Question and Answer responses.pdf

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

The following are answers to questions received from potential offerors. The answers provide clarification only and DO NOT constitute an amendment to the sources sought.

1. The RFI lists several projects within the bid: COD, NSLDS, EDWA & EDMAPS, and FTI Datamart. Can a vendor submit a response to one or more of these projects, or is the vendor required to submit a response to all three projects?

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE:

1A. Vendors are allowed to submit a response to any or all projects listed in the sources sought.

2. I was wondering can I request a meeting with the OSDBU regarding this RFI, If I now DOJ they're going to snatch this one up and we'll never see it again and I have a great finished solution.

2A. This is a RFI used to collect written information about the capabilities of vendors.

There is no defined requirement at this time. Small business vendors are always welcomed to contact the Department’s OSDBU Office for information regarding contracting opportunities.

3. Would you kindly confirm if this is an entirely new effort or is there an incumbent currently providing these services? If so, would you please provide the incumbent contract details?

3A. Accenture Federal Services LLC is currently performing this effort under contract

EDFSA15C0006.

4. What will be the contract value for this opportunity?

4A. This is a RFI used to collect written information about the capabilities of vendors.

There is no defined requirement currently, therefore no information regarding the potential contract value is available.

5. Is this a new requirement or re-compete? If re-compete, what is the current contract number and who is the incumbent?

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

FSA ACQUISITIONS OFFICE

TIVOD081423 (SOURCES SOUGHT)

5A. See Government’s response listed under Question 3.

6. Will the Government consider using GSA Schedule?

6A. After the requirement is defined, the Government shall consider different types of contract vehicles including GSA schedules.

7. Will the Government consider a set-aside?

7A. After the requirement is defined, the Government shall consider whether a set-aside is appropriate.

8. When does the Government plan to release the RFP?

8A. The Government anticipates releasing the RFP in Quarter 2 FY24.

9. Will the Government be making award for this requirement in FY23 or FY24?

9A. The Government anticipates awarding the contract in Quarter 1 FY25.

10. Is Accenture the incumbent of the ED FSA - TIVOD Modernization Project requirement?

Contract number: EDFSA15C0006

10A. Yes.

11. Would FSA consider breaking the TIVOD Project into three separate system procurements?

This would especially be beneficial to small businesses that have the capabilities to support either NSLDS or EDMAPS versus the size and complexity to manage COD.

11A. After the requirement is defined, the Government shall consider structure of the procurement.

12. If FSA is willing to consider separate procurements, is it acceptable for this RFI response to just address one of the system support capabilities? i.e., NSLDS and/or EDMAPS.

12A. Vendors are allowed to submit a response to any or all projects listed in the sources sought.

13. Can FSA provide any support staff categorizing and sizing range for each of the three systems?

Without some staff sizing information the current incumbent has a huge advantage.

13A. The FSA support staff is as follows:

EDWA/EDMAPS – 6

NSLDS – 12

COD – 32

14. What is the timeframe for the eventual RFP(s) and the expected contract(s) start date?

14A. See Government responses listed under Questions 8 and 9. The RFP will contain the anticipated period of performance.

15. Can FSA provide any clarity positions around possible conflict of interest (COI) issues for potential bidders? For example, is a current servicer or any its subcontractors eligible to bid on all systems?

15A. Currently, FSA is conducting market research. There are no COI issues in responding to this RFI.

16. It is assumed all employees for the winning contractor(s) will need to have FSA security clearances to start work on the contract(s) day one. Understanding the long lead time in getting clearances, how will FSA assist in handling this for a non-incumbent contractor awardee in transition? Will this be held against a non-FSA incumbent contractor in award evaluation?

16A. This is RFI used to collect written information about the capabilities of vendors.

There is no defined requirement currently. Information regarding the security process will be contained in the RFP.

17. Are their specific FSA small business, SDVOB, 8(a), etc., sub goals for these procurements?

17A. Determination to set-aside for small business and/or small business goals will be made after the requirement has been defined, if applicable.

18. Is FSA planning a vendor day, to go over more details on the requirements, expectations, etc., once the RFP(s) are issued. This used to be a common practice for FSA major procurements.

18A. No, the Government is not planning an industry or vendor day at this time.

19. What type of contract pricing is FSA considering? Fixed price, T&M, unit price, CPFF, combination, etc.

19A. After the requirement is defined, the Government shall determine the appropriate contract vehicle and contract line-item type.

20. Based on the requirement - "Establishing a tenant in the FSA cloud system including all logical infrastructures and security requirements." - does FSA anticipate these contracts to be operated within the prescribed cloud environment (FSA Cloud)?

20A. The vendor shall host a platform together with all application tenants in a manner consistent with FSA’s target vision of a unified cloud platform for all applications.

Applications shall be portable and severable to FSA’s targeted cloud platform. The vendor shall support a multi-tenant-multi-vendor solution.

21. Could the Government elaborate on the solicitation structure for the three different systems?

21A. This RFI will be used to collect written information about the capabilities of vendors. There are no defined requirements currently. Therefore, no information regarding the solicitation structure is available.

22. Based on the requirement for a "COTS products to realize a low- to no-code environment" - can FSA clarify the problems around "data acquisition, cleansing and conforming, processing business rules, capturing metadata, and faster response times"?

22A. FSA is seeking a more streamlined approach and to move away from custom products. This is not meant to be taken as an indication of problems.

23. Does the government anticipate moving forward with a Small Business acquisition for one or more of the major program areas (e.g., COD, NSLDS, DataMart, etc.)?

23A. See Government response listed under Question 11.

24. We understand that the various systems (COD, NSLDS, EDMAPS/EDWA/FTI Data Mart) included in this RFI currently exist in different states of FSA code-rights. Understanding the current and desired states for each will be beneficial for RFI respondents in providing FSA innovative solutions. Please provide, for each system, the current and desired state of code-rights.

24A. Currently, FSA has rights to NSLDS and FTI Data Mart. FSA does not own the code for COD or EDMAPS/EDWA systems. However, we are in negotiations to obtain a license for them. Information regarding ownership of code will be in the RFP. FSA desires the rights to all COTS, custom code, deliverables for all systems.

25. In addition to the publicly available information on the systems covered under this RFI, additional technical detail will significantly improve responses from industry. To help FSA receive the best recommendations and capabilities, please provide the following technical information about the major systems in scope for this RFI (COD, NSLDS, EDMAPS/EDWA/FTI Data Mart).

Where not all information is available, know that partial information will still improve responses and better inform FSA.

a. System architecture: Detailed diagrams and explanations of the current system architecture, including hardware, software, and the interfaces to external systems for cloud and in-premises infrastructure.

b. Operations manuals: Documentation on current system operation, including step-by-step instructions, troubleshooting, and common tasks for the as-is system.

c. Source code and programming documentation: Please provide access to the source code, and related programming documentation, to understand how the system is coded, configured, and customized. A list of any commercial-off-the-shelf software (application, database, middleware, etc.) that a vendor would need to manage for the current environment.

d. System configuration and settings: A list of the system configurations, settings, and parameters currently in place.

e. Data models and databases documentation: Documentation on the data model, database schemas, and data flow within and between the major systems. Please include transaction, traffic, and data volume, so that vendors can design an approach at the appropriate scale.

f. APIs and Integration documentation: A list of the specific APIs and other integration points to maintain interoperability.

g. Security posture and documentation: Access controls, encryption protocols, and security procedures currently in-place to protect the applications, network, and data for

COD, NSLDS, EDMAPS, EDWA, and FTI Datamart. Please include how the government is currently assessing and tracking the security posture of these systems.

h. Disaster recovery and backup plans: Current disaster recovery and backup plans, procedures, and strategies for the as-is system.

i. Licensing and support agreements: Copies of licensing agreements, support contracts and service-level agreements (SLAs) to understand both government and vendor obligations and support options.

j. Change management procedures, current state: Documentation on change management procedures, version control, and how upgrades to the system are currently being implemented.

25A. See Attachment A, entitled “FSA Current State” for publicly shared information.

26.Will participation in the RFI response be a selection criterion for any possible solicitations for these FSA services?

26A. No.

27. Will FSA follow the model observed in other procurements where the agency secures an NDA and provides a secured, virtual reading room for bidders to review materials? In several places in the RFI, FSA requests responders address topics such as level of effort/resources required, schedule, and cost. To estimate expected costs, timeline, risks, and complexity for system modernization, additional information beyond that available in the links provided is required.

Materials, which FSA has published in advance of other solicitations, would include items for each system, component or service (i.e., COD, NSLDS, EDMAPS, FTI Datamart, EDWA), such as:

• A clear documentation of the Target State Vision clearly defining roles and boundaries for each of the systems/components included

• System Documentation (redacted where required) such as:

- Complete set of functional and non-functional requirements

- Architectural Documents

- List of current AWS services, sizes,

- List of all tools and technologies used in production and lower environments

- Infrastructure layout of application/web servers, databases and reporting servers.

- Logical data model/Data Dictionary/Types of databases and number of tables for each system

- How is data segmented amongst prod, reporting, archive, etc.

- Context Diagrams - depicting system interfaces. including supporting information such as whether the interface is uni- or bidirectional, the frequency of the interface, the protocol used for the exchange of data, the average size of the information exchanged (including min and max values based on historical data)

- Interface Control Documents (ICDs)/Computer Matching Agreements (CMA's)

• Number of releases and the contents of the last two years of releases

• The current Lifecycle Management Methodology tailoring plans

• A full articulation of any dependencies each system has on either FSA resource, FSA provided resources, or other FSA vendors to accomplish any task in support of the contract's outcomes

• The detailed change request and impact analysis implemented with each contract modification

• Current Product Roadmap

• Current backlog of maintenance and enhancement items/current defect list

• Operational statistics, such as:

- Ticket volumes

- Average number of Exception processing tasks, level of effort to complete (e.g., ad hoc data requests, audit requests, split borrowers, data quality tasks)

- All Service Level Agreements (SLAs), Operational Level Agreements (OLAs), Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) contractually required or tracked by the operations center, FSA, the NOC or SOC, other trading partner systems

27A. The requested documentation is considered Controlled, Unclassified, Information (CUI) and can’t be published publicly and requires proper security clearances. However, this information may be released during a later released RFP. See Government’s response to Question 25 for information currently available.

28. Consolidating the ownership and operations for the scope defined in the RFI under a single provider does not promote a competitive environment for respondents and significantly advantages the incumbent. Does FSA intend on soliciting all of the systems and services included in this RFI in a single solicitation, or does FSA seek to enable a competitive field by issuing individual or a subset of solicitations for the different systems/services included in this RFI?

28A. See Government response listed under Question 11.

29. Is it FSA's intention to solicit for the Operations and Maintenance of the current systems where the current code base and system implementation is provided to the successful bidder (i.e., a Government Owned/Contractor Operated [GOCO] model), or is this intended to solicit for only new solutions, such that bidders will be proposing solutions that will entirely replace the current technology operating today (i.e., a Contractor Owned/Contractor Operated [COCO] model)?

29A. After the requirement is defined, the Government shall consider structure of procurement and different contract vehicles.

30. What contract type(s) is FSA anticipating issuing to support this scope of work? The RFI includes a question under each system asking if there are specific sections to be included in the solicitation pricing template imperative for pricing this type of work. In order to properly respond to this question, an understanding of FSA's intended contract structure would enable responders to provide best practices.

30A. After the requirement is defined, the Government shall determine the appropriate contract type.

31. Can FSA please articulate in quantifiable detail (e.g., key performance indicators, timeline, etc.), the objectives or goals of the modernization efforts for each service/system/component? What business or technical challenges, issues or risks is FSA trying to address via the modernization?

31A. Modernizing and securing platforms and business processes in alignment with the unified cloud vision to become a more effective and technically efficient organization.

o Adjust software development methodology to one focused on planning and coordination between business areas, readily adoptable to change.

o Adopt a consistent Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC)/Lifecycle Management Methodology (LMM) and technical standards across all TIVOD acquisitions.

o Establish a unified cloud strategy.

o Integrate within the approved system architectural plan.

o Replace inefficient processes with modern, cost-effective, secure systems aligned to FSA’s target state.

o Consolidate similar processes during modernization efforts.

o Improving data accessibility enabling accelerated analysis and support for critical business processes and decisions.

o Increase data availability in the enterprise data warehouse to promote expanded data recovery.

o Develop data governance and security strategies for application to future acquisitions.

o Maintain accessible data across FSA systems for business processing.

This work shall improve transparency and centralize project management tools, code repositories, and common development tools, providing standardization across teams and projects.

32. Frequently, agencies separate out the costs/investment related to modernization and enhancements, as well as transition, from operational costs. This separation allows for improved transparency and management of resources allocated to effort outside of standard operations. Will FSA create a separate CLIN for modernization/enhancements, or are the costs of modernization not separately priced and instead included in base operations costs?

32A. In the current contract, there are separate CLINS for O&M and D&E work. FSA may keep the same or a similar structure.

33. The RFI mentions that FSA plans to "centralize Customer Service for partners" in the introduction but does not mention it again in the remainder of the RFI. Can the Government please provide more detail and context around the plan to centralize Customer Services for partners?

33A. FSA is not seeking information regarding Customer Service under this RFI.

34. Respondents would significantly benefit from a further clarification of FSA's vision for the roles, functions, divisions and interfaces between the components listed in the RFI. What are the services and segmentation intended among COD, EDWA, NSLDS, FTI Data Mart and EDMAPS?

Can FSA provide a document, graphic or information that clarifies roles and responsibilities across the different services/components, in particular in the future state? For example, can FSA clarify the reference to a "data warehouse of production-level data" and differentiate this service from the EDWA service, NSLDS, FTI Datamart or other capabilities provided under EDMAPS?

34A. See Government response listed under Question 25.

35. Is it FSA's intent for the COD Operations Portal to be maintained on Government provided infrastructure or vendor hosted?

35A. Yes, the preference is Government owned, contractor operated infrastructure.

36. Can FSA please clarify what, if any portion, of the current COD website functionality is intended to migrate to Partner Connect and when such a migration is expected?

36A. Functionality is not expected to be migrated to Partner Connect.

37. Can FSA please clarify the composition of the 175 Million "calls" referenced per month (e.g., are these web service calls, which system or service do they support, interface type, security requirements, protocol, what level of concurrency, etc.)?

37A. This is a RFI used to collect written information about the capabilities of vendors. More specific information regarding NSLDS data will be released with the RFP. Information regarding the security requirements can be found at this link:

https://studentaid.gov/about/contracting-info/it-standards https://studentaid.gov/about/contracting-info/it-standards

38. Are the "letters to school officials" physical letters?

38A. “Letters to school officials” may include email, physical, or web notifications.

