OAM25035S 0008 - House Technology Alliance Program (H-TAP) Answered questions.pdf

Vendor Submitted Number Reference Question Response

1 General

The distribution between Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 support and staffing levels appears atypical (Tier 1 and 3 show higher ticket volumes but lower staffing, while Tier 2 has lower ticket volume but higher staffing). Could the government elaborate on the rationale for this distribution? Is it driven by escalation patterns, case complexity, historical factors, or anticipated operational changes?

Tier 1: 22,250 (10 contractors) Tier 2: 22,000 (15 contractors) Tier 3: 250 (5 contractors) Also provided were monthly ticket volumes during a surge period:

Tier 1: 7,300 tickets/month Tier 2: 5,250 tickets/month Tier 3: 135 tickets/month + 30 tasks/month

2 Nationwide Support

The RFP (Section C.3) states that “Capability to provide logistic support and onsite Tier 2 and 3 technical support for offices outside the Washington, DC, metropolitan area under a Nationwide IT Support contract, including support for inventory control and asset management processes.” However, it is not explicitly clear whether the required Tier 2 and Tier 3 support for offices outside the Washington, DC, area is to be performed remotely or through in-person onsite presence. Additionally, if onsite support is required, it is unclear whether the contractor is expected to utilize existing facilities (e.g., regional offices, call centers, or depots) or to establish and operate its own facilities and infrastructure to provide such support.

To ensure proper understanding and pricing, could the Government please clarify:

1. Whether the required Tier 2 and Tier 3 support for non-DC offices is expected to be performed remotely or through physical onsite presence; and

2. If onsite support is required, whether the contractor will be expected to provide its own regional facilities and infrastructure, or if existing Government-managed locations will be made available for use in fulfilling these requirements.

1. Both; initial support can be attempted remotely unless otherwise expressed by the customer. If remote support is unsuccessful, then onsite support will be required. 2. Contractor will utilize Government-managed locations to perform onstite support.

Technical Environment Description

Throughout the RFP and responses to vendor questions, the Government references various technical platforms and tools expected to be supported under this contract — including BMC Helix (Remedy), Microsoft 365, Workspace ONE, Apple Business Manager, Intune, Windows and macOS operating systems, and associated end-user hardware and peripherals.

However, there is no single section or table providing a comprehensive overview of the full technical environment, making it challenging for offerors to accurately scope resources, skills, and transition activities.

To avoid ambiguity and ensure consistent proposal responses, could the Government please provide a summary or table identifying:

1.The primary technologies, systems, and tools currently in use (e.g., ITSM, MDM, collaboration, endpoint, network, and security platforms);

2.The estimated number of users, devices, or systems supported under each; and 3.Any planned or ongoing technology transitions (e.g., Workspace ONE to Intune migration, software standardization, or system upgrades) that may impact contractor responsibilities.

Clarification is requested to ensure accurate understanding of the existing technology footprint, interoperability requirements, and resource planning assumptions.

1. Refer to C.3.4

2. We currently have 16,203 devices: 12,731 iOS devices and 197 Android with 3,275 macOS devices. There are approximately 16,000 users at the House, but not all of those users have House mobile devices.

3. Transitioning from WorkspaceONE to Intune.

OAM25035S+First+Round+A nswered+Questions.pdf Question #174

For consistency across bids, can the government provide their requirement for precise site visits per site, per month (for example 2 visits per month for each of 150 sites)? 1-3 nationwide site vists per month total.

5 Questions Can the House please clarify that the 44,500 total tickets are for an Election year or non-Election year? 2024 ticket data was for an election year.

6 RFP, Section C.3.4, Page 12 As the governmnet has stated that this is a new contract, what is the expected ramp-up time to achieve the staffing levels as outlined for each tier? 3-5 months (depending on quality of contractors; the House is particular about who we bring in)

7 Questions Round 1 Can the Government please share how many House employees are currently supporting the prosecution of the 44,500 tickets per year as stated in Q&A responses? 60 staff (subject to change)

8 Does the USHOR have any requirements that the staffing be onshore or are they agnostic about this? All staff should be US based.

9 PWS C.5; F.3; H.6

Do the 4‑hour on‑site SLAs apply uniformly to Alaska, Hawaii, and U.S. territories? If so, may alternate targets be authorized for hard‑to‑reach locations and severe weather? Allowances can be made for site visit delays caused by acts of God.

Background Investication and Clearance

The RFP does not explicitly specify whether contractor personnel performing services under this requirement must possess a Government security clearance, or if background investigations (e.g., Public Trust or equivalent) will be required prior to onboarding.

