FY2025 FPAC IT Industry Day QA Final.pdf

FY2025 Farm Production and Conservation (FPAC) IT Industry Day – Questions and Answers (Q&A)

Contents

STRATUS

-2)

FPAC

1. Will this event be recorded?

Yes. The recording of today's session will be available August 30, 2024.

USDA FY25 FPAC Virtual IT Industry Day Recording

2. How should we provide our email address to receive the slide presentation?

Please provide your contact information to Sheryl Welch at Sheryl.Welch@usda.gov.

3. What are CLPs?

CLPs (Continuous Learning Points) are professional development credits for USDA employees.

4. Please indicate whether each opportunity is a new or existing contract. If it is an existing contract, can you provide the name of the current incumbent?

If an opportunity is an existing contract, the incumbent prime contractor is listed in the presentation. If no incumbent is listed, the opportunity is new.

5. Can you share the period of performance (POP) for each contract?

An estimated period of performance has been added to the presentation. This information, like all other information presented, is subject to change.

6. When the slides are sent out, can we get the information of each person who briefed the slide? Is it possible to include the POCs for each requirement?

Sheryl Welch continues to serve as the conduit for FPAC’s IT requirements. We are refraining from sharing information on individual presenters for the different programs to allow program staff to remain focused on program delivery. Sheryl Welch can be reached at Sheryl.Welch@usda.gov.

7. Will FPAC give preference to incumbents for these opportunities, or are new vendors also considered?

We do not give preference to incumbents. We seek to engage in competition to find the best solution to meet the government’s needs. Whether that solution comes from an incumbent or a new vendor, our goal is to achieve the best value and success for the government.

8. How does USDA view and engage with new entrants?

FPAC uses a few strategies. One is this FPAC IT Industry Day where we communicate a high-level overview of our requirements and provide a way to express interest. An acquisition planning team for each requirement conducts market research which includes any vendors who expressed interest through the FPAC IT Industry Day survey. Market research activities vary based on the size and complexity of the requirement and may range from a request for information or sources sought to a requirement-specific industry day event. Understanding that incumbents naturally have access to intangible information about our culture and cadence, FPAC is conscious of identifying and explaining information about our environment, culture, and expectations in the solicitation to foster an “even playing field” among offerors.

In addition to the market research completed by the acquisition planning team, contracting offices may conduct additional market assessments to support a requirement. Using this market research data, USDA Contracting Officers select solicitation methods that facilitate competitive bids among small business to the maximum practical extent. Preference is not applied to incumbent contractors and new entrants are provided with fair opportunities to compete. It is recommended that businesses interested in USDA opportunities should regularly consult Government points of entry (e.g., sam.gov) for opportunities and check-in with the FPAC Small Business Specialist Sheryl Welch at Sheryl.Welch@usda.gov and the POD Small Business Specialist Danielle Knipper at Danielle.Knipper@usda.gov on a regular interval.

9. How will the government ensure a more even playing field as they conduct the acquisition process of each re-compete? RFI’s?, DRFP’s?, DPWS’/SOW’s?, pre-solicitation/proposal conferences inclusive of open Q&A’s?, etc.? Comment: It was briefed industry’s communication interface (information exchange) for each opportunity will be only through FPAC’s SB Professional (Ms. Sheryl Welch) and there will be no communication/interface with the USDA FPAC government program managers etc. (minus the corresponding acquisition staff). As a non-incumbent small business new to the FPAC work environment this appears to be an unfair advantage for the respective incumbents who have a daily open door to both the FPAC government program management leadership/staff as well as the FPAC SB office.

First, government program management leadership and staff do not discuss upcoming acquisition requirements with incumbents. Discussions with incumbents are specific to execution of active contracts. FPAC does recognize that simply working with the government provides incumbents with a level of familiarity and understanding of the government environment.

As discussed in the previous question, the FPAC acquisition planning teams make a concerted effort to identify and communicate critical information that potential offerors need to know about FPAC’s environment, culture, program status, and plans as part of the solicitation process. This may include providing copies of program roadmaps, descriptions of existing IT applications, architectural diagrams, and sharing FPAC’s technical guidance framework and software development lifecycle.

Prior to releasing the solicitation, USDA Contracting Officers often attached drafts of FPAC IT requirement performance work statements and solicitations to requests for information. Potential offerors have an opportunity, often early in the acquisition planning process, to ask questions and identify confusing or opaque information. FPAC leverages this feedback to challenge our internal assumptions and jargon and to identify additional information needed in the performance work statement or solicitation to provide a clear, comprehensive picture of the requirement to non-incumbents.

Depending on the size and complexity of a requirement, the acquisition planning team may conduct additional interactive market research activities such as a requirement-specific industry day or one-on-one discussions. The government program managers, product owners, and customers of the IT services are the acquisition planning team. As much as vendors interested in FPAC’s IT requirements would like to speak individually with government program managers, these individuals must focus their time on delivering services to America’s farmers, ranchers, producers, insurance providers, and conservationists. We leverage our Small Business Coordinators and structured market research activities to provide access to program information and foster open competition.

