QandA_ETS2_10-27-2010.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 54 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
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
PreProposal Conf. 9-14-10
| Section | Page | Requirement or Paragraph Number | Question or Comment | Answer |
| There is much talk on the street that Agencies will not leave their current ETS vendors regardless of the awards GSA makes for ETS2. When will the FTR be updated to REQUIRE all agenciesto transition to GSA's awarded ETS2 vendors? Or, What othergovernment vehicle will be enacted to ensure all agencies transition to a GSA awarded ETS2 vendor? | GSA Federal Acquisition Service has approached the GSA Office of Governmentwide Policy and Office of Management and Budget with recommended changes to policy in order to align policy and budget tools to best support the ETS2 governmentwide transition. | |||
| Attachment 1 | 12 | On the Customer Agency Profiles chart for SSA-- the last item on the chart, "Agency-provided ETS Help Desk(s)," the answer for SSA should read yes. Our help desk is the first tiered help desk for the task order. | GSA has amended the solicitation to update this information. | |
| Attachment E-1 | 35 | N/A | Past Performance Questionnaire, Section 4, lists the following items as an evaluation factor upon which references are to provide information: “Contractor’s knowledge of best commercial travel management practices and emerging trends”. (Emphasis added). Since this is an RFP for services to the government and references to be provided by government personnel, we question that limiting the evaluation to ‘commercial” practices may cause confusion by some government individuals who may be asked to provide references. They may think that they have no basis to provide a reference due to the limitation to commercial best practices. This then could affect the overall rating. We request that the wording be change to “best government or commercial practices” so that government personnel who may be asked to provide references understand the full scope of the practices to be rated. | GSA has amended the solicitation to update this information. |
| Attachment E-3 | 43 | N/A | Attachment E-3 Resume Format states that offerors shall clearly identify if proposed personnel are Key or Non-Key. Please clarify this reference to resumes for non-key personnel. Section F.3.2.4 Technical Factor Four – Key Personnel/Resume, Evaluation Criteria does not provide for the evaluation of non-key personnel resumes so what would be the purpose in submitting such personnel. | If the Offeror's staffing plan includes positions / skills that are not represented in the Government's key personnel list in D.7, and the Offeror's service includes other roles/functions that are essential to their service offering, the Government is inviting the Offeror to provide that information accompanied by supporting resumes. Those additional positions can be proposed as key or non-key based on the Offeror's judgement of the importance of the role/function. |
| B | 7 | CLIN 0005, subsets and corresponding options | Incumbents have a competitive advantage from a cost perspective, as they will not need to re-implement their existing ETS1 customers and may therefore offer lower pricing. Will implementation fees be assessed individually for pricing reasonableness, in addition to being assessed as a component of the overall pricing evaluation criteria? | Market research indicates that all Offerors would have to implement customers they do not have today. The Offeror's Price proposal shall be submitted in accordance with Section E.6.3.5. Price will be evaluated in accordance with the criteria in Section F.3 for Phase I and F.6 for Phase II. |
| B | 13 | CLIN 0019 | Section B defines this CLIN as "SUPPLEMENTAL CUSTOMER SERVICE: Services not already defined in Section C but are within the scope of this contract not covered by the other mandatory or optional CLINs. Applicable to CLIN 0019 and corresponding option CLINs." Will the Government provide more specifics as to what which service(s) will be included in this CLIN and/or confirm that it is the Government's expectation that the offeror will submit its own parameters for this service offering? | Any services needed by an agency that are not already accounted for via the other transactional or supplemental services CLINs are envisioned for CLIN 0019 and corresponding option CLINs. |
| C.11.1.1 | 110 | 1 | Travel Account Management, subparagraph 1, requires the Contractor to assign a designated account manager to serve as a single-point-of-contact for the customer agency (each agency from whom the contractor accepts a task order, even if a component of a larger agency) regarding its ETS2 implementation, deployment, operation, ongoing support and travel program effectiveness and optimization. At this stage, it is not reasonable or foreseeable as to how many customer agencies may request an account manager under any yet to be developed task order for ETS2. Please confirm that if any customer agency wants an account manager under a task order, then the customer agency will pay for such services. Please clarify how a customer agency which may be a component of a larger agency will be issuing separate task orders for ETS2 services. Please provide an example of when and how this may occur. | Market research indicates that corporate travel managers receive account management services, as outline in Section C.11.1.1, as part of their transaction fees and not at any additional fee. Section C.11.2 includes an objective for this support to be provided onsite. Offerors shall describe their approach to providing account management services for either the mandatory requirement or objective as part of their proposal. |
Task orders for ETS2 will be issued at the departmental / agency-wide level. Each agency will determine the methods used in their own task order. Agencies that service other agencies in a cross-servicing capacity may issue a separate task order for the cross-servicing support transactions.
