Agency_Response_to_Questions_Submitted_by_Potential_Offerors_in_Support_of_E-Filing_Requirement.docx

Questions Submitted Prior to Electronic Filing Presolicitation Conference

Question 1. What’s the anticipated timeframe to select a vendor and begin the implementation? This calendar year? Next calendar year?

The notice on FBO.GOV speaks of, “procurement of an electronic filing (e-filing) system.” This seems to indicate that this would be a completely new capability built or bought from scratch. The draft PWS speaks of developing, “a list of system enhancements including but not limited to equipment and software needed to support the seamless integration of the solution into the existing IT infrastructure.” This seems to indicate that the government is planning to upgrade the current system.

Answer 1. Acquisition of an E-Filing solution is a fiscal year 2013 requirement. We anticipate the award of a contract in fiscal year 2013.

Question 2. Has the government decided on which of the two above courses of action to follow and, if so, which one? If not can we assume that the government is open to either course of action.

Answer 2. The Government is open to all proposed solutions that satisfy the requirement.

Question 3. The draft PWS in section 6.1 requires that the contractor, “Identify hosting cost for system deployment plus five years.” Does this indicate that the system is to contractor hosted?

Answer 3. The Government is seeking to procure a hosted solution.

Question 4. The draft PWS in section 7.1 Solution Development calls for the contractor to: “Develop plan to conduct external user acceptance testing (including security functions – e.g., Privacy considerations),” and, “Implement Data Migration Plan.” This does not appear to contemplate any development/customization work by the contractor. Does the government not see any need for development/customization by the contractor?

Answer 4. The Government is open to all proposed solutions that satisfy the requirement.

Question 5. Has the government reviewed any Government Owned Off-The-Shelf (GOTS) e-filing systems? If not, would this be part of the expected work under this procurement?

Answer 5. The Government is not currently aware of any GOTS that will satisfy the requirement. However, potential offerors are encourage to propose all solutions they believe will satisfy the requirement.

Questions Received During the Presolicitation Conference

Question 6. Is this a new or follow on requirement. If it is follow on, please let us know the current contract number and contract value?

Answer 6. This is a new requirement.

Question 7. Is it a best value or lowest price technically acceptable?

Answer 7. The Review Commission anticipates awarding the contract on a best value basis.

Question 8. What are the work requirements: onsite, offsite, and hybrid?

Answer 8. The majority of the work will be performed offsite at a contractor controlled facility.

Question 9. Is Government furnished office space and equipment provided?

Answer 9. There is no government furnished office space or equipment provided; however, there is government furnished property (data) which is needed to perform the services of the contract.

Question 10. Is the customer open to platform changes with regard to its desired system improvements?

Answer 10. The Agency is open to platform changes as long as they are consistent with Agency rules and regulations and can be conducted within a fixed price environment.

Question 11. What is the expected award date?

Answer 11. The Agency anticipates awarding a contract during fiscal year 2013.

Question 12. Any formal Service Level Agreements (SLAs) or Operating Level Agreements (OLAs) that potential offerors should be aware?

Answer 12. All operating metrics will be outlined in the PWS.

Question 13. Will the Presolicitation Conference slides be available to attendees after the conference?

Answer 13. The PowerPoint slides will be available, upon request.

Questions Received After the Issuance of the RFP

Question 14. Are you looking for a basic e-filing system, ie like a Sharepoint solution, or might the requirement need to also have more robust features, ie like case management functionality?

Answer 14. The Agency is looking for a more robust feature set than a Sharepoint type solution could provide which is more in line with a case management system. Our preference would be a hosted solution which could be Software as a Service (SaaS).

Question 15. Our company (name withheld) respectfully requests an extension of the due date for the above referenced solicitation until October 4, 2013. This extension will allow for a more comprehensive response which would be more aligned with this type of solicitation and the responses would permit for accurate planning and pricing which would be in the best interest of the GSA as well as all the potential offerors. Thank you in advance for your assistance and consideration.

Answer 15. The E-filing solution is a fiscal year 2013 requirement. Therefore, the request to extend the proposal submission date is denied. The Agency has given careful consideration to the level of effort and time required to respond to the RFP. Based on the acquisition plan, the Agency implemented what it believes to be significant measures to streamline the proposal submission requirements.

Question 16. Does OSHRC currently have an Enterprise Agreement with Microsoft? If not, what Microsoft tools and technologies besides SQL 2005 does OSHRC currently leverage?

Answer 16. OSHRC does not maintain any enterprise agreements with Microsoft. The OSHRC configuration includes Microsoft Exchange and the MS Office suite (v.10), Server 2008R2 on multiple servers as well as Citrix Xenapp and Adobe products.

Question 17. What is the OSHRC case processing and case management function? Please describe it with steps, actors, business processes, and touch points? When does e-filing occur as part of the overall business process?

Answer 17. The overall case processing function reflects the roles established by our charter: The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (Review Commission or Agency) is an independent federal agency, providing administrative trial and appellate review, created to decide contests of citations or penalties resulting from OSHA inspections of American work places. The Review Commission functions as a two-tiered administrative court, with established procedures for (1) conducting hearings, receiving evidence and rendering decisions by its Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) and (2) discretionary review of ALJ decisions by a panel of Commissioners.

Steps and actors are outlined below.

Office of the Executive Secretary: Notice of Docketing of new cases, Receive Postcard, Assign to Chief Judge.

Office of the Chief Administrative Law Judge: Receive Complaint and Answer, receive postcard from company, assign case to Judge as a Conventional/Complex/Mandatory Settlement or Simplified Proceedings.

Administrative Law Judge: Schedule and hold hearings (arrange for court reporters and travel to destination), Conference calls, settlement conferences, handle incoming motions, issue orders, track settlements due, issue orders and decisions (settlements/withdrawals, etc), file final with the Executive Secretary for docketing of decision.

Office of the Executive Secretary: Docketing of Judge’s Decision, await petition for discretionary review (PDR) 20 days after docketing and Direction for Review (30 days) after docketing (OSHRC appellate level).

Commission: Review decisions and PDR’s to determine if additional action is required. Issue briefing notices and review incoming briefs. Issue ruling (final decision, remand to ALJ or nothing which in turn becomes a final order of the Commission).

E-Filing: E-filing is intended to be part and parcel of the selected solution (all documents that are deemed relevant to any case should have the opportunity to be E-filed).

Question 18. What products and technologies comprise the current case management system that OSHRC uses? What are the functional gaps, user issues or challenges/limitations of that system? How many total end users are envisioned to use the new system and how many concurrent end users would you expect to use the new system?

Answer 18. Microsoft SQL Server, MS Office, Citrix, Server 2008 as a data repository (document management part of ProLaw) and ProLaw. External access by litigants is somewhat cumbersome and not intuitive. Does not fully support e-filing as a clean easy to use interface with enough security to protect maintained information. The Review Commission processes around 2,500 cases annually and currently maintains a 40 concurrent license for internal users only. Total end user community will be based on selected offerors proposal as this is a performance work statement and the Agency is reluctant to limit potential solutions by prescribing a specific number at this time.

Question 19. How is Prolaw leveraged currently? Will the new e-filing solution entirely replace Prolaw?

Answer 19. Prolaw is the current case management system used by the Review Commission. This system includes contacts, events and documents associated with standard events. Any new solution can be seen as a potential replacement or adjunct to existing as a hosted solution.

Question 20. Please detail SLA and availability of the new e-filing and case management system?

Answer 20. SLA will be part of the agreement that the Review Commission negotiates with the successful offeror.

Question 21. Is all of the data that needs to be migrated residing currently in the SQL 2005 server database? If not, please clarify which applications or systems/databases does the data need to be migrated from?

Answer 21. All information is maintained within Prolaw/SQL 2005 Database and file folder (documents).

Question 22. Are there any specific page length requirements for the proposal response for specific sections - technical, past performance and pricing sections?

Answer 22. See Section 11 of the Performance Work Statement for Proposal Submission Instructions.

Question 23. Will OSHRC consider a FedRamp certified cloud service provider as part of the hosted solution?

Answer 23. Yes

Question 24. Can an extension of the RFP response deadline be granted in order for potential vendors to incorporate Q&A feedback into the proposal response?

Answer 24. This is FY 2013 requirement and no extensions are being granted.

Question 25. What is the procurement timeline for this initiative? Does OSHRC expect to kick-off prior to Oct 1, 2013?

Answer 25. The E-Filing solution is a fiscal year 2013 requirement. The contract will be award and work will begin by September 30, 2013.

Question 26. Is funding for this initiative approved in the FY’13 budget or in FY’14?

Answer 26. Since the E-Filing solution is a fiscal year 2013 requirement, the contract will be funding from the Agency’s FY 2013 appropriation.

Question 27. In section 4.0 (Statement of Need) – the Government indicated “The existing CMS runs within a Microsoft Sequel 2005 environment; and the preference would to be to have the successful offeror host the CMS and develop and host an API that would allow users to drag valid filings into the CMS”. Is the Government requiring offerors propose migration of the existing OSHA RC CMS into a hosted environment? Or simply that our proposed solution (which will be hosted) is able to integrate into the existing CMS in the OSHA RC environment?

Answer 27. The Review Commission would prefer a hosted a solution that will either integrate with what we are currently using or a replacement that the successful offeror can successfully migrate existing collected information.

Question 28. Task 5, Solution Development and Implementation – The Government is requesting this task be priced on a firm fixed price basis. Given the full requirements for the solution are not yet defined, please confirm offerors can propose an estimated price for this task as opposed to a firm, fixed price.

Answer 28. Potential offeror are encouraged to provide sufficient information to allow the Agency to estimate the cost of services required to support task 5. Estimates should provide sufficient detail and include a description of the proposed services, estimated number of hours to complete the task, and the hourly rate for the occupation (e.g., Engineer, Senior Engineer, Programmer, ect.) assigned to support the task.

Question 29. In section 11 (Proposal Submission Requirements) – the Government referenced Attachment 1 as a sample price/cost table. Please confirm that offerors may modify the format of this table in order to provide more detailed pricing information (i.e. labor categories, hours, rates, etc.) for each task.

Answer 29. Offerors are encouraged to modify the template as necessary. The sample was provided for informational purposes only. However, the cost/price section of the proposal must at least include the information contained in Attachment 1.

Question 30. In order to accurately price the software licenses and annual maintenance cost, please advise how many named end-users and concurrent users should be included in the license price.

Answer 30. Named users would include the ALJ’s, support staff and OSHRC personnel 50. The Review commission processes around 2,500 cases annually and currently maintains a 40 concurrent license for internal users only. Total end user community will be based on selected offerors solution as we do not have sufficient demographics to provide a realistic number at this time.

Question 31. In the PWS, Task 4 is titled Solution Development and Task 5 is titled Solution Development and Implementation. Please clarify the differences between these two tasks.

Answer 31. Task 4 development and implementation plan: (what will it take) Task 5 is development and implementation costs (security and privacy concerns addressed as well as running with test data)

Question 32. Based on the deliverables listed under Task 4 and Task 5, it is not clear if the Government is looking for only the plans as specified or are these tasks expected to include actual solution development support?

Answer 32. The Agency anticipates that proposed solutions will include actual solution development support.

Question 33. Is this system seen as a replacement of the current system or is it seen as a new interface for replacement of the current eFiling process via email?

Answer 33. OSHRC requirement is for an e-filing solution that could be part of a new system or supplement the existing CMS.

Question 34. When referring to a hosted solution does the government mean hosted off-site in the contractor’s facility?

Answer 34. Offsite hosting either at the contractor’s facility or a partners facility.

Question 35. Does the government wish to have service desk support for the application discussed in the response?

Answer 35. Most of the support will be initiated at the OSHRC but the successful offeror must have the capability to provide at a minimum level one support to the users OSHRC user community and Level three and better for technical issues (priced in hours).

Question 36. Everything is measured in business days. Is this the intent?

Answer 36. The solicitation states which deadlines are measured in business days and those that are measured in calendar days. Based on the proposed solution, the Agency reserves the right to discuss the delivery schedule during the contract negotiation.

Question 37. The RFQ seems to indicate the government is soliciting for a solution implementation and not simply planning. Is this interpretation correct?

Answer 37. Yes

Question 38. The cost price table us requesting system costs for hosting, license fees, maintenance fees and other fees. The schedule of deliverables states this information is due 180 days after award. Which is correct?

Question 38. Potential offerors are encouraged to provide estimates for the costs for hosting, license fees, maintenance and other fees based on their proposed solution. The Agency is aware that cost information provided in the proposal is an estimate and to be used only for the cost/price analysis.

Question 39. Please confirm all due dates in the deliverables table are measured in business days.

Answer 39. The deliverable schedule is based on calendar days.

Question 40. Can you supply the current business process model referred to in paragraph 4 on page 2?

Answer 40. The current model is a Thompson Reuters’ product (Prolaw V11.7) which contains (contacts, docketable events with associated documents and a customized screen used to address reportable elements for ad-hoc queries made by staff.

Question 41. Can we get table structures or a model of the existing database(s) in order to assess data migration risks and sub-tasks?

Answer 41. A model of the existing database(s) is not currently available. The structure includes events, event descriptions, documents associated with each events, dates, contacts, addresses standard SQL 2005 table layout.

Question 42. What are/is the name(s) of the COTS tools currently in use?

Answer 42. Thompson Reuters Prolaw version 11.10

Question 43. What Content Management System is currently in use?

Answer 43. We currently have no WEB presence for our CMS and rely on exchanger server for delivery of filings.

Question 44. External User Acceptance Testing is due at the same time as the report outlining actions to take for actual solution development. Does the government anticipate a rapid development or iterative approach toward a prototype for this level of acceptance testing, or is a Release 1 of the solution required within 240 days of the contract?

Answer 44: Rapid development approach.

Question 45. What is the expected growth in terms of projected database size, number of unique users, number of cases filed and user visits per day over the next 5 years?

Answer 45. We expect an average of 2,500 cases per year with approximately 30,000 to 60,000 filings(PDF,Video,audio) per year. At a minimum the user community at the OSHRC will be accessing daily (40) and the outside user community can only be estimated at this time to be (200) and could grow somewhat in the later years as a front end may be opened up for non-litigants.

Question 46. What browsers (and versions) does the agency consider to be the targeted list of “all major browsers”?

Answer 46. Major players: Explorer Version 6 and up, Opera, Firefox, Safari, Chrome, Mozilla, OmniWeb, icab, conqueror and Epiphany

Question 47. Please correct or clarify the security checklist URL referenced in the “Security” paragraph of Section 10, Special Requirements

Answer 47. http://www.nist.gov/itl/csd/scm/security-checklists.cfm and http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/ncp/repository