TIRNO16R00026_IEP1.5_Question.Answers-20161026-V1.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 29 KB Posted
- Attached to
- SOLICITATION TIRNO-16-R-00026 IEP 1. 5
- Solicitation number
- TIRNO-16-R-00026
About this file
IRS IEP 1.5 Questions and Answers
View the file
Other files
Show all 36
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
General
| INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE (IRS)-INTEGRATED ENTERPRISE PORTAL 1.5 (IEP 1.5) | |||||
| TIRNO-16-R-00026-Amendment 001: VENDOR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 10/25/2016 | |||||
| Page # | Section # | Paragraph # | Contractor Question | Government Response | |
| 1 | 36 | Section C | 3.5.4 | Web User Analytic Data Collection Services-RFP states the Contractor shall provide a Web User Analytics Data Collection Services solution. However, Section J - Attachment 9, WCMS RTM makes reference to sending data to Google Analytics. Is it the intention of that Google Analytics is the preferred reporting solution? | Prospective vendors are unconstrained in proposing any solution which fulfills the stated requirements. In fact, the business welcomes prospective vendors to offer alternative solutions for evaluation |
| 2 | Section J | Attachment 9 | WCMS RTM. The WCMS RTM identifies a column in the matrix as “Requirement Source”. Are the referenced documents included in the solicitation packages website link, if so where, or are they embedded in other existing documents (I.e. Reference to CMS Business Requirements V7 2 Final) |
| Attachment 9 WCMS RTM contains the latest and refined requirements associated with WCMS initiative. Thus, it is unnecessary and the business has no intention to provide additional referenced documents. | |||||
| 3 | Section J | Attachment 9 | WCMS RTM. Section B. Business & Orig PWS requirement item B.81 references Responsive Deign requirements. Is there a desire to also provide Mobile Application development/deployment? If not, are there existing IRS provided Mobile apps that would be impacted by the 'new’ migrated sites? If so, how many Mobile apps are potentially impacted? | Business is not looking for vendor to propose Mobile Application development/deployment platform on this contract at this time. IRS has one mobile application, IRS2Go, which references content on IRS.gov | |
| 4 | Section J | Attachment 9 | WCMS RTM. Section B. Business & Orig PWS requirement item B.83 states "System shall integrate with required existing IRS applications.” Are these required systems identified in existing documentation provided in the Solicitation Package? | Reference Section J, attachment C.1, Appendix B. | |
| 5 | Section J | Attachment 9 | WCMS RTM.Section B. Business & Orig PWS requirement item B.86 states "System shall support the installation of social media integration tools.” Do existing Social Media tools exist today? If so what are they? | On IRS.gov, hyperlinks to YouTube, Twitter, Tumblr, and a content page for IRS2Go app are currently on the landing page. Hyperlinks are not considered true integration with social media tools today. However, the Business desires a solution platform which offers the flexibility and extensibility to integrate with social media tools in the future. | |
| 6 | Section C | C.3.5.2 | Web Content Management System Services. "The Contractor shall propose a migration plan to remove key irs.gov service dependencies on the legacy Google Search Appliance platform.” Is is the desire to replace Google Search Appliance with DigitalGov Search integration or can alternative solutions be implemented. In addition to PUP (irs.gov), do the other portal environments (RUP, EUP, TPE) use DigitalGov Search and Google Search Appliance? | Prospective vendors are welcomed to propose alternative site search solution for IRS’s evaluation. Currently, site search functions only pertain to IRS.gov. However, prospective vendors are welcomed to propose solutions which meet or exceed IRS’s requirements. | |
| 7 | 11 | Section C | C.3.3.1 Web Hosting Support, bullet 2 | The IEP environments currently available for IEP RUP Portal applications in the RFP Section C.3.3.1 differs from the Section_J-Attachment_C.1_Current_State_of_the_Portals_and_Help_Desk_Environment_-_v2.9. Please confirm the environments within the Current State Document are what should be bid. | The offeror should bid to both the current state environments as well as the requirements as specified in section C.3.3.1. |