10. Would FPAC consider offering targeted and interactive information sessions with the programs represented so that interested companies can obtain further information to bring our best proposals forward?

The market research will be guided by the individual requirement. For the larger and more complex requirements, we are encouraging interactive market research activities with a broad range of potential offerors.

11. How can I have further dialogues with some of the program managers about their requirements?

Depending on the size and complexity of a requirement, the acquisition planning team may conduct additional interactive market research activities such as a requirement-specific industry day or one-on-one discussions. The government program managers, product owners, and customers of the IT services are the acquisition planning team. As much as vendors interested in FPAC’s IT requirements would like to speak individually with government program managers, these individuals must focus their time on delivering services to America’s farmers, ranchers, producers, insurance providers, and conservationists. We leverage our Small Business Coordinators and structured market research activities to provide access to program information and foster open competition.

12. Can you share the annual dollar value for each contract?

13. Can you clarify the Estimated Annual Value for each opportunity? Is this figure the Total Contract Value or an Annual Contract Value?

14. Can the government more fully explain the meaning of the Estimated Annual Value of every contract discussed? Is it an annual value per year or is it the total contract value over the life of the contract itself (entire period of performance [POP])? Comment: Every slide highlighted an “Estimated Annual Value” for each of the programs briefed however, it appeared each contract discussed to be listed as the total contract value.

Response applies to questions 12-14.

The Estimated Annual Value in the presentation is the estimated annual contract value including any optional work clins. The total contract value is the estimated annual value multiplied by the number of years in the estimated period of performance (added to the presentation).

For example, the FPAC Program Financial Systems Agile Support requirement on slide 11 has an estimated value of $1-3 million and a period of performance of three years. The total contract value is $3-9 million.

15. Are the OCI concerns specific to FPAC IT or applicable to the entire USDA?

Organizational conflicts of interest (OCI) are specific to FPAC IT requirements unless otherwise noted.

16. Can FPAC identify the names of the specific agency where projects that are OCI’s will be performed, i.e., NRCS, FSA or RMA and apply the OCIs to that specific agency only instead of using an umbrella approach?

Organizational conflicts of interest (OCI) are applied by contract and apply only to the services provided by that contract. Some FPAC IT contracts support a specific agency, so any OCI are specific to that agency. Some FPAC IT contracts provide services supporting the entire mission area. For those contracts, any OCI would apply across the mission area.

17. Would the government consider a mitigation plan for projects where the is an OCI?

Mitigating an organizational conflict of interest (OCI) must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

In some situations, the government has accepted a mitigation plan. Some requirements preclude use of a mitigation plan. Potential Offerors interested in a requirement where an OCI has been identified may discuss the situation with the Contracting Officer. The Contracting Officer has final decision authority about whether to consider or accept a mitigation plan.

18. Where can we find all FY25 requirements?

19. At the bottom of some slides, a Procurement Forecast ID is listed. Is there a URL where industry participants can view these forecasts?

20. Can you provide contract numbers for all acquisitions planned for FY25?

Response applies to questions 18-20.

FY25 requirements are found in the Forecast of Business Opportunities | USDA identified by procurement forecast number. FPAC currently is updating the procurement forecast information for continuing requirements to include active contract numbers.

21. Are the FY25 requirements intended only for small business set-aside vendors?

Procurement approaches are determined based on the requirement and market research results.

USDA has a small business-first approach to its IT acquisitions and will maximize opportunities for small businesses.

22. What percentage of contracts awarded each FY are with new industry partners to FPAC?

In FY2023, 10.2% of FPAC contracts went to new entrants as defined by OMB Memorandum M-23-11, 37.7% of FPAC contracts were awarded to new entrants and recent entrants combined (after the removal of micro-purchase awards that do not apply toward these percentages until they receive awards above the micro-purchase limit), and 80.34% of these went to small businesses.

23. Are there any upcoming FPAC vendor conferences? If so, where can we find information about them?

SAM.gov is an excellent source for this information.

USDA Vendor Outreach Program

USDA OSDBU Small Business Connections Event

24. What are FPAC's socio-economic goals for this year, and did FPAC meet its target in all socio-economic categories?

FY2024 is underway, and every dollar obligated through the end of the year impacts FPAC actual performance. As of August 19, 2024, FPAC is on track to exceed its socio-economic goals.

Socio-Economic Category FPAC FY2024 Goal

FPAC Actuals (as of 8/19/2024)

Small Business 57.5% 86.6% Small Disadvantaged Business (USDA-wide target is 27.85%) 47.03% 57.3%

Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business 5% 16.2% Woman-Owned Small Business 7% 22.4%

HUBZone Small Business 3% 4%

25. What are your preferred contracting approaches for services (e.g., FFP, T&M)?

We let the requirements guide our contracting approaches. While we generally prefer firm fixed price (FFP), we are open to other methods if justified. Our goal is to structure the contract to best meet the requirements and ensure performance-based contracting. The focus is on what is appropriate for each requirement, rather than a rigid approach.

