lockout or does the House simply desire that this capability exists?

HISPUB 007.1.59 Section 4.6 states that CRM systems must enforce an account lockout scheme that locks accounts after 5 consecutive failed logon attempts.

Attachment J.10-A, Page 7 (Legislative Tracking - Advanced Capabilities/Features, Line 1)

Is there a current system that is providing this functionality? Can the House please explain and expand what this requirement means? No. This is an advanced feature and can be created by the vendor.

Attachment J.10-A, Page 7 (Scheduling - Advanced Capabilities/Features, Line 2) Please list the other PDA databases. This is under review for correction in a future Amendment.

Attachment J.10-A, Page 10 (Integration with House Infrastructure, Products, and Services - Advanced Capabilities/Features, Line 2) Please detail the technology specifications of this server. This information is not available.

Attachment J.10-A, Page 10 (First bullet of architecture solution should...)

Is a vendor provided cloud based solution an option? All other documentation indicates this would be acceptable. A cloud-based CMS package is permitted. Please reference HISPOL 17.

Attachment J.10-A, Page 11 (Third bullet of architecture solution must...) Please provide a response as to why this is a ‘must’ requirement.

Big Fix is used by the Information System Security Office (ISSO) for patch monitoring. TripWire is installed for security audit purposes.

Number

Page, Document, Section Reference, if applicable Question USHR Response

General What is the target date to have an approved vendor providing CMS services to the House?

There is no target date. This contract starts January 3rd and is continuously open.

Attachment J.10-B, Section 5.2

The House calls for bulk email management and a digital mail program. Would the House please elaborate on these services? Is this something that is part of the scope of this project? Is the House looking to replace what is currently in use?

CMS vendors are required to control outbound paths for bulk (mass) email being sent by their customers in order to manage the reputation of the House with internet service providers (ISP) and mail service providers (MSP). CMS packages must also include features that control the ability to send bulk emails from the House network.

The House Digital Mail Program is a program where US Postal Mail is scanned and digitized, then imported into the CMS. HDMP information can be found in attachment J.10(C).

General

Will Cloud Service Providers be expected to have separate instances for each office? Will there be a different delineation (i.e. Republicans/Democrats)?

Per sections 23.0(b)-23.0(c) of the SOW, House (office) information shall be segregated from any non-House information and other House offices' information.

General

What is the current daily email volume (# of emails)? What is the expected daily email volume? This is information is not available.

61 General Do emails need to arrive in each recipient's inbox by a certain time each day? No.

General

How does the House plan on displaying scanned mail (i.e. embedded images or links to the actual scans that will be hosted somewhere else)? If links, where will the image scans be hosted and are they accessible via url?

Each piece of scanned mail will include a metadata (XML tagged) file, OCR file and TIFF file, and will be stored according to Year, Month and Day. The files will be made available on a file share for access by the

CMS.

Additional information regarding the HDMP, including XML tag definitions, can be found in the House Digital Mail Program (HDMP) Correspondence Management Systems (CMS) Interface Specifications document.

Number

Page, Document, Section Reference, if applicable Question USHR Response

Attachment J.3, SOW Section 7.1.d

Is this applicable to cloud offerings? If so, since the Cloud Services Provider applications are provided as software as a service (SaaS) via popular web browsers, they are compatible with the antivirus software the House is already using with your existing browsers. Therefore, can the House please adjust this requirement accordingly? Will the House please send the approved anti-virus software list?

The items required under Task 2 (Sections 7.0 - 7.6) are only applicable to hardware break/fix of servers and workstations in House offices.

Attachment J.3, SOW Section 18.0

The Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP) develops robust and tough security standards that form the basis of its certification protocol for cloud services providers (CSPs). As such, the Cloud Service Provider follows the FedRAMP definition of significant changes. Therefore, can the House please adjust this requirement accordingly?

FedRAMP certified products must comply with the FedRAMP protocols. TSC products must comply with TSC standards for significant changes. Products that are both FedRAMP certified and TSC approved must comply with both.

65 Attachment J-3, Page 11, Section 6.2.b In past the House has provided virtualized servers for the testing, is this no longer the policy?

The CAO will provide a virtual server for testing of House-hosted solutions.

66 Attachment J-3, Page 14, Section 6.7.a

Will an online Help Center with Searchable "How To" articles and videos meet this requirement? Yes

67 Attachment J-3, Page 23, Section 10.0.a Does this only apply to onsite work in the office?

The hours set forth are normal business hours of the House. The vendor is expected, at a minimum, to provide support during those hours.

Attachment J-3, Page 26, Section 15.2.e What do we need to include for staff information--vendor staff or office staff? Vendor staff in support of the contract.

Attachment J.10-A, Page 9 (Bulk E-mail Maintenance - Basic Capabilities/Features, Line 21) Is this a requirement? No

Attachment J.10-A, Page 9 (Bulk E-mail Maintenance - Basic Capabilities/Features, Line 22) Is this a requirement? No

Attachment J.10-A, Page 9 (Bulk E-mail Maintenance - Basic Capabilities/Features, Line 23) Is this a requirement? No

Number

Page, Document, Section Reference, if applicable Question USHR Response

72 RFP Tab 6.ii Past Performance, Page 49

Will the House please confirm that Offerors with current House Contracts for Services are not required to submit three (3) past performance references and that a written statement acknowledging the current status is acceptable? Yes, unless otherwise requested by the Contracting Officer.

RFP Section H.16.a p p y p p y Contractor, it is subject to “Government Purpose Rights”. Government Purpose Rights in the RFP as defined provides that the Government owns any Work Product (which may include modifications to Pre-existing Rights). Please confirm if it is the Government’s intent to restrict the Contractor’s re-use of the Work Product (including modifications made to Pre-Existing Rights) outside the scope of this Contract. If not, would the Government be willing to provide a license or explicitly state the Contractor is authorized to re-use Work Product outside the scope of the Contract?

