Q A_ETS2_10-20-2010.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 124 KB Posted
- Attached to
- E-Gov Travel Services 2. 0 (ETS2) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- SOL__QMAD-JM-100001-N
- Issued by
- GSA Federal Acquisition Service
About this file
Questions and Answers attached.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 50
E-Gov Travel Services 2. 0 (ETS2) has more files on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Section | Page | Requirement or Paragraph Number | Question or Comment | Answer |
| C.1 | 1 | N/A | How will the mandate to use ETS2 be enforced? (3rd para in Background) | Use of the EGOV Travel Service is mandated by the Federal Travel Regulation. The PMO will continue to work with both the Office of Government Wide Policy and OMB to ensure compliance to the FTR. |
| C.1 | 1 | 1 | What will be done to encourage standardization among federal agencies (Further discrete goals, subpara 1) | Many agency customizations in ETS1 were normalized into governmentwide requirements as part of the formation of this Statement of Work. CLINS have been included in Section B for the offeror to propose both supplemental customer support and interface development for requests beyond the standard integration costs during implementation. |
| C.1 | 2 | 7 | Travel process simplicity begins with federal travel regulations on which the ETS2 system will be based. How will the regulations be streamlined to facilitate the desired simplicity? | GSA Federal Acquisition Service is actively working with GSA Office of Governmentwide Policy and Office of Management and Budget to align policies for world class travel management. |
| C.1 | A-1 and following | Appendix A | Changing requirements documents during performance of the contract is too open-ended for a firm fixed price contract. Was the intent for any changes in these documents to be covered by the Changes clause as new requirements arise? | GSA has confirmed that it is a commercial practice in the Federal space that service providers anticipate changes to Federal regulations in their core fixed price. Vendors supporting the federal space do not charge ad hoc fees for each incremental change but rather work these changes into their minor and major release schedules. The price proposed for applicable CLINs should account for these changes. The only changes that will be negotiated are those anticipated by paragraph C.3.4, Changes in Commercial Travel Services. |
| C.1 | 2 | 18 | The ETS2 solicitation specifies that the prospective vendor will comply fully with Section 508 technical standards. Does the GSA anticipate that those standards will change and evolve materially after the contract award? If so, in what areas does the GSA expect those changes to impact the vendor solutions? | GSA has confirmed that it is a commercial practice in the Federal space that service providers anticipate changes to Federal regulations in their core fixed price. Vendors supporting the federal space do not charge ad hoc fees for each incremental change but rather work these changes into their minor and major release schedules. The price proposed for applicable CLINs should account for these changes. |
| C.1 | 2 | 20 | The ETS2 solicitation requires the prospective vendor to provide integrated and secure mobile device capability for online booking, authorizations, voucher creation and approvals. What criteria and standards will the GSA use to allow the vendor’s proposed solutions to be activated and employed within the federal agency community? Will currently available commercial solutions be acceptable as is, on the first day of business? | There are various mandatory and objective requirements in the Statement of Work that pertain to mobile devices. With respect to 'activation' of mobile device capabilities, the applications to reside on mobile devices will be required to pass security scan similar to all other software used in the ETS2 service. Please refer to Section C.6.1.3.1 #15. User access to mobile device applications for ETS2, once passed the master contract security scanning processes, will be subject to approval by the customer agency. |
| C.2.1 | 4 | If the requirements levied on a contractor change via the annual review and alteration of the charters, can bidders assume that those changes in requirements will be subject to the Changes clause of the contract? | The Contractor should plan for technology refresh over the life of the contract to include updated standards and incorporate their approach in the proposal. | |
| E.6.3.6 | 26 | N/A | Does the service have to be fully developed with FTR, JTR, JFTR for IV&V prior to award? | JTR is not included as a listed regulation. The JFTR requirements applicable under this contract are included in Attachment 12 and are included as mandatory, separately priced CLIN. Mandatory separately priced CLINs are not required to be completed for IV&V. The offeror is required to stipulate in its proposal when all mandatory separately priced functionality will be completed and available for testing by the Government. |
| C - Statement of Objectives | N/A | Section C neither provides a description of the system domain nor does it indicate whether Travel Management Centers, embedded or small business embedded TMCs are part of the system domain. Are TMCs part of the system domain? What responsibilities do the ETS-2 prime vendors have for ensuring embedded or small business embedded TMCs meet federal security requirements? If embedded TMCs are responsible for meeting the information system security requirements enumerated in Section C.6 and other related sections, how are the TMCs and the prime vendors expecting the costs of compliance to be incorporated into the available CLIN structures? How will federal security requirements be applied to TMCs operating under the TSS schedule? | Security requirements are associated with an Accreditation/Authorization Boundary. The boundary is defined in Section C, Appendix B: "Accreditation (Authorization) Boundary". The scope of this boundary, as described, does include ETMC's. Related questions concerning the cost/CLIN structures can be found in Section B. |
GSA is reviewing the TSS schedule and applicability of security requirements to TMCs operating under that schedule.