39. Are the "letters to school officials" merged from a template or customized for each letter?

39A. Templates

40. Can FSA please clarify the first bullet which states, "Establishing a tenant in the FSA cloud system including all logical infrastructures and security requirements."? Our understanding is that the "FSA Cloud" is a proprietary hosting solution owned and managed by the incumbent. How does FSA envision a new vendor "establishing a tenant" in this environment?

40A. A tenant can be established by a new vendor in the FSA Cloud. See Government response listed under question 20 for additional information.

41. If the hosting is to be provided as GFE, can FSA expand on the process and roles it envisions for a successful bidder to work collaboratively with the hosting/infrastructure provider to establish a tenant enclave for NSLDS?

41A. FSA has recently built three (3) application tenants within one of the GFE platforms. Within the course of the buildouts, FSA has developed detailed RACIs assigning roles and responsibilities as well as standardization towards a DevSecOps framework. These activities are a “work-in-progress" and will be shared with the bidder upon award.

42. If hosting is not to be provided, can FSA please clarify if the successful bidder will be responsible for providing a hosting solution for just the applications awarded or will they be required to support a multi-tenant/multi-vendor solution for applications outside the scope of the TIVOD Modernization RFI?

42A. See Government’s response listed under Question 20.

43. Can FSA provide a concept of operations description for the division of duties between the FSA Cloud provider and the application O&M provider?

43A. This is a RFI used to collect written information about the capabilities of vendors.

More specific information will be released with the RFP.

44. Will the NSLDS Professional Access website continue to be in scope for the entire Period of Performance, or is it anticipated to migrate outside the scope of NSLDS (e.g., migrated to Partner Connect)?

44A. Yes, it is anticipated to be in scope for the period of performance.

45. Given the restrictions on accessing the NSLDS Professional Access website, will FSA provide documentation that comprehensively covers the current features, functions, and requirement (functional and non-functional) of the website?

45A. Information will be provided at the RFP stage.

46. Can FSA please provide additional detail on the current operational model for the data monitoring and resolution group? How many hours/FTEs/issues are required per month/annually and how is this volume/effort distributed across the year (e.g., are there peak periods)?

46A. The Data Monitoring and Resolution Group would consist of Key Team member who oversees a team of 4-5 FTEs. Their main objectives are to monitor for data quality on NSLDS and provide data cleanups at the transactional, application, or entity-level.

This Data Quality group provides quality oversight year-round, with expected ticket volumes of around 100-200 per month.

47. Can FSA provide operational data on ED/FSA data requests, the effort required to address the requests, and the number of users to be trained?

47A. This RFI will be used to collect written information about the capabilities of vendors.

More specific information regarding data will be released with the RFP.

48. By what modes will the training be delivered (i.e., Computer Based, In-person, Self-paced) and how frequently is the training updated?

48A. Training will be delivered via computer, in-person, and self-paced. Training is updated with each new release.

49. Can FSA please quantify the number of audits and risk assessments to be supported? What is the average annual number of queries, reports, and data deliveries for audit support?

49A. Audit support should be expected for a minimum of four audits per year. Queries and data in support of audits is ad hoc and as needed to fully support the audit requests.

Risk assessments are done on an ongoing basis, and comprehensively on an annual basis.

50. Batch Processing - Can FSA provide the number of batches processed over the last year? While "unlimited" is the requirement, what is the largest batch processed over a 12 months period?

50A. NSLDS processes about 400k batch files per year, with the largest batch size around 1 billion records.

51. Can FSA please clarify for which system EDMAPS currently acts as the Online Transaction Processing (OLTP)?

51A. Digital Customer Care.

52. Can FSA please provide the current requirements and objectives for the "Title IV Servicing Model"?

52A. No. This is a RFI used to collect written information about the capabilities of vendors to assist with establishing the future state.

53. The RFI refers to Defense Security Clearances, can FSA please clarify why contractors will require facility security clearances?

53A. Access to secure data and systems is necessary for performance of the work.

54. Question 1.c - Many of these questions, including this one, are multifaceted and could be their own topic of an RFI (e.g. NSLDS 1.h) and FSA is seeking information about the benefits, risks and experiences vendors have had with different approaches. We applaud this effort, but feel that oral presentations or other engagement models would improve the feedback received by FSA. The page limitation (understandable based on expected responses) will constrain responders to answers that will most likely not provide FSA the information, perspective and value they seek for these very thoughtful questions. Will FSA support other engagement models to enable more robust responses in the market research phase and prior to the issuance of the solicitation?

54A. FSA shall not support other engagement models prior to issuance of the solicitation. Page limit has been increased to 25 pages.

55. Process Improvements Question 3 - Can FSA provide additional information about the current state and the planned future state (e.g., RACI of all service providers involved, or planned to be involved along with additional environmental information) so that responders can fully assess whether they have any outstanding questions?

55A. See Government’s response listed under Question 25.

56. COD 1.e - Can FSA please clarify whether the provider would be building and managing an environment/platform for multiple tenants, including multiple vendors, or is the focus only on application operations, maintenance and development?

56A. The focus is on operations and maintenance as well as development, modernization and enhancement. See Government’s response listed under Question 20 for additional information.

57. COD 3.e - Can the Government please fully articulate what is to be provided as GFE and what tools are in place today?

57A. For a contractor using a Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) Laptop, the user shall use the Department provided Virtual Private Network (VPN) solution(s). In managing government furnished equipment, including but not limited to laptop computers and hardware security tokens; the contractor shall comply with FAR clause 52.245-1 Government Property and FSA local clause 45-1 Special Contract Requirements for Government Furnished Property – Two Factor Authentication Tokens (TFA). All contractors accessing ED and FSA networks and/or data centers who are classified as Privileged Users (PU) are required to use government furnished Personal Identity Verification (PIV) cards for authentication and access. Note: FSA prohibits contractors from granting access to FSA systems without approval by the Department. Software Assets owned by FSA. Please Attachment B entitled Furnished Equipment for more information.

58. NSLDS 1.a - Today, EDWA and NSLDS are legacy data repositories of Title IV data. Why is only EDWA referred to as such?

58A. See Amendment No. 0003 as NSLDS 1.a has been changed.

59. NSLDS 1.a. and 1.b. - Can FSA please clarify what is to be transitioned, what is to be decommissioned, and what system is referred to for the development portion of this question? Can FSA please articulate its desired end state for the "transition efforts" including timeframes and dependencies?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE:

59A. The Government is seeking recommendations, and therefore does not have any more detail. Transition is about transitioning the systems to a new vendor within our cloud environment.

60. NSLDS 1.b - This question includes transition and scope outside of NSLDS. Can FSA further describe the transition vision and why EDMAPS, EDWA and FTI Data Mart and their transition are being referenced in the NSLDS section?

60A. See Amendment No. 0003 as NSLDS 1.b has been changed.

61. NSLDS 1.e - Is it FSA's intent to use the NGDC as the hosting solution?

61A. See Government’s response listed under Question 25.

62. NSLDS 1.e - Can FSA please clarify its current and planned cloud architecture including goals and objectives and the priorities (e.g., cost, security, speed, flexibility, etc.)? Is it FSA's intention to move away from an AWS only environment and support multiple Cloud Service Providers (CSPs)?

Is FSA considering changing its enterprise CSP standard? Without further insight into FSA's modernization objectives and Target State Vision, it is difficult to determine which of the current CPSs are best aligned with FSA's objectives.

62A. See Government’s response listed under Question 25.

63. NSLDS 1.g - Can FSA please confirm that NSLDS question 1.g is about ensuring data integrity during and after a transition/migration of data?

63A. FSA confirms this is the case.

64. NSLDS 2.b - Can FSA please clarify the intent of NSLDS Question 2.b? WBS management and AWS Cloud Analytics are, in our experience, not closely related. Can FSA describe what reporting tools are currently in use to perform daily operational reporting and to satisfy analytical/dashboarding needs?

64A. Question NSLDS 2.b should be answered as two separate questions. The tools are not related to each other. NSLDS utilizes Cognos and Alation as reporting tools.

65. NSLDS 2.c - Is FSA looking for an enterprise governance tool for communication, IT investment, change management, or other functions?

65A. FSA is not seeking information regarding an enterprise governance tool for communication, IT investment, change management, or other functions under this RFI.

66. EDMAPS 1.e - How are the documents being ingested? How are the documents being accessed? What are the features sought for access, retrieval, management and interface with the document management system? Is it to be hosted on premise or in the cloud?

66A. The Government is currently soliciting for a document repository; we are seeking recommendations.

67. EDMAPS 3.b - Is FSA seeking to depart the current state and have EDMAPS, EDWA and FTI Datamart hosted on the same infrastructure? If so, will EDMAPS and EDWA be expected to meet the heightened security requirements of FTI, or will FTI accept lower security standards associated with EDMAPS and EDWA?

67A. FTI DM will continue to be hosted in a separate environment. EDMAPS and EDWA security requirements remain unchanged. See Government response listed under Question 25 for more information.

68. EDMAPS 1.j - Can FSA please articulate the current data governance practices, processes and tools currently in place for EDMAPS and the other data centric components (i.e., NSLDS, EDWA, FTI Datamart)? This information would aid in identifying what data governance and data management best practice would be most applicable to EDMAPS functionality and why. Is FSA seeking to implement a comprehensive enterprise Data Management maturity model?

68A. See Attachment C entitled “FSAs Data Strategy Plan” for information.

69. The scope of work outlined in the RFI primarily focuses on providing O&M and enhancement for IT systems. This scope of work does not fit the NAICS code of 522390. Using 522390 as the NAICS code may limit access to a pool of vendors with the right skills to assist FSA with the system maintenance and transformation. Would the agency consider using a NAICS code more suited to computer design and/or consulting services? We suggest reviewing the 5415 and 5416 series.

69A. NAICS code will be finalized after the requirement is definitized.

70. Considering that there are 20+ general questions, and at least 20 questions per requirement (EDMAPS, NSLDS, and COD), would the government be open to having a 20 total page limit, instead of the current 15 pages max in order for the industry to provide the government a more thorough RFI response?

70A. FSA has increased the page limit to 25.

71. Would the Government allow tables/graphics to have a font size of 10?

71A. Yes, tables/graphics may have a font size of 10.

72. Would the Government clarify which cloud environment is being referenced as "our cloud environment"?

72A. See Government’s response listed under Question 20.

73. This requirement speaks to modernization, but contains no specifics to the measurable goals that the Government wants to realize from investing in the modernization of several mission critical systems. Further, this document describes the current state of the systems. What high-level outcomes does the Government want to achieve? For example, on page 3 for the section on Common Origination and Disbursement system (COD), the document indicates that 31 internal and external interfaces exist. Is the Government looking to reduce the number of interfaces needed by Partners?

73A. FSA is looking for recommendations for more modern and efficient systems. The first objective of the program is to deliver and manage Title IV program aid in alignment with current laws, regulations, and directives by:

1. Performing tasks in a single cloud environment, providing consistent and accessible systems

2. Providing a unified partner experience by centralizing operations, enabling self-service, analytics, and compliance and

3. Building systems more adept to change, are less costly, and more efficient.

To accomplish these objectives, FSA will seek to:

1. Optimize efficiency and effectiveness while working with schools, other government agencies, software developers, interfacing systems, and other partners to deliver on FSA’s mission.

2. Leverage existing cloud infrastructure.

3. Enable DevSecOps integrating security as a shared responsibility throughout the entire IT lifecycle.

4. Ensure compliance with memorandum M-22-09 setting forth a Federal zero trust architecture (ZTA) strategy.

5. Plan and utilize an AGILE software development approach.

6. Integrate with FSA’s authentication and access control solutions (PAS and AIMS)

7. Plan and utilize a Requirements & Document management tool.

8. Leverage COTS products to realize a low- to no-code environment.

9. Support initiatives consistent with the implementation of the Target State

Infrastructure and Target State Data Architecture.

10. Improve the quality and accessibility of student financial aid data.

11. Reduce the administrative burden of Title IV aid; and

12. Minimize abuse within aid programs by accurately tracking funds awarded to assist postsecondary students.

13. Developed OMB compliant software licensing requirements.

14. Require DevSecOps integrating security as a shared responsibility throughout the entire IT Development lifecycle.

15. Addresses Federal, Department of Education, and FSA Cybersecurity requirements

– EO 14028; requiring agencies to meet specific cybersecurity standards and objectives by the end of Fiscal Year (FY) 2024

16. Integrates with FSA’s authentication and access control solutions (PAS and AIMS)

74. What types of operational challenges is the Government looking to address through this modernization?

74A. Improved governance and accessibility to the public.

75. Does the Government envision all three of these projects running concurrent at the same time?

75A. Yes.

76. If the Government had to assign a priority to each of these projects, what would it be? Which project would be the top priority? Which are second and third?

76A. The Government will not answer this question as it is not necessary to provide a response to this RFI.

77. Does the Government have a preliminary product roadmap or high-level schedule/timeline for this overall modernization effort?

77A. The Government will not provide this level of information for the RFI.

78. Would the Government consider dividing this one large requirement into smaller ones (e.g., one procurement for each system) in order to encourage small business participation, and mitigate execution risk?

78A. After the requirement is defined, the Government shall consider structure of the

79. Does the Government anticipate a need for business process re-engineering (BPR) to validate the "Current State" and invest in an upfront analysis for an "Optimized Target State" for all business use cases, workflows, processes, and supporting systems, identify areas of redundancy and process improvements, "low hanging fruit" that can deliver quick benefits at a low cost? If yes, then would the Government consider a separate procurement action of such a BPR requirement?

79A. FSA is performing this internally and does not anticipate a need for a separate procurement action for a BPR requirement.

80. This requirement alludes to a need for vendors to have Department of Education domain knowledge and business acumen as well as past performance in financial services and systems integration/modernization. Which of these areas would the Government rank as it's top priority in terms of the skills and expertise that vendors and their partners would need to bring to execution this requirement.

80A. The weight to be given will be provided within the RFP when it is released.

81. This section of the RFI reads, "The solution also includes operations, service support and program management". Out of the systems mentioned, this section is the only one that specifically calls out Program Management as a vendor requirement. Can the Government elaborate on its vision for Program Management for this requirement? Further, is the Government interested in standing up a Program Management Office (PMO) to establish standards for and manage the execution of this requirement? If not, why? Would the Government consider developing a separate procurement action/requirement to establish and run a PMO for this requirement?

81A. PM applies to all systems within every contract. FSA already has an PMO, therefore there is not a need for a separate procurement action to establish and run a

PMO.

82. This section of the RFI reads, "Target state vision: EDMAPS shall grow to host all operational system data – with data to be de-coupled from operational code base". This is the only section that mentions a target state. Can the Government elaborate on hits target state vision for the Common Origination and Disbursement (COD) system and National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS)?

82A. See Government's response listed under Question 25.

83. Per the RFI, FSA plans to modernize "Common Origination & Disbursement system (COD), the National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS), the Enterprise Data Warehouse & Analytics (EDWA) & Enterprise Data Management and Analytics Platform Services (EDMAPS), the Federal Tax Information Datamart, and centralize Customer Service for partners..." Is this expected to be a single modernization effort?

83A. After the requirement is defined, the Government shall consider structure of

84. Does FSA own the code associated with the COD ecosystem?

84A. See Government’s response listed under Question 24.

85. Does FSA own the code associated with the NSLDS ecosystem?

85A. Yes

86. Does FSA own the code associated with the EDWA and EDMAPS ecosystems?

86A. FSA does not own the code for EDMAPS/EDWA systems. However, we are in negotiations to obtain a license for them. Information regarding ownership of code will be in the RFP.

87. Does FSA own the AWS cloud accounts associated with each of the TIVOD Modernization solutions?

79A. FSA does not own the cloud accounts.

88. The RFI mentions 'Centralized Customer Service for partners'. Will there be a separate solicitation for contact center/customer service or would you like that included in this response?

88A. Customer Service is not a part of what vendors are responding to in this RFI.

89. Does the COD system disburse funds, or does it primarily monitor disbursement statuses for reconciliation purposes? If the latter, is there a financial system that the modern solution would need to integrate with?

89A. Yes, COD is a financial management system, monitoring, disbursement and reconciliation status.

90. The COD requirements ask for O&M capabilities but also mention modernized automation and flexibility. Are you considering modernizing the COD system, or is there a need completely new system to align with modernization requirements?

90A. The Government is seeking recommendations for either a new system or a modernization effort.

91. Will FSA entertain a multi-vendor model for management and modernization efforts or is the expectation that one vendor will manage all platforms and implement modernization requirements?

91A. Yes, FSA may entertain the recommendation.

92. The RFI references the need for "tenants operating within the fedRAMP boundary." Could you provide more details or clarification regarding this requirement? Additionally, would it be acceptable to consider a solution that may not meet FedRAMP standards by the RFI submission date but could become compliant before the RFP stage?

92A. See Government’s response listed under Question 25.

93. The RFI states that reports should be available for stakeholders. Are there stakeholders "external" to COD, meaning they do not typically access information with a login to COD? Are there any that are outside the FSA boundary?

GOVERNMENT ’S RESPONSE:

93A. Reports are available to external and internal customers both within and outside the FSA boundary.

94. The RFI states that reports must be delivered in a specified format. What are some examples for this format? Is there PII that is included in these reports? What decisions are being made with the data from these reports?

94A. There are various formats used including Word and Excel. Some reports do include PII, and formats can be CSV, Fixed Length, and tab delimited. The data is used for various reasons. For example, a school may use the data for reconciliation purposes.

FSA may use data cohort default rates, school eligibility, etc.

95. Are enrollment reports available on NSLDS website available to the general public or is a login required?

What kind of demand is typically seen for these reports?

95A. NSLDS website for Financial Aid Professionals requires access from a secure login, and all reports are available through the website. There are over 6,000 schools who can request reports on demand.

96. The RFI has describes NSLDS & EDMAPs - both of the systems are described as having interfaces to other systems. Are we to modernize them or maintain them? In the main requirements list - we have following requirements:

Internal and External interfaces: the system shall establish and maintain effective and efficient interfaces with about 31 internal and external systems. These systems shall be identified in the requirements and updated in accordance with business needs, policies, and regulations.

Batch Processing: Receive and process an unlimited amount of data in each batch submission.

Would the vendor need to create these new interfaces and simultaneously maintain interfaces that currently exist for NSLDS & EDMAPS?

96A. Existing NSLDS interfaces must be maintained, and new ones created, according to FSA needs.

97. Is the following contract number EDFSA15C0006 the current contract number and is Accenture the current contractor?

97A. See Government’s response listed under Question 3.

98. Is the government planning one on one sessions with vendors and/or industry days before the RFP is released?

98A. See Government’s response listed under Question 18.

99. Will the ED stakeholders be present in the vendors sessions and/or industry days?

99A. See Government’s response listed under Question 18.

100. Is the government considering a small business set-aside or track for this requirement?

100A. See Government’s response listed under Question 7.

101. Is this requirement going to require secret or top-secret facility clearance?

101A. No

102. When is the government planning to award this requirement?

102A. See Government’s response listed under Question 9.

103. Is this going to be a multiple award IDIQ/BPA?

103A. See Government’s response listed under Question 9.

104. Will all potential partners (prime and sub) be able to submit past performance?

104A. After the requirement is defined, the Government will consider who can provide past performance.

105. The document references multiple projects within the modernization program. Will the FSA accept responses that respond to some of the projects, but not all? For example, a response that speaks to EDMAPS/EDWA/FTI Datamart and NSLDS modernization projects, but not the COD project? Also, assuming the answer is yes, would the 15-page response limit apply to each project individually, or the entirety of the response for all projects?

105A. Yes, the Government will accept responses for some components. Page limit has been increased to 25 pages for the entirety.

106. Were the Common Origination and Disbursement system (COD), National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS), the Enterprise Data Warehouse & Analytics (EDWA), Enterprise Data Management and Analytics Platform Services (EDMAPS), and the Federal Tax Information Datamart previously performed under separate contracts?

106A. Only NSLDS was historically a standalone contract until 2019.

107. Though this is a new procurement, can you provide the PIID(s) of the contracts that this work was previously performed under?

107A. See Government’s response listed under Question 3.

108. Is this a new requirement or is this work currently being done? If not a new requirement, what is the current contract award ID?

108A. See Government’s response listed under Question 3.

109. Can tables and graphics be 10-point font?

109A. See Government’s response listed under Question 71.

110. Can you provide more information on the existing systems and technologies that need to be integrated with the proposed modernization solution, particularly for the COD System and

NSLDS?

110A. See Government’s response listed under Question 25.

111. The Common Origination and Disbursement system (COD)

Are there any specific data formats or protocols that the new system should support for seamless data exchange?

111A. This is a RFI used to collect written information about the capabilities of vendors. More specific information will be released with the RFP.

112. National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS)

What are the current data volumes and expected growth rates for each of the systems mentioned in the RFI?

112A. This is a RFI used to collect written information about the capabilities of vendors.

More specific information will be released with the RFP.

113. Are there any unique security challenges or considerations for the COD System, NSLDS, and other data repositories?

113A. COD, NSLDS, and EDMAPS/EDWA follow the FSA security requirements. The FTI DM is the only system with unique security standards and challenges, defined in IRS 1075 Guidelines.

114. Enterprise Data Warehouse & Analytics (EDWA) & Enterprise Data Management and Analytics Platform Services (EDMAPS), the Federal Tax Information Datamart Can you provide more details on the data cleansing and transformation requirements for the Enterprise Data Warehouse & Analytics (EDWA) and Enterprise Data Management and Analytics Platform Services (EDMAPS)?

114A. This is a RFI used to collect written information about the capabilities of

115. Are there any known data quality issues that should be addressed during the modernization?

115A. None.

116. Enterprise Data Warehouse & Analytics (EDWA) & Enterprise Data Management and

What are the expected performance benchmarks and scalability requirements for the modernized systems, especially for EDWA, EDMAPS, and the data lake?

116A. This is a RFI used to collect written information about the capabilities of

117. Are there any specific performance metrics that need to be monitored and reported on regularly?

117A. This RFI will be used to collect written information about the capabilities of

118. Enterprise Data Warehouse & Analytics (EDWA) & Enterprise Data Management and

Can you provide more details on the machine learning models used in Title IV system operations and how they will be integrated into the modernized systems?

118A. This is a RFI used to collect written information about the capabilities of

119. Enterprise Data Warehouse & Analytics (EDWA) & Enterprise Data Management and

What are the specific use cases for machine learning in these systems?

119A. This RFI will be used to collect written information about the capabilities of

120. Are there any data science or analytics requirements that need to be addressed?

120A. This RFI will be used to collect written information about the capabilities of

121. What is the expected timeline for the modernization project, including key milestones and deadlines?

121A. See Government’s responses listed under Questions 8 and 9.

122. What is the budget allocation or funding available for this modernization project?

122A. Budget allocation or funding has not been determined at this time.

123. Are there any specific tools or technologies that should be used for reporting and monitoring?

123A. The Government is seeking recommendations with this RFI.

124. Defense facility security clearance? What type? What level?

Why is the government asking for a defense facility security clearance? If so, would the govt.

please state which part of the scope requires a facility security clearance?

124A. The Government asked the question as part of learning more about potential vendors.

125. Is a COTS/Low-Code Platform involved in data aspects the procurement or AWS itself is procured through this contract?

125A. See Government’s response listed under Question 25.

126. Please provide the names and contract numbers of incumbent contracts currently supporting these programs and systems.

126A. See Government’s response listed under Question 3.

127. Does the Government intend to have industry one on one meetings following the RFI?

127A. See Government’s response listed under Question 18.

128. Will the Government be hosting an industry day following the RFI?

128A. See Government’s response listed under Question 18.

129. When does the Government anticipate releasing the final RFP?

129A. See Government’s response listed under Question 8.

130. Responses shall not exceed 15 pages

Would the Government consider increasing the page count?

130A. Page limit has been increased to 25.

131. There are repetitive questions under each application. For example, the first question (Implementation Vision) has bullets e…