No, there are no circumstances where the vendor would be permitted to use the Work Product outside the scope of this contract. The Work Product does not include Contractor Pre-Existing Rights.

74 Attachment J.3, Section

5.1.1 and Section 7.2

Will the House please confirm if time and materials (T&M) is required for Service 2:

Maintenance Services? There appears to be a discrepancy in the minimum pricing requirement in these sections. Yes

75 Attachment J.3, Section 5.3

Will the House please clarify whether the instructions throughout this entire section only apply to non-recurring payments? Yes

76 Attachment J.3, Section 5.3

When a non-recurring invoice is to be submitted “to the Client”, who specifically, from the list of entities listed in the definition of the “Client” (page 2), should non-recurring invoices be sent?

The invoices should be directed to the person indicated in the CWO, under Section 4, "If to the Client:"

Attachment J.3, Section 6.3.g and 7.1

These sections refer in part to managing overlapping responsibilities between Maintenance and CMS contractors supporting server hardware that hosts CMS software. Since some CMS server options have been retired, are the requirements as noted in these sections still applicable as written? No. This is under review for correction in a future Amendment.

Attachment J.3, Section 6.5

Will customers currently receiving CMS services via CMS server options defined in section

6.5.2 and 6.5.3 of the current/active SOW that concludes at the end of the 114th Congress be required to migrate to a new CMS server options available under the new SOW? If yes, what is the required date to complete transition to new server options and when will the House provide notice to Member Offices of the need to participate in CMS server migrations?

Yes, House offices under plans that will no longer be permitted must migrate to permitted solutions by January 2, 2017. Yes, the House intends to notify offices no later than July 1, 2016.

Number

Page, Document, Section Reference, if applicable Question USHR Response

79 Attachment J.3, Section 6.6.c

Will the House please confirm that the signoffs should be submitted to the COR to keep on record? Does the executed Equipment Installation Notice (EIN) and/or signed invoice constitute proof of sign-off from the client?

No, it is not required to submit a sign-off to the COR. Neither the EIN nor the signed invoice constitute sign-off from the client.

80 Attachment J.3, Section 7.5

Will the House please clarify the statement that “This work does not necessarily have to be completed by the vendor who currently provides computer support for them.” Is this in reference to all types of transition moves, or only Seated Member Moves? This phrase refers to Seated Member moves.

81 Attachment J.3, Section 16.0.b

Will the House provide a mechanism to better facilitate transfer of CMS data between approved CMS vendors (upload to/download from central and secure file storage)?

A mechanism to better facilitate transfer of CMS data is under consideration but is not available at this time.

Attachment J.3, Section 20.0.b-c

Currently it is common practice for IT support entities and clients to ship devices (computers or other devices) that contain data drives or media to and from D.C. and District Office (DO) locations. Examples include shipping whole computer systems back to D.C from a DO location for repair, shipping failed computer hard drives from DO computers where repair occurs on-site, and rotation of in-office server back-up media. Shipping is sometimes accomplished via the typical array of parcel service providers (USPS, FedEx, UPS…etc).

Does the House envision these support functions changing or being discontinued in order to be compliant these new sections of the SOW? If these support functions are expected to continue, does the House have recommended changes to current procedures like secure shipping options or regional/local data destruction options for DO locations?

No, the support model will not change as long as the chain of custody is ensured (e.g. bonded carrier, internal courier, trusted staff, etc.)

Attachment J.3, Section 20.0.a-c and Section 23.0.a-j

Will the House be requiring Shared System Administrator employees to adhere to these same standards of service as defined under these sections of the SOW?

Shared System Administrators are House staff and not subject to the TSC requirements.

84 Attachment J.8, Section

Will the House please define “Contractor Customizations” in the context of this clause. It does not appear to be defined in the RFP? This is under review for correction in a future Amendment.

Attachment J.10-A, Bulk E-mail Maintenance, pages 8-9

The House references three (3) requirements as “Future requirement in 2015”. Will the House please confirm if Attachment J.10A is an updated document? This is under review for correction in a future Amendment.

Number

Page, Document, Section Reference, if applicable Question USHR Response

General Is there a way for us to find out the anticipated volume of the project (# of actual vacancies that will require people)

This project is not a staff augmentation project with vacancies and consultants. This solicitation is for the Technology Services described in the Statement of Work, Attachment J.3, which are to be provided on a company to customer basis.

General What are the payment terms (couldn’t find this in the solicitation package); monthly, X number of days, etc?

Payments for standard monthly services are made on a monthly recurring basis contingent on submission of a Client Work Order. Payments for Time and Materials services are paid after the office submits a voucher and Client Work Order to the Office of Finance for payment.

General

Are there volume discounts required? I saw discounts for early payment but none for volume of people supplied (i.e. for every 100 people the rates must be discounted by X)

Volume discounts based on number of customers are not a part of this effort.

General

Do you have a maximum and minimum amount of Vendors that get approved to provide services (a quota you need to fill)? Can you disclose that number of vendors that typically get approved?

There is not a specific quota of vendors to fill. There will almost certainly be multiple vendors, but the exact number of awards will be made in the best interests of the House.

90 Section K.1 and Section K.10

It looks as if there is a GSA requirement now and it appears that there is a request for financials for existing contract holders. Can you please provide clarity on these two items?

There is not a GSA requirement. Requirement for financial information is waived for firms with current contracts for services within the scope of this solicitation (see RFP Section L.1, Tab 1).