| C.4.1 | 12 | N/A | The potential amendments to the FTR, the JTR, the JFTR, and the FAM travel policies during a potential 15 year period of performance are unknown and cannot reasonably be estimated; therefore how does the government expect offerors to calculate in advance such costs over the life of the contract? | GSA has confirmed that it is a commercial practice in the Federal space that service providers anticipate changes to Federal regulations in their core fixed price. Vendors supporting the federal space do not charge ad hoc fees for each incremental change but rather work these changes into their minor and major release schedules. The price proposed for applicable CLINs should account for these changes. |
| C.4.1.1 | 12 | 1 | Under these provisions the Government has required that current and future compliance with unknowable and undefined future provisions of the FTR must be included within ETS2 without cost to the government and without the need for programming. These requirements are impossible to meet as the Government is requiring a contractor to commit to unknown events totally within the control of the Government. The scope of the work to be performed under this contract is not fixed and therefore use of a firm fixed price contract is not appropriate or consistent with the FAR. Such requirements exceed the Government’s minimum need which is delivery of an ETS2 system that as of the date of award meets the existing FTR requirements. We request that this provision be changed to read that any changes to the system to meet changed requirements of the Government be subject to an equitable adjustment? | GSA has confirmed that it is a commercial practice in the Federal space that service providers anticipate changes to Federal regulations in their core fixed price. Vendors supporting the federal space do not charge ad hoc fees for each incremental change but rather work these changes into their minor and major release schedules. The price proposed for applicable CLINs should account for these changes. |
| C.4.1.1 | 12 | 2 | Can the Federal Government predict what travel policy changes will be modified over the life of the agreement such that adequate planning can be put in place to accommodate such changes as required "at no additional cost on their effective date unless otherwise specified by the Government"? | GSA has confirmed that it is a commercial practice in the Federal space that service providers anticipate changes to Federal regulations in their core fixed price. Vendors supporting the federal space do not charge ad hoc fees for each incremental change but rather work these changes into their minor and major release schedules. The price proposed for applicable CLINs should account for these changes. |
| C.4.1.1 | 12 | N/A | Requirement 1a - The frequency and impact of changes in federal travel policy and the requirement to incorporate such changes into ETS2 cannot be reasonably ascertained. How will the Contractor be compensated for meeting this ongoing but undefined requirement? | GSA has confirmed that it is a commercial practice in the Federal space that service providers anticipate changes to Federal regulations in their core fixed price. Vendors supporting the federal space do not charge ad hoc fees for each incremental change but rather work these changes into their minor and major release schedules. The price proposed for applicable CLINs should account for these changes. |
| C.4.1.1 | 12 | N/A | Requirement 1c - Given that the Government’s preferred travel suppliers and rates may change quite frequently (at least annually, but for city pair carriers, more often), how will the Contractor be compensated for meeting this ongoing but undefined requirement? | GSA has confirmed that it is a commercial practice in the Federal space that service providers anticipate changes to Federal regulations in their core fixed price. Vendors supporting the federal space do not charge ad hoc fees for each incremental change but rather work these changes into their minor and major release schedules. The price proposed for applicable CLINs should account for these changes. |
| General | Will FedRAMP be applied to ETS2? | FedRAMP is currently focused on Low impact system requirements and therefore is not applicable to ETS2. Should FedRAMP publish requirements for Moderate impact systems, these requirements may be used as guidelines for governmentwide services. The refreshment and maintenance of the ETS2 service, as described in Section C.16 (Technology Refresh Transition), includes emerging technologies as well as Government policy updates. | ||
| C.4.1.1 | 12 | 2 | Federal Travel Policy Compliance - This clause requires compliance with FTR amendments at no additional cost upon their effective date. Can this be modified to state that it is limited to a particular dollar amount or percentage of functional change? | GSA has confirmed that it is a commercial practice in the Federal space that service providers anticipate changes to Federal regulations in their core fixed price. Vendors supporting the federal space do not charge ad hoc fees for each incremental change but rather work these changes into their minor and major release schedules. The price proposed for applicable CLINs should account for these changes. |
| C.4.1.1 | 12 | 3 | Federal Travel Policy Compliance - This clause requires compliance with multiple polices and their amendments at no additional cost upon their effective date. Can this be modified to state that it is limited to a particular dollar amount or percentage of functional change? | GSA has confirmed that it is a commercial practice in the Federal space that service providers anticipate changes to Federal regulations in their core fixed price. Vendors supporting the federal space do not charge ad hoc fees for each incremental change but rather work these changes into their minor and major release schedules. The price proposed for applicable CLINs should account for these changes. |