| 8 | Section J | Attachment C.1 Current state of the Portals and Help Desk Environment | The RFP and the Section_J-Attachment_C.1_Current_State_of_the_Portals_and_Help_Desk_Environment_-_v2.9 do not provide the logging volumes generated daily during peak and non-peak seasons. Can the Government provide volumes for sizing purposes? | The government will not provide logging volumes from current services. | |
| 9 | 38,39 | Section C | C.3.6 Portal Website Help Desk Services Paragraph: Requirement 3 | The Help Desk hours of operation in the RFP differs from the Section_J-Attachment_C.1_Current_State_of_the_Portals_and_Help_Desk_Environment_-_v2.9 document. Please confirm the hours of operation within the Current State Document are what should be bid. | The Help Desk hours of operation in the PWS, section C.3.6 are the required operations hours for this RFP and are what should be bid, rather than the hours contained in Attachment C.1. |
| 10 | 192 | Section L | L.9.1 Factor 1: Technical Approach Proposal, Para. 3 | Please confirm bidders are required to submit as part of the Technical Approach the components of a Project Management Plan as described in Section L.9.1 and not the full Project Management Plan as described in H.1.4 Project Management Plan. If a full Project Management Plan is required, will the Government increase the page limitation of the Technical Approach proposal or allow the Project Management Plan to be delivered outside of page count limitations? | The government confirms the bidders are not required to submit the full Project Management Plan. No changes in allowed page counts will be needed. Section L.9.1 has been updated to clarify. |
| 11 | Section J | B.1 Pricing Bid Summary Sheet, Tab CLIN 0007 | Within Section J Attachment B.1 Bid Pricing Sheet IEP1.5, the Bid Summary tab references IEP, but the CLIN tabs reference IRS.gov. Please confirm the CLIN tabs should reference IEP in place of irs.gov and are inclusive of RUP, PUP, and EUP. | The Price Summary Sheet (Section J-Attachment B.1) has been updated to replace irs.gov with IEP (RUP, PUP, EUP). | |
| 12 | Section J | Section_J-Attachment_B.1_Bid Pricing_Sheet_IEP1.5.xlsx. Tab CLIN0003 | In the CLIN tabs of Section J Attachment B.1 Pricing Sheet IEP1.5, CLIN0003 doesn’t have sub-CLINs for FATCA and ACA. Please specify where cost detail should be included for ACA and FATCA. | Pricing for CLIN0003,has been updated with all projects/work streams (e.g. IEP, ACA, FATCA, etc). Each service area corresponds to the services defined in Section C of the solicitation. The labor hours and pricing can be inclusive with IEP chart, but the total proposed cost should be specified under the total cost column of the price summary sheet for ACA and FATCA. | |
| 13 | Section J | RFP Section: Section_J-Attachment_B.1_Bid_Pricing_Sheet_IEP1.5.xlsx. Tab CLIN0001 | In the Bid Pricing Sheet, there are missing formulas in the CLIN0001 tab cells A17 and B17, since the Excel sheet is locked, can the Government provide an updated version? | The formula in CLIN 0001 has been updated by the government. If there are any other issues with the Price Summary Spreadsheet, please email tara.scott@irs.gov. | |
| 14 | Section J | C.12 Initial Transition Task Order | The Initial Transition Task Order does not include transition or scope for the Website Help Desk. Is it the Government’s intention to include the Website Help Desk in the scope of the Initial Transition Task Order? | The transition and O&M of the website help desk will be a separate task order that will be issued post award. The vendors overall approach and cost for the Website Help Desk will be included in IDIQ response, but not in Initial Transition Task Order | |
| 15 | 5 | Section J | Attachment C.12 Initial Transition Task Order, C.3.4 Portal Web Hosting Services. | The Section_J-Attachment_C.1_Current_State_of_the_Portals_and_Help_Desk_Environment_-_v2.9 Section 4.6 Program Management and RFP Section C.3.3 Portal Web Hosting Services both reference the IEP Service Catalog. However, the IEP Service Catalog appears to be omitted from the Section J –Attachment C.12 Initial Transition Task Order Section C.3.4 Portal Web Hosting Services. As existing functionality, can the Government confirm if the Service Catalog is part of transition? | The Initial Task Order has been amended to include the Service Catalog requirements as a part of transition. |
Change TO# 1:
Add:
C.3.4.7 Service Catalog The Contractor shall establish IEP 1.5. Service Catalog Function for transition in accordance with IDIQ section C.3.3.7 Service Catalog requirements.
Change: Service Desk to para # C.3.4.8
| 16 | 8 | Section J | Attachment C.1 Current State of the Portals and Help Desk Environ. V2.9. Section 4.1.3 last paragraph | The Section_J-Attachment_C.1_Current_State_of_the_Portals_and_Help_Desk_Environment_-_v2.9 document indicates isolation regarding environments and workloads. Can the Government confirm that isolation also applies to applications that utilize the Section_J-Section_C.2_Attachment_IEP_control_Document-91916? | Yes, the same isolation oppose to applications utilizing the IEP-CD processes. |
| 17 | 187 | Section L | L.5 Proposal Submission deadline 4:00pm, 11/7/2016. | Due to the significant number of changes from the draft RFP to the final RFP, the size, scope, and complexity of the response and all forms and signatures required, we respectfully request an extension of one week to the due date for Questions and an extension of no less than 90 days from Monday, November 7, 2016 for the bid submission. Or Alternative approach: Please provide an extension of one week for Questions and a phased proposal delivery process where we can provide DECISIONAL RULE GO/NO-GO CRITERIA on the original delivery date and then provide 90 additional days to provide Factors 1-7. This provides many benefits to both the Government and the Offerors. | The Government will extend the proposal due date to Monday, November 14, 2016 by 4:00pm Daylight Savings Time (DST). |
| 18 | 133-135 | H.26 | Documentation, Escrow, and Software Code | Will the Government remove the escrow requirement? Would the IRS accept the Government use rights or joint ownership under the contract? | No the Government will not remove the escrow requirement. The escrow requirements remain unchanged. |
| 19 | RFP | General Comment | As many of these questions are urgent in nature when will the Government be responding to questions? | Responses to Q&As provided through amendment 001 to solicitation on Tuesday, October 25, 2016. | |
| 20 | 202 | Section L | L.15.1 (f)- Factor 7: Cost/Price | Are sealed pricing bids required from partners and or subcontractors or can all pricing be provided within our single bid as long as the information and data is clearly delineated and separated? | No sealed bid pricing is required from partners and subcontractors. Yes, pricing can be provided within a single bid and data shall be clearly delineated and separated. |
| 21 | 6 | Section C | C.2.2 Contract Objectives | When does the Opentext to Drupal migration need to be completed by. Are there any other constraints beside the Opentext end of life? When does the new system need to be completed? | The timeline to complete the WCMS transition is the same as the overall IEP 1.5 transition - complete transition and testing prior to Filing Season 2018. |
| 22 | 187 | Section L | L.5 Delivery of Proposals | For proposal submission, what is the size of the email box that is going to be used for receipt of proposals? (Usually 10MB).Is a multiple email submission acceptable? (example: 1 of 3, 2 of 3, 3 of 3) | The size of the email is 5MB. Yes, multiple email submissions will be acceptable, with the Subject in accordance with guidelines in Section L, followed by numbering as suggested in the question (ex. 1 of 3, 2 of 3 etc.) |
| 23 | 188,193,209 | Sections L&M | L.7.1, L.10.1. M.4.3 | Format, Organization and Content of Files, Factor 3: Management Approach Proposal, Factor 3 – Management Approach. Will the government accept representative resumes that list the qualifications of the type of person, and not a physical person's resume for key personnel? | No, representative resumes are not acceptable for key personnel. Real resumes with someone committed to the project is what the government will accept. Letters of intent may accompany the resumes if necessary. |
| 24 | 192 | Section L.91 | Factor 1: Technical Approach Proposal | Is it sufficient to be FISMA compliant? What certifications are needed? | The Government will assume this question relates to the draft Security Concept of Operations and Security Control Assessment Test Plan referenced in Section L.9.1 or the RFP. The details of the Security Control Assessment are in Section C.3.4.9. It would be correct to assume the system must be FISMA compliant, but without details on the implementation of specific security controls it would not be impossible to state what is sufficient. The IRS Cybersecurity organization will work with the winning vendor to tailor the SCA test plan and acceptable testing approaches for specific security controls to achieve a recommendation for an Authority to Operate. The government is unclear of the question regarding certifications. |
| 25 | 198 | Section L.13.1.2 | Small Business Participation | Please confirm total percentage of the Small Business goals set by Treasury for this acquisition. Is it 26% total for all of the Small Business concerns, inclusive of the SDB and WOSB and SDVOSB and HUBZone subcontractors? Or is it 42%? | Treasury's Small Business Goal is a total 26%. The Sub-categories that are tracked, stated in the solicitation (SB,SDB,WOSB,SDVOSB and HUBZone) contribute toward that 26%. |
| 26 | 198-199,188 | L.13.1.2, L.7 Sm. Bus. Participation | In section L.13.1.2 the Government notes that the 26% small business subcontracting goals are expressed as a percentage of total planned subcontracting dollars. However, in the table in Section J, Attachment L.7 the % appears to be expressed as a percentage of total contract value. Please clarify. | The goals are expressed as percentage of the total planned subcontracting dollars. The government will be evaluating the dollar amount of planned subcontracting dollars…with the idea of meeting or exceeding each socio-economic percentage as stated in L.13.1.2 (Treasury's Small Business goal). | |
| 27 | 201 | Section L.15.1.1 | Bid Price Summary Sheets | The solicitation indicates that the Offeror shall submit prices for 6 months of effort in case the Government utilizes the Option to Extend Services. The Government requests that these costs (50% of Option 4) be placed on the ODC line of the Bid Summary sheet. Can the Government clarify that this cost be placed on the Option Year 4 ODC line? Additionally, the Government indicates that these costs should not be factored into the Offeror total cost proposal, but if this is added to the Bid Summary sheet ODC line wouldn't this automatically be added. | On the Cost and Price Volume of vendor's proposal (section L.16.1.4 Cost Methodology, please put a line in the summary table delineating the price for 6 month cost (to cover FAR 52.217). Place it on the Bid Summary Sheet as requested, and the government will adjust accordingly. |
| 28 | 202-203 | Section L.15.1.4(f) | Cost Methodology | “Per section L.15.1.4.f, “the offerors shall provide separate cost proposals for each subcontractor in the same format required for the prime.” Subsections c and e of L.15.1.4 require sensitive information including payroll records, and detailed indirect cost information. Due to the sensitivity of this information, will the IRS accept sealed bids from contractors to satisfy the requirements in L.15.1.4.f? | No the IRS will not accept sealed bids. The government will amended RFP L.12.1.4.c to omit the need to see detailed support documentation: "payroll records; market research, new hire arrangements, etc". This section was amended and is now under L.16 (deleted information regarding Cost Reimbursement since the type being used falls under FAR 16.601 Time and Materials). |
| 29 | 202-203 | Section L.15.1.4 | Cost Methodology | Section L.15.1.4 requires significant pricing information intended to assist the IRS in determining cost realism. If a subcontractor is solely a provider of commercial items is this level of detail still required? | See Response to Question #28. |
| 30 | 13,16,36,136 | C.3.3.1 (11), C.3.3.4 (9(d)), C.3.5.2 (6), H.28 | Web Hosting Support, Monitoring, Web Content Management System Services, Notification of Unsatisfactory Performance | How many times has the Government had the right to withhold payment for the Contractor’s failure to achieve the performance agreed upon in a Service Level Agreement until such SLA is achieved? Please provide all SLA/SLO currently contracted. Section E.5 Performance Summary Table would establish significant penalties on the contractor in the form of withholdings on payments due. It also specifically does not limit the amounts that IRS could withhold for performance failures or disputes. This shifts the entirety of the risk to the contractor and will likely result in the IRS paying a substantial risk premium in the form of an increase in contract price. The penalties also appear to be a form of liquidated damages and would therefore be subject to the requirements of FAR 11.5 which states that not only must the agency consider the impact on price, but states that such damages are not to be punitive but rather are to be used to compensate the government for “probable” costs. Please remove the withholding value penalties in the performance summary table from the RFP. Alternatively, please reduce the penalties to more reasonable amounts, such no greater than 2% withholding value. | The first question is not applicable to this RFP. The SLA/SLOs that are applicable to this RFP are listed in the Section J, Attachment C.10 QASP document. The amount of withholding will be based upon the value of each task at the Task Order/Work Request level, not for the overall contract. |
Section E.5 was modified to remove transition penalties, since the task order will be issued as Time and Materials type order.
31 Section J-C.8 IEP PUP Application Infrastruct. Section 2.2 Will alternate solutions and platforms from the future state technology preferences defined in the diagram be considered, provided they meet IRS’ goals for quicker delivery, high quality, and increased reuse? Considering the IEP and its current technology footprint, has IRS considered cloud technologies for innovating IEP? If so, what are the cloud technologies IRS has considered? What value is realized by taking a vendor agnostic approach? How as this previously affected effort and cost to integrate varying vendor solutions together?
Does the vendor have the ability to recommend alternative solution approach to satisfy the future state of the platform? What are the performance SLAs for client and server components of the solution? Can the performance requirements be shared? Can the specification of the other applications be shared to ensure compatibility and performance?
Please clarify “Look and Feel Standards Testing”. Can this standard please be provided?
Are all application components hosted on a single server, meaning there are not servers dedicated for UI and for backend/data to distribute load and scale? Can existing testing specification documents be shared for the six test points? Why is the solution targeting HTML 4.01 instead of HTML5? The government update the Section J- C.8 attachment to remove graphic.
The reference document has been updated to remove the graphic. The document is intended to reflect the current state. The vendor shall propose their solution to address the PWS requirements.
Section J attachment C.8, The Third Party Coding Standards (TPCS) document, represents the current Managed Services Provider’s (MSP) application-development recommendations and guidance for customers whose applications will be hosted by the MSP. The vendor will propose new TPCS as part of the Guide for Application Developers work product. The recommended content for TPCS should include updated development standards and associated test points to match the vendors proposed solution for IRS evaluation.
| 32 | 191 | Section L 8.1.3 | Contractor Location | Is it acceptable for software coding to be developed in a secure facility outside the United States? (All data stays physically within the U.S.) | No. See solicitation H.7 through H.9 as the government needs access to facilities. |
| 33 | Section J-Attch C.1 | Page 2-2. Document Purpose and Organization | • Are there any specific data or shared services components, service or data integration utilized across the portal environments? • Are there any other specific major events that are driving the timeline for deployment other than EOL and support costs of the legacy solution? • Should an EOL scenario occur we assume the IRS will pay for premium EOL support for OEM applications or portals not decommissioned. | - The vendor will propose their solution to meet PWS requirements to include integration requirements across the IEP 1.5 services. |
- The timeline is being driven by the need to complete transition and testing prior to Filing Season 2018.
- End of Life is not a major factor contributing to the timeline for current portal transition.
| 34 | Section J-Attch C.1 | Page 2-2.4 N-Tier Approach | Does the application communicate with the backend/data tier via web services or does the application make direct calls to the backend/data tier? | Reference C.1, Appendix B for application interfaces |
| 35 | Section J-Attch C.1 | Page 2-2.5 Server Sessions | How does the session manager persist the session object, in database, in memory, etc.? What are the key/value pair that can be stored within the session object? What is the lifetime of a session object, per browser session or time period? Is the session object encrypted? | This RFP is replacing the current managed service, not asking vendor to take over management of the current environments. The Government expects vendor to propose their solution to meet the stated PWS requirements to meet SLOs. |
| 36 | Section J-Attch C.1 | Page 2-2.10 Akamai Caching | What happens if the cache is lost? Is there a backup or other process to rehydrate? | Akamai caching is the current solution. Vendors may propose their own solutions for content delivery. |
| 37 | Section J-Attch C.1 | Page 2-3 Secure Coding | Who is responsible to perform the code review to validate adherence to the subsections and industry accepted recommended patterns and practices? Are requests made over HTTP or HTTPS? | The Government assumes this question is related to Section J- Attachment C.8, Page 8, Section 3.0 Secure coding. |
1. As stated in the document, the application owner is responsible to validate adherence.
2. External requests are made via HTTPS.
38 Section J-Attch C.1 Page 2-3.1 Secure Coding What is the current white or black list used to validate input? The Government assumes this question is related to Section J- Attachment C.8, Page 8, Section 3.1 Server-side Validation.
White lists would be tailored to specific applications. The government will provide further information following contract award.
| 39 | Section J-Attch C.1 | Page 2-3.9 System Calls | Please clarify, it is stated that OS calls are permissible on backend code but also state that this should not be deployed to the server. What is acceptable? | Code with OS System calls are never deployed to front-end server. |
| 40 | Section J-Attch C.1 | Page 7-4.1 Infrastructure Services | • What tools and technologies are used to dynamically provision environments and virtual infrastructure? |
• What operating systems are used for IaaS server VMs (e.g., Windows, Linux, etc.)?
• What tools and technologies are used to monitor system health and performance?
• What tools and technologies are used to collect/manage/analyze/alert on system/event log data (e.g., Splunk)?
• Are there specific RTO/RPO requirements for core IEP platform disaster recovery?
• Is all data for all production IEP services required to be encrypted in transit and/or at rest? This RFP is replacing the current managed service, not asking vendor to take over management of the current environments. All the available current state information have been provided in the RFP attachments. Information on VM operating system dependancies can be found in the application information provided in Section J, Attachment C.1, Appendix B. The current IEP related RTO/RPO requirements are included in Section J, Attachment C.1, Appendix C.
All production IEP services are not required to be encrypted. Specific encryption controls are dependent on meeting security requirements contained in Section C.3.4, and specific application security requirements.
41 Section J-Attch C.1 Page 7-4.1.1 Network and Firewall • Are all production Internet facing IEP services required to be protected with an Intrusion Detection Service, such as a Unified Threat Management appliance?
• Are all public Internet facing IEP services required to be protected with a Distributed Denial of Service prevention service? Are all public internet facing IEP services required to be protected with advanced web service protection services like Web Application Firewalls, Shape Botwall Services, etc.?
| • Is the outbound network traffic for all publicly facing IaaS VM instances required to go through NAT or proxy instances? | The Security requirements are stated in Section C.3.4 of the RFP document. | ||||
| 42 | Section J-Attch C.1 | Page 8-4.1.2 Storage | • How much data storage at rest in production? • What is the expected growth rate of data by year? • Are there any specific data archiving policies? • Are there any specific data retention policies? | • How much data storage at rest in production? |
This RFP is replacing the current managed service, not asking vendor to take over management of the current environments. All the available current state information have been provided in the RFP attachments. The vendor may propose their own solution.
• What is the expected growth rate of data by year?
- The government does not have an expected growth rate of data
• Are there any specific data archiving policies?
- Reference section C, Appendix B
• Are there any specific data retention policies?
- Reference section C, Appendix B
| 43 | Section J-Attch C.1 | Page 8-4.1.3 Computing and Virtualization Management | • What server virtualization platforms are in use in the core IEP platform (e.g., VMware. Hyper-V, etc.)?• Is MFA required for administrators to logon to IaaS VMs to perform management activities? Are IaaS VM disk volumes required to be encrypted? • If so, what encryption technologies are used to encrypt IaaS VM disk volumes? | |
| • Approximately how many IaaS servers are included in the core IEP platform? | • What server virtualization platforms are in use in the core IEP platform (e.g., VMware. Hyper-V, etc.)? |
- The current IEP virtualized environment is based on VMware. The vendor may propose their own solution to replace the current environment and meet the requirements of the RFP.
• Is MFA required for administrators to logon to IaaS VMs to perform management activities? Are IaaS VM disk volumes required to be encrypted?
Yes, MFA is required. Administrator system access must comply with appropriate security controls consistent with FISMA moderate-level and ATO approval. Specific encryption controls applicable to IaaS VM disk volumes are dependent on FISMA requirements and specific application security requirements.
• If so, what encryption technologies are used to encrypt IaaS VM disk volumes?
This RFP is replacing the current managed service, not asking vendor to take over management of the current environments. All the available current state information have been provided in the RFP attachments.
• Approximately how many IaaS servers are included in the core IEP platform?
- Per the NIST definition, the current IEP is not a cloud environment. But as detailed in Section J-Attachment C.1, the current IEP utilizes virtualization technology. Vendors need to propose their own solution to replace the current environment and meet the requirements of the RFP.
| 44 | Section J-Attch C.1 | Page 8-9-4.1.4 Data Center Services | How many datacenters are included in the core IEP platform? • Where are the datacenters located? • Which datacenters are active/active peers for failover? | This RFP is replacing the current managed service, not asking vendor to take over management of the current environments. All the available current state information have been provided in the RFP attachments. The vendor may propose their own solution to replace the current environment and meet the requirements of the RFP. |
| 45 | Section J-Attch C.1 | Page 9-4.1.7 External Interfaces with other Government Agencies | • Which network protocols are used to interface with other Government Agencies? How are the multiple IRS Data Centers and dependent government agencies connected from a network protocol and interface prospective? | The network protocols between agencies are dependent on specific applications. Reference Attachment C.1, Appendix B. |
Specific interface details will be available in the IEP Interconnection Security Agreement post-contract award.
| 46 | Section J-Attch C.1 | Page 10-4.2.1.1 Configuration Management | What is the average mean time to service request, SLA, use of knowledge articles and coordination to other groups within IRS to dependent systems, apps or components downstream that provides services to the portal? Please provide a copy of the CI's that show EOL software and versions to aid with EOL Planning and optimization of timeline. | No additional service request metrics are available. The SLA/SLOs for this RFP are identified in section J, Attachment C.10, QASP. Any EOL information for current IEP contract is not relevant for this RFP -- the vendor shall propose their solution to provide the RFP service requirements. |
| 47 | Section J-Attch C.1 | Page 14-4.2.2.4 Reporting | What is the current reporting system? Is it a custom solution or commercial? | There is no universal reporting system used. |
| 48 | Section J-Attch C.1 | Page 14-15; 4.2.3 Automated Deployments | Please provide the operating systems and versions of the various target environments and application/components that depend on the solution. | This RFP is replacing the current managed service, not asking vendor to take over management of the current environments. All the available current state information have been provided in the RFP attachments. The vendor may propose their own solution to replace the current environment and meet the requirements of the RFP. |
The OS solution depends on the vendor proposed solution, PWS infrastructure and web hosting requirements and each application dependencies as detailed in Section J, Attachment C.1, Appendix B.
49 Section J-Attch C.1 Page 15-4.2.4 Patch Management Which system and/or products are being used today to enable continual patch management? • Is the patch management solution solely used for the application environment or used more globally or shared service across the infrastructure? This RFP is replacing the current managed service, not asking vendor to take over management of the current environments. All the available current state information have been provided in the RFP attachments. The vendor may propose their own solution to replace the current environment and meet the requirements of the RFP.
The vendor should propose their solution to satisfy the patch management requirements.
| 50 | Section J-Attch C.1 | Page 15-4.2.5 Change Management | • What systems, products or tools are used in the current change control process? • In the change control process are the process and tools used strictly for application environment or used more broadly across the infrastructure. | This RFP is replacing the current managed service, not asking vendor to take over management of the current environments. All the available current state information have been provided in the RFP attachments. The vendor shall propose their own solution to replace the current environment and meet the requirements of the RFP. The vendor should propose their solution to satisfy the change management requirements. | ||
| 51 | Section J-Attch C.1 | Page 16-4.3 Security Services | Regarding the IEP current capabilities (i.e., continuous monitoring, anti-virus, file integrity, bot-detection, etc.) will IRS provide the platforms and versions of the existing in house capabilities? Who manages the IEP Security Services today? | |||
| What groups or vendors does IRS have in place for managing the security capabilities and reporting? | The current IEP is a implemented through a managed services contract. The IEP 1.5 contract will replace the current IEP contract. Details on current in-house Security capabilities are not relevant to this procurement. IEP Security Services are managed through the IEP contract. The IEP contractor is responsible for managing security capabilities and reporting, as outlined in Section C.3.4. | |||||
| 52 | Section J-Attch C.1 | Page 16-4.3 Security Services | Does a Security Operations Center exist within the IEP today? Is the IEP requirement for vendors to build new Security Operations capability or take over existing Security operations within the scope of the this performance work statement? | The IEP 1.5 contract will replace the current IEP contract. The Security requirements are stated in Section C.3.4 of the RFP document. | ||
| 53 | Section J-Attch C.1 | Page 65-6.5 Service Desk Volumes | Provider must use the KISAM system to send incidents back to the service desk. Will IRS clarify how many support contacts need the escalation and access capability? | The Government does not have a requirement for the contractor to provide a KISAM instance -- the vendor will propose their solution to support PWS Incident and Problem Management requirements. | ||
| 54 | 188 | Section L | L.7.1 Each proposal volume shall include an index or table of contents of that volume's contents that identifies major sections by number and descriptive title, as well as the corresponding page numbers. Each section’s title must correspond with the title given by the Government. Each volume shall be complete in itself in order that evaluation of one volume may be accomplished independently of, and concurrently with, evaluation of the other. | Since each volume stands alone, can we include an Executive Summary in each volume that is not included in the volume’s page limitation? | Offeror can submit any information that's in compliance with the solicitation, as long as it meets the page limitations specified. | |
| 55 | 195-196 | Section L.11 and L.12 Factor 4: Relevant Experience | The offeror shall provide information on at least two (2) projects and maximum of five (5) projects that demonstrate relevant corporate experience similar to this effort in the terms of type, scope, complexity and size. Can vendor’s use the same reference(s) for both Relevant Experience & Past Performance if the reference(s) meet the requirements of both volumes? | Yes, vendors can use the same references for both Relevant Experience and Past Performance. | ||
| 56 | 2 | Section B- B.3 | Bid Rates for Prep of FFP/T&M Orders | What is meant by fully burdened labor rates? Please confirm that fully burdened rates are not to include other expenses such as travel and expenses. For subcontractor pricing will the Government accept commercial item pricing such as Fixed Price Labor Hours in lue of T&M cost type pricing. | FFP orders are Fully burdened labor rates which includes profit and/or fee of the contractor. The labor rates reflect the hourly-fully burdened rates for each labor category and will apply to all direct labor hours. They do not include Other Direct Costs (i.e Travel, materials etc.). FFP commercial rates will be excepted as the Labor Hour rates, but any materials (i.e servers, software) need to be priced accordingly to T&M (see FAR 16.601 Time and Materials). | |
| 57 | Section H.18 | General Liability Clause 52.228-7, “Insurance – Liability to Third Persons” | Please clarify the intent for referencing Clause 52.228-7, “Insurance – Liability to Third Persons” within Section H.18 General Liability. Pursuant to FAR 28.311-1, 52.228-7 is required when a cost-reimbursement contract is contemplated. According to RFP Sections B.2, K.10 and L.2, a cost-reimbursement contract is not contemplated. | Clause 52.228-7 "Insurance-Liability to Third Persons" was removed | ||
| 58 | H.26 | Escrow, and Source Code references "Customer Source Code" | The first sentence of Section H.26 Documentation, Escrow, and Source Code references “customer source code”. The meaning of the word “customer” within that reference is unclear. Please define the meaning of “customer” source code. For example, does it mean only software developed under the contract? | In the referenced clause, the term "customer source code" means software source code transitioned, designed, or developed under this contract. It has the same meaning as the paragraph in the same clause (H.26) that assigns rights to the IRS for materials "associated with source code transitioned, designed, or developed under this contract (collectively “IRS source code assets”), that would be required for a subsequent party, Government or private, to continue operating and managing IRS source code assets." |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .