QandA_ETS2_11-09-2010_final.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 62 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
Post 9-21-10
| Section | Page | Requirement or Paragraph Number | Question or Comment | Answer |
| I noticed on OPM's website that LBIs are no longer going to be performed. I assume that MBIs and NACI will be the defacto checks we'll have to do and there will be an addendum to Attachment 4 on the requirement? [included OPM reference] "The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) recently announced (FIN 10-08) the new prices of their standard investigative products for Fiscal Year 2011. There was no annual price increase in October 2009. With one exception, the prices of the most common investigations increased 3%. The MBI (Minimum Background Investigation, now renamed the Moderate Risk Background Investigation) increased 20% for priority handling and 27% for standard service. OPM discontinued the Limited Background Investigation (LBI), which was previously used for Public Trust determinations. It also eliminated the PTSBI (Public Trust Special Background Investigation) and the PRIR (Periodic Reinvestigation and Residence Coverage), as well as various special upgrades and updates to standard investigations. |
It appears that the new Enhanced Subject Interview (ESI) will replace the Personal Subject Interview (PRSI), a standard component of many investigations. A separate charge for the ESI will be added to the price of the NACLC and ANACI when required by case expansion criteria.
Reimbursable Suitability/Security Investigations (RSI) will continue to be offered (FIN 10-09) for focused investigations needed to resolve issues that fall outside the scope or period of coverage of standard investigations. It is unclear whether the SPIN (Special Interview) will continue to be offered as an option under the RSI. With very few exceptions, federal agencies (including DISCO) pay OPM for these investigations. Here are the new prices that become effective on October 1, 2010:
Investigation Priority Handling Standard Service
NACLC ——– $228
ANACI ——– $260
SSBI $4,399 $4,005
SSBI-PR $2,964 $2,711
ESI ——– $550
NACI ——– $125
MBI $809 $752
BI $3,789 $3,189
PRI $694 $612"
| The background check requirements are as stated in Section C.6 with further guidelines in Attachment 4, "BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION (BI) PROCESS FOR ETS CONTRACTORS and THEIR SUBCONTRACTORS". The approval / investigation process varies based on the type of investigation required for the role and what agencies are involved. The estimated costs for FY11 are $354.57 for NACIC and $1076.17 for MBI Background Investigations. The current guidance (not formally published) is that these investigations will be valid for 5 years. These costs and/or the duration they are valid for may be subject to change and are the responsibility of the ETS2 vendor and must be borne in the overall proposed contract pricing. | ||||
| In the GSA RFP brief I submitted a question on the SAS 70 requirement in which I felt the answer was not fully stated. Do you know if the SAS 70 is something that is more on the financial side versus operational? In other words is the SAS 70 more on our financial business or is it focused on operations controls-- like a Type II for our data centers-- addressing the operational controls. Any clarity you can provide would be helpful. | Amendment 003 added a requirement for minimum of Type I SAS-70 audit. | |||
| B.1 | 2 | N/A | Definitions, Nonemergency after hours TMC services states that the transaction fee for this item is for the services of a full-service travel representative accessible for non-emergency travel planning services and reservations. The provision further provides examples of the types of services that are covered by the transaction fee including calls for flight schedules, seat changes and general information. This definition and examples are consistent with the fee per call charged under the current contract. However, the CLIN for this service (i.e., 0008AA and AB) states that the unit of issue is Per Transaction A or B as applicable. Transaction A and B require an actual ticket to be issued or reservation made. Please clarify whether the fee for Nonemergency after hours TMC services can be priced per call. | The Federal government is in many agencies a 24 X 7 operation, and some agencies want the ability to order these services for their agency as a standard offering for the agency and not as a per-call transaction. Market research confirmed this 24 X 7 model is becoming more typical, and is why it is available for the agencies to order from in the event offerors elect not to propose to deliver it as part of the objective in Section C.4.2.7.2. |
| C.4.2.7.1 | 28 | 6 | Agent-Assisted Travel Planning and Reservation Services, Paragraphs 6) and 8)b. and Section C.11.1.3 Technical Help Desk, Paragraph 3)a., page 112, specify certain service levels must be met for phone service for certain types of calls. Please confirm that these standards apply only to core hours and only to services provided from the Contractor’s and/or subcontractor’s facilities. It would not be reasonable to require such standards to apply outside the core hours or to on-site locations where the Government specifies the number of agents to be used and/or provides the telephone equipment which oftentimes has no reporting capabilities. | Should an agency order Nonemergency after hours TMC services, those services shall be delivered following the standards outlined on page 112, as specified in Section C.2.7.1 #7 b. VIP services are required as outlined in Section C.4.2.7.1 #8, where the specified standards are for core and non-core service hours. |
The Federal government is in many agencies a 24 X 7 operation, and some agencies want the ability to order these services for their agency as a standard offering for the agency and not as a per-call transaction. Market research confirmed this 24 X 7 model is becoming more typical, and is why it is available for the agencies to order from in the event offerors elect not to propose to deliver it as part of the objective in Section C.4.2.7.2.
| C.6.1.1 | 73 | 1 | Federal Desktop Core Configuration, Subparagraph o., requires the Contractor to assure compatibility with NIST Federal Desktop Core Configuration which applies to desktops used by or for the federal government. The applicability of this standard to equipment to be used under this contract is not clear. For example, travel agents who would book travel under this contract use GDS terminals or PCs with GDS capability and would interact with ETS2 through the GDS through a queuing system. The GDS itself is exempt from all security requirements. We assume that under such circumstances the equipment used by a travel agent in this manner would be exempt from the FDCC, is this assumption correct? | Yes, FDCC requirements relate to Government traveler / user equipment standards, not ETS2 vendor equipment or travel agency/GDS equipment. |
| C.8.5.1 | 99 | 1 | Paragraph 1) requires the Contractor to transfer all data including what is stored in GDS. Please clarify what is meant by data stored in GDS - this is an open-ended requirement and not defined sufficiently. | The Government owns all data generated under performance of this contract in support and as part of delivering the ETS2 service. This requirement clarifies that this is true for all tiered subcontracts, including the GDS. The requirement remains as written. |
| C.9.1 | 102 | 7 | Paragraph 7) states that the contractor is to provide a CBA reconciliation report for “each CBA ETS2 air and rail ticket and fee transaction.” The paragraph indicates that the report should include sufficient transaction detail to include travel authorization number, etc. as necessary to properly associate charges with tracked expenses by the Government. This provision would suggest that the CBA reconciliation is limited to reconciling air and rail transactions and the fees associated with those transactions that are charged to a centrally-billed account. However, C.4.2.16.1 Paragraph 6), page 44, states that ETS2 shall provide for the matching of centrally issued passenger tickets, including refunds with the appropriate travel authorizations and/or vouchers. What is being required under Section C.4.2.16.1? Is this separate from the CBA Reconciliation Report? Please clarify. | Requirement C.4.2.16.1#6, "matching of centrally issued passenger tickets, including refunds, with the appropriate travel authorizations and/or vouchers" relates to the functionality of providing the appropriate information to associate the travel authorization and/or voucher to items charged to a centrally billed account (CBA) such as passenger tickets, fees etc. where Requirement C.9.1#7 is the report that the contractor is required to provide to assist in the reconciliation of the CBA. |
| C.9.1 | 102 | 10 | Queries and Reports, Paragraph 10), establishes deadlines for when modifications to existing reports (7 workdays), new reports (three weeks) or emergency reports (same day) are due. Without knowing the extent of any such modification or new report, it is not possible to establish firm deadlines. Please provide the specific supporting underlying information which the Government relied upon to determine such deadlines were appropriate. Are such deadlines in this section covered by the disincentives for reports set forth in Section D.28(E), page 32 of 109? | The requirement remains as written, and was generated from a 16-month government-wide requirements collaboration process and lessons learned from the ETS1 services delivery performance. Deadlines in this section are not associated with the SLA #5, Section D.28. The SLA #5 for Data Transfer relates to the on-time exchange of data for agency interfaces and to 3rd parties as required by GSA and/or customer agencies. |
| C.11.1.1 | 110 | 1 | Travel Account Management, Paragraph 1), uses the phrase “designated account manager.” Please clarify what designated means in regard to this requirement. The Government has elsewhere in the RFP at Section C.10.1.11, page 107 stated that “dedicated” means a named individual who may or may not work only with a single agency. | Amendment 3 clarified key personnel requirements and ability to propose levels of dedication for some positions. The account manager key personnel position is intended to be dedicated to the agency and these services are as outlined in C.11.1.1 Dedicated in reference to key personnel means level of dedication to the ETS2 contract / task order, where 100% dedicated means working on only ETS2 (but could be applied to more than one agency in cases of agencies with smaller transaction volumes). |
Section C.10.1.11 opening paragraph describes services offered during implementation for implementation services ordered using CLIN 0005 A, B, C, D and references dedicated implementation support, which is intended to be applicable to this paragraph only. The definition in this paragraph applies for this section only.
| C.11.1.2 | 111 | 1 | Subparagrahs b., c. and d., Online Help require online help to be available and that it should include Frequently Asked Questions reflecting customer agency-specific configuration and policies, online training materials reflecting customer agency-specific configuration and policies, and other items specifically requested by the customer agency. Is the Government customer agency responsible for developing the materials outlined above? We assume that if the contractor is required to develop these materials, the development of such materials is to be charged under the CLIN for Supplemental Customer Service, is that assumption correct? If not under that CLIN, under what CLIN is the development work to be charged? | No, the requirements listed under Section C.11.1.2 for Online Help are mandatory requirements required to be priced as part of the transactional pricing. CLIN 0019, Supplemental Customer Service is not applicable for this support. |
| D.28 | 29 | 2 | Subparagraph f., SLA 2 provides incentives and disincentives for percentage of online transactions. The provision provides for a maximum incentive of $.40 per voucher for an adoption rate of greater than 85%. However the Government assesses a disincentive of $1.00 per voucher if adoption rates are less than or equal to 65%. First, why would the incentive not apply to a rate equal to or greater than 85% as is done with the disincentive? Second, the disincentive of $1.00 is disproportionate to any possible incentive at the same percentage variance from the 75% goal. This would appear to be punitive in nature. Third, how are any incentives or disincentives to be paid? Who are the disincentives paid to—the customer agencies or to GSA? Fourth, why does the calculation for determining percentage exclude CLIN 0001AG from the formula when it includes CLIN 0001AF? | Disincentives, if assessed based on the performance review process outlined in Section D.28, would be applied to transactional pricing in the next option period. CLIN 0001AG is non-air transaction and by SLA #2 definition, it is measured based on domestic air travel reservations. |
Disincentives are not punitive, but intended to offset the substantial additional costs incurred by the government when a vendor does not meet the performance objectives for the stated requirements. For online booking reservations, the disincentive ratio relative to the gains under incentives was designed to prevent any degradation of the established performance levels already established in ETS1. The Government has experienced these online booking performance levels when provided access to on-line workflow and usability features that encourage online use as much as possible.
D.28 31 4 Subparagraph f., SLA 4 provides only for disincentives if the system is not available during core hours. There is a disincentive of $4,000 per day for any part of a 24 hour period if the system is not available, a disincentive of $10,000 per day when the downtime exceeds 24 hours, a disincentive of $25,000 per day if the system is down more than 48 hours, and a disincentive of $50,000 per day if the system is down longer than a week. Please clarify how these disincentives are to work based upon a 24 hour period if the system is only required to be up during the core hours of 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. Eastern Time. Please confirm that the contractor would not be subject to any disincentive if the system was down for any day between 10:01 p.m. and 6:59 a.m. Eastern Time. Please clarify to which Government entity such disincentives would be paid. Please confirm that these disincentives are the only penalties the Contractor would be required to pay to the Government and that no additional penalties such as providing full service at touchless transaction prices could be imposed by customer agencies. Please provide the supporting underlying information that GSA used to determine that such disincentives were fair and reasonable. The ETS2 contractor is required to maintain 98% system uptime availability 24 X 7, except for scheduled maintenance which is only allowed during non-Core Service hours. The formula for calculating outages will not penalize vendors for scheduled maintenance performed in non-Core Service hours. Amendment 0006 clarified this.
The disincentive rates applied for this SLA are based on combination of factors that include the substantial government-wide costs incurred when system uptime is impaired, and is intended to encourage vendors to make the investments necessary to prevent any substantial outage.
The administrative details of disincentive payments for SLA #4 will be defined by GSA at the time they are determined to be due.
| D.28 | 32 | N/A | SLA 5 provides disincentives only for inaccurate or late data transfers. There is a disincentive of $500 per day for the first seven days and $1,000 per day each day thereafter. These penalties do not bear any relationship to any actual harm that could be suffered by the Government and are punitive in nature. The DOD in its contracts has penalties for late or inaccurate reports, but the penalties are $25 per report. Please provide the underlying supporting information that GSA used to determine that such “liquidated damages” are fair and reasonable and reflect the financial harm suffered by the Government especially in view of the amounts charged by DOD. Please clarify to whom such disincentives are to be paid. | SLA #5 Data Transfer is not intended to address reporting performance. SLA #5 is intended to address timely and accurate transfer of data via integration and/or transfer of data to third-parties (e.g., MIS). The SLA was developed in response to performance deficiencies in ETS1. The disincentives are intended to motivate performance in manner to help the government avoid the increased costs it incurs due to deficiencies in this area (e.g., personnel and other support contractor labor costs related to payment process deficiencies, etc.) The administrative details of disincentive payments will be defined by GSA at the time they are determined. | |
| E.6 | 7 | N/A | Offerors are required to submit one unbound and 2 bound hard copies plus an electronic copy of Volume 1, Administrative. Volume I, Tab 2 requires "Complete solicitation and amendments" Paragraph E.6.3 further states that Volume 1 must include "Solicitation in its entirety (with fill-ins and check boxes completed). In consideration of the government's Paperwork Reduction Act, please explain why offerors must return multiple copies plus an electronic copy of a solicitation the government issued--in its entirety (732 pages at this point--including Amendment 1) rather than simply returning the pages requiring fill-ins by the offeror (currently only 36 pages, as the RFP states that the Sample Subcontracting Plan is "not a fill-in form.") | The multiple copies will enable the contractor to receive one complete executed copy of the contract and the remaining copies to become the official contract file. The electronic copy will facilitate the ability to find informaiton quickly. Unfortunately, hard copies remain a necessity until such time as end-to-end electronic contracting is fully deployed to FAS. | |
| General | How is this news relevant to ETS2? | ||||
| http://federalnewsradio.com/?nid=35&sid=2063463 | The article addresses Time-and-Material and Labor Hour contract types. As stated in Section D.4, this is an Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite-Quantity type of contract with Firm-Fixed-Price pricing structure. | ||||
| C.4.2.8 | 31 | N/A | Ticketing and Fulfillment Services includes 7 mandatory requirements. Mandatory requirements 5 and 7 apply to the ETS2 contractor as they require notification to the TMC. However, Mandatory requirements 1-4 and 6 are all tasks that would be fulfilled by either the ETMC or the ATMC. Please explain why the ETS2 contractor would be responsible for mandatory requirements 1-4 and 6 when the contractor will have no control over the ticketing and fulfillment actions for agent-assisted travel reservation services of an ATMC. Shouldn’t these requirements be a part of the ATRS, rather than being separately listed under TFS? | Since the requirements would apply equally to both ATRS and OTRS fulfillment services, they could not be cited in the ATRS Section as recommended. In the event the customer agency elects to use an Accommodated TMC, the ETS2 prime contractor is required to establish Service Integration Agreements that clarify the roles and responsibilities of the parties (Section C.4.2.12.) | |