| C.4.1.1 | 12 | 4 | Federal Travel Policy Compliance - This clause requires compliance with the JFTR for Uniformed Service Members as defined in Attachement 12, JFTR and all amendments at no additional cost upon their effective date. Can this be modified to state that it is limited to a particular dollar amount or percentage of functional change? | GSA has confirmed that it is a commercial practice in the Federal space that service providers anticipate changes to Federal regulations in their core fixed price. Vendors supporting the federal space do not charge ad hoc fees for each incremental change but rather work these changes into their minor and major release schedules. The price proposed for applicable CLINs should account for these changes. |
| C.4.2.13.1.25 | 39 | 25 | The RFP states that “ETS2 shall provide the capability to print and, download and email, all travel documents in an easily readable format (such as PDF).” What security practices must the vendor support to facilitate the exchange of travel documents (which will include PII) via email? | The vendor must follow all security requirements as documented in section C.6 of the ETS2 Solicitation. This includes the exchange of travel documents (with PII data) via email or capability to print from a desktop. |
| C.4.2.14.2 | 42 | 2 | Will ETS2 Vendor gain credit with respect to SLAs for imported reservations from a third party? | No, the purpose of SLA2 is to measure users' ability to effectively and efficiently use the ETS2 contractor's OTRS. |
| C.4.2.18.1 | 49 | 13 | Given the FFP IDIQ nature of this contract, how do you scope to price this requirement? Will compensation to the ETS2 vendor be supported by new CLINs as outlined in C.3.4? | Changes in accounting classifications are not considered emerging services/enhancements for which commercial availability is currently limited. GSA has confirmed through market research that service providers can anticipate changes to accounting classifications in their core fixed price. Vendors offers should include a standard integration capability to meet the varying government-wide accounting classifications used by the different agencies. Therefore, migrating to one common accounting classification should be part of that standard offering. |
| C.4.2.19.1 | 53 | 1.b | The requirement to retain email and information sent on mobile devices for 75 months will require progressive storage capability as adoption increases. With the FFP IDIQ nature of this contract, how do you scope the "over the life of the contract" stipulation to price this requirement? | The requirement is applicable for all emails sent per NARA policy to be retained for 75 months. Service providers should include necessary capabilities to support this requirement over the life of the contract in their core fixed price |
| As discussed, it does not appear that the ETS2 RFP addresses FOIA requirements at all. I need to know if agencies can provide formal comments to GSA on the ETS2 RFP and 'who' to send them to. | E.6.2(a) addresses the marking of offeror's proprietary information as it relates to FOIA. Any comments/questions can be sent to the Contracting Officer at ETS2@GSA.GOV | |||
| After reading the RFP, I was surprised to see that the response date for this solicitation was 6 October when we had been told that it would a 60 day response time. This release occurred on the same day that we had a status meeting and no one ever mentioned that the timeline was adjusted. Can you explain the rationale behind why the response time was reduced and why we were not told about this change during the status update; I specifically asked about the timeline during the meeting? | Amendment 0003 extended the due date for proposals to November 15, 2010. | |||
| General | 1 | N/A | Request extension of the solicitation closing date of 75 days as the current date does not provide adequate time to analyze and respond to a revised solicitation which is materially different from the prior draft solicitation posted in April 2010. We have noted that mandatory requirements have increased by over 10 percent and that over 18 percent of the previously mandated requirements have been modified in some manner. The extension of the solicitation closing date would enable vendors to adequately evaluate a very complex and extensive solicitation, and to provide necessary to develop a quality and well-considered response. | Amendment 0003 extended the due date for proposals to November 15, 2010. |
| D.16 | 15 | 6 | Please provide the expected level and number of each security clearance that the contractor is expected to be responsible for. Under a firm fixed contract, the Government is required to specify its requirements such that a contractor can include such costs within its fees. Without such information, an offeror would have no idea of the obligations and costs it has agreed to. | This is addressed in C.6.1.1 , C.6.1.5.1, C.6.1.6.1, C.6.1.10.1, and Attachment 4. The exact number and level of background investigations/clearances must be determined by the Offeror based on their staffing plan and other parameters of their proposed offering. Security requirements are policy-driven and cannot be waived or weakened because of cost considerations. Such costs must be borne in the overall proposed contract pricing. |
| D.16 | 15 | 9 | This requirement is not specifically defined in order for an offeror to be able to price such services within the firm fixed price requested by the government. If such work is requested by an agency, is the CLIN for Supplemental Customer Support Services the appropriate CLIN to be used? If not, which CLIN should be used for this undefined work? | The applicability of this section to the question is unclear. | |
| E.6.3.2 | 16 | 5 | What criteria will the Government use to determine if offeror's are to present a demonstratioin? | All offerors will present a demonstration in Phase 1 (Technical Factor 3). See Section F.3.2.3 for the applicable criteria. | |