| C.4.2.4.1 | 17 | 8 | Subparagraph 8 requires ETS2 traveler profile data “to capture all data necessary to meet current and future government travel requirements (i.e. Secure Flight)”. (Emphasis added). The extent of potential changes necessary to meet future government travel regulations over the expected 15 year contract period and their subsequent effect on ETS2 s unknowable and is not a defined requirement that can be ascertained under a fixed price contract. Please confirm that any future government travel regulations that require changes in the ETS2 traveler profile will be addressed under the Changes clause. | GSA has confirmed that it is a commercial practice in the Federal market that software service providers anticipate changes to Federal regulations in their core fixed price. Vendors supporting the Federal market 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.4.2.5.1 | 19 | 3 | Paragraph 3 requires searches sourced through the GDS or non-GDS live inventory booking sources. There is no definition of non-GDS live inventory booking sources for this mandatory requirement. Please provide a definition so all potential offerors understand what the Government is requiring. | Market research indicates there is emergence of economically and/or functionally advantageous direct connections offered by certain suppliers desiring to bypass the GDS (e.g., via direct XML connectivity). This is what is meant by 'non-GDS live booking sources'. |
| C.4.2.5.1 | 19 | 4 | Paragraph 4 requires searches of “such other suppliers and products that the government may strategically source or specified by customer agency.” The universe of such other suppliers over the potential 15 year contract period is unknowable. Please confirm if such sourcing is required during the contract period that such change is under the Changes clause. | GSA has confirmed that it is a commercial practice in the Federal market that software service providers anticipate changes to Federal regulations in their core fixed price. Vendors supporting the Federal market 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.4.2.7.2 | 30 | 1 | Paragraph 1) requires nonemergency services 24x7x365 “without an additional transaction charge.” Please clarify the obvious contradictions between this statement and paragraph 4) of SOW C.4.2.7.1. | The section refers to a comparison of a mandatory v. objective requirement. The Agent Assisted Travel Reservations Service should provide reservations for non-emergency travel 24/7/365 operations. Since the Government is a 24/7/365 operation in many agencies, the Government wishes to benefit from this level of service if industry can provide it. The mandatory requirement is the level of service that must be met under any compliant bid. If the objective is proposed, as with any other objective, it then becomes a mandatory requirement and would supersede the other mandatory requirement. |
| C.5.1.1 | 65 | 9 | Technology Capabilities and Characteristics, Mandatory Requirements, subparagraph 9.b,requires the Contractor to specify the basis upon which commercial travel service and architecture improvements and best practices are determined, evaluated, and accepted …and how the Contractor will measure the result of investments in research and development (R&D) for the end-to-end travel solution(s) offered. Please clarify why the contractor is expected to measure and report on the results of its investments if the Government is currently under this RFP not paying for any such investments. | Since this is a performance-based contract, this requirement enables the Contractor to define the parameters for how they will perform this type of technology refreshment and perform associated self-assessments of that performance. Similar to other software-as-a-service (SAAS) models, the Government will be paying for such changes as part of the transaction pricing, as defined in Section B. |
| C.5.1.1 | 67 | 20 | Technology Capabilities and Characteristics, Mandatory Requirements, subparagraph 20, requires ETS2 to use “industry best practices” to reduce customized interfaces and provide common interface procedures and data elements to the greatest extent possible for each major financial platform. Please confirm that it is the Contractor, and not the Government, who will determine what constitutes an industry best practice in regard to its ETS2 offering. If the Government will determine an industry best practice, please provide an explanation in the RFP as to how the Government will determine an industry best practice. | Industry best practices are really established by the industry at-large. In respect to the ETS2 contract, the ETS2 Contractor and/or Government may identify applicable industry best practices. Should the Government identify them, the Government shall provide input to the ETS2 provider, who shall consider that input relative to their Service Release Managment Plans and the prioritizations associated with enhancements planned via major and minor release cycles. |
| C.5.1.1 | 68 | 24 | Technology Capabilities and Characteristics, Mandatory Requirements, subparagraph 24,requires the Contractor to conduct a SAS-70 audit or its future equivalent. A SAS-70 audit can have multiple variations and cover various aspects of a system. Please clarify the type of SAS-70 audit that is required and what aspect of ETS2 is must cover. Please clarify how often a SAS-70 audit is required. Please confirm whether the Contractor is responsible for the scope and conduct of any SAS-70 audit. Please confirm when the Contractor must demonstrate compliance with the SAS-70 audit. Please confirm that if a customer agency requests a different SAS-70 audit or a SAS-70 audit of other components of the Contractor’s operation, that the customer agency will be responsible for any additional costs. | GSA has issued an amendment clarifying the minimum Type of SAS-70 audit shall be a Type I audit; however, this does not prevent the Offeror from proposing Type II if that is the Offeror's commercial practice. The appropriate frequency should be described in the Offeror's proposal as well as when the first audit will be accomplished by; the Contractor shall be fully responsible for the scope and conduct of the SAS-70 audit. When developing the requirement, agencies expressed a willingness to accept the Contractor's SAS-70 results. However, this item should be negotiated at the task order level. |
| C.5.1.1 | 64 | 4 | During the pre-proposal conference, a question was posed regarding the funding of customized functionality for specific agency requirements. The response provided indicated that there should be no customized development and that any new functionality should be part of the vendor's technology refresh program. The referenced requirement focuses on the architectural framework and do not specifically related to the provision of customized functionality. As a result, we assume that vendors can bill for application service functionality under Supplemental Customer Service, CLIN 0019 and corresponding CLINs. | Customized development requests are anticipated to be greatly mitigated in ETS2 due to the extensive requirements work completed by the agencies ahead of the ETS2 release. Should an agency have an agency-specific need that is not addressed by the government-wide master contract, then they shall use CLIN 0019 to acquire the functionality. |
The referenced requirement #4 of Section 5.1.1 does address in full the technology refresh requirements. Technology refresh requirements are addressed in other requirements within this same section (e.g., #8, 9, 10) as well as Section C.16. The Technology Refresh requirements for the master contract relate to more than architecture framework, but also commercially available travel service advances as well as government policy updates.
| C.5.1.1 | 64 | 6 | What are the current government market shares of the specified browsers in this subparagraph? How are these market shares determined? What coordination of agency used browsers will be conducted by the ETS-2 PMO? Which agencies are using Apple Safari and Google Chrome? What is the specific regulatory source stating that the ETS-2 vendors need to support the current and two previous versions of commercial browsers? We assume that the cost of establishing testing platforms, conducting quality assurance operations about each of these vendors, and all other associated costs for delivering this capability are to be incorporated into the transaction costs of this solicitation. | The Government does not require a regulatory source for the formation of what browsers are needed by its user community. Market research indicates that software-based commercial services provided via the Internet/web ensure on-going compatibility to ensure maximum usability and converting transactions to be accomplished online. In addition, the Government formed this requirement based on extensive input from the customer agencies, and as such, remains as written. Price proposal requirements and instructions are included in Section B and E. |
| C.6.1.1 | 72 | N/A | Security Capabilities and Characteristics, General Mandatory Requirements, subparagraph 1.h, requires the physical separation at all times of US Government data from non-U.S. Government data and that U.S. Government data should never be comingled with non-US Government data, including back-up media. This subject was discussed at the pre-proposal conference. There is no known regulation or policy that requires physical separation of such data. Requiring physical separation of U.S. Government data from non U.S. Government data for travel agencies, particularly for small business travel agencies, will be extremely costly as travel agencies use one back office to prepare financial and management reports. Such back office systems can provide for partitioning and/or logical separations, with a system of access controls and procedures. Such a requirement may eliminate small business travel agencies from consideration, which would be inconsistent with GSA’s SLAs for using small business travel agencies. In addition, the requirement conflicts with the Government’s reference to this being a procurement for commercial services and items and the references throughout the RFP that the Government is looking at commercial practices as a basis for the service required (see for example, Section C.3.3.1 Mandatory Requirements, which state that the “Contractor shall provide, support and maintain a Web-based, online, commercially-based travel service…” There is no industry practice within the travel agency community or online booking engine community to physically separate data as opposed to partitioning of networks and logical separation. At the pre-proposal conference, the Government representatives admitted that the decision to require physical separation was a policy decision not a regulatory requirement. We urge GSA to reconsider this requirement and change it to logical separation only. In addition, we request GSA provide the information it relied upon to require physical separation. | GSA issued Amendment 3 to change the solicitation to indicate that physical or logical separation of data is adequate. |
| C.6.1.1 | 70 | N/A | At the pre-proposal conference, a question was raised as to when accommodated TMCs will need to meet the same security requirements as imposed on ETS-2 vendors and their embedded TMCs. The pricing of these TMC services will be seriously impacted by the security requirements stated in these and other sections of the ETS-2 solicitation. When specifically will these requirements be imposed via the TSS schedule and how will the delay in applying these requirements impact the competitive nature of TMC service awards? | Please be advised that the TSS solicitation already requires TMCs to meet security requirements as specified by ordering agencies. GSA will, however, review requirements in TSS and any necessary changes as applicable. |
| C.8.5.1 | 99 | 1 | Data Transfer to Travel Management Information Service, Mandatory Requirements, subparagraph 1,requires the Contractor to deliver at no additional cost all such data sourced from tiered subcontractors, including the GDS. This requirement is not clear as it does not specifically define the scope of any data that may be required. Please clarify what data in the GDS will be required. | Since the Government owns all data created in the ETS2 service, the requirement is formed so that the Government can at any time require transfer of any portion of that data to designated parties. The requirement remains as written. |
| C.8.5.1 | 99 | 1 | Please clarify the definition of Government for this mandatory requirement. Appendix B definition states that Government is considered to be comprised of, jointly and severally, GSA as well as all BRM and non-BRM customer agencies that have awarded under ETS2 or that are cross-serviced by another ETS2 customer agency. It is our understanding that travel data is owned by the specific federal agency for whom travel was performed and that any release of such travel data must be done only at the direct request from that federal agency. | Appendix B reference is correct and remains as written. GSA is the managing partner for this contract, and as such is the lead / representing agency for the Government on this contract. GSA has established as its business practice to request the permission of an agency before viewing or having access to any transactional-level view of data within that agency. Because GSA's mission is to also serve strategic sourcing and policy needs for Government travel, GSA is authorized access to data for Government-wide summary level reporting to effectively accomplish its mission (as reflected in Section C.9.1 #1). |
| C.9.1 | 102 | 10 | Queries and Reports, Mandatory Requirements, subparagraph 10.a, establishes a 7 day turn-around for modifications to an existing report and three weeks for new reports. It is impossible to determine the scope of any such requests that may be requested by the Government and therefore it is a commercially impossibility to commit to such deadlines. We request that these deadlines be changes to read: “upon a schedule mutually agreed upon”. Please confirm that GSA will make this change. | The deadlines are stated in this section are stated as able to be adjusted with Government or agency permission. The cited paragraph refers specifically to modifications to existing reports, not new reports. The requirements remains as written. |
| C.9.1 | 101 | 2 | To the extent that additional reports are approved, we assume the requesting government agency will pay for any programming and/or customization work necessary to provide the additional reports approved by GSA. Is our assumption correct? | Custom reports outside the parameters of Process, Operational, or Government-wide summary reporting (as defined in Section C.9.1) are eligible for the Supplement Customer Report Development, CLIN 0011. |
| D.16 | 15 | N/A | Subparagraph (a) requires the contractor to be responsible for the cost of personnel background checks as may be required for performance of task orders. The extent to which security clearances may be required under any task order issued over the potential 15 year contract period is not reasonably foreseeable and the costs cannot be reasonably estimated as the number and costs of such clearances over the contract period is not estimable. Please confirm that the customer agency requesting any security clearances will pay for such clearances. | Background investigations supporting the HSPD-12 level clearance required by the master contract are the Contractor's responsibility. Clearances beyond an HSPD-12 clearance are negotiable at the task order level. |
| D.28 | 30 | 3 | Will the offeror be able to obtain performance incentives if TMC’s are not used? | No, SLA 3 is intended to address and provide incentives for using small business TMCs. The subcontracting plan and small business requirements are addressed in a different section and are a contract requirement. |
| D.7 | 10 | The key personnel chart identifies each position as dedicated except for the training manager. However, Section E, Attachment E-3, Resume Format, page 43 of 44, requires the contractor to identify the “planned percentage of time to this effort “for each resume submitted including those which are key. Please clarify what the Government means by “dedicated”. Does this mean these persons cannot work on any other contract? If so, what is the purpose of requiring the contractor to list percentage of time? | GSA has issued an amendment clarifying what personnel are required to be dedicated, which means 100% applied to ETS2 contract. The resume format continues to require specifying the percentage of time for each resume submitted. | |
| E | 13 | 6.3.2 | Under Tab 4 of Volume 2 (PMP), in the "Management of ETS2 Services" section, offerors are required to provide information on the "rules of operation". What specifically is the Government interested in seeing in the proposals in response to this requirement? | The Government desires visibility into "rules" or operating procedures for how the ETS2 service will be delivered and managed over the life of the period of performance. |
| E.6.3.2 | 11 | N/A | Key personnel positions positions lists a Commercial Travel Expert and a Federal Travel Policy Expert as key positions. Section D, page 10 of 109, states that the Commercial Travel Policy Expert is responsible for incorporating commercial travel best practices into the ETS2 program. As this contract is for the government, please clarify how this position is to be used. | The Government's requirements are to also include and leverage commercial travel technologies and practices to the maximum extent possible. |
| Would GSA consider funding efforts until the C&A is complete and transaction processing begins? | GSA will take this under advisement. Minimally, GSA issued Amendment 3 to change the solicitation to clarify key personnel requirements as it relates to when they are to start performance. | |||
| B.2.1 | 6 | 1 | GSA’s subcontracting goals are they the same as the SBA’s 23% for small business? | GSA's goals are the same of SBA's goal, currently 23%. As stated in Attachment D-2, GSA's Subcontracting goals are subject to change, based on recent achievement levels and as negotiated with the Small Business Administration (SBA). SBA is responsible for the Federal Government Goaling Program and their website at www.sba.gov. includes details and background on the goaling process. |
| B.2.1 | 6 | 1 | Shall the offeror be required to meet SBA’s goals for these CLINs? | Yes. |
| B.2.1 | 6 | 1 | Will the offeror be able to meet these goals by using one or all small businesses in the sub-groups? | Any type of small business will fulfill the requirements for the subcontracting plan small business goals. |
| B.2.1 | 6 | 1 | Shall the offeror be evaluated under this CLIN as it pertains to meeting and or exceeding the SLA 3 requirements? | As identified in Section F.3.2.5, Non-Technical Factor 1 is the Offeror's Socio-Economic Plan, which is inclusive of the Offeror's Subcontracting Plan to be submitted in accordance with the Instructions in Section E.6. Section F.3.2.2, Technical Factor 2 - Project Management Plan addresses SLAs as a part of the Offeror's technical approach. Incentives and disincentives related specifically to SLA 3 is addressed in Section D.28 (f)(3). |
| C.4.1.1 | 12 | 2 | Federal Travel Policy Compliance, Mandatory Requirements, subparagraphs 2), 3) and 4) require that contractors must promptly revise and modify their electronic travel system to comply with any changes to various federal travel regulations and that such revisions or modifications be accomplished on the respective effective dates of the changed regulations without any additional cost to the Government.The extent of potential changes to such Government travel regulations over the expected 15 year contract period and their subsequent effect on ETS2 cannot be predicted nor the cost impact controlled by the contractor.Essentially this provision is an attempt to make the contractor under a fixed price contract absorb unknown and unlimited risks over a multi-year period.This unreasonable provision is even more egregious by the fact that it will be the Government that initiates and controls the extent of such changes.These types of changes are the exact type of changes that the Changes clause was designed to address. However, the Government has effectively written out the changes clause that would entitle the Contractor to an equitable adjustment. Under FAR, we believe that attempting to carve out such a major exception to the Changes clause constitutes a FAR deviation under FAR 1.104 which would require written approval of a class deviation by the FAR Secretariat. Has GSA received such approval? | |
| 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. | ||||
| D.2 | 68 | 1 | The statements seem to suggest that the offeror is not required to meet or exceed the 23% small business goals. Is this true or not? | Nothing in Attachment D-2 suggests that the Offeror is not required to meet a small business goal. The phrase "This model does not establish minimum requirements for an acceptable plan." simply reflects the fact that as a sample form, the document is not establishing a minimum goal. SBA is responsible for the Federal Government Goaling Program as also addressed in Attachment D-2. |
| D.2 | 68 | 1 | If true shall the offeror be able to obtain the maximum performance incentives as outlined in SLA 3? | Nothing in Attachment D-2 suggests that the Offeror is not required to meet a small business goal. Incentives and disincentives related specifically to SLA 3 are addressed in Section D.28 (f)(3). |
| D.28 | 30 | 3 | Can maximum incentives be obtained without meeting SBA 23% goals for small business, if so what percentage? | Performance ranges related specifically to SLA 3 are identified in Section D.28 (f)(3). |
| D.28 | 30 | 3 | Will required performance enable the vendor to use just one or all Small business sub-group categories in order to obtain incentives? | SLA 3 relates solely to Small Business TMC Subcontracting. |
| D.7 | 11 | N/A | Subparagraph (d) states that key personnel may include other labor categories as mutually agreed upon as negotiated within customer agency task orders. Please confirm that if a customer agency requests additional key positions, such positions will be paid for by the customer agency. | Amendment 0003 revised Sections D.7 (c) and (d). Agencies have the flexibility for negotiating and awarding Task Orders accordingly. |
| E | 20 | 6.3.3 | The government has indicated a preference for small business to be a significant component of the ETS2 program. We are in agreement and believe this is an important objective. To minimize the barriers for meeting this objective, at lower cost and with higher quality, would the government consider allowing the prime contractor to partner with large market TMCs to achieve this objective? Specifically, can prime contractors get the SB subcontracting credit both against the contract's 23% goals as well as against the SLA requirements (SLA-2 of RFP Section D.28) by having SB subcontracts flow through the large market TMCs? | The Small Business Subcontracting Plan requirements will be met by first-tier subcontracting only. For the purposes of the SLA 3, small business credit from a second-tier subcontracting arrangement may be allowable but the prime contractor would ultimately be responsible for the validity of the reported data concerning size status as it relates to incentives and disincentives. The Government is considering amending the solicitation to further clarify the requirements of this issue. |
| E | 7 | 6.2 | The Government is requesting that offerors include a complete copy of the solicitation and all amendments in its proposal under Tab 2 of Volume 1. The complete solicitation, even without any amendments, is over 450 pages including attachments. In order to reduce costs and environmental impact, will the Government consider removing this requirement, since the solicitation will be incorporated by reference into any resultant contract? | The requirement remains unchanged. The solicitation encourages double-sided copies. |
| E.3 | 43 | N/A | Resume Format, Item d. requires "Company Persnnel Classification" What is required here and why is that information required? | This is opportunity to clarify the title and/or corporate labor category designation for a resume separate from the Key Personnel category desigations provided in Section D.7. |
| E.6.3.1 | 10 | N/A | Tab 7 instructions state that Volume 1 shall contain exceptions to objectives and that the Government may consider exceptions to objectives and that if exceptions are taken they must be cross-walked backed to the proposal. Section C.3.1.2, page 6 states that “Objectives offered by the Contractor and accepted by the Government become mandatory requirements under any resulting contract.” If an objective can only be part of the contract if offered by the contractor and accepted by the Government, what is the purpose of Section E.6.3.1.? Why would a contractor need to take an exception to an objective if the contractor does not intend to offer such objective as part of its solution? What effect on any resulting contract is there if the contractor does not offer an objective but does not take exception to it under Section 6.3.1? Does the failure to take exception means the government can make the objective mandatory? | An exception to an objective does not necessarily mean an Offeror will not propose it. The Government may consider exceptions to objectives as mentioned in Section E.6.3.1. Also as indicated in the RFP, an objective becomes a mandatory requirement when offered in the proposal, not by the failure to provide an exception. |
| E.6.3.2 | 12 | Section E, Paragraph E.6.3.2, page 12 of 44, Tab 3, second bullet, states that the “Offeror shall also prepare two matrix documents demonstrating alignment between the RFP and the PWS. The matrices are not included in the page limitation. Paragraph numbering in the Offeror’s PWS shall correlate with the paragraph numbering of the SOW. |
o Offerors shall provide a complete Mandatory Requirements Matrix. Offerors are cautioned that not referencing and cross referencing ALL Mandatory Requirements may result in a determination the Offeror is non-responsive or technically unacceptable.
o Offerors shall provide a complete Objectives Matrix if any objectives are offered, including the projected delivery date. Offerors are not required to offer objectives, however, not referencing and cross referencing ALL Objectives that have been offered may result in an inability to give full consideration of the objectives offered.”
| Please clarify what GSA is expecting in the matrices. Is GSA expecting a narrative in the matrices or merely a cross reference to the section in the proposal where the mandatory requirements and/or objectives are discussed? | At a minimum, the matrices shall contain cross references. Offerors may provide narrative if the Offeror determines a narrative is needed to clarify the cross references. | ||||
| E.6.3.2 | 13 | N/A | Tab 4 instructions state that the Project Management Plan is to address “all key requirements included in the PWS.” Please clarify what is meant by key requirements of the PWS. Are key requirements the same as the mandatory requirements or are key requirements a subset of the mandatory requirements? If a subset, please identify the requirements in that subset. | The term 'key requirements' in this context are intended to mean the major features of the service being proposed, as judged by the Offeror. The Government will evaluate how well the Offeror understands the requirements based on how they address this instruction. | |
| E.6.3.4 | The instructions in Section E.6.3.4 states…"The PPI is to be submitted directly from the reference to the GSA Contracting Officer prior to the time and date specified for closing." The current date/time on Attachment E-1 states… "Please return this completed questionnaire no later than October 6, 2010, 2:00p.m. Eastern Time." Can you confirm if the GSA is still requiring the PPI to be sent in on October 6th, or if they have extended the due date to October 27th? | GSA has amended the solicitation to update this information. | |||
| F | 18 | 3.2.7.1 | The RFP states under Section F.3.2.7.1 Refinement of Price Evaluation: "The Government reserves the right to further refine its evaluation of the Offeror's pricing approach in a manner that will best serve the Government's interest." Will the Government assure bidders that it will issue an amendment describing the "refinement", especially if such amendment significantly affects the evaluation criteria? | In Section F.3.2.7 the Government has indicated that any of the techniques provided in the FAR may be used to evaluate price proposals. The potential for refinement anticipated by Section F.3.2.7.1 is within the provisions in the FAR. An amendment is not anticipated with regard to criteria or methodology as these will not change. Maximum flexibility is provided to the Contracting Officer to accomplish an effective evaluation of the price proposal in order to determine the price to be fair and reasonable. | |
| F.3.1 | 2 | N/A | Relative Importance of Evaluation Factors for Phase I states that on non-technical factors “socio-Economic is more important than Past Performance”. What is the basis for rating “socio-economic” factors over past performance? | FAR 15.304 (c) provides agency acquisition officials with broad discretion in the determination of evaluation factors subject to certain requirements. As these requirements are met in this solicitation, the agency acquisition officials have exercised the appropriate discretion as it relates to the requirements. | |
| General | N/A | There are 1082 requirements stated in this solicitation. Given that number of requirements, how will GSA evaluate those requirements relative to their criticality or importance? If vendors have different shortfalls relative to those requirements, how will those shortfalls be evaluated? Are all 1082 requirements of equal importance or have these requirements been prioritized. If they’ve been prioritized, when will those priorities be published for vendor use and evaluation? | The evaluation criteria to be used by the source selection panel is described in Section F. There are no priorities defined for the requirements beyond those designated as mandatory and objective. | ||
| Would it be possible for the government to send a bill that will meet their expectations? | The Government will not provide a template bill. | ||||
| B.1 | 3 | N/A | Definitions for SubCLINs 0006AA and 0006AB Onsite Reservation and Fulfillment Services and for SubClins 0006AC and 0006D Onsite Reservation and Fulfillment Services and the correspondening option subCLINs indicate that the hourly rate (for subCLINs 0006AAA, 0006AB and corresponding option subCLINs) and the transaction fees (for subCLINs 0006AC and 0006AD and corresponding option subCLINs) will be negotiated at the TO/sub-TO level for services required for each country or geographic region, as applicable. However, the Price Schedule, beginning in Section B.1 at page 12 of 19, does not identify that the fees are applicable to overseas locations. Please clarify if these SUBCLINs are for overseas pricing. | If an overseas location meets the Section B.1 definition of Onsite Reservation and Fulfillment Services, the appropriate SubClins would apply. | |
| C.3.4 | 11 | N/A | Changes in Commercial Travel Services, Subparagraph 4) identifies “group travel management" services as an example of emerging services/enhancements for which commercial availability is currently limited and lists it as a service that may be incorporated into the contract at a later date. However Section C.4.2.22 Group Travel, page 55, lists mandatory requirements for managing group travel. Please clarify the apparent contradiction. | The statement in Section C.3.4 refers to advanced capabilities in group travel management, particularly as related to conference/meeting planning for large groups. | |