26. Have any of these contracts been classified at any level?

No, the work we do in FPAC does not involve classified information.

27. Does FPAC IT and Cybersecurity Requirements require FCLs?

Facility clearance is only required in specific situations. All FPAC IT service requirements include Public Trust clearance and a fingerprint check at a minimum.

28. Are there any contracts that include GIS mapping or analysis services?

The Conservation Agile Release Trains include geospatial requirements.

29. Can FPAC share a list of vendors interested in partnering or teaming on the opportunities, provided they agree?

This can potentially be done on a case-by-case basis. It does not exist as this time. If interested, please express your interest to Sheryl Welch at sheryl.welch@usda.gov. Provide the opportunity, your capability statement, and convey your interest in teaming or partnering.

30. Are there any current or future requirements for your current incumbents to work with small businesses?

Procurement approaches are determined based on the requirement and market research results.

USDA has a small business-first approach to its IT acquisitions and will maximize opportunities for small businesses. If an incumbent is not within the target socio-economic category for a procurement, they may choose to partner or team with a small business who is. FPAC does not provide guidance or restrictions on potential partnering arrangements.

31. Can we get a list of incumbent firms for potential teaming?

The presentation lists the name of incumbent prime contractors for each existing requirement.

32. How do we register as a small business reseller?

This is a broad question, so we are providing multiple responses.

1. Referencing FPAC Hardware/Software requirements: Email your interest to Sheryl Welch at sheryl.welch@usda.gov, include your capability statement to initiate the process for USDA FPAC opportunity engagement. Please keep in mind that we leverage USDA-wide contract vehicles to fill these requirements before seeking other sources to fill these needs.

2. If you are looking to become an USDA-wide reseller of hardware/software, you need to engage with OCIO and its Small Business Specialist, Laurence Gill, laurence.gill@usda.gov.

3. If you are looking to become an industry reseller for a particular software or hardware, you need to reach out to that industry POC to inquire into becoming a Federal Government Reseller. Federal Government expects industry to be procurement ready when a business seeks government contracts. The reseller must form the relationship between itself and the industry provider prior to competing for the Hardware/Software.

STRATUS

33. What is STRATUS? Is it a contract vehicle?

STRATUS is a Basic Ordering Agreement (BOA) established by USDA as a strategic source.

The BOA includes three pools for cloud service providers (pool 1), integration and development services including managed services (pool 2), and software-as-a-service (pool 3). For more information, please contact Emily Strunk at Emily.Strunk@usda.gov.

34. Do you have an on-ramp process for the STRATUS BOA?

Yes. For more information, please contact the STRATUS contracting officer, Emily Strunk at Emily.Strunk@usda.gov.

35. What is the difference between STRATUS Pool 1 and Pool 2?

STRATUS Pool 1 provides cloud hosting services, while Pool 2 provides integration and development services including managed services.

36. Does STRATUS allow for direct awards?

Yes, it does allow for direct awards but all posting requirements for any sole source need to be followed.

37. Are there opportunities for new entrants in the STRATUS BOA?

There will be future opportunities through an onboarding RFQ. Date for RFQ is to be determined.

38. Can you explain when STRATUS vs SEWP would be used for software requirements?

STRATUS is a new tool, so its use compared to SEWP is not yet fully established. Currently, we rely heavily on SEWP. We will need to undergo training, acquire the Delegation of Procurement Authority, and research the available sources for SaaS software within Pool 3. We will assess which method best meets technical requirements, facilitates maximum competition, and supports small businesses on a case-by-case basis.

39. If we do not have certifications such as GSA, SBA 8(a), STRATUS, or NASA SEWP, are we still eligible to be awarded contracts?

Yes, you can still be eligible for contracts even without these certifications. We often consider open market opportunities where you can express interest in projects. Additionally, there may be opportunities to team with other contractors who have these certifications or to be added to relevant programs. While we use STRATUS and SEWP extensively, we also explore open market options. Monitoring SAM.gov for USDA opportunities is recommended.

40. How do you anticipate using the STRATUS unrestricted BOA?

41. What estimated percentage will STRATUS be used for new FY25 FPAC acquisitions and opportunities?

42. How much will SEWP VI be used going forward?

43. Will USDA use GSA HACS as a BIC given its underutilization but strong cyber capabilities?

44. Would you consider using OASIS or OASIS+?

45. Would USDA consider using OASIS+ SB or other socio-economic categories?

This response applies to questions 40-45.

USDA identifies procurement strategies based on individual requirement and the insights gained from market research. Using market research data, USDA Contracting Officer’s select solicitation methods that facilitate competitive bids among small business to the maximum extent practicable. We consider factors such as socio-economic targets and set asides to help us meet those targets. While some contracts may be strategic sources for USDA, we do not allocate a certain percentage of our requirements to any particular contract vehicle. Instead, we let the requirements and the market research guide us on a case-by-case basis.

46. If we offer SaaS product through SEWP and GSA, should we consider exploring additional contract vehicles? If so, what would you suggest?

STRATUS is a strategic source for USDA. You may want to explore STRATUS Pool 3.

47. What is the SBA 8(a) contract maximum?

Reference FAR 19.805-1 and 19.808-1

The anticipated total value of the contract, including options, will NOT exceed $7 million for acquisitions assigned manufacturing North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes and $4.5 million for all other acquisitions. Unless there is not a reasonable expectation that two or more 8(a)’s are available for competition above these thresholds OR SBA accepts the requirement on behalf of a concern owned by an Indian tribe or an Alaska Native Corporation.

For an Indian tribe or an Alaska Native Corporation, the SBA may not accept for negotiation a sole-source 8(a) contract that exceeds $25 million unless the requesting agency has completed a justification in accordance with the requirements of 6.303.

48. Which department will request certifications, such as GSA or SBA 8(a)?

If the solicitation is not on a government-wide acquisition contract (GWAC), USDA validates socio-economic status via SAM.gov. If needed, a Contracting Officer may consult with the Small Business Coordinator and Small Business Administration.

If the solicitation uses a GWAC, the Agency administering the GWAC confirms socio-economic status per the terms of the GWAC. USDA may choose to revalidate socio-economic status for an FPAC IT requirement at the Contracting Officer’s discretion.

The Small Business Administration validates socio-economic status for direct awards under SBA 8(a) authority.

49. Can we participate in market research without having any contracts at this point in time?

Yes. We value fresh ideas and welcome new participants. While we appreciate our incumbents’ contributions, we are eager to explore new perspectives and solutions. If you find a requirement that resonates with you, please express interest.

50. Is participating in RFI/market research important for new firms?

Yes. Participating in market research provides you an opportunity to learn about FPAC’s requirements and FPAC an opportunity to learn about you.

51. Can you provide notional timing on when formal market research activities will begin, specifically when RFIs and SSNs will be released for best-in-class and internal USDA vehicles?

Market research for FPAC’s FY25 IT requirements is in process now. We do not have timing for specific market research activities since market research is determined by each acquisition planning team to obtain information and address open questions for that requirement.

52. Where do you post your MRAS postings?

While GSA offers Market Research as a Service (MRAS) to several federal agencies, FPAC tends to conduct its market research in-house. Requests for information may be posted in a variety of locations including on SAM.gov, on government-wide acquisition contracts (GWAC) or USDA strategic sources, or via email to vendors expressing interest through the FPAC IT Industry Day Survey or FPAC Small Business Coordinator.

53. Has a contract vehicle been selected? If so, which one?

No, we are in the early stages of market research and have not yet decided on a contract vehicle.

We are evaluating requirements and options and will use market research to guide our decisions.

54. What is the estimated RFP release date?

RFPs are typically released about three months prior to the target award date, but this may vary based on the acquisition planning process.

55. Who is the current incumbent?

This is a “new requirement” so there is no active contract for these services currently. The previous series were paused, and we do not have a current incumbent.

56. What is the legacy system being migrated from?

We are migrating from multiple financial applications, with the Core General Ledger being the primary system to be phased out once programs are moved to FMMI.

57. Is this a single award or multiple award contract?

While the procurement approach is not final, FPAC currently expects to compete this as a single award.

58. Do you plan to create a new BPA or utilize existing IDIQs/BOAs like STRATUS?

While the procurement approach is not final, FPAC currently expects to compete this as a single delivery order or contract.

59. Will the modernized FMMI system be a vendor product outside of the mainframe environment?

The modernized USDA Financial Management Modernization Initiative (FMMI) system is not part of this procurement. FMMI is an SAP solution owned and managed by USDA Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO). The FSA/CCC Financial Improvement Program (FFIP) will interface our program financial applications and data with FMMI. Once complete, we will be using FMMI as our General Ledger versus our current mainframe CORE General Ledger.

60. Can the government more fully explain who the company was and how this is a new requirement? Comment: It was briefed this is a new requirement however, a previous company was mentioned as having worked on this requirement (Teracyne (Sp)???).

TeraThink/Dominion Consulting previously supported this program under a contract that ended in 2022. While services provided under the previous contract are part of this requirement, this opportunity contains additional requirements.

61. Are the annual values for FY25-26 ($1-3 million) and FY27-29 ($3-5 million) each FY or the combined FY’s respectively? In other words, is the combination of each FY amounts equaling the combination of each FY resulting in a higher number as listed or the total of $1M-$3M for both FY25 & FY26 and the same for FY27-FY29 ($3M-$5M)?. Simply put, what is the total contract value of the contract overall?

Comment: Additionally, for this contract itself, the government lists the Estimated Annual Value of this contract as such, FY25-26: $1-3 million, FY27-29: $3-5 million

The estimated value for the life of the requirement is approximately $18 Million. The fiscal year breakout provides estimated value for each year and shows growth from the first two years to the last three years.

62. Which contract vehicle will be used?

We are in the early stages of market research and have not yet decided on a contract vehicle. We are evaluating requirements and options and will use market research to guide our decisions.

63. What is the term of the contract?

We are considering a base term with four option years, although this is subject to change.

64. Will the vendor who assumes this role be restricted from bidding on the actual software development work due to possible conflicts of interests?

Likely yes. This requirement involves coaching and providing independent expertise, so it presents a conflict of interest with the delivery contract. This independent contractor would not be eligible to bid on the software development work.

65. What contract will be used for the software development and delivery services?

The active Program Financial Services Software Delivery (12314422F0496) task order provides software development and delivery services.

66. What is the current agile maturity level or adoption level?

We have been using Agile since 2019 and consider our process to be quite mature. However, we do not independently assess our Agile maturity and adoption.

67. Are you using Jira as the project management tool?

Yes, we are using Jira as the project management tool.

68. Can you elaborate on the FFIP and its multi-vendor requirement?

The Program Financial Agile Release Train (PFT) supports our financial applications and projects (including FSA/CCC Financial Improvement Program or FFIP). The Agile Release Train teams contain personnel from multiple organizations (federal and contract) to support comprehensive planning and delivery to meet Business Owner objectives including enhancements in support of FFIP.

The teams include government employees from the Information Solutions Division Financial Services Section and Shared Services Section and the Financial Management Division Financial Operation Systems Section. The teams also contractors from the Program Financial Services Software Delivery task order (12314422F0496) and the FPAC Quality Management and Testing contract (12314422D0017). In the future, the PFT also will coordinate with the FFIP Product Management Support delivery order (to be awarded in FY25) and USDA OCFO FMMI development and maintenance teams.

The FPAC Financial Systems Agile Support Contract involves coaching and providing independent expertise to the PFT, therefore this contractor should be independent of the other contract teams that are part of the PFT.

69. Is this the ELM-3 recompete?

No, this requirement for the Conservation Agile Release Trains was the ELM-4 requirement in fiscal year 2020 that resulted in the Conservation Blanket Purchase Agreement.

70. Will this be an IDIQ or BPA, or a consolidation of multiple contracts?

We anticipate multiple awards from this, which may involve one or more solicitations. Although we’re discussing it as a single requirement today, it will support various value streams and could result in multiple task orders or delivery orders. The procurement approach has not been finalized.

71. For these program requirements, could you share the preferred data platforms (e.g., Salesforce, ServiceNow, Appian) used by each group?

Currently, different trains use various technology stacks, but there is a major effort underway to migrate to AWS Cloud.

72. Is the work performed on contractor sites, government sites, or a combination of both?

We are not providing a government site. In the past, FPAC hosted on-site Program Increment planning events. We have now moved those to virtual, but there is discussion about whether they may be in-person again. Daily work will not be at a government site.

73. Can you describe the size and composition of the scrum teams involved?

Scrum team sizes vary based on the application and requirements. Smaller teams typically consist of 4-6 members, while larger teams range from 8-14 members. Generally, team sizes are between 6-14 people.

74. How many terms will this contract have?

Currently, we are considering a base term plus four option years. However, that is not final.

Acquisition planning is ongoing and subject to change.

75. Who are the current prime contractors?

The current prime contractors are Highland Technology Services Inc, Technology Solutions Provider, Inc., Ventera Corporation, and Eagle Harbor Solutions, LLC.

76. Which contract vehicle will be used? Is this contract suitable for STRATUS?

The procurement strategy has not been finalized.

77. Will this procurement cover all trains under a single contract, or will it be split into five separate procurements? Are all five trains expected to be competed?

We anticipate multiple awards from this, which may involve one or more solicitations. Although we’re discussing it as a single requirement today, it will support various value streams and could result in multiple task orders or delivery orders. The value streams supported by the existing

Metis, Money, Olympia, and Odin agile release trains will be competed. Prometheus is not planned in this recompete. FPAC may define different or additional agile release trains.

78. Will there be a program management component to ensure all teams are aligned and adhere to consistent enterprise standards, or will management be handled separately for each program?

The Conservation Solution Train ensures solution-wide alignment across the agile release trains.

This is accomplished through program increment planning events and program increment retrospectives. During these events, solution-wide plans align individual release trains and establish cross-train dependency management. In addition, all trains are bound by the FPAC software development lifecycle and FPAC Technology Guidance Framework. FPAC is considering inclusion of additional customer experience standards for all teams to ensure a seamless user experience with NRCS systems.

In addition, the FPAC Program Management Services task order staffs a Value Stream Management Office (VMO) to coordinate solution-wide program management functions.

79. Can a single vendor submit proposals for multiple Conservation Agile Release Trains opportunities?

80. Will the vendors be allowed to participate in multiple Agile Release Trains, and if not, can you please explain why? Previously, vendors were allowed to respond to at least one larger train and other smaller trains; will FPAC consider taking this approach again?

Response addresses questions 79-80.

Previously, solicitations for these requirements were shaped to allow a contractor to support more than one (but not all) agile release trains. With the advent of the Inflation Reduction Act, none of the Conservation Agile Release Trains are considered small anymore. The solicitation approach for the recompeted requirements has not been finalized.

81. Does this contract fall under a specific digital modernization strategy?

The FPAC IT Modernization Roadmap aligns to and supports the USDA Digital and Modernization Strategy. In addition, all FPAC IT services must operate within the FPAC Technical Guidance Framework which includes a Cloud Memorandum guiding tactical digital modernization decisions.

82. Why was AWS chosen over Azure for this project?

This project aligns to the FPAC Technical Guidance Framework which includes a Cloud Memorandum identifying AWS East-West (commercial) and a third-party (Anitian) commercial

General Support System (GSS) for FPAC’s cloud hosting needs. Specifics of FPAC’s decision are internal.

83. Will FPAC consider expanding ART development contract scope to include standardized operations automation to improve Conservation product delivery?

Standardized operations automation is a standard part of our move to AWS and is being integrated into all software products. The Conservation environment is large and complex, so this effort will be implemented over two years.

84. Will this vendor be allowed to respond under the multiple Conservation Agile Release Trains?

No, there is an organizational conflict of interest. A vendor involved in SETA work cannot participate in software delivery for the Conservation Program Delivery Area or the Conservation Solution Train.

85. How does the Solution Train, Agile Release Trains, and SETA requirements fit together?

The Conservation Solution Train ensures solution-wide alignment across the agile release trains, while Agile Release Trains develop, deliver, and maintain IT applications supporting different NRCS lines of business and value streams. FPAC currently has five Agile Release Trains supporting seven value streams. The SETA requirement evaluates current Conservation IT service delivery practices including Agile implementation and software quality, then recommends process improvements to the government. In addition, the FPAC Program Management Services task order staffs a Value Stream Management Office (VMO) to coordinate solution-wide program management functions.

86. Will the Conservation SETA work support the Agile Release Trains? Given the current size, do you anticipate increasing given the number of Agile Release Trains?

SETA will evaluate portfolio-wide Conservation IT service delivery practices and recommend improvement to the government. As the overall size of Conservation IT service delivery increases, measured by number of trains, scrum teams, product owners, program managers, and other considerations, SETA services also may expand. FPAC previously increase SETA capacity based on program growth.

87. Will being a SETA provider on this program restrict the ability to bid on other related work or FPAC programs?

Yes, serving as a SETA provider will present an organizational conflict of interest (OCI) with other Conservation IT service delivery functions and may have OCI restrictions with other FPAC programs. These conflicts will be identified and documented in the solicitation, draft solicitations, and RFIs as they are ready.

88. What Tree Name is SETA?

SETA did not have a tree name.

89. How do you evaluate a new contractor with relevant past performance and technical skills like SAFe but without direct FPAC experience?

Specific evaluation criteria will be defined by requirement and communicated in the solicitation.

Hypothetically, past performance or prior experience may assess performance or experience in comparable federal or non-federal environments with similar organizational, technical, and delivery complexity.

90. Is the incumbent eligible to recompete for this contract?

The procurement approach for this requirement is not final. USDA has a small business-first approach to its IT acquisitions and will maximize opportunities for small businesses. If an incumbent is not within the target socio-economic category for a procurement, they may choose to partner or team with a small business who is.

91. How are you leveraging no-code and low-code solutions to facilitate upskilling and accelerate software development?

NRCS trains are currently using no-code or low-code tools such as SmartBear ReadyAPI to accelerate functional, security, and load testing for CI/CD pipelines and for test automation across workflows.

92. Which contract vehicle will be used?

The procurement approach for this requirement has not been determined.

93. Is this a multiple award contract? If not, are incumbents all performing the work under a single prime?

94. Is it FPAC’s intent to consolidate these requirements into one contract? Previously, FPAC’s vision was to break this into three separation acquisitions (Juniper, Gumtree, and Poplar).

Does FPAC anticipate a multiple or single award mechanism for this requirement?

Response addresses questions 93-94.

The procurement approach for this requirement has not been determined. Based on the size of the requirement, a multiple award contract is possible.

95. These are separate contracts. Will they now be issued as task orders under a single IDV?

What will happen to the existing contracts – will they be cut short and recompeted, or allowed to complete their PoP?

FPAC is pivoting to the Cottonwood IDV because the current contract structure does not align to FPAC demands. The contracting officers for Juniper, Gumtree, and Poplar will communicate intent individually to the impacted contractors.

96. Will the solicitation result in a task order, or will respondents have to meet all criteria?

While the exact procurement approach is not final, current acquisition planning pursues an IDV with the ability to release multiple delivery orders. An IDV awardee must be able to deliver all services defined within the IDV performance work statement. Delivery orders issued under the IDV would be narrower in scope.

97. When will the RFIs/RFPs be released?

The acquisition timeline is not set, although solicitations generally are released at least three months prior to the target award date. Acquisition planning for this requirement is very active, so market research activities including RFIs will occur soon.

98. Can these projects be done remotely, or is there an on-premises requirement for this program? If on-site, where are the locations?

Government site work is not required. Work may be performed at a contractor site or remotely.

99. Can you explain the preference for AWS over Azure? Will past performance with Azure Data Warehouse/Data Lake and ETL be considered relevant since both are similar cloud services?

This project aligns to the FPAC Technical Guidance Framework which includes a Cloud Memorandum identifying AWS East-West (commercial) and a third-party (Anitian) commercial

General Support System (GSS) for FPAC’s cloud hosting needs. Specifics of FPAC’s decision are internal.

100. What Data Governance tool are you using?

Data Governance can be a far-reaching term. FPAC uses Informatica’s Axon & ED for metadata and is researching other tools like Data Zone.

101. Does this group use Salesforce as a data tool for this project?

FPAC uses Salesforce for some IT applications. FPAC may use Salesforce as a data source, although current architecture does not. Salesforce is not a core data tool used within this requirement.

102. Will part of this work include assistance with moving to AWS?

Yes, data management services within this requirement are expected to support FPAC’s migration to AWS. The cloud migration roadmap is dynamic.

103. What is the current progress of the migration?

FPAC’s cloud migration roadmap is dynamic. Some migration projects are complete, while several others are in the final stages of customer validation and approval. Additional projects are in progress or are planned. FPAC expects to complete 66% of planned migration projects by the end of 2024.

104. Is there an automation validation process in place? If so, what tools are used for this task?

Not currently.

105. Is AI or automation being used to discover sensitive data or build models for LLMs?

Not currently.

106. Has the government considered using the USDA DISC Intelligent Automation BPA for this scope?

The procurement approach is not final. FPAC will include an assessment of this vehicle in our market research.

107. Which sources are you obtaining data from? Do you include open-source data or CONUS/OCONUS business intelligence?

The majority, if not all, data originates from FPAC business applications. Some FPAC agencies may ingest external data into business applications based on specific program delivery needs.

108. How can firms interested in subcontracting best advertise their interest in teaming for these procurements?

If interested, please express your interest to Sheryl Welch at sheryl.welch@usda.gov. Provide the opportunity, your capability statement, and convey your interest in teaming or partnering along with permission to share your information with small businesses who express interest in the requirement.

109. Does the program elicit feedback on software from the end-users, and if so how?

110. What is the current customer satisfaction level?

Response applies to 109-110.

FPAC surveys customer satisfaction annually. In the last survey, customers indicated neutral satisfaction with data management applications. The most recent survey is underway. In addition, new applications are in progress and have not collected customer satisfaction feedback.

111. What is the single biggest challenge for this program?

Lack of understanding that data management, reporting, and other analytics services are a critical component of IT application delivery. This leads to a misalignment between customer demand and available resources who must support new development and maintenance. Additionally, FPAC’s highly integrated delivery environment requires close coordination with other service providers. Dependency management is an ongoing pain point.

112. What would this program like to see the vendor achieve in the first option period?

Establish data management and analytics roadmaps reflecting customer priorities, thorough understanding of data sources, and realistic delivery expectations. Build trust with customers and key stakeholders through transparent, consistent communication. Timely, quality delivery of approved DME and O&M backlog tickets.

113. Who are the key decision-makers at the contract level and the program level?

The Assistant Chief Data Officer (ACDO) guides data governance and usage across FPAC, while FPAC agency data leads define program delivery requirements, manage associated product backlogs, and guide agency-based data analytics functions. The Information Solutions Division (ISD) provides data management services. The ACDO and ISD will manage the contract.

114. How is work prioritized currently for this program?

Mirroring Agile development practices, data management and analytics delivery are planned and prioritized by agency in two-week increments. Cross-agency services are coordinated via a monthly Data Governance Board meeting. Data management priorities are set by agency business owners in coordination with Information Solutions Division staff, managing for cross-team dependencies and team capacity.

115. What is the tech stack and development tools being used for this program?

For dashboard development, the tech stack includes Tableau, Power BI, SQL, python and R script. For data pipeline development, the tech stack includes AWS DMS, AWS Glue, Lambda, SSIS, and DataStage.

116. How often is software currently being released to production for this program?

FPAC data management and analytics do not adhere to a set release schedule. Instead, releases are driven by program need dates and release readiness.

117. Will this requirement be an 8(a) set-aside?

Yes, it is currently planned to be an 8(a) set-aside, although acquisition planning is ongoing and subject to change. We have not yet identified a specific vehicle. The most we know is that is expected to be an 8(a) set aside.

118. Will it specifically be an 8(a) ANC set-aside? The current incumbent is Aleut Information Technologies, LLC an ANC?

That Procurement strategy has not been finalized yet, so it is unclear if it will be an 8(a) ANC set-aside. We expect it to be part of the 8(a) program based on current information.

119. Could you provide more details on how Oracle, WWC, and Salesforce are relevant for the FPAC Digital Website Support?

120. How are Oracle WCC and Salesforce relevant for the project?

Response applies to questions 119-120.

Oracle WCC serves as the repository for several applications that will be hosted on the new Drupal-based sites, integrating to pull data for display on the websites. Salesforce is the backend for various Farmers.gov applications. Farmers access the Farmers.gov applications (that use Salesforce) through a link from the Farmers.gov website. As we migrate Farmers.gov and other related content from Oracle to Drupal, familiarity with both Oracle WCC and Salesforce will be essential for managing redesigns and migrations effectively.

121. Where are the unstructured data files stored within your Salesforce implementation?

The Farmers.gov and other FPAC websites do not store data in Salesforce. The websites provide a link to Salesforce-based applications.

122. Will an RFI be released?

123. Will an RFI be issued before the RFP for this procurement?

Response applies to questions 122-123.

Yes, FPAC plans to release an RFI and may conduct additional market research activities. At a minimum, FPAC uses RFIs to gather feedback on the draft performance work statement and to inform procurement approach decisions.

124. Are the websites currently FedRAMP compliant, or is achieving compliance part of the requirements for this contract?

Current websites are FedRAMP compliant. Website support must maintain compliance.

125. What platform is used to host the FPAC Digital Platform?

FPAC uses the USDA Enterprise Web Application Platform and Services (eWAPS) which uses Drupal technology.

126. Which contract vehicle will be used?

127. Could the GSA STARS III contract vehicle be considered for this opportunity?

128. Will the 8(a) STARS contract vehicle be used?

Response applies to questions 126-128.

The procurement approach has not been finalized. Market research will inform these decisions.

129. Is the estimated TCV $10-12 million per year? For how many years?

The annual estimated value is $10-12 million with an estimated period of performance for five years (base+4). The estimated total contract value is $50-60 million.

130. Would it be at all possible for you to e-introduce us (Polished Technologies & Teaming partner Riva Solution, Inc) to and possibly schedule a capabilities briefing with Kirk Benedict, the POC for this opportunity?

The acquisition planning team may conduct additional interactive market research activities such as a requirement-specific industry day or one-on-one discussions. The government program managers, product owners, and customers of the IT services are the acquisition planning team.

As much as vendors interested in FPAC’s IT requirements would like to speak individually with government program managers, these individuals must focus their time on delivering services to America’s farmers, ranchers, producers, insurance providers, and conservationists. We leverage our Small Business Coordinators and structured market research activities to provide access to program information and foster open competition. We are not scheduling individual capabilities briefings with program managers.

131. ID 500 and ID 6117 both refer to Website Development and there seems to be some confusion about them. The contract number associated with #500 is 12314421F0188 which according to FPDS-NG is a SAIC contract and not an Aleut Information Technology contract as indicated in the online forecast and in the briefings. The contract number associated with #6117 is 12314422C0103 which according to FPDS-NG is the Aleut Information Technology contract. My questions are: Are two different Website opportunities being solicited or just one? What is the correct information for the requirements being solicited?

The FPAC Digital Website Support fulfills the continuing requirements from contracts 12314422C0038 and 12314422C0103, both held by Aleut Information Technology, LLC. FPAC currently plans to pursue this as a single delivery order or contract.

132. What is the single biggest challenge for this program?

One of the single biggest challenges is to publish various unstructured datasets across the agency's websites easily and effectively.

133. What would this program like to see the vendor achieve in the first option period?

Addressing the existence of any backlogged items.

134. Who are the key decision-makers at the contract level and the program level?

The FPAC External Affairs Division establishes program delivery priorities, while the Information Solutions Division FPAC Business Center Services Section manages website delivery. The two organizations share program-level decision making. The Contracting Officer Representative (COR) works within the Information Solutions Division.

135. How is work prioritized currently for this program?

The External Affairs Division and Information Solutions Division meet regularly to review and prioritize website backlogs. This work reflects a mix of emerging time-sensitive requirements and long-term delivery improvements. Website owners balance these priorities to ensure critical program delivery deadlines are met in parallel with consistent progress towards strategic goals.

136. What is the tech stack and development tools being used for this program?

The tech stack is Linux, Apache, Microsoft, php, and uses the Drupal 8 Web Content Management application.

137. How often is software currently being released to production for this program?

While release schedules vary, FPAC seeks to release capabilities weekly.

138. Does the program elicit feedback on software from the end-users, and if so how?

Feedback from the public is provided by a Feedback button displayed on each agency website and is stored in Qualtrics for review by subject matter experts.

139. Will FPAC stay with Tungsten/Kofax, or will it transition to a different platform?

We currently are evaluating our options. For now, we plan to proceed with Tungsten for Release

2.0 over the next year. Afterward, we will assess whether to continue with Tungsten or consider alternative platforms based on value and performance.

140. When can we expect the RFI to be published?

RFI’s…