| A.1 | 4 | 1 | The Date of Award (period of performance) could possibly happen prior to conclusion of the performance period for ETS1. Please explain how the period of performance for ETS2 be impacted? | GSA anticipates a transition period between ETS1 and ETS2. As such, there is an overlap between the period of performance between ETS1 and ETS2. | |
| A.1 | 5 | 1 | How can an agency award a Task Order for services that are already under an existing Task Order? Doesn't the Period of Performance have to start at the end of the ETS Task Orders on 11/13? | No. GSA anticipates a transition period between ETS1 and ETS2. As such, there is an overlap between the period of performance between ETS1 and ETS2. | |
| E.6.3.2 | 18 | N/A | What is the grading scale during the demonstrations when one vendor demostrates a prototype as compared to a vendor who demonstrates production with past performance? | GSA will evaluate each offeror on their own merits in accordance with Section F of the solicitation. | |
| E.1 | 1 | e | The RFP states that multiple offers will be evaluated separately. If an offeror wants to propose slight variations in its technical/pricing offering, will the Government accept alternates within the price proposal, as long as the alternates are clearly defined? This approach will negate the need for submission and evaluation of almost duplicated proposals | RFP Section E.1 (a) encourages multiple offers. Multiple offers are considered separate offers and are to be submitted in accordance with the instructions identified in the RFP. | |
| E | 11 | 1 | The following personnel should not be listed in the proposal, but instead, listed in the task order: | ||
| Agency Account Manager - The agency may not come on board for months or ever. | Amendment 0003 addresses this issue. | ||||
| D.23 | 23 | b2 | Please clarify the apparent contradiction between this section and Section C.3.4, wherein technological advances are contemplated as added scope changes to the contract. | The refreshment and maintenance of the ETS2 service, as described in Section C.5.1.1 and C.16 (Technology Refresh Transition), includes emerging technologies as well as Government policy updates. Section C.3.4 identifies a list of specific examples that will need to be separately priced at the time the requirement is defined. | |
| E.1 | 1 | c | Holding prices firm for 360 days is a significant risk, especially since vendors will be setting prices for 15 years into the future. Request that GSA allow for periodic updates from vendors based on changes in their forward pricing rate agreements, and significant changes in economic outlooks for either labor costs or costs of technology, or any other occurrence outside the control of the offeror that impacts pricing prior to award. | Requirement remains as submitted. Should GSA conduct negotiations, firms will have the opportunity to submit revised pricing at the time of Final Proposal Revision. | |
| E.6.3.6 | 23 | Given the Government can down select several vendors for IV&V, and given the number of requirements that must be verified through IV&V prior to award, there is a material risk to vendors of expending significant investment dollars on creating a system that will never be delivered, i.e. vendors who go through IV&V only to be denied an award. This investment risk is a significant disincentive for vendors to participate in the procurement. Request the Government consider making IV&V a compensated, post-award effort required only of awardees. | Given the performance experienced in ETS1, agency customers require ability to test the capabilities of ETS2 offerors prior to award(s) being made. The requirement remains as written. | ||
| E.7 | 30 | The RFP was released on August 23, 2010, with a due date of Oct 6, 2010. This provides vendors 42 calendar days to prepare an offer. We request an extension to at least October 22, 2010, so as to provide a full 60 days. Preferably, vendors would get 90 days to prepare responses given the size and complexity both of the effort and the nature of the required proposal submission. Therefore, please extend the due date to November 19, 2010. | Amendment 0003 extended the due date for proposals to November 15, 2010. | ||
| F.3.2.3 | N/A | Section E of the RFP states that "the gov't may invite the offeror to present a demonstration" while this section includes the demonstration as Technical Factor Three. Is the demonstration mandatory?. In addition how will the gov't define "minor modifications for ETS2" since this language defines what "an outstanding demonstration" must showcase? | The demonstration is mandatory unless a firm's offer has been rejected prior to the demonstration phase. As Section F.3.2.3 states, to be acceptable, the Government will look for evidence confirming what was communicated in the written proposals is evident in the technology demonstrated. | ||
| E.6.3.6 | Can the Government clarify the performance testing requirements of the IV&V | It is the Government's intention to evaluate the performance of the offeror's ETS2 solution in accordance with the criteria identified in Section F.6 in the assessment areas / requirements listed in Section E.6.3.6 as well as reserves the right to test any objectives proposed. | |||
| C.3.3 | 8 | N/A | Second para on page RE: improvements in functionality: The scope of any such changes in the marketplace over the potential 15 year period of performance is unknown and cannot reasonably be estimated. | The Contractor should plan for technology refresh over the life of the contract to include updated standards and incorporate their release management approach for addressing the scope of major, minor, and emergency releases in their proposal. The proposal should reflect the offeror's plan for compensation as outlined using Section B CLIN table. | |
| C.3.3 | 8 | 4 | This requires the Contractor to follow the guidelines for usability described at http://usability.gov/ and conform to the most recent usability standards established by the industry, such as the International Standards for Human Computer Interaction (HCI) ….” GSA cites the most recent standard as May 2006. | ||