| B | 7 | CLIN 0002AA and corresponding options | Local Authorization functionality is required; however, only a small percentage of local vouchers will need this functionality. Per the current CLIN structure, the cost for this functionality will be included in CLIN0002AA and its corresponding option CLINS, and the charge spread across all customers regardless of use. Will the Government add a CLIN specific to a Local Authorization, to prevent the cost for this functionality spreading across all agency transactions, regardless of whether the functionality is used? | Local Authorization functionality is listed in the Objectives section and is not a mandatory requirement in the ETS2 RFP. A specific CLIN for Local Authorizations will not be added for ETS2. | |
| B | 7 | CLIN 0002, subsets and corresponding options | Local authorization is a new functionality, with little quantity guidance provided. Need estimate of authorizations to be processed, by agency. What is the estimated annual number of local authorizations processed by each agency? | Potential ETS2 vendors shall review the local voucher data provided in Section C, Attachment 1 for the estimated ETS2 Local Authorization quantities. | |
| B | 13 | CLIN 0014 and corresponding options | FEMA Surge Blanket Travel. What is the average number of travelers expected to be authorized to travel under one of these transactions? |
| Will the GSA provide an estimated average for the number of travelers contemplated for each surge, and the average number of itineraries for each group? | Due to the nature of FEMA’s mission, the number of travelers that respond to any given disaster varies greatly. Recent incidents such as Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma required large numbers of FEMA travelers to respond and remain on site for extended periods of time. FEMA still has people that are deployed for these events. More recent disasters required smaller numbers of travelers for a limited amount of time. | ||||
| C.10.1.4 | 106 | 1 | Centrally Billed Accounts, subparagraph 1, requires the Contractor to load data or import all CBAs in a format that is agreeable to the Contractor, the customer agency, and its incumbent travel services contractor. Requiring the contractor to load CBAs as may be required by an accommodated TMC is not reasonable. The CBAs must be loaded in accordance with the Contractor’s ETS2 processes and TMCs then use that format. Please delete the reference to “incumbent travel service contractor.” If not, please confirm that if the incumbent travel service providers requires a unique format that differs from the Contractor’s required format, that the incumbent travel service provider is responsible for the costs of such customization. | As stated in the requirement, all parties will work out a plan for a format that is agreeable to those involved. Per the scope of this RFP, the requirement does not specify data from the accommodated TMCs be included. | |
| C.10.1.5 | 106 | 1 | Subparagraph 1, requires the Contractor to load or import all organization structure and approval routing in a format that is agreeable to the Contractor, the customer agency, and its incumbent travel services contractor. Requiring the contractor to load approval routing as may be required by an accommodated TMC is not reasonable. The approval routing must be loaded in accordance with the customer agency’s requirements and TMCs then use that routing. Please delete the reference to “incumbent travel service contractor.” If not, please confirm that if the incumbent travel service provider requires a unique format that differs from the customer agency approved routing, that the incumbent travel service provider is responsible for the costs of such customization. | C.10.1.5 #1 does not specify TMCs in the requirement. In addition, all parties will work out a plan for a format that is agreeable to those involved. | |
| C.10.1.6 | 106 | 1 | Accounting Codes, Subparagraph 1) requires the Contractor to load or import all accounting codes and dynamic data in a format that is agreeable to the Contractor, the customer agency, and its incumbent travel services contractor. Requiring the contractor to load accounting codes as may be required by an accommodated TMC is not reasonable. The accounting codes must be loaded in accordance with the customer agency’s requirements and the Contractor’s ETS2 requirements and the TMCs then use that routing. Please delete the reference to “incumbent travel service contractor.” If not, please confirm that if the incumbent travel service provider requires a unique format that differs from the customer agency format, that the incumbent travel service provider is responsible for the costs of such customization. | C.10.1.6 #1 does not specify TMCs in the requirement. In addition, all parties will work out a plan for a format that is agreeable to those involved. | |
| C.12.1.1 | 116 | 8 | Subparagraph f. Please provide clarification for this requirement – what kind of customized functionality beyond that available to a customer in production is required? | An agency may have a need to train users on functionality that is in testing / development that will one day be deployed in the production enclave. The Contractor is required to support the agency with setup for that type of event. | |
| C.15.1.6 | 120 | 2 | To whom is this to be provided and what is the purpose of requiring the contractor to provide the source code? It is likely of little value without the accompanying infrastructure, which would not be covered under CLIN 00013. | The source code shall be provided to the agency who paid for the interface customization at their request. | |
| C.4.1.1 | 12 | 1 | Subparagraphs 1)a and 2) state that the contractor, through ETS2, shall ensure that FTR and other Federal travel policies, business rules, contract parameters, permissions, and profiles can be updated, with the effective dates, by the Government and/or the Contractor without the need for programming. The scope of any future changes over the potential 15 year contract to the FTR or other Federal travel policies, business rules, contract parameters cannot be defined and is unknowable. Occasionally such policies can have an effective date of immediately upon publication or even thirty days. In some cases, the changes can require programming which is unavoidable. Therefore it is impossible for any offeror to ensure that its product for online transactions can be programmed to meet such requirements on their effective date. These mandatory requirements are unreasonable on their face and should be revised. | Federal policy changes are either released with time to comply and/or they are released with a draft for comment prior to their effective date. In principle, the ETS2 offeror shall propose a solution that is configurable and avoids programming for federal travel policy and procedural changes. |
The Goverment will work with the ETS2 contractor to address compliance to policy changes as outlined in Section C.5.1.1 #9 c. In the event that a Federal policy update cannot be implemented as part of the system configuration, the ETS2 Contractor shall accommodate policy changes and improvements as part of the release management processes. Where the policy update must be implemented within a specific time period, the Contractor shall recommend re-prioritization of enhancements planned into the most appropriate release to be compliant, update their Service Release Management Plan accordingly, and obtain Government approval on that revised Service Release Management Plan.
| C.4.1.1 | 12 | 1 | Subparagraphs 1)a and 2) on their face conflict with the mandatory requirements in Section C.5.1.1, subparagraphs 9 and 9.c that the contractor shall refresh and maintain the ETS2 service to address government policy updates over the life of the contract as part of routine operations and maintenance and that such policy updates shall be accommodated as part of the Contractor’s release management plan.The Government recognizes in section C.5.1.1 that updates to ETS2 for policy compliance may involve programming and planning that must be incorporated into the release management plan yet requires in Section 4.1.1 that policy updates be achieved without programming and on the effective date of the update regardless of the offeror’s release management plan. Please clarify. | The ETS2 offeror shall propose a solution that shall be configurable to the maximum extent possible allowing the approved agency personnel to implement changes when they occur. In the event that a Federal policy update cannot be implemented as part of the system configuration, the ETS2 Contractor shall accommodate policy changes and improvements as part of their release management processes. Where the policy update must be implemented within a specific time period, the Contractor shall recommend prioritization of these requirements into the most appropriate release to be compliant, update their Service Release Management Plan accordingly, and obtain Government approval on that revised Service Release Management Plan. |
| C.4.2.13.1 | 39 | 24 | This mandatory requirement to allow for overlapping trip dates for Long Term TDY travel appears to be in conflict with requirement 4.2.14.2 which is an objective to allow for trip-within-a-trip functionality. Please clarify the difference between overlapping trip dates for Long Term TDY travel and trip within-a-trip funcitonality. | The objective proposed by the offeror to allow for a trip-within-a-trip should also provide for what indicator will be implemented within the ETS2 service to differentiate between a trip-within-a-trip and unauthorized overlapping trip dates. |
| C.4.2.26.1 | 63 | N/A | GSA SmartPay Transition, Mandatory Requirements, requires the Contractor to implement future Government credit card contract transitions. Please confirm whether such future transitions are subject to the “Changes Clause”. The extent of any future transition and its impact upon the contractor or ETS2 is unforeseeable and therefore it is not reasonable to require such work without an equitable adjustment. | The Contractor shall plan for and include the services relevant to the GSA SmartPay transition in their transactional pricing. FAR 52.212-4 (c ) Changes makes no provision for equitable adjustments as such adjustments relate specifically to unilateral changes via Change Order. |
| C.10.1 | 104 | N/A | Standard Implementation Services, Mandatory Requirements, sets forth certain implementation requirements. Please confirm that if a customer agency changes an accommodated TMC during the contract period, that such change constitutes a new implementation entitling the contractor to charge a second implementation fee. | Agency changes to accommodated TMCs would not invoke use of the implementation fees. Rather that would be covered by transactional fees supporting requirements in Section C.4.2.12.1 and C.17. |
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 .