| C.4.2.12.1 | 38 | Mandatory requirement 1 states that the contractor must “accommodate an ATMC at no expense to the ATMC or no additional cost beyond the transaction fee to the government.” In Mandatory Requirement 2, the government requires best efforts of the contractor to establish a “service integration agreement” (SIA) with any ATMC. However, such an agreement would not enable the ETS2 contractor to monitor or control “point-of-sale” quality control (particularly as an ATMC may use a separate GDS than the one used by the contractor. Page 33, C.4.2.9.1, Mandatory requirement 3) states that the contractor provided quality control, “including point-of-sale and mid-office automation” shall apply to all OTRS and ATRS PNRs, and to “all PNRs fulfilled in conjunction with an accommodated TMC.” What control will the ETS2 contractor have over “point-of-sale” quality control of an accommodated TMC? If the ETS2 contractor cannot charge the ATMC, how is the contractor to be compensated for its proprietary mid-office quality control being used for agent-assisted travel reservation services performed by an ATMC? | This has been clarified in Amendment 005, such that the Contractor-provided QCP, including point-of-sale and mid-office automation, shall apply to all OTRS transactions and all ETMC-originated ATRS PNRs, and only to the maximum extent possible by Contractor, to all PNRs fulfilled in conjunction with an accommodated TMC. |
Amendment 003 added a CLIN 0001AH that can be ordered via the Task Order, at the option of the customer agency, so that the Contractor-provided QC services for ATMC ATRS transactions are able to be reimbursed.
Attachment E-1 We are in receipt of Amendment 2 to GSA Solicitation QMAD-JM-100001-N, dated October 1, 2010, and have the following question for clarification regarding the contents therein:
In the changes made by Amendment 2 to Attachment E-1, Past Performance Questionnaire, we note that the deadline date for submission of these questionnaires to GSA from offerors' customer references has been extended from October 6, 2010 to October 27, 2010. In addition to this modification, we also note that the lettering and numbering of various questions contained in the questionnaire have been changed, as well. For example, Section 1, Contract Identifier, from the original solicitation has questions A, B, C, D, E, F, I, J (with no G and H); Section 2, Customer or Agency Identification, has A and B; and Section 3, Reference Identification, has A, B, C and D.
The revised questionnaire contained in Amendment 2 reflects the following: Section A contains questions G, H, I, J, K, L, II and J, in that order. Section 2 contains questions C and D, and Section 3 continues with questions E, F, G and H.
The changes made to the lettering and numbering of the questions contained in these sections appears to be an unanticipated, unintentional error. Is this a correct assumption, and if so, can offerors expect that there will be a further amendment to correct the discrepancies in this form before we forward them to our customer references?
| Thank you very much for providing clarification to this question. We will wait until we receive your response before we forward the form onward to our customers. | This has been corrected in Amendment 003. | ||
| Can you tell me if there is a preference toward Commercial-Off-the-Shelf (COTS) solutions, or if custom application development is also an appropriate solution for this solicitation? | This is a commercial acquisition conducted under FAR part 12, and as such, the government is procuring this as a commercial service. The Government desires solutions that leverage commercially based technologies to the maximum extent possible. The FAR further allows that commercial solutions can be tailored to meet government specific requirements while buying a commercial capability. | ||
| General | Please confirm that the deadline has been extended to October 27, 2010. | Amendment 003 extended the deadline to 15 November 2010. | |
| B.2 | Is there an IFF fee on the other CLINs not mentioned in paragraph B.2? |
We have the following question for clarification regarding the CLINs identified in Section B. While we understand that it is the overall objective of this procurement exercise to substantially increase adoption of electronic tools and end-to-end solutions available to government travelers over the life of the ETS2 contract, there appears to be a discrepancy in many of the estimated quantities listed in Section B.2, Schedule of Items.
Paragraph B.2.1 states that, "The "Estimated Quantity" column shows quantities estimated for each CLIN for the duration of the base or option period (as applicable). These quantities are not by year, but cumulative totals for the entire period." The figures provided, however, in the Estimated Quantity columns, appear to be unrealistically inflated from what is identified in the Base Period table, to what is identified in the corresponding tables for Option Periods 1, 2 and 3, even if anticipating healthy increases in adoption rates year over year, and contract period over contract period.
For example, in CLIN 0002, ETS2 Authorization and Voucher Services [Base Period], the amount shown for Local Vouchers (CLIN 0002AA) is 468,325, and for TDY Vouchers (CLIN 0002AB) is 1,761,792. The corresponding line items for Local Vouchers are 2,451,952 (Option 1, CLIN 0022AA), 2,480,740 (Option 2, CLIN 0042AA) and 2,480,740 (Option 3, CLIN 0062AA). Similarly, in CLIN 0002, ETS2 Authorization and Voucher Services [Base Period], the amount shown for TDY Vouchers (CLIN 0002AB) is 1,761,792, while the corresponding line items for TDY Vouchers are 9,224,012 (Option 1, CLIN 0022AB), 9,332,312 (Option 2, CLIN 0042AB) and 9,332,312 (Option 3, CLIN 0062AB).
There are several other categories where the figures shown in the Base Period appear substantially inflated in the Option Periods. While we acknowledge that these figures are provided as estimates only, and that there is no guarantee that the estimated volumes provided will be realized, it is important that offerors are working with the most accurate estimates possible and available in order to present the most competitive pricing with their proposals. If the premise for these extraordinary increases from the Base Period to the Option Periods is an anticipated increase in adoption, then what accounts for the similarly magnified increases in the estimates for Paper Ticket Issuance and Delivery between the Base Period (CLINs 0003AA, 0003AB and 0003AC) and the Option Periods (CLINs 0023AA, 0023AB, 0023AC, 0043AA, 0043AB, 0043AC, 0063AA, 0063AB, 0063AC)?
Thank you very much for providing clarification to this question. IFF fees are determined by GSA are determined at award and can be revised at any time to any CLINs over the life of the contract. Under ETS1, the IFF was applied to the voucher CLIN.
The base periods have lower volume estimates because it assumes ramp up during ETS1 to ETS2 transition and is 3 years. The option periods assume full utilization of ETS2 and are 4 years.
Appendix B-1 19 N/A Guidance For Online Travel Reservation Service (OTRS) and Agent-Assisted Travel Reservation Service (ATRS) Pricing Applications provides several examples of situations that may be an online transaction or assisted transaction. However we know that many more examples were identified during the draft RFP stage but not addressed in the actual RFP. It is important for offerors and their potential embedded TMC to understand the potential scope of work and the potential fees to be charged for that work. The Government needs to address these scenarios so that all parties, including federal agencies, who will be issuing task orders under any Master Contract award. We are seeking clarification of the following scenarios:
1) The OBE was used to book a reservation but the OBE is not working due to a system error and an agent must intervene to finalize the reservation.
2) The traveler inserts comments within the remarks field. The remarks do not ask for any specific assistance, but their inclusion require agent intervention to review and/or process.
3) The traveler books foreign flagged carriers without appropriate authorization.
4) The traveler requests excess baggage which must be processed by an agent through other airline processes.
5) The traveler books an airline which cannot be auto-ticketed and require customer service intervention because the carrier has chosen a lesser level of participation in the GDS and therefore the carrier has ticketing limitations.
6) The traveler has requested ferry, bus or rail service which must be manually ticketed.
We assume that because an agent is necessary to complete each of these actions, they are ATRS transactions.
This question was submitted twice. The answer provided for #2 is corrected in this posting.
Example #s: 4,5,6 are examples of when an OTRS becomes an ATRS transaction.
For #1, The ETS Contractor may be liable for the difference between the OTRS and ATRS fee when the OBE should be otherwise functioning (except for scheduled maintenance).
For #2, Comments within the a remarks field intended for travel reservations shall be converted to an agent assisted transaction. The OTRS shall have clearly marked indicators to the user to avoid inadvertent entries in a travel reservations remark field. Remarks made in a field provided for remarks to the travel approver shall not convert a transaction from online to assisted.
For #3, The OBE should support the FTR requirement and alert travelers when approval is required.
For #5, the OTRS shall notify users for any airlines that cannot be auto-ticketed.
| B.1 | N/A | Please clarify whether bus or ferry service that requires ticketing is a Transaction A (a ticketed transaction) or Transaction B (a non-ticketed transaction). | A bus or ferry booking that requires ticketing by the fulfilling TMC is a Transaction A (a ticketed transaction). | |
| E.6 | 8 | N/A | Volume 2, TECHNICAL, Lists Tab 5: Demonstration with a limit of 10 pages “as instructed in E.6.3.2.” E.6.3.2, Page 20 states that the offeror “may take up to ten (10) pages to address the key points which will be conveyed in the Demonstration. The supplemental demonstration handout that addresses key points shall be delivered via email 2 full work days prior to the offeror’s scheduled demonstration to the Contracting Officer at ETS2@gsa.gov. Changes to the handout are not permitted.” This seems to indicate that the 10 pages for Tab 5 are not required to be submitted on the proposal due date, but will be required after the government sets the date for the demonstration. Please clarify if this is correct. If this is not correct, please specify exactly what is expected here. | That is correct. The content for Tab 5 is not due on the proposal due date, but due 2 work days prior to the Demonstration date which will be determined after the Government sets the date(s) for each Offeror demonstration. |
| C.4.2.9.1 | Based on many aspects of the current eTS2 solicitation and public statements made by GSA, it is apparent that GSA is committed to providing the Federal agencies with a choice of either an accommodated (ATMC) or embedded TMC (ETMC). However, certain aspects of the solicitation do just the opposite by putting an undue financial and operational burden on the ATMC. If GSA still has a goal of establishing an environment where both ATMC and ETMC are viable options for the Federal agencies, then we believe GSA must address the following aspects of the current eTS2 solicitation. Failure to do so will place the ATMC at a competitive disadvantage to the ETMC. |
1. Section C.4.2.9.1. Quality Control – We agree that the quality control requirements outlined should be mandatory for both the ETMC and the ATMC. However, we do not believe that GSA should dictate how the ATMC meets these requirements by requiring the ATMC to use the point-of-sale and mid-office automation supplied and managed by the ETMC. We oppose the current language for the following reasons:
i. It infringes on the ATMC’s right to meet the quality control requirements in a proprietary manner which may better meet the needs of the Federal customer and differentiate the ATMC’s proposed solution.
ii. Will actually reduce the level of customer service by requiring the outsourcing of an in-house capability which impacts response times and enhanced solutions to meet specific customer needs.
iii. Will increase cost as most ATMC already have the capability to meet the quality control requirements. Under this requirement, the ATMC must now pay a fully-loaded fee to the ETMC for the exact same capability.
iv. Will reduce ATMC agent productivity which will result in a higher cost to the Federal agencies. Point-of-sale and mid-office quality control programs do much more than the quality control requirements outlined by GSA. Therefore, ATMC will either have to pay the ETMC to customize the programs or operate duplicate programs impacting productivity and customer service.
v. Will increase the cost of online bookings. Most ATMC incorporate many of the quality control functions and the PNR documentation in their proprietary ticket fulfillment programs. By requiring the use of the ETMC quality control program there will be a duplication of efforts.
vi. Requires a financial relationship be established between the ATMC and the ETMC to manage the customization of the products. ATMC has no ability to negotiate contract terms such as price, service level, response times, etc. as GSA mandates the use of a single QC solution.
vii. Requires the Federal agency to act as the intermediary between the ATMC and the ETMC as they will be the one paying the ETMC for services provided to the ATMC.
viii. It is a duplication of the TMC quality control standards that GSA has indicated will be required under the next TSS contract refresh.
ix. Gives too much pricing and operational control to the ETMC without providing any added value over and above what is provided by the ATMC.
x. Puts the ATMC at a competitive pricing disadvantage based on all the reasons outlined above.
Based on these ten points, we believe that GSA should amend the solicitation and make the use of the ETMC’s quality control program an OPTIONAL item as opposed to a mandatory item. By doing this, GSA will insure that those ATMC’s that do not have quality control capabilities have access to an acceptable quality control program. Alternatively, the ATMC’s that already have the capability to meet the quality control standards are able to do this in the most cost effective, customer centric and operationally sound manner for the Federal customer.
In addition, Attachment 15 needs to be updated to add the QCP requirements to all PNR’s entering the eTS2 system. This has been clarified in Amendment 005, such that the Contractor-provided QCP, including point-of-sale and mid-office automation, shall apply to all OTRS transactions and all ETMC-originated ATRS PNRs, and only to the maximum extent possible by Contractor, to all PNRs fulfilled in conjunction with an accommodated TMC.
Amendment 003 added a CLIN 0001AH that can be ordered via the Task Order, at the option of the customer agency, so that the Contractor-provided QC services for ATMC ATRS transactions are able to be reimbursed.
C.4.2.10.1 2. Section C.4.2.10.1.2. TMC Services – The ATMC needs to have the same access to the OTRS as is mandated for the ETMC. The ATMC currently has this capability under the current eTS program. Without this access, the ATMC will be at a competitive disadvantage to the ETMC in the level of customer service and trip research they are able to provide.
| To accomplish this, GSA would need to replace the word “TMC” with the words “both ETMC and ATMC” on the requirement to provide free access to the OTRS. In addition, Attachment 15 needs to be updated to include access to the OTRS. | OTRS access is required for ETMCs and ATMCs in C.4.2.10 in the opening paragraph and then as described in #2, which includes an itemized list of required privileges. This is further clarified / reinforced in C.4.2.12 #4 for Accommodated TMCs. The Attachment 15 is provided as guidance and does clarify that the document is applicable for both ETMC and ATMC scenarios, and includes an objective " To establish uniform policy and procedures regarding the use of the ETS2 vendor’s OTRS". | |
| B.1 | 3. CLIN 0001AF OTRS Reservation Only – Please provide clarity as to what type of booking would fall into this CLIN. In the definitions section of Section B, it is included in the definition of an OTRS as if it is the same as CLIN0001AB. Is CLIN 0001AF the fee that is charged to a Federal agency that uses an ATMC for use of the online booking engine since this fee is NOT included in the transaction fee charged by the ATMC? |
a. If so, what has GSA incorporated into the pricing section or the overall evaluation criteria to insure that the Reservation Only fee charged by the eTS2 provider accurately reflects the true cost of providing the service?
b. If not, please define at what point in the reservation process this fee should be charged by the TMC.
c. If not, please advise how the ETMC will be reimbursed for the use of the OTRS.
| To address this situation, we believe GSA should create a separate definition for CLIN 0001AF and clearly state what qualifies as a “reservation only” booking for the ATMC and the ETMC (if applicable). In addition, GSA needs to incorporate language into the solicitation that discourages predatory pricing by the eTS2 vendors as it relates to the fee for CLIN 0001AB. GSA should evaluate the quoted price for reasonableness based on the ETMC’s proposed price for CLIN 0001AB which contains both the online booking engine fee and the fulfillment fee. If the cost difference is not reasonable, the eTS2 vendor should be required to provide an explanation of the pricing differential. GSA should also conduct a reasonableness test based on commercial pricing for the near-same product. | CLIN 0001AF refers to Air/Rail online bookings while CLIN 0001AB refers to Lodging and Car only (without air). CLIN 0001AF is the charge by the ETS2 vendor for an online booking for air or rail only. It does not cover any fee negotiated based on the ATMC task order. This establishes the charge for OTRS for the ETS2 vendor covering both booking and fulfillment that takes place completely online. An important goal of this solicitation is to drive lower transaction fees by automating both the reservation and fulfillment of travel services. a. It is not the role of the GSA to determine if the fee charge represents "the true cost" of providing the service. This is a competitive procurement. Price reasonableness will be determined based on competition, historic pricing, market research, and any other source available to the Government. b. This is the fee charged by the ETS2 vendor and it represents all OTRS reservations and automated fulfillment. c. It is incumbent upon the ETS2 vendor to include any costs incurred by the ETMC as part of the fee quoted in CLIN 0001AF or CLIN 0001AB . The definition of an OTRS describes "travel reservations and fulfillment (that) are initiated and completed online , i.e. without direct contact between the user/traveler/travel arranger with a customer support agent for the explicit purpose of making and/or fulfilling travel arrangements." , and remains as written. The Government will evaluate price as stated Section F, Evaluation Criteria and Method of Award. | |
| B.1 | 4. CLIN 0001AG ATRS Reservation Only - Please provide clarity as to what type of booking would fall into this CLIN. In the definitions section of Section B, it is included in the definition of an ATRS as if it is the same as CLIN0001AC. Is CLIN 0001AG the fee that is charged to a Federal agency that uses an ATMC for use of the online booking engine since this fee is NOT included in the transaction fee charged by the ATMC? |
a. If so, what has GSA incorporated into the pricing section or the overall evaluation criteria to insure that the Reservation Only fee charged by the eTS2 provider accurately reflects the true cost of providing the service?
b. If not, please define at what point in the reservation process this fee should be charged by the TMC.
c. If not, please advise how the ETMC will be reimbursed for the use of the OTRS. CLIN 0001AG applies to Contractor-provided (ETMC) agent assisted reservation transactions (ATRS) containing only lodging and/or car rental bookings (no air or rail). Although the CLIN is a Transaction Type B, requiring no ticketing, the fee is inclusive of all Contractor-provided services including both reservation and fulfillment by the ETMC (to the extent necessary).
The CLIN does not include ATMC fees which are negotiated on a task order level. This is not the charge to a Federal agency that uses an ATMC for use of the online booking engine. This is an agent assisted reservation that is not done online and applies only to ETMC agent services. The ATMC fees are negotiated separately from this solicitation and are governed by the customer agency Task Order.
| B.4 | 5. Section B. paragraph B.4. - states that the IFF will be determined by GSA and will be added to the proposed CLIN prices at the Government’s option. Is it GSA’s intent to allocate the IFF in a manner that takes into consideration that the ATMC IFF is $1.50 per transaction? In order to achieve GSA’s goal of providing a travel solution that does not discriminate against ATMC’s, we believe that GSA should apportion the same IFF ($1.50) to CLIN’s 0001AA, 0001AB, 0001AC, 0001AD, 0001AE, 0001SBAA, 0001SBAB, 0001SBAC, 0001SBAD and 0001SBAE as it does to the ATMC’s under TSS. | GSA will take this under advisement. | ||
| General | Please define point of sale. It means point of booking in the corporate world. Several government contacts have told us it means point of ticketing in the Government world. Please clarify: at booking, at ticketing or somewhere else. | Point of Sale (POS) as referenced throughout Section C. of the solicitation should be interpreted to mean the point of booking. (e.g., OTRS or ATRS) | ||
| C.6.1.1 | Section C.6.1.1.1.h. Logical/Physical Separation – This section states that a database used for one customer agency cannot be used for another customer agency (or non- US Government entity). Since the GDS is exempted from this requirement, at the TMC level this requirement would primarily apply to the TMC’s accounting system. This requirement will cause an undue burden on the TMC and substantially increase the cost to the Government. Since the TMC accounting systems control all ticketing, reporting, ARC processing, invoicing and financial data this requirement is operationally infeasible to implement with the possibility of having hundreds of Federal agencies of varying sizes. Would GSA consider designating the TMC databases as outside the accreditation boundary? There is precedence for this with the classification of the GDS and all of the data contained in the TMC databases is also contained in the GDS. In addition, the data contained in the TMC database is required to be encrypted with FIPS140-2 or higher. | GSA has reviewed alternatives for defining the accreditation boundary and based on E-Gov Travel Program requirements embedded TMC databases must remain inside the boundary. Amendment 005 has further clarified the logical and physical separation requirements. | ||
| B.1 | 3 | N/A | A03 added a definition for Quality Control Program for Accommodated TMCs (ATMC QCP). Please clarify how the contractor is to establish a Quality Control Program in accordance with C.4.2.9 for an accommodated TMC that holds a TMC contract under the TSS? Unless the TMC gives permission for all agent-assisted PNRs to be queued to the contractor's automated QC system, meeting this requirement is impossible. Also, who pays the fee for the ATMC QCP--the customer or the accommodated TMC? | Amendment 005 included further clarification for the requirements for this CLIN. All CLINs are paid for by the ordering agency. |
| C.4.2.7.1 | 30 | N/A | Item 8 d.is a mandatory requirement for the contractor to ensure that "agents supporting VIP travel have sufficient experience." Please clarify how the Contractor will have control over the experience levels of agents employed by an accommodated TMC? | This covers only the ETMC not the ATMC. The ATMC VIP requirements will be comparable to the ETMC once the TSS schedule is updated. |
| C.6.1.1 | 72 | N/A | Item 1) h The first sentence, “Assure that US Government data is at all times logically or physically separated by customer agency, and from non-US Government data, including foreign government data, state and local government data, and commercial data” states that logical separation is acceptable. However, in the next sentence "separate database instances" indicates physical separation of the data by client agency. What is the real requirement--logical separation of data or physical separation of data? Currently, ETS is delivered as a SAAS modeled solution, an approach that greatly minimizes Government investment in costly infrastructure and application customization while providing a timely and cost-effective solution to meet Agency travel and expense management needs. Application business logic is designed to meet Government travel regulations with flexibility in configuration to meet custom Agency policies that exist via existing configuration controls. An investment in further segregating agency data will result in extreme measures beyond the capabilities of current technologies, which already adequately support the government’s requirements to meet logical or physical separation. The ETS2 requirement amendment in regards to logical separation for agency data is not an efficient business approach and will increase costs, resulting in significant challenges for any competing vendor. We request that the government fully quantify its decision and re-address the requirement to further separate agency data. | The requirement is that data be logically or physically separated, except for the TAVS which must be physically separated, per Amendment 005. "Separate database instances" refers to logical or physical instances (e.g. separate physical servers or separate database files/virtual servers). Amendment 005 removed the requirement for separate database instances for agency customers and therefore now allows for logical separation of agency data from other agencies (as well as other non-US government entities). |
| C.6.1.3.1 | 80 | N/A | Mandatory Requirement 10) is not clear. Is the government requiring that lockout from the system occur only if there are three consecutive invalid logon attempts within 20 minutes or less? Please clarify what is meant by "Lockout of accounts as a result of invalid logon attempts that occur regardless of timeframe will not be permitted." | Yes, the government requires that lockout from the system occur only if there are three consecutive invalid logon attempts within 20 minutes or less. "Regardless of timeframe" refers to lockouts that occur irrespective of a specified time period (e.g. after 3 invalid attempts in any amount of time). |
| C.10.1.11 | 109 | N/A | Item 4) Large-Scale Standard Implementation Services Level D, Item b. requires the Contractor to conduct "at least 72 instructor-led training classes for each ETS2 user role and an appropriate number of computer-based, Web-based, instructor-led and train-the-trainer courses for at least 36,000 users in a minimum of 1,440 classes." Does this mean that the government requires 504 instructor-led classes and an additional 1,440 classes through a combination of computer-based, Web-based, instructor-led and train-the-trainer courses? In an 18 month implementation period, (e.g. 390 business days), the customer agency will likely have very strong preferences as to how many and what type of classes are offered. Under these requirements, would the contractor be required to meet an agency request for 936 train-the-trainer sessions, or 936 instructor-led sessions? Is the assumption that computer-based and Web-based do not require an instructor (i.e, Web-based is not a Webinar)? If the agency chooses computer-based or Web-based, is the Contractor required to track how many are trained. How would the contractor know when 36,000 users have been trained? | Training and the variations used will be negotiated by the agencies as part of the agency task orders. For pricing purposes, the standard at the master contract requirement is the number of Instructor Led Classes is the minimum number of Instructor Led classes to be provided by the contractor. The minimum number of Instructor Led Classes for Service Level D is 504 (72 Classes X 7 User Roles (C.12.1.1#1)) classes out of the 1,440 leaving 936 classes using a combination of computer-based, Web-based, instructor-led, and train-the-trainer courses. The number of instructor led classes used in combination with the computer-based, Web-based, instructor-led, and train-the-trainer courses and make up of classes is negotiable at the Task Order Level with the contractor responsible for providing the minimum number of classes; in the instance of Service Level D, which would be 1,440 classes in total. C.12.1.1#2 “The Contractor shall provide 508 compliant, Web-based computer-based training for all ETS2 user roles available from a user’s desktop/laptop via the ETS2 Travel portal and presented via a compatible Web browser” the term web-based and computer-based, as used in this solicitation are used together or interchangeably to refer to training that is self-directed and paced by the trainee. The term Computer-Based Training (CBT) is often used interchangeably with Web-based training (WBT) with the primary difference being the delivery method. Where CBTs are typically delivered via CD-ROM, WBTs are delivered via the Internet using a web browser. Where feasible, the tool used by the contractor to provide CBT/WBT should facilitate the tracking of how many users have completed training. |
| E.6.3.2 | 16 | N/A | Amendment 3 states that a maximum of 8 persons is allowed for the demonstration. Will the government allow personnel to be switched in and out from a staging area (so long as no more than 8 are present at one time) to ensure that appropriate personnel address individual issues? | The Government will allow for personnel to be changed during the demonstration days as long as the maximum number does not exceed 8 and the change of personnel does not impede the timely completion of demonstrations. |
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 .