| The standards that may be established in the future during the potential 15 year period of performance are unknown and cannot reasonably be estimated for pricing purposes. How will the contractor be compensated for modifications due to future standards not under its control? Please clarify. | The Contractor should plan for technology refresh over the life of the contract to include updated standards and incorporate their release management approach for addressing the scope of major, minor, and emergency releases in their proposal. The proposal should reflect the offeror's plan for compensation as outlined using Section B CLIN table. | ||||
| C.3.3.1 | 9 | 5 | What system usage parameters for individual users will the contractor be required to monitor? How is this requirement documented? Who receives the results and how will they be used? What is the purpose of this requirement? | The Contractor shall monitor system user behavior and usage patterns to ensure optimum performance of the system and no degradation of service to users at any point. The Contractor shall do this by implementing a User- Centered Design process, and delivering plans and reports that demonstrate its execution and measurement of this process. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure the ETS2 system is stable and capable of handling the Government's travel volume. The Government will receive the results via the usability report deliverables outlined in Section D.40. The Government also reserves the right to perform independent assessments and audits in accordance with Section C.13, Test Assessments and D.1 (Inspection / Acceptance). | |
| C.3.3.1 | 9 | 5 | Please clarify the type of monitoring that GSA is expecting regarding individual system usage. | Examples of monitoring usage patterns are described in Section D.40, where the requirements for User-Center Design / Usability Assurance Plan, and Semi-Annual Usability Action Report. Generally, they fall into categories for managing efficiency, effectiveness, and satisfaction of the service. | |
| C.5.1.1 | 64 | 3 | Both of these requirements place ongoing requirements upon the Contractor which cannot reasonably be estimated over the cost of the potential contract period and shoud be separately priced. | The Contractor should plan for technology refresh over the life of the contract to include updated standards and incorporate their release management approach for addressing the scope of major, minor, and emergency releases in their proposal. The proposal should reflect the offeror's plan for compensation as outlined using Section B CLIN table. | |
| Appendix A | 1 | 1 | Since any changes in the documents listed in this section are outside of the control of the Contractor and not reasonably foreseeable, we assume that any changes in the applicable documents which require changes to the ETS2 are subject to the Changes clause. Is that assumption correct? If not, how does the Government envision that the contractor would be compensated for changes required to ETS2 by Government controlled documents, policies and regulations? One of the documents or regulations is the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002. The provision states that “The act also sets minimum controls required to protect federal information and information systems.” Please clarify whether ETS2 is considered a “federal information and information systems” subject to the requirements of FISMA | The Contractor should plan for technology refresh over the life of the contract to include updated standards and include their approach in the proposal. ETS2 is a federal information system under FISMA and is subject to security controls identified for Moderate impact systems. Security requirements are policy-driven and cannot be waived or weakened because of cost considerations. Such costs must be borne in the overall proposed contract pricing. | |
| Appendix B | 3 | 9 | Customization--During the current period of performance for the ETS Master Contract, agencies have required the ETS applications to be customized to suit existing policies, processes and procedures. What actions have been taken by GSA to affect standardization of business policies, processes and procedures within and across Federal agencies? Based on our experience, the Federal agencies are generally the parties requesting customization in order to adapt the system and tools to meet their needs. How will GSA discourage federal agencies from requesting customization of the services? If customization is requested by a federal agency, will there be a separate pricing CLIN for such work and effort, including any ongoing maintenance of customized interfaces to ensure such interfaces work with any subsequent releases of ETS2? | Many agency customizations in ETS1 were normalized into governmentwide requirements as part of the formation of this Statement of Work. CLINS have been included in Section B for the offeror to propose both supplemental customer support and interface development for requests beyond the standard integration costs during implementation. |
As it relates to integration and interfaces, the Contractor shall provide services associated with establishing, operating, and maintaining the ETS2 integration capability in its voucher fee pricing (Section B.1, Travel Voucher). The configuration of this integration shall be included as part of the pricing of the Standard Implementation Services (Section B.1, Standard Implmentation Services) And, all interface or integration customization costs shall be included under CLIN 0013 (Section B). The ETS2 interfaces (both standard and customized) shall be optimized for configuration versus customization to reduce the necessity for modifications of interfaces due to subsequent ETS2 releases. The vendor shall use CLIN0013 for the development of the interface only and once implemented that customized interface becomes part of the standard ETS2 service.