To ensure appropriate staffing, onboarding timelines, and cost estimation, could the Government please clarify:

1. Whether contractor personnel are required to hold a security clearance or other form of background investigation to perform work under this contract; and

2. If so, what specific clearance or investigation level (e.g., Public Trust, Secret, Top Secret) is required, and whether the Government will sponsor such clearances or investigations. Basic Criminal History Background Check

J.2 HISPUB 14.1; PWS

C.11(c); H.14

Remote‑support tools (HISPUB 14.1). Provide the current list of House‑approved remote access/support tools and any seat counts/usage restrictions for contractor use (e.g., BeyondTrust/Bomgar). Indicate whether licenses are Government‑furnished or contractor‑furnished. (HISPUB 14.1 lists categories/tools; we need current confirmation and licensing.) BeyondTrust/BOMGAR

12 PWS C.2; PWS C.3

Please Identify the CMS platforms in scope and the expected coordination (e.g., account provisioning, plug‑in troubleshooting);

confirm whether vendor escalation channels will be provided. (C.2/C.3 reference CMS contractors but do not list platforms or escalation routes.) CMS platforms are not in scope.

PWS C.11(b); J.2 HISPOL 5 & 11; H.14

Confirm whether BYOD end‑user support is out of scope (C.11(b) prohibits recommending personal devices), and describe any exceptions that would require limited support. Also clarify any restrictions on remote‑work locations (U.S.‑only/U.S. persons;

access from outside the U.S.) under HISPOL 5 & HISPOL 11. Confirmed

14 L.2.1.2.

Can the government please confirm that the transition plan is meant for a contract transition-in plan and not a plan for the congressional transition surge periods? Contract transition.

15 Call Center Operations

The RFP (Section C.3) states that “Tier 1 support is managed through the Call Center and operates 24x7 in a hybrid model, with an onsite presence required and some remote flexibility.” However, it is not explicitly clear whether the contractor is expected to establish and operate a new call center environment or augment an existing one currently managed by the House’s IT Customer Solutions (ITCS) organization.

To ensure proper understanding and pricing, could the Government please clarify:

1.Whether a Call Center infrastructure (including facilities, telephony systems, and ITSM/ticketing platforms) is currently in place and will be provided by the Government; and

2.Whether the contractor’s role is limited to providing staƯing and operational support within the existing House-managed Call Center, or if the contractor will be required to furnish and operate a new or separate Call Center environment.

Contractor will operate within the existing House Call Center enviroment. It includes all equipment & tools required to perform job responsibilities.

16 I.11

Aside from end‑user SLAs, identify any availability SLAs the contractor must meet for House‑owned tools/services (e.g., ITSM platform, remote‑support tool), or confirm that their uptime is House‑owned. (I.11 addresses SLAs for contractor‑provided systems; clarity needed for House‑provided services.) Contractor will use House supported systems. See C.5.2 for ticket SLAs.

17 Q&A Can the government please confirm what BMC Helix modules are being used? Digital Workplace, ITSM (Incident, Task, Change, Problem), Dashboards, Chat 18 What languages need to be supported? English

19 PWS C.3

Behind the “~50 tickets per week per Tier 1 rep” benchmark in C.3, please share expected AHT by channel and case‑mix to calibrate staffing and training. For Tier 1 Service Desk, AHT is around 10 minutes.

20 Amendment 2 Q&A, Qt 8 Question 8 asks the House to confirm the validation process for Nationwide Field Technicians' background check can be completed virtually/remotely. The House answer is unclear. Please clarify.

Individuals will go to their local law enforcement or fingerprint office to be fingerprinted. Request that the fingerprints be saved as a PDF and emailed to the individual. Send the PDF fingerprint card to your point of contact, along with the completed CP-491 and a PDF copy of your government-issued identification.

PWS C.9; I.12; PWS C.3; J.2

HISPOL 18

Please provide expected monthly/annual volumes of media/devices to sanitize or destroy; clarify when remote wipe is sufficient

vs. mandatory physical sanitization; identify which party performs physical destruction and the proof/chain‑of‑custody required;

and specify who manages return logistics. (See C.9 and I.12 for baseline obligations.) ITCS does not sanitize and destroy devices. Another department does this. This will not be responsibility of the vendor.

Is the support for these services the typical Microsoft OS and Office workplace/environment or are there more complex support requirements? ITCS is primarily a Windows / MS Office / M365 environment. ITCS also supports Androids, iPhones, iPads and Macs.

SOW Section C.3 and OAM25035S+Second+Roun d+Answered+Questions.pdf

Questions - #7 & #63

Question #7 states: "Would the government please clarify whether the figure of 150 represents the average number of district offices expected to require support in a given month, or if only 150 district offices in total will require onsite support under this contract?"

The Government responded: "As of now, ITCS provides dedicated support for 150 Member Offices, and each of those offices has 1-3 district offices, which may require site visits or remote support at some point during the year. Typically, we provide onsite support to district offices 1-3 times per month in total."

Question #63 states: "Can the House please provide a list of all district office addresses that require inperson support."

The Government responded: "There are 435 Members in the House of Representatives, each Member has at least 1 district office and many have multiple. Not all district offices always require support, some have their own IT people, some don't."

Please confirm whether the 150 district offices mentioned in the Q&A represent:

a) a subset of all 950 district offices likely to require onsite support in a typical month, or

b) the total number of specific offices requiring onsite support over the contract period.

ITCS provides sole support to 150 Member Offices and each Member office has 1-3 district offices that may require remote support. ITCS typically travels to remote offices 1-3 times per month total.

24 PWS C.3

Can the Government confirm deployment model (SaaS/on‑prem), current version, available roles (including knowledge‑authoring), ticket taxonomy, and whether the House will furnish licenses and RBAC access for contractor staff. (C.3 lists Helix experience but not environment/access details.) ITCS uses BMC Helix SaaS for ticketing. Contractors will be provided access and licenses.

25 F.1. Period of Performance Can the House provide an estimated Period of Performance start date for bidders to use for pricing purposes?

For evaluation, please use a start date of March 1, 2026. Should the actual performance date change, base period pricing shall be adjusted accordingly.

26 Section F.1 With the continuing delay in submission, will the House please update the Period of Performance for this RFP?

For evaluation, please use a start date of March 1, 2026. Should the actual performance date change, base period pricing shall be adjusted accordingly.

Proposal Approach Clarification

In response to a previous vendor question, the Government indicated that it is “open to both staff augmentation and managed service proposals.”

To ensure proper alignment of the proposal strategy, pricing, and technical approach, could the Government please clarify:

1. Whether offerors are expected to submit separate proposals for both staff augmentation and managed service models;

2. Whether a blended or hybrid approach combining elements of both models would be acceptable; and

3. Whether the Government intends to evaluate or give preference to one model over the other (i.e., whether proposing only one approach—either staff augmentation or managed services—may affect award consideration). The offeror should propose in accordance with the RFP, the Government will award based on the RFP.

Pricing Structure and Submission Format

The RFP does not clearly specify whether offerors should propose pricing on a total cost basis for the full scope of services or provide labor category–based rates.

To ensure compliance with the pricing requirements and facilitate accurate cost modeling, could the Government please clarify:

1. Whether offerors should submit a total proposed cost for all services described in the RFP, or provide fully burdened hourly rates by labor category; and

2. Whether pricing should be structured as Time-and-Materials (T&M), Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP), or another contract type, or if offerors are expected to propose their preferred pricing model. The offeror should propose in accordance with the RFP, the Government will award based on the RFP.

29 L.1 Content of Proposals For evaluation purposes, would the Government prefer to have each Tab submitted as separate files?

As long as all requested information is presented and the files are appropriately sized the offeror may submit however they want as long as no price information is included in technical/management. It is suggested that offerors submit prior to the deadline to ensure the proposal is submitted, missing a deadline because the files were too big is not an acceptable excuse.

B.1 & L.1 (Tab 5 Pricing) + C.3/H.1

Pricing Question: The Givernment has said we can use any format at all for the pricing. But hypothetically if offeror A where to propose LCATs XZY for their entire offer and if offeror B where to propose LCATs ABC for their own proposal. How will both be normalized and evaluated?

Proposed pricing will be evaluated during phase 1 not only to determine if the price is reasonable and affordable but may also be evaluated to determine if the pricing is realistic and reflects an understanding of the requirements. The proposal is presumed to represent the Offeror’s best efforts to respond to the solicitation. Any inconsistency, whether real or apparent between promised performance and price, must be explained in the proposal. For example, if unique and new approaches are the basis for an abnormally low estimate, the nature of these approaches and their impact on price must be explained. Any significant inconsistency, if unexplained, raises a fundamental issue of the Offeror’s understanding of the nature and scope of the work required. It also may reflect on the Offeror’s ability to fulfil the contract within the financial restraints and may be cause for rejection of the proposal. The burden of proof as to price credibility rests with the Offeror.

Offerors should submit their best offers during phase 1, because that will be considered when reducing the competitive range, however further price revisions may be requested.

31 H.1 (IDIQ Ordering) + C.3

Please confirm whether the House intends to issue any initial task/delivery order at award with a defined level of effort or labor hours; absent that, should offerors assume rate schedules only at the IDIQ level and no base‑award LOE commitment (noting the “approximately 30 contractors” and “+25 for transition” are planning estimates, not binding LOE)? Yes

32 L.1 (Tab 5) + B.1 + H.1 Confirm that the pricing is only at the IDIQ level. And at the IDIQ level offerors only need to price their proposed labor categories.

The Contractor shall provide a complete price/cost proposal in both PDF format and an Excel spreadsheet that summarizes all costs

For evaluation, please use a start date of March 1, 2026. Should the actual performance date change, base period pricing shall be adjusted accordingly.

M.1(c) (Price Realism) + L.1 (Tab 5)

For price reasonableness/realism, what supporting data do you want with rates (e.g., rate build‑ups, indirect‑rate disclosures, compensation plans, SCA conformance if applicable), and will the Government use an IGCE or other benchmarks during realism review?

The Contractor shall provide a complete price/cost proposal in both PDF format and an Excel spreadsheet that summarizes all costs

For evaluation, please use a start date of March 1, 2026. Should the actual performance date change, base period pricing shall be adjusted accordingly.

34 F.1; PWS C.4; L.2.1.2

Please provide the anticipated award date, transition‑in period (including any overlap with an incumbent), and whether phased cutovers are acceptable to protect 24×7 Tier 1 service. (See F.1–F.4 and C.4 for context.)

For evaluation, please use a start date of March 1, 2026. Should the actual performance date change, base period pricing shall be adjusted accordingly.

35 B.1; L.1 Tab 5; H.1 Please Provide the required pricing template and the labor category definitions/mapping referenced in H.1 so all offerors price consistently. (B.1 allows standardization; L.1 Tab 5 requires the House template.) This has been corrected.

36 H.1(c) Provide the IDIQ minimum guarantee and the overall ceiling (maximum amount) in H.1, which currently shows a blank “maximum amount.” There is no guaranteed minimum.

Links.txt (DOL SCA guidance)

Please confirm whether the McNamara‑O’Hara SCA applies to H‑TAP; if so, identify applicable DOL wage determinations/locations for DC and nationwide District Offices and any conformance procedures; if not, confirm all proposed labor is exempt. The SCA does not apply to contracts awarded by the House.

38 J.2; H.14; J.3; J.1

Can the Government provide full text or public access to referenced HISPOLs/HISPUBs required to craft compliant approaches (e.g., HISPOL 5, 8, 16, 17; HISPUB 14.1), since HouseNet is not accessible to non‑House offerors. (Attachment J.2 is an index/summary only.) Offerors may submit an NDA to obtain access to HISPOLs/HISPUBs.

39 Section L.1 Tab 6 If a proposal contains DCMA financial report for the required 3 years and it is classified CUI, will the House accept a file that is password protected and the subsequent email with the password as part of our submission? Please advise. Please note that in your proposal, do not submit classified information unless it is requested.

40 Amendment 0007

Given the removal of the SCA requirements, can the Government confirm that contractors retain the discretion to assess labor qualifications to determine whether SCA is applicable for any proposed labor categories, consistent with DOL regulatory guidance? The SCA does not apply to contracts awarded by the House.

41 M.1.C

The RFP notes that “Proposed pricing will be evaluated during Phase 1 not only to determine if the price is reasonable and affordable but may also be evaluated to determine if the pricing is realistic and reflects an understanding of the requirements.”

Since a pricing template won’t be provided, would the government consider providing ODC, materials, and travel NTE CLINs to help ensure consistency and fairness in the evaluation?

The offeror should propose in accordance with the RFP, the Government will award based on the RFP.

The Contractor shall provide a complete price/cost proposal in both PDF format and an Excel spreadsheet that summarizes all costs

For evaluation, please use a start date of March 1, 2026. Should the actual performance date change, base period pricing shall be adjusted accordingly.

42 J.1 Attachment Can the government please confirm that Attachment J.1 NDA falls under Tab 1 submission? Yes, and to receive access to HISPOLs/HISPUBs it shall be submitted with that request.

43 M.1.C The government has stated that the vendor may propose a price structure, can the government please confirm whether it has a preference in pricing model (FFP, T&M, or hybrid) ?

The offeror should propose in accordance with the RFP, the Government will award based on the RFP.

The Contractor shall provide a complete price/cost proposal in both PDF format and an Excel spreadsheet that summarizes all costs

For evaluation, please use a start date of March 1, 2026. Should the actual performance date change, base period pricing shall be adjusted accordingly.

44 F.1

With the proposal submission deadline now extended to 28 November, does the Government intend to revise the Period of Performance start date to reflect this change and ensure alignment between the pricing, evaluation, award, and transition schedules?

For evaluation, please use a start date of March 1, 2026. Should the actual performance date change, base period pricing shall be adjusted accordingly.

45 F.1 If the government plans to revise the Period of Performance (PoP) start date, could you please share the new anticipated contract start date?

For evaluation, please use a start date of March 1, 2026. Should the actual performance date change, base period pricing shall be adjusted accordingly.

46 SOW C.10 Remedies Can the House clarify how the Remedies clause (C.10) will be applied in relation to the Service Level Agreements in C.5—e.g., does non-performance trigger payment deductions, re-performance at no cost, or both? Situational

OAM25035S+0007+-

+House+Technology+Allianc e+Program+(H-TAP).pdf

RFP states that offerors should submit, "Solicitation and Offer Form (Cover Sheet of Solicitation). The Offeror shall insert the completed Solicitation and Offer form (page one of this Solicitation), as well as acknowledgement of Amendments if applicable."

as part of Tab 1 - Administrative.

The Solicitation and Offer form (page one of this Solicitation) has been removed from most recent Amendment (007) on SAM.gov.

Will the Government provide a new Solication and Offer form to fill out? Yes

48 Amendment 4

The current due date of Friday, November 28, 2025, falls immediately after the Thanksgiving holiday. As this day is commonly observed as a day off by both government and contractor personnel, we respectfully request consideration to extend the due date to Tuesday, December 2, 2025. The solicitation has been updated

Section F.1 Period of Performance, Page 22

Can the government confirm the revised estimated period of performance, given that the originally stated start date of October 3, 2025, has passed?

For evaluation, please use a start date of March 1, 2026. Should the actual performance date change, base period pricing shall be adjusted accordingly.

Solicitation, Offer and Award Form (10-28-2014 Revision), We noticed that Block 10 (Acknowledgement of Amendments) in the solicitation form provides space for only five entries.

However, there are currently seven amendments that need to be listed with dates.

Could the Government please confirm whether it is acceptable to include multiple amendment numbers within the existing rows in Block 10 to acknowledge all seven amendments? Offerors may acknowledge all amendments in Tab 1

PWS C.12(d–e); J.2 HISPOL

Can the government identify House‑approved FIPS 140‑2/140‑3 encryption products for data in transit/at rest, and whether licenses for contractor endpoints/storage are Government‑ or contractor‑furnished. (C.12(d–e) requires FIPS‑validated encryption but does not enumerate products.) C.12 has been removed.

52 H.29; PWS C.5

For District Office on‑site responses, will travel/ODCs be reimbursed via separate CLINs under JTR at the order level, or included in loaded rates? If reimbursable, please provide a notional annual travel profile; confirm that local DC‑area travel is not reimbursable. (See H.29.)

Offeror may propose that in their pricing model, travel is subject to the FTR:

https://www.gsa.gov/policy-regulations/regulations/federal-travel-regulation

53 General When QAs are being addressed, how do the QAs relate to the RFP regarding guidance. The RFP is above the QAs in the order of precedence, however it is the intent to correct the RFP in response to the QAs

54 General

Would the government please provide additional detail around the nuances of its AI Policies and expectations for this contract?

Are there specific policies or restrictions regarding the use of AI, machine learning, robotic process automation (RPA), AI Agents in lieu of humans, or other emerging technologies as part of our staffing or service delivery model?

Policies are currently under development. The Optional Innovative approach (L.1.1) was added with the intent of allowing offerors to propose those types of capabilities that may be implemented after those policies have been developed.

Offerors may choose to include AI as part of their base proposal as well. The Government shall evaluate based on the RFP and inclusion of an optional innovative approach does not guarantee inclusion in the competitive range.

55 General

Would the government be open to innovation approaches that leverage AI (such as autonomous help desk agents with human oversight) as long as they are justified and aligned with the RFP requirements? If so, would the government please elaborate the boundaries, guidelines, and guardrails to consider regarding the ratio of human versus AI/automated agents in proposed staffing models?

Policies are currently under development. The Optional Innovative approach (L.1.1) was added with the intent of allowing offerors to propose those types of capabilities that may be implemented after those policies have been developed.

Offerors may choose to include AI as part of their base proposal as well. The Government shall evaluate based on the RFP and inclusion of an optional innovative approach does not guarantee inclusion in the competitive range.

56 General Would the government please share any formal policy documentation, governance standards, or guardrails related to AI, automation, or emerging technologies in the environment?

Policies are currently under development. The Optional Innovative approach (L.1.1) was added with the intent of allowing offerors to propose those types of capabilities that may be implemented after those policies have been developed.

Offerors may choose to include AI as part of their base proposal as well. The Government shall evaluate based on the RFP and inclusion of an optional innovative approach does not guarantee inclusion in the competitive range.

57 PWS C.3

State the standard imaging/build methods in use (e.g., Intune Autopilot, ConfigMgr/SCCM, Jamf Pro), who owns the gold images/profiles, and which party owns image lifecycle (testing, updates, release cadence). Provide typical monthly imaging volumes. (C.3 assigns imaging responsibilities but not volumes/ownership.) Microsoft Deployment Tool (MDT). Volume varies by demand.

58 PWS C.3; PWS C.11(b) Does “mobile device ordering” in C.3 mean facilitating House orders through existing contracts, or must the contractor procure, warehouse, and stage devices/spares at its expense? Mobile device ordering will be done through House telecomm; or directly through the Member Office for District Offices.

59 SOW C.5.1.2

Does the government require bidders to have spare inventory of products and parts, which would be nessesary to meet the 8hr SLA service time when products or parts are required to resolve the issue? No

60 General

Would the government please clarify its expectations for the innovation approaches requested? Is the governnment looking only for innovations that specifically reduce costs for this contract or overall for the house? Would the government consider innovations that increase other dimensions including customer satisfaction, process efficiencies, etc.? Primary concern is innovations that improve cost or quality for this contract.

Please tell us what the security requirements of providing these services would be. This would affect our onboarding and staffing model. See H.22.

62 PWS C.3

Please clarify contractor duties for receiving, tagging, asset‑system updates, shipping/returns, spare‑pool management, and who provides asset labels and shipping accounts. (Nationwide support includes support for inventory control and asset management.)

Shipping and tagging provided by Asset Management when necessary. Vendor would coordinate with the Asset Management team.

63 General Given the discrepancy between surge and annual ticket counts, which should vendors prioritize for estimation, projections, and pricing? Surge and annual ticket counts should be given equal priority.

SOW Section L.1.1 “Optional Innovative Approaches”;

SOW Section L.2.1.1–L.2.1.2; and Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

The RFP states that the Optional Innovative Approach “shall not contain any new information the offeror wants considered as part of the technical or management proposal” and that inclusion of this section “does not affect the initial technical evaluation.”

To ensure consistency across bidders, can the Government please confirm whether concepts or methods that may be considered innovative—particularly those that could influence service delivery, structure, or cost—must also be reflected within the evaluated Technical and/or Management Volumes in order to be considered for award?

The Technical and Management Proposal that an offeror would like evaluated as part of their main proposal submission shall be reflected in the Technical and Management volumes.

Coordination with Other Technical and Infrastructure Teams

The RFP states that the contractor will “coordinate with the Maintenance Contractors, other House support teams, and CMS Contractors during Congressional Transition activities.” However, it is not clear which specific technical, or infrastructure teams currently support the House environment or how coordination and escalation are managed across these groups. To ensure an accurate understanding of roles and responsibilities, could the Government please clarify:

1.Which specific House oƯices, internal IT teams, or contractor organizations (e.g., Cybersecurity, Network Operations, Infrastructure, or Facilities IT) the awarded contractor will be expected to coordinate with to provide technical support to House staff; and

2.Whether coordination will occur through the House’s existing ITSM/ticketing platform (BMC Helix) or through direct team-to-team communication channels. This will be explained during the contract transition and should not impact the proposal.

PWS C.5; PWS C.4; H.6;

H.37

Please confirm whether the 1‑hour initial contact / 4‑hour on‑site arrival / 8‑business‑hour resolution targets run 24×7 or only during normal business hours; define after‑hours/holiday windows; and specify events that pause/toll the clocks (awaiting parts, site inaccessible/customer unavailable, severe weather, security/access delays). (See C.4–C.5 for baseline definitions.)

Those SLAs apply 24-7 for Tier 1 cases (Tier 1 Service Desk is 24x7). There is also after-hours on-call Tier 2 support for critical issues. Typically there are 2 people covering on-call support for Tier 2.

67 General

Based on the provided 2024 total ticket counts as well as surge ticket counts provided, you indicated that the total number of tickets across Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 for calendar year 2024 was 44,500, broken down as follows:

Tier 1: 22,250 Tier 2: 250 Tier 3: 22,000 Also provided were monthly ticket volumes during a surge period:

Tier 1: 7,300 tickets/month Tier 2: 5,250 tickets/month Tier 3: 135 tickets/month + 30 tasks/month

The annual count for Tier 2 is listed as 250 tickets, yet the surge data suggests 5,250 tickets per month. Could the government please clarify whether these counts are additive, inclusive, or otherwise explain the apparent inconsistency?

Total number of tickets across Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 for calendar year 2024 was 44,500, broken down as follows:

Tier 1: 22,250 (10 contractors) Tier 2: 22,000 (15 contractors) Tier 3: 250 (5 contractors) Also provided were monthly ticket volumes during a surge period:

Tier 1: 7,300 tickets/month Tier 2: 5,250 tickets/month Tier 3: 135 tickets/month + 30 tasks/month

Questions Round 1 and Round 2

Can the House please confirm that the answer to Amendment 1, Q&A #218; and Amendment 2 Q #33 and #38, stating there are 250 T2 tickets is a typographical error, and thus can it please share the correct number of T2 tickets annually?

Total number of tickets across Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 for calendar year 2024 was 44,500, broken down as follows:

Tier 1: 22,250 Tier 2: 22,000 Tier 3: 250 Also provided were monthly ticket volumes during a surge period:

Tier 1: 7,300 tickets/month Tier 2: 5,250 tickets/month Tier 3: 135 tickets/month + 30 tasks/month

J.4+Required+Question+for mat #8, OAM25035S Second Round Answered Questions #38

Previous Q&A Question #8, the government stated an average annual ticket volume of:

Tier 1: 24,000 incidents per year (2,000 per month × 12 months) Tier 2: 24,000 incidents per year (2,000 per month × 12 months) Tier 3: 264 incidents and 300 tasks per year (22 incidents / 25 tasks per month × 12 months) This totals approximately 48,564 tickets per year.

However, in further Q&A, Question #38, the government indicated a total of 44,500 tickets across Tiers 1–3, with the following annual breakdown:

Tier 1: 22,250 tickets Tier 2: 250 tickets Tier 3: 22,000 tickets

These figures appear inconsistent, particularly for Tier 2 and Tier 3, where the volumes differ significantly from those provided in Question #8. Could the Government please clarify which set of figures should be used for staffing and pricing assumptions?

Total number of tickets across Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 for calendar year 2024 was 44,500, broken down as follows:

Tier 1: 22,250 Tier 2: 22,000 Tier 3: 250 Also provided were monthly ticket volumes during a surge period:

Tier 1: 7,300 tickets/month Tier 2: 5,250 tickets/month Tier 3: 135 tickets/month + 30 tasks/month

OAM25035S+First+Round+A nswered+Questions.pdf Question #218

Question #218 states: "How many Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III tickets were supported in the last year and their location?"

The Government responded: "44500 total tickets across Tier 1,2,3 for 2024. Tier 1: 22,250 Tier 2: 250 Tier 3: 22,000"

The Government's response to Question #218 states there are 250 Tier 2 tickets in all of 2024 and 22,000 Tier 3 tickets in all of 2024. How can there be more Tier 3 tickets than Tier 2 tickets when unresolved tickets from Tier 2 are escalated to Tier 3?

Total number of tickets across Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 for calendar year 2024 was 44,500, broken down as follows:

Tier 1: 22,250 Tier 2: 22,000 Tier 3: 250 Also provided were monthly ticket volumes during a surge period:

Tier 1: 7,300 tickets/month Tier 2: 5,250 tickets/month Tier 3: 135 tickets/month + 30 tasks/month

OAM25035S+First+Round+A nswered+Questions.pdf Question #197

Question #197 states: "What are the historical or estimated number of average tickets weekly during the transition/surge periods every 2 years? " The Government responded: "Tickets per month during surge: Tier 1 - 7300 per month Tier 2 - 5250 per month Tier 3 - 135 tickets + 30 tasks"

Given the response to Question #218 indicating there are only 250 Tier 2 tickets across all of 2024, please validate a single month of surge generated 5,250 Tier 2 tickets.

Total number of tickets across Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 for calendar year 2024 was 44,500, broken down as follows:

Tier 1: 22,250 Tier 2: 22,000 Tier 3: 250 Also provided were monthly ticket volumes during a surge period:

Tier 1: 7,300 tickets/month Tier 2: 5,250 tickets/month Tier 3: 135 tickets/month + 30 tasks/month

72 H.22; H.23

Please provide average processing times for U.S. Capitol Police checks and House badge issuance; state whether escorted/temporary access or remote‑only work is permitted while badges are pending (distinguish DC from District Offices/territories). (See H.22–H.23.) typically takes about 1 week to process & complete but is dependent on applicants background

73 General Can the government please provide ticket counts across Tier 1,2,3 for 2023 to provide greater context for an accurate staffing model? Unable to provide for 2023.

74 Nationwide Locations

The RFP (Section C.3) references the requirement to “provide logistic support and onsite Tier 2 and 3 technical support for offices outside the Washington, DC, metropolitan area under a Nationwide IT Support contract.” However, the RFP does not specify the locations or geographic distribution of the offices to be supported under this requirement.

To ensure accurate resource planning, staffing, and pricing, could the Government please clarify:

1. The number and general locations (e.g., cities or regions) of offices outside the Washington, DC, metropolitan area that will require onsite support; and

2. Whether the list of supported sites will remain static for the duration of the contract or is expected to change over time (e.g., additions or relocations).

Unable to provide specific count or location of nationwide offices. The vendor will support around 150 member offices and each member offices has 1-3 district offices. We expect the vendor will make 1-3 site nationwide visits total per month.

IT Customer Solutions (ITCS) Staffing Composition

The RFP and responses to vendor questions indicate that all support is currently being provided by the House’s IT Customer Solutions (ITCS) organization and that there is no incumbent contractor for these services. However, it is not clear whether ITCS is presently staffed by federal employees, contractor personnel, or a combination of both. For proposal planning and transition considerations, could the Government please clarify:

1.Whether current ITCS operations (including Tier 1 Call Center, Tier 2, and Tier 3 technical support) are staƯed primarily by federal personnel, contractor personnel, or a hybrid model; and

2.If contractor personnel are currently performing any of these functions, whether those services are being performed under a separate contract vehicle or through temporary staffing arrangements.

Unable to provide this information.

PWS C.3; PWS C.4; PWS C.7;

G.7; I.14

Please provide 12–24 months of ticket volumes split by channel (phone/chat/email), time (hour of day, day of week), priority/severity, and location (DC vs. District Offices), plus AHT, FCR, ASA, abandon rate, severity mix, and seasonality, to right‑size 24×7 Tier 1 and on‑call Tier 2/3 coverage. Unable to provide.

77 PWS C.3(3)

C.3 requires the ability to scale Tier 2/3 support within 30 days. Please provide example initiatives/projects (size, skills, duration) to pre‑stage surge pipelines and quantify recruiting/onboarding lead time. Unable to provide.

78 Questions Round 1 Per Amendment 1, Question/Answer #81,174, 324, for the 150 offices that House TAP supports with T1-T3 services, what portion of the 44,500 total tickets would the House TAP contractor awardee be expected to support with T1-3 services? Up to 100%.

J.4+Required+Question+for mat #7, OAM25035S First Round Answered Questions #213

Previous Q&A responses have referenced two different figures for user and device support, 16,000 users/devices (Q&A #7) and approximately 13,000 devices under management (later response Q&A #213). Could the government please confirm the current and accurate number of users and devices/endpoints within the scope of this requirement?

We currently have 16,203 devices: 12,731 iOS devices and 197 Android with 3,275 macOS devices. There are approximately 16,000 users at the House, but not all of those users have House mobile devices.

OAM25035S+First+Round+A nswered+Questions.pdf Question #174

Question #174 states: "Regarding support for nationwide District Offices, please clarify the following:

a. Would the government provide a list of all the District Office Locations that will be supported?

b. What are the government’s expectations for full-time equivalent (FTE) staffing dedicated to supporting District Offices nationwide?

c. What is the anticipated breakdown of remote versus onsite support for District Offices? Does the percentage split provided in the previous government RFI questions response also apply to District Office locations?

d. Do the response and resolution times outlined in Section C.5.2 ("Summary of Contractor Response and Resolution Times") apply specifically to support for District Offices only? If not, please clarify what service level expectations (response and resolution times) apply for local (Washington DC) as well as District Offices support."

The Government responded: "a. Assume there are approximately 150 district office dispersed across the country, including Alaska and Hawaii.

b/c. Assume 1-3 site visits per month to district offices. d. C.5.2. refers to district offices."

Based on the response to Question #174, please clarify the scope of the site visit requirement. Is the expectation to provide 1–3 site visits per month in total across all 150 district offices (i.e., approximately 12–36 total visits per year), or 1–3 site visits per month for each of the 150 district offices (i.e., approximately 3,600 total visits per year)? We estimate 1-3 nationwide site vists per month total. We are unable to identify the district offices at this time.

81 PWS C.3; PWS C.5; F.3

Please provide historical annual counts of on‑site dispatches to District Offices, by region/state and issue type, to size regional Tier 2/3 bench and surge partners. We expect 1-3 nationwide site vists per month. Unable to provide more granular breakdown.

Can you share the current metrics being used to measure the quality and/or productivity of the current Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 teams? We prefer vendors to propose their own metrics.

83 PWS C.4; H.37

C.4 states the Service Desk operates 24/7, while H.37 restricts holiday access/tele‑work. Please confirm that Tier 1 must be continuous on Federal holidays and whether remote access to House systems will be permitted on those days to meet SLAs given H.37’s constraints. We use a mix of on-site and remote staff during Holidays.

84 PWS C.3

Please identify the production MDM platforms in scope (e.g., Intune, Jamf, Workspace ONE, Apple Business Manager) and approximate endpoint counts by platform and OS (Windows, macOS, iOS, Android). Confirm role‑based admin access and license seats for contractor staff. (C.3 references multiple MDMs but not what is authoritative in production.) WorkspaceONE, Jamf, Intune

Will the vendor have access to the current H-Tap metrics data, such that we can measure the same way and potentially propose new metrics? The successful offeror will have access to that data post-award

86 F.3; PWS C.3

Will the contractor have on‑campus space for Tier 2/3 staging/workrooms (imaging/repairs), or should we plan contractor‑leased off‑site space near the Capitol complex? (See F.3 for general place of performance.) Yes

87 H.1 (Rates/LCATs) If offerors propose their own LCATs, should we include role definitions and qualification descriptions for each LCAT (given the placeholders in H.1 referencing definitions in an unspecified Section/Attachment), and is a role‑to‑Tier mapping required? Yes, role to tier mapping should be included.

88 PWS C.5.1.1(b) If a District Office issue is fully resolved remotely within four hours, does that satisfy the “on‑site within 4 hours” requirement, or is a physical visit still required for SLA compliance? (C.5 shows the 1/4/8 framework but does not state exceptions.) Yes, SLA would be satisified.