| Appendix B | 8 | 5 | Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD-12) – states that “HSPD-12 requires all federal government departments and agencies to conduct personnel investigations, adjudicate results, and issue Personal Identity Verification (PIV) or HSPD-12 credentials to all federal employees and contractors or personnel who require routine or regularly scheduled access to federally controlled facilities, and information technology (IT) systems.” Please clarify whether the commercial services requested under ETS2 are within the definition of an “information technology system”. If so, what obligations are placed upon the contractor in terms of persons who may have access to the system? Would such directive also extend to the GDS which of necessity would be used by an ATMC or ETMC? | By definition, an ATMC is under contract with a customer agency. The Data Sources as shown in Attachment 20 (External Sources and Government Sources) are outside of the ETS2 security requirements. See Section C.6.1.1 #1 i. for additional clarity on the HSPD-12 requirements. |
| Appendix B | 19 | 1 | World Class Travel Management (WCTM) Please clarify what the Government means by lowest price as the services being requested under this proposed solicitation for a commercial available product but one subject to customization to meet unique government requirements, including security requirements not found in the commercial marketplace, do not exist outside of the government. | WCTM is an outcome, ETS2 is the framework to achieving that outcome with tools and services that will help Government Agencies get the best value for their travel dollars. The RFP anticipates that industry bidders will offer best pricing to meet the stated requirements. Lowest price as a goal is the composite of all the components of effective travel management to include the ETS2 service as well as travel supplier services (e.g., air, lodging, rental car rates). The government as the largest buyer of travel services in the world has this desired outcome. |
| C.3.3.1 | 9 | 6 | It is stated here that, "The performance target for online bookings for ETS2 is 85% or greater of all domestic tickets fulfilled." What is the current performance percentage under existing ETS platforms? | The performance percentage for online booking in the current ETS model is 70% or greater; market research for ETS2 indicates corporate best practice performance is 90% online adoption. |
| C.8.5.1 | 99 | 5 | Would the requirement that all data from ETS2, inlcuding ETMCs, be owned exclusively by the Government not apply equally to ATMCs? | By definition, an ATMC is under a separate contract with a customer agency. |
| C.3 | 4 | 1 | The RFP states that “The Contractor will provide knowledgeable, responsive, timely, and available help desk support including 508 compliant support for people with disabilities”. Will this support extend beyond providing TTY services during the hours of normal operation? If so, what additional support will be required? | The Contractor's help desk staff should be knowledgeable and responsive to users with disabilities who may be using assistive technologies to utilize the ETS2 service. |
| C.3 | 5 | 1 | The RFP states that the ETS2 solution will be “providing utilization patterns supported by reasons for nonuse”. Will the ETS2 solutions support usability requirements efficiently if the vendor will be required to collect information on nonuse for all elements of the processes? Is this requirement in contradiction of the usability requirements embedded in the contract? | Usability or accessibility problems may impede or discourage effective and efficient system use. If the problems are severe or prevalent enough, they may, in essence, prevent usage of the online system entirely. As part of the Offeror's usability approach, there should be systematic activities aimed at characterizing system usability and accessibility incorporated into their User-Centered Design/Usability Assurance Plan. This process should, among other things, hopefully detect and correct any problems that are severe enough to cause non-use. We see no contradiction to the usability and accessibility goals for ETS2. To the contrary, identifying reasons for non-use and mitigating them seems a natural consequence of the bidder's usability assurance processes. |
| C.3 | 5 | 6 | Please specify the nature of support that the ETS2 vendor will need to provide for Modernized Enterprise Resource Planning systems. Will that support be extended beyond Financial management systems; Management Information Systems; HR systems (for taxable travel reimbursements)? If so, please provide a comprehensive list of our responsibilities under this contract. | The Contractor shall be capable of supporting integration efforts between external systems beyond the agency financial management systems. The requirements are further defined in Section C.8. |
| C.3.3 | 8 | The quality benchmarks listed in this section are subjective and cannot be controlled by the contractor, as they represent system user capability to learn, memorize and discern. How can the contractor be objectively determined to have met requirements they cannot control or quantify and for which the success criteria are undefined? | The fact that there are quality benchmarks that are user-centered, does not mean that they are all subjective nor "uncontrollable." A systematic usability engineering process will account for measures and benchmarks in the context of user and task characteristics, some of which may reflect objective measures of performance and some of which may be subjective. In any case, they can be specified, measured, and tracked over time in the same way as other engineering benchmarks. Yes, best practices and guidelines in this regard may evolve over time, to accommodate new technologies. The Contractor should explain in the usability section of their Project Management Plan (PMP) how they will deal with that. The user-centered design/usability assurance approach proposed should account for user interface design and system usage in an engineering context, including a plan for periodically refreshing best practices and standards. The description of Usability Action Report and the User-Centered Design/Usability Assurance Plan, detailed in Section D.40 (gg), specifies activities and indicators that ensure superior usability for ETS2. | |
| C.3.3 | 8 | 2 | The RFP states that “improvement opportunities will be objectively evaluated for incorporation by the Contractor as part of the Technology Refreshment outlined in Section C.5.1.1, Technology Capabilities and Characteristics.” Please tell us what the criteria and processes will be that are used to objectively evaluate future usability enhancements. | The Contractor will evaluate improvement opportunities for incorporation and establish in its proposal its processes for evaluating future enhancements (as outlined in Section C.5.1.1). Accordingly, the Government may review such plans for technology refreshment and provide feedback. The usability section of the Contractor's Project Management Plan (PMP) should describe a viable user-centered design/usability assurance approach that addresses the activities and indicators to be used to determine whether technology refresh options have improved system usability/accessibility and avoided introducing new usability or accessibility problems. |
| C.3.3 | 8 | 4 | If ETS2 shall follow guidelines specified on a website that can change anytime, how can the contractor scope the costs of this requirement? | The Contractor should plan for technology refresh over the life of the contract, and user-centered design/usability assurance should be integral to that refresh. Just as a viable refresh approach will plan for evolution in technology, a viable user-centered design/usability assurance approach should plan for ensuring that these technology upgrades do not degrade system usability and accessibility. It should also plan for evolution in best practices and standards, including those pertaining to usability and accessibility. Enhancements should be done periodically and systematically, in order to ensure that ETS2 stays current with evolving technologies and best practices. |
| C.3.3.1 | 9 | 2a & b | The ETS2 solution specifies that the prospective vendor will periodically conduct usability tests and audits. Please elaborate on what is expected of a usability test/audit as well as what frequency they are expected to be conducted by the vendor in order to meet this requirement. | Usability tests involving representative users should be conducted by qualified usability professionals under the direction of a qualified Usability Assurance Manager (C.3.3.1.17). Such testing should be executed in keeping with user-centered design best practices and occur in conjunction with the Contractor’s software development life cycle, |
Usability audits of the ETS2 user interface should be based on inspection by qualified usability professionals, under the direction of a qualified Usability Assurance Manager. These inspections should be executed in keeping with user-centered design best practices and should likewise occur in conjunction with the Offeror's software development life cycle. The Contractor's User-Centered Design/Usability Assurance Plan should address such issues as how frequently these tests and audits will occur and what would trigger them.
| C.3.3.1 | 9 | 2.b | Does the GSA intend to provide additional standards / criteria with respect to "inspection by qualified usability professionals?" | Usability inspections are sometimes referred to as "usability audits," "expert reviews," or "heuristic evaluations." They should be executed by "usability professionals" with appropriate training/credentials and experience. The usability approach decribed in the Contractor's Program Management Plan should address how they intend to address this requirement and what user interface design guidelines and inspection procedures they plan to employ. |
| C.3.3.1 | 9 | 2c | The ETS2 solution specifies that the prospective vendor will periodically conduct customer satisfaction surveys. What population would need to be included in these surveys? How many individuals would need to be surveyed? How frequently should the surveys be conducted? | The intent is to use customer satisfaction surveys as one means of soliciting customer input and feedback, and the Contractor should not wait for GSA to conduct such surveys but shall conduct their own surveys to proactively address customer satisfaction performance. Among other possible purposes, these surveys can be used to gauge customer perceptions of ETS2 usability and identify possible reasons for non-use or difficulties encountered in using the ETS2 system. The usability section of the Contractor's Project Management Plan (PMP) should describe a viable plan for meeting this requirement. This plan might include the frequency of such surveys, sample sizes, the populations from which samples would be drawn, a sampling strategy, and how such surveys would be implemented. |
| C.3.3.1 | 9 | 6 | If a traveler books a flight outside the system electronically (e.g.: on the airline's website) and imports the PNR into ETS2, does the contractor count this towards the 85% online booking performance metric? Or is the goal to have users prefer the ETS2 flight booking engine specifically 85% versus 15% for other/TMC? | No, the purpose of SLA2 is to measure users' ability to effectively and efficiently use the ETS2 contractor's OTRS. |
| C.3.3.1 | 9 | 6 | The RFP highlights the mandatory requirement to achieve a mandatory performance target of 85% for online booking for all domestic tickets that are fulfilled. What commitments will the vendors have that the Federal Agency customers will support and enforce end-use traveler behavior via policy and process changes to attain this level of performance? | Amendment 0003 addressed this issue. |
| C.5.1.1 | 64 | 4 | With the FFP IDIQ nature of this contract, how do you scope the "over the life of the contract" to price this requirement? | The Contractor should plan for technology refresh over the life of the contract to include updated standards and incorporate their approach in the proposal. |
| C.5.1.1 | 64 | 6 | Google Chrome currently cannot support the security requirements necessary for operating ETS2. Will this browser requirement be waived until its security posture is up to par? When IE10 is released and a significant portion of ETS2 travelers are still using IE7 due to agency policy, please clarify if the contractor may cease continuing to achieve full compatibility for all IE7 users on IE10's release day. | Security requirements have precedence over functional requirements and will be considered when competing objectives are encountered. It is expected that the technology refreshment requirements and objectives outlined in Section C.16 (Technology Refresh Transition) as well as customer support for and adoption of newer broswers and versions will be considered before a vendor ceases to support compatibility. |
| C.5.1.1 | 65-66 | 9 | This paragraph states that technological advances, unknown and unquantifiable at the time of price agreement, must be provided as part of routine operations and maintenance. Will the labor costs associated with such refreshment be reimbursed via CLIN 0019 and its successors and other costs reimbursed through an added Other Costs CLIN (for other direct costs, such as travel and hardware/software)? | The Contractor should plan for technology refresh over the life of the contract to include updated standards and incorporate their approach in the proposal. Technology refresh requirements are specified to be addressed as part of CLINs supporting ATRS, OTRS, and Voucher transactions as outlined in Section B. |
| C.5.1.1 | 66-67 | 12 | Does the statement that these capabilities must be maintained "in accordance with security requirements in Section C.6" mean that all the listed capabilities/environments are considered within the scope of the ETS2 accreditation boundary and must be formally certified and accredited by the government? | Any environment or capability that utilizes sensitive data and that is located within the Certification and Accreditation boundary must be maintained in accord with security requirements and included as part of the Certification and Accreditation process. Additionally, any sensitive data transmitted outside of the Certification and Accreditation boundary must be protected in accord with security requirements (e.g. through the use of FIPS 140-2 encryption). |
| C.5.1.1 | 68 | 21 | With the FFP IDIQ nature of this contract, how do you scope the "over the life of the contract" to price this requirement? | The Contractor should plan for technology refresh over the life of the contract to include updated standards and incorporate their approach in the proposal. |
| C.5.1.1.22 | 68 | 24 | The RFP states that “The Contractor shall conduct, through third-party auditors, Statement of Auditing Standards Number 70 (SAS-70) audits or its future equivalent.” Will the GSA accept the vendor’s selection of a qualified auditor or are there any undisclosed criteria associated with the pedigree of the auditor to support the SAS-70 audit? What criteria will be used to evaluate the suitability or acceptability of the auditor? | The Contractor shall propose how they plan to select a qualified auditor to meet this requirement in their proposal. |
| C.5.1.1.22 | 68 | 24 | Will the Federal Agency customers accept the results of the master contract required SAS-70 audit or will additional audits need to be priced and conducted to support individual agency customer requirements? | When developing the requirement, agencies expressed a willingness to accept the Contractor's SAS-70 results. Note that Amendment 0003 added a requirement for a minimum Type I. However, this item should be negotiated at the task order level. |
| C.5.1.1.22 | 68 | 24 | Will a Type I audit be sufficient to fulfill this requirement or will a Type II audit be required? How often will this audit need to be repeated? | Amendment 0003 added the following language to Section C.5.1.1. (24) "At a minimum, SAS-70 Type I level is required." |
| C.8.3 | 97 | 1 | Given the FFP IDIQ nature of this contract, how do you scope to price this requirement? Will compensation to the ETS2 vendor be supported by new CLIN as outlined in C.3.4 to future standards influenced by the travel industry or the government? | The Contractor should plan for these emerging requirements as part of their proposal. |
| C.8.3.1 | 97 | 1 | In this case, CGAC standards do not currently exist and interfaces are not standardized. Requirement is too open-ended and may not be able to be accommodated in a firm fixed price contract without significant resources factored into the voucher costs to absorb the risk. Will compensation to the ETS2 vendor be supported by new CLIN as outlined in C.3.4 to transition current agencies to CGAC when standardized? | The Contractor should plan for technology refresh over the life of the contract to include updated standards and incorporate their approach in the proposal. |
| C.8.3.1 | 98 | 6 | This requirement is open-ended and may not be able to be accommodated in a firm fixed price proposal. Can this requirement be tightened to provide additional clarity to support an accurate assessment? | The Contractor should provide all data as required in Attachment 14, E-Gov Travel Service Standard Data Elements and should provide a solution flexible enough to accommodate changes and/or new elements in the future as part of their offering. |
| C.8.5 | 99 | 1 | Given the FFP IDIQ nature of this contract, will the vendor be compensated to support ETS2 vendor development to provide secure connectivity channels between ETS2 vendor and GSA or to a designated third-party contractor? | The Contractor should plan for secure data transmission. Formats/ channels will be specified by the Government, and addressed by the Contractor via its technology refreshment process (if it is a format they do not meet). |
| C.9.4.1 | 104 | 8 | If ETS2 shall comply with guidelines specified on a website that can change anytime, how can the contractor scope the cost of this requirement? | The Contractor should plan for technology refresh over the life of the contract to include updated standards and guidelines and incorporate their approach in the proposal. |
| E.6.3.6 | 23 | IV&V | The use of "prototype" ETS2 functionality is specifically allowed for the demonstration phase. Is "prototype" ETS2 functionality also allowed during IV&V? May the vendor specifically state some IV&V functionality will be prototyped, as opposed to fully functional, considering all mandatory requirements will be fully functional prior to implementation? | During IV&V, the offeror shall provide their ETS2 intended web-based production capabilities that meet the mandatory requirements in Section C as well as any proposed objectives by the offeror. |
| E.6.3.6.2 | 26 | 8 | Define how GSA will perform their IV&V test that are predicated on accessing an Agency financial management system such as: "Funds Availability Checking" and "Funds Certification" during IV&V | During IV&V, the offeror's system shall be able to demonstrate transmission of transactions to the point at which they would be transmitted to the financial management systems for funds availability and checking. |
| B.1 | 3 | 6 | Standard Implementation Services. This paragraph characterizes the CLIN 0005 Service Levels based on the number of user profiles. In ETS1, the number of user profiles was wholly ineffective in capturing the implementation costs incurred by agency. The variety of methods and requirements established by Federal Agencies in their task orders rendered number of profiles for implementation costs as irrelevant. We request that this CLIN be based upon an hourly rate. Can GSA clarify why it used the number of profiles as a pricing mechanism here? | GSA used the number of user profiles as a way to represent different agency sizes, which may also reflect the general complexity of the effort required of the contractor. The establishment of not-to-exceed (NTE) prices for these CLINS give the agency and the contractor the flexibility to negotiate agency-specific pricing in accordance with agency-specific Task Order requirements. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .