USCA19R0062_Questions_and_Answers.docx

Question 1 General. Is this a new requirement or is there a current or previous contractor who has performed similar services? If available, can you please send along the incumbent contract or task order number?

This is a new requirement.

Question 2

General. Where should proposers include their completed Solicitation/Contract Form?

If referring to the SF33, offerors can submit this a separate document and it will not count toward any page limits.

Question 3

General. Does the government intend for the offerors to sign and return the SF-33 and Optional Forms 347?

You are not required to sign and submit the OF-347. The SF33 is also not required, but if offerors choose to submit, please see question 2.

Question 4

General. Are there any restrictions on the file size that can be submitted? Are there any restrictions on the file format (e.g., PDF, MS Office, zipped, etc.)?

There is no stated restriction on file size limits, but please use your judgment in submitting proposals with large attachments. The type of documents requested are stated in the L-1 Instructions of the solicitation. Offerors can submit zipped files.

Question 5

General. Please clarify the anticipated award of the BPA and start date of the first Call Order so bidders may select the appropriate key personnel who will be available for the work.

The government anticipates an award in the second quarter of FY2020.

Question 6

General. Is there an anticipated award date for the BPA and call order USCA19BPAC1009?

Please see question 5.

Question 7

Document USCA19R0062. Clause F-3 Term of the BPA. Is there an estimated contract award date?

Please see question 5.

Question 8

General. Will there be an opportunity to submit further questions as we move through our proposal process?

At this time, another question and answer period is not anticipated.

Question 9

General. Can Bidders provide additional relevant documentation or information (i.e., executive summary, transmittal letter, attachments or appendices, brochures, staffing, case studies, etc.)?

Offerors can submit any relevant information that supports their proposed solution and adheres to any page limits established for document submission.

Question 10

General. Will the selected solution be the official system of record for all PPS data in the final end state, or is the intent to continue using existing systems of record and gradually phasing out targeted systems? If so, which systems are initially targeted for replacement?

Yes, the final solution will be the source of record for PPS data. We will maintain dual systems until full operating capabilities are implemented.

Question 11

General. Because of the high volume of PII within PACTs, will there be additional controls or limitations surrounding AO and Helpdesk staff to protect the privacy around these clients?

Yes.

Question 12

General. Is PACTS O&M expected to continue beyond the end of the period of performance of BPA Call USCA19BPAC1010.

Yes, O&M for the existing legacy systems, including PACTS, will continue until the new solution is fully implemented.

Question 13

Document USCA19R0062. Contract Clause 7-100B Limitation of Liability (Services). Is it the Government’s intent for the contract terms included with the RFP to place unlimited liability upon the service supplier for direct and indirect damages incurred as a result of the services provided, with exception to those carveouts included, e.g. 7-100B of the Judiciary Contracting Guide? Would the government support the establishment of more balanced limits of liability at contract award, and/or allow such limits to be included as part of subsequent task orders? It is our interpretation that companies are being asked to take on a disproportionate amount of risk under the current terms as written and we believe that a provision for individually negotiated or capped limits of liability will maximize fair and open competition on this RFP.

It is not the Government’s intent to place unlimited liability. If any liability issues arise, they would be addressed on a case by case basis. No liability limits will be established at the time of contract award. This clause is similar to the liability clause in the Federal Acquisition Regulation used by Executive Branch agencies and is a standard clause for inclusion in solicitations like this.

Question 14

Document USCA19R0062. Contract Clause 7-20 Security Requirements. The Security Requirements as currently listed require that all contractor personnel have at least 2 years' experience and have undergone a background investigation. The current requirements limit potential offerors to the BPA to only those offerors with personnel who have already completed the adjudication process. Since the current requirements do not consider the possibility of new investigations, which given the scope and BPA period of performance, could impact the overall availability of personnel, the overall cost to the AO as a result of a contractor's inability to provide new and/or more junior resources, and the AO's ability to meet its goals under the BPA, will the AO sponsor contractor personnel for new investigations in addition to reinvestigations?

New investigations will be sponsored if deemed necessary for the work required.

Question 15

Document USCA19R0062. Contract Clause 4-70 Incentive Fee. Item e(1). There is text in brackets referring to items that should be filled in by the contracting officer. What are the values of these items?

This clause pertains to cost plus incentive fee contract types. Per Judiciary policy, it is required to be included in the solicitation. In a post award situation, if a cost-plus contract type BPA call is issued that requires this clause, it will be included in that BPA call. At that time, item e(1) will be filled in. No values will be filled in at this time.

Question 16

Document USCA19R0062. Contract Clause 6-95 Alt 1 Patent Indemnity. There is text in brackets referring to an item that should be filled in by the contracting officer. Are there any items to be excluded from this indemnity?

At this time, there are no items to be excluded.

Question 17

Document USCA19R0062. Contract Clause 7-75 Subcontracts Item (e). There is text in brackets referring to an item that should be filled in by the contracting officer. Are there conditions requiring consent?

There are no conditions requiring consent at this time.

Question 18

Document USCA19R0062. Clause 2-65 Key Personnel item (a)(6)(f), which states, “certification that the information contained in the resume is correct and accurate (signature of key person and date signed, and signature of the supervisor or higher authority and date signed will be accepted as certification)”. Please clarify when this certification is required at the time of proposal submission or only for substitution of personnel after contract award.

This certification is required for any substitutions after contract award.

Question 19

Document USCA19R0062. Clause 2-65 Key Personnel item (a)(1) says, “All substitutes shall have qualifications at least equal to those of the person being replaced. Please confirm that the replacement personnel qualifications referenced are limited to those described in each Call.

Yes. This is for replacement personnel.

Question 20 Document USCA19R0062. Section L-1 (Instructions) – 2.0 (Instructions) – Part A Base BPA item 2(a) for FedRamp High. Would the US Courts consider a FEDRAMP HIGH Hosting environment with a FEDRAMP MODERATE COTS platform?

This requirement is updated to reflect the government’s need for a FedRamp compliant SaaS solution meeting the security designation level of High Confidentiality, Moderate Integrity and Moderate Availability. Please see revised language in Section L-1 (Instructions) – 2.0 (Instructions) – Part A Base BPA item 2(a).

Question 21 Document USCA19R0062. Section L-1 (Instructions) – 2.0 (Instructions) – Part A Base BPA item 2(a) for FedRamp High. Will the government please provide further clarification? We recommend that suppliers provide Fedramp High Accreditation for the underlying "COTS Tool" that they plan to utilize. This is because the "Solution" will not be available for Fedramp Accreditation until after it has been developed. Please confirm that this is the governments intent.

The government’s intent is a FedRamp compliant SaaS solution meeting the security designation level of High Confidentiality, Moderate Integrity and Moderate Availability. Please see revised language in Section L-1 (Instructions) – 2.0 (Instructions) – Part A Base BPA item 2(a).

Question 22 Document USCA19R0062. Section L-1 (Instructions) – 2.0 (Instructions) – Part A Base BPA item 2(a) for FedRamp High. If a product is FedRAMP Moderate and has been hosted in a FedRAMP High Hosting environment previously, would AOUSC consider a FedRAMP High Hosting environment with a FedRAMP Moderate COTS platform?

See question 20.

Question 23 General - FedRamp High. Is the current PACTS solution rated FISMA High? If not, what are the requirements driving the need for FedRAMP High?

The requirement is updated to reflect the government’s need for a FedRamp compliant SaaS solution meeting the security designation level of High Confidentiality, Moderate Integrity and Moderate Availability. Specifically, how it will meet the High Confidentiality requirement for Criminal Investigative and Surveillance Material. Please see revised language in Section L-1 (Instructions) – 2.0 (Instructions) – Part A Base BPA item 2(a).

Question 24 General - FedRamp High. The requirements dictate seamless integration with AOUSC's Office 365 implementation with the ability to connect across all distribution channels including email, calendaring, office suite collaboration, etc. If AOUSC's Office 365 implementation is FedRAMP Moderate and potentially handles some of the same data, what requirements drive the need for the proposed solution to be FedRAMP High?

See question 23.

Question 25 General – FedRamp High. PPS requires that this system is "FedRAMP High". Given that Office 365 is FedRAMP Moderate, how do you plan to achieve FedRAMP High for the overall system?

This requirement is for a PACTS replacement where security designation level of High Confidentiality (specifically for Criminal Investigative and Surveillance Material), Moderate Integrity and Moderate Availability. Office 365 does not have the same categorization. The government is looking for the offeror’s integration solution.

Question 26 General related to FedRamp High. In the Acquisition FAQ's on FedRAMP's web-site, FedRAMP states that an agency cannot require the authorization to be in place as a requirement to bid on a Federal contract (https://www.fedramp.gov/assets/resources/documents/Agency_Acquisition_FAQs.pdf). If a solution has the controls in place to meet FedRAMP High compliance as laid out in Section 2.1 Security, as well as a FedRAMP High submission package currently in review with the FedRAMP Joint Authorization Board (JAB) at the time of RFQ release, will the AOUSC consider that as passing Evaluation Factor 1? In this scenario, the contractor can demonstrate it is providing a FedRAMP High compliant system with the necessary controls to meet AOUSC's requirements but authorization could come before or after the RFQ deadline without any ability for the contractor to control the date.

See question 23.

Question 27 General - During transition will both the old and new systems operate in parallel for all functions, or is the vision that functions will migrate to the new system individually?

It is anticipated that some capabilities may run in both the old and new systems until all districts are migrated to the new capabilities.

Question 28 Document USCA19R0062. Section 2.1 Security under C-1 Requirements. Is CJIS compliance mandatory? Does AOUSC anticipate storing CJI data as a part of the solution? If AOUSC does not anticipate storing CJI data in the solution, can AOUSC please adjust and remove the solicitation requirements that refer to CJIS compliance? By not removing these requirements, this will make a significant difference in complexity and cost in the vendor's proposed solution.

Yes. CJIS compliance is required.

Question 29 Document USCA19R0062. Section 2.1 Security under C-1 Requirements. Would AOUSC accept a FedRAMP Moderate certification for the system with the understanding that additional security controls would be configured to meet AOUSC's requirements? Without making this change to the solicitation requirements, AOUSC will not be able to take advantage of the capabilities offerred by industry leading FedRAMP Moderate PaaS/SaaS providers and would be limiting competition to only a very limited number of providers that offer FedRAMP High/High/High.

See question 23.

Question 30 Document USCA19R0062. Section 2.1 Security under C-1 Requirements. This section states, “The solution shall be FedRAMP High compliant, Judiciary Information Security Framework (JISF) High compliant, and Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Security Policy compliant.” Is JISF PPS' version of FIPS Framework?

JISF is derived from the NIST 800-53 v4 Security Guidance. USCA19R0062 Section 2.1 Security under C-1 Requirements has been updated as follows: “The solution shall be compliant with all relevant security controls outlined in the Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS), the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA), the Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) and Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP). The solution shall also be compliant with the Judiciary Information Security Framework (JISF), to include, but not limited to, the ability of the federal government to perform a security certification and accreditation process.”

Question 31 Document USCA19R0062. Section 2.1 Security under C-1 Requirements. The document states “The contractor shall support a secure, multi-factor method of remote authentication…” Will JENIE single sign on be incorporated as a security authentication measure for in house and remote users?

JENIE and Duo are already standard service for multi-factor authentication.

Question 32 Document USCA19R0062. Section 2.1 Security under C-1 Requirements. It appears that there is only one product that qualifies under the referenced standard. Is the government willing to consider FedRAMP Moderate?

See question 23.

Question 33 Document USCA19R0062. Section 1.1 Scope under C-1 Requirements. It is cited that “solution shall support the migration of a subset of PPS data”. This is mentioned again in Section 3.17 Data Migration. Can PPS provide estimates on the type (format), quantity and size of files from each unique platform from which migration must occur?

The government intends to define the subset of data needed for migration with the awardee during the Discovery phase described in BPA call USCA19BPA1009. The government is looking for the offeror's best approach for data migration.

Question 34

Document USCA19R0062. Section 1.1 Scope under C-1 Requirements. It is stated that a subset of PPS data from existing systems will be migrated. Can you please elaborate on the number of systems included in this data migration, the volume and types of data, and the inherent complexity (or simplicity) of the data relationships?

See question 33.

Question 35

Document USCA19R0062. Section 1.1 Scope under C-1 Requirements. This says, "The solutions shall consist of one or more COTS tools". Does this mean the Judiciary is open to hosting the application as opposed to SaaS?

No. The Judiciary is not looking to host the application.

Question 36

Document USCA19R0062. Section 1.1 Scope under C-1 Requirements. Does the Government expect the bidder to perform software development on any legacy applications?

No.

Question 37

Document USCA19R0062. Section 2.0 Overall Objectives under C-1 Requirements. The contractor shall provide a SaaS solution. Does this mean all custom developed solutions will not be considered?

The Government is looking for a SaaS platform that can be configured and minimal custom development.

Question 38

Document USCA19R0062. Section 2.2 Incremental, Seamless, and Rapid Transition under C-1 Requirements. All active cases in PPS will remain active in the new system. Is there an archive system as part of the new product or will the users be required to use the old system for access historical information. If so, as new defendants are sentenced they will need to query both systems. How stable is the legacy system and who will be maintaining it after conversion?

There is not currently a request for the new system to provide an archive system. The government will determine the best strategy to handle accessing historical records at a later date.

Question 39

Document USCA19R0062. Section 2.4 Usability under C-1 Requirements. Does the government have an existing portal, learning management system, or other platform where this information will be made available or is the government looking for these resources to be incorporated into the SaaS tool being delivered?

The government is looking for this to be incorporated into the solution being delivered. Please see System Capability 113 - Online Help and Tutorial Management in Attachment B – Requirements Traceability Matrix.

Question 40

Document USCA19R0062. Section 2.5 Enterprise Integration under C-1 Requirements. Since the RFP states that district owned and operated interfaces are also part of the overall integrated solution, If these are in addition to attachment 2, will the AOUSC provide an estimated number of district systems as well as the types of interfaces that are existing today for districts? This will help in providing a better estimated effort and resources.

All district systems access via PACTS Services as listed in Attachment 2 – Current PPS Portfolio Interfaces.

Question 41

Document USCA19R0062. Section 3.1 Capacity under C-1 Requirements. Please clarify whether the court's clients will access the system directly or if their interests must merely be represented through the system functionality (i.e., investigators, court employees, third-party law enforcement will enter the system on their behalf to record information).

It is anticipated that third parties, including clients, will access the system through a secure e-portal.

Question 42

Document USCA19R0062. Section 3.1 Capacity under C-1 Requirements. The RFP states the solution shall support approximately 9,000 concurrent users. Can you please confirm that the users listed in the BPA Pricing document are all concurrent users? If not, can you please provide the number of concurrently users needed during the pilot phase?

The user base is 9,000 unique users, with approximately one quarter concurrently. Section 3.1 Capacity under C-1 Requirements is updated to reflect this.

Question 43

Document USCA19R0062. Section 3.1 Capacity under C-1 Requirements. It says, “The contractor’s solution shall support approximately 24,000 individuals (e.g. clients) on pretrial supervision and 130,000 on post-conviction supervision.” Can the Government please clarify this requirement further?

The Government’s intent in section 3.1 is to provide offeror's an estimate of the number of clients that are under investigation and on active supervision at any given time.

Question 44

Document USCA19R0062. Section 3.3 Identity and Access Management (IdAM) under C-1 Requirements. Is National Active Directory (NAD) the same thing as Microsoft Active Directory in which all user accounts are federated across offices?

Yes. It is the same.

Question 45

Document USCA19R0062. Section 3.3 Identity and Access Management (IdAM) under C-1 Requirements. Please provide more information about the Judiciary Enterprise Network Information Exchange (JENIE).

JENIE is the Judiciary IdAM service that includes a suite of technology platform/tools. It is a court wide information sharing system based on portal technology that provides access to relevant content, information, applications, processes and human resources.

Question 46

Document USCA19R0062. Section 3.4 Access Controls under C-1 Requirements. What is the Government IdAM solution referred to in this section?

The Government IdAM solution is stated in section 3.3 Identity and Access Management (IdAM) under C-1 Requirements of document USCA19R0062. Clarify – we mention NAD, JENIE, Duo. Are these the IdAM “solution”?

Question 47

Document USCA19R0062. Section 3.8 Data Tagging under C-1 Requirements. Please provide the list of approved web browsers and versions.

The Judiciary is baselined with current major versions of Chrome, Firefox, Safari (Apple devices only), Internet Explorer and targeting to modern web applicaton support with current major version of Chrome, Firefox, Safari (Apple devices only) and Microsoft Edge (pending Windows 10 rollout).

Question 48

Document USCA19R0062. Section 3.8 Data Tagging under C-1 Requirements. Please provide clarity on multi-level security application and support multiple instances per user.

Ability to provide both Role-Based Access and Attribute-Based Access Control to different lifecycle instances (e.g., dev, test, stage, prod, etc.) including audit and privileged access management (PAM) capabilities.

Question 49

Document USCA19R0062. Section 3.9 Digital Media Management Capacity under C-1 Requirements. Is this RFP to include the purchase of all new scanning hardware, software, and indexing systems?

Or is the intent that the existing scanning systems will be utilized and integrated with?

The requirement only refers to ability of the solution to allow upload, process and storage of media.

Question 50

Document USCA19R0062. Section 3.9 Digital Media Management Capacity under C-1 Requirements. Does the AOUSC anticipate the 70TB of data with 25% growth to be exceeded within the 5 year BPA or is the requested storage size factoring in the growth rate already?

70TB is the initial level and expected to grow by 25% per year.

Question 51

Document USCA19R0062. Section 3.9 Digital Media Management Capacity under C-1 Requirements. Does the AO already have an OCR tool purchased for use on this task order and if yes, which one?

No. The government is open to offeror's proposing solutions.

Question 52

Document USCA19R0062. Section 3.9 Digital Media Management Capacity and 3.13 Searching under C-1 Requirements. Does the AOUSC currently have any OCR software already in place?

See question 51.

Question 53

Document USCA19R0062. Section 3.10 Client Case Management under C-1 Requirements. Requirement says, “Platform updates and modifications the contractor makes commercially available must be available to the Government.” Platform updates are generally made by the software vendor and application updates are made by the contractor/system integrator. Please clarify the definition of software vendor vs. contractor/system integrator.

The prime contractor is responsible for providing a solution to the Government. If any issues arise with any software or hardware, the contractor is responsible for addressing those whether directly with the software manufacturer, teaming partners, or any other entity they work with.

Question 54 Document USCA19R0062. Section 3.11 Process Automation under C-1 Requirements. The AOUSC indicates that the following functional areas are targets for automation: Risk Assessment, Case Assignment, Route Planning, and Location Monitoring Alerts. Are these targets included as part of Call Order USCA19BPAC1009?

The scope for Call Order USCA19BPAC1009 is pretrial risk assessment. Please see capability number 019 and 110 Manage Pretrial Risk Assessment in Attachment 4 – RTM for IOC.

Question 55

Document USCA19R0062. Section 3.14 E-Portal under C-1 Requirements. Can the government please explain the need for an E-Portal, as the understanding is client information does not have a public access factor?

It is expected that third parties will utilize an E-Portal to facilitate communication with Probation and Pretrial Services offices as required.

Question 56

Document USCA19R0062. Section 3.14 E-Portal under C-1 Requirements. Will e-portal users have credentials to the system, or will it be a public facing website which interfaces to the solution?

Yes. They will have credentials.

Question 57

Document USCA19R0062. Section 3.15 Geographic Information System (GIS) under C-1 Requirements.

Does PPS have a GIS-tool preference?

No.

Question 58

Document USCA19R0062. Section 3.16 Mobility under C-1 Requirements. What security standards will handheld and mobile devices be required to conform to?

Please refer to NIST Mobile Device guidance, https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800-124r1.pdf

Question 59

Document USCA19R0062. Section 3.17 Data Migration under C-1 Requirements. Since only certain districts will have their data migrated for the IOC (Initial Operating Capability), does the government expect system (electronic) communication between districts that have had their data migrated and those whose data has not been migrated? What is the government's expectation of district involvement in the data migration process? Who does the government believe will be the owner of the data once it is migrated? How many versions of a data element does the owner expect the system to maintain?

The government is not requiring data migration as part of the IOC. After the discovery period, if data migration is determined to be necessary, the government will issue a new BPA call.

Question 60 Document USCA19R0062. Section 3.17 Data Migration under C-1 Requirements. It is generally advisable to continue WIP workflow transactions in legacy systems and migrate them as stateless entities. This is generally applicable for most platforms. Please confirm if this is a must-have requirement during the initial implementation.

The government is not requiring data migration as part of the Initial Operating Capability. After the discovery period, if data migration is determined to be necessary, the government will issue a new BPA call.

Question 61 Document USCA19R0062. Section 4.2 Commercial-Off-The-Shelf Defect Fixes under C-1 Requirements. It will be necessary to customize the out of the box COTS software to meet PPSO requirements. Is it the Government’s expectation that this implementation be delivered 100% free of defects?

As stated in Section 4.2 Commercial-Off-The-Shelf Defect Fixes under C-1 Requirements, the contractor is responsible for fixing defects related to the implementation.

Question 62 Document USCA19R0062. Section 4.2 Commercial-Off-The-Shelf Defect Fixes under C-1 Requirements. Is it the Government’s expectation that bugs identified within the COTS software, not the contractor’s implementation, are still considered to be the contractor’s responsibility?

Yes. It is the contractor’s responsibility to work with the software platform vendor to resolve any issues.

Question 63 Document USCA19R0062. Section 4.3 Transition-Out Plan (TOP) under C-1 Requirements. Please provide the existing transition-out plan for current PACTS O&M work.

This work is outside the scope of this requirement.

Question 64

Document USCA19R0062. Section 5.0 Design, Development, Test, Validation, and Acceptance Objectives under C-1 Requirements. Please clarify which COTS products, if any, the Government uses for Agile Design, Development, Test Validation and Acceptance.

It is expected that the offeror will be utilizing their own lifecycle and service management tools to support the full end-to-end life cycle. The government will not be providing the tools.

Question 65

Document USCA19R0062. Section 5.4 Test, Evaluation, and Acceptance Objectives under C-1 Requirements. Please describe the Government's current IV&V processes, such as which vendor performs these services, the typical length of time to perform IV&V, and any other information that will help bidders develop their timeline and price for the solution.

The government would like the vendor to propose a framework and structure that would achieve the goals of collaboration and support of the governments IV&V process.

Question 66

Document USCA19R0062. Clause F-3 Term of the BPA states “This agreement has an ordering period of five years from TBD to TBD”. Please provide the expected dates.

The government does not have specific dates identified. Please see question 5.

Question 67

Document USCA19R0062. Clause G-2 Ordering Procedures Item 3(a). There is language that mentions that "any FFP or T&M BPA calls are not permitted to have overhead and G&A costs as separately priced items". Please confirm that government expects proposed labor rates / prices to be fully burdened?

Yes. These prices must be fully burdened.

Question 68

Document USCA19R0062. Clause G-2 Ordering Procedures Item 3(a). If bidders propose Travel for any FFP and/or T&M BPA calls, please confirm that G&A cost is allowed on Travel, as long as the G&A cost is not be separately priced.

G&A is acceptable on firm fixed price BPA calls but not on T&M.

Question 69

Attachment 1 – PPS Security and Privacy. Upon review, it appears that several (35 count) of the controls or enhancements listed in the Attachment 1 JISF document have been withdrawn from 800-53r4. Are Cloud Service Providers (CSPs) still required to meet these controls?

Yes.

Question 70

Attachment 1 – PPS Security and Privacy related to AU-2 Auditable Events. We may need to ask questions regarding compliance with the audit standard accessing sealed documents due to the integration of 40 applications.

The contractor can ask questions.

Question 71

Attachment 1 – PPS Security and Privacy related to SC-17 Public Key Infrastructure Certificates. How many licenses will be required? Will the AO provide the Certificate Authorities or manage part of this security process?

The Judiciary PKI program provides licenses for official endpoint websites and will work with the awardee to manage this security process.

Question 72

Attachment 1 – PPS Security and Privacy. Exhibit A and G referenced in this attachment do not appear to be in the attachment, will the government please advise/amend?

This attachment is updated. Please refer to the updated version “Attachment 1 – PPS Security and Privacy v2”.

Question 73

Attachment 2 – Current PPS Portfolio Interfaces, System List tab. What is the system owners expectation with regards to the use of, support and training for the Co-Sign product? Co-Sign is listed as a non-supported product as of 2018.

It is not intended for the offeror to provide support or training for Co-Sign (acquired by DocuSign). This is part of the existing portfolio and is a supported product.

Question 74

Attachment 2 – Current PPS Portfolio Interfaces. Is there a high-level logical architecture diagram available for the intended future solution state that expands upon the current system diagram provided in the Attachment 2 Worksheet “System Diagram” tab?

Additional diagrams are included in Attachment 5- Pretrial & Live Cycle Capabilities, which can be requested as stated in the Instructions of the solicitation.

Question 75

Attachment 2 – Current PPS Portfolio Interfaces. Please list and enumerate which integrations are needed for IOC.

This is currently documented in Section 3.2 IOC Interfaces in BPA Call document USCA19BPAC1009.

Question 76

Attachment 2 – Current PPS Portfolio Interfaces. Will the Government confirm that this is the complete list of required interfaces?

Yes. It is the list of current interfaces.

Question 77

General. The Draft Solicitation (February 2018) contained a document entitled Volume_III_-_PPS_CM_Business_and_Technical_Matrix.xlsx. This document nicely summarized the requirements of the AOUSC. The final RFP did not contain a similar document. Would the AOUSC consider adding such a document to this RFP?

No document of this type will be provided for this solicitation.

Question 78

Attachment B – Requirements Traceability Matrix, Instructions tab. The description tab for the various Conditions state, the “offeror must explain how the capability is satisfied by the proposed platform solution." Please confirm that this explanation can be completed within the Written Technical Response and not within the Excel Spreadsheet.

The offeror shall state the appropriate condition for each item in the spreadsheet. Any narrative can be provided in the written technical response.

Question 79 Attachment B – Requirements Traceability Matrix Row 65 for Manage Prerelease Supervision. What is the anticipated process for gathering essential information/data related to client behaviors/activities while imprisoned related to the Post-Conviction Supervision Plan?

· Is this currently a paper process? If so, is it anticipated to continue?

· Does assessor have direct access to the Federal Bureau of Prisons to gather essential information?

Is there an expectation that the new case management system will establish data exchange to gather relevant information maintained in BOP offender management system to support Prerelease Assessments?

These efforts plan to be addressed in future BPA calls.

Question 80 Attachment B – Requirements Traceability Matrix and Attachment 4 – RTM for IOC. There are several differences in the descriptions of the capabilities between Attachment B and Attachment 4. For example, Capabilities #16 and #25 have slightly different descriptions between the two forms. Please confirm if this was intended and if this was not intended please confirm which language should be adopted.

This was not intended. Differences are corrected. Please see these updated attachments for this solicitation.

Question 81 Attachment 4 – RTM for IOC. There are some cells in the worksheet colored as Yellow. Please explain the significance of the Yellow highlighted cells.

In the Government’s version that was posted, there are no yellow highlights. If anything appears highlighted, there is no significance.

Question 82 Attachment 4 – RTM for IOC. Capability #019 & #110 states, "Note that this is currently performed in a separate application". For the IOC, does the government require this capability to be built into the new system, or should the new system have an interface to the legacy system that performs this function?

Yes. It will be built into the new system.

Question 83 Attachment 4 – RTM for IOC. Capability #015 Managing Checklists. Will the Manage Checklist templates be provided in advance of the demonstration?

No. It is not needed for the demonstration.

Question 84

Attachment 4 – RTM for IOC. Capability #030 & #095 Download Pretrial Services Forms. Will the 22 forms be provided to offerors prior to the demonstration?

The government will provide the required forms, data sets, and examples before the demo.

Question 85

Attachment 4 – RTM for IOC. Capability #035 Calculate Offense Level (Offense Level Calculator OLC). The Offense Calculator is discussed as being interfaced and later incorporated. If this system is already in place would it be better to make it part of the initial product? Why interface a product that you know you will be incorporating at a later date?

The government's intent is to minimize the scope of the IOC.

Question 86

Attachment 4 – RTM for IOC. Capability #045 Download Presentence Forms. Will offerors receive samples of the 44 types of forms prior to the demonstration?

The government will provide the required forms, data sets, and examples before the demo.

Question 87

Attachment 5 – PPS CCMS Pretrial and Lifecycle Business Capability. Are internal users currently synched with Azure AD through Azure AD Connect? Are National Active Directory (NAD) and Judiciary Enterprise Network Information Exchange (JENIE) different AD domains or is there any trust between these domains? What will be the authentication method/IdP for non-trusted users?

Yes, they are synced and they are the same.

Question 88

Documents USCA19R0062, Attachment 5 – PPS CCMS Pretrial and Lifecycle Business Capability, Attachment 6 – PPS CCMS Presentence Business Capability, and Attachment 7 – PPS CCMS Post Conviction Business Capability. Can the AOUSC provide a list of current Microsoft product versions that exist in today’s environment, e.g., SharePoint, Exchange, etc.

Microsoft 365 Government Community Cloud environment and applications.

Question 89

Attachment B – Requirements Traceability Matrix. The description for “M” (Modifications Required) includes the following statement “The Offeror must explain the modifications and include the cost of all modifications above and beyond the base cost in their cost proposal.” It is our intent to include any costs associated with the implementation (to include any modifications) of our solution in price to the AOUSC. These would be included in labor charges to the AOUSC in the overall price. The exact cost to a specific modification (if needed) will be included as the labor required to make that modification. If the AOUSC would like to see a specific cost associated with a Modification, where should that cost be itemized? There does not seem to be a way to reflect that in Attachment A?

The Government’s intent is not to see a specific cost breakdown. The offeror shall price the solution through their labor rates as described in the question.

Question 90 Attachment B – Requirements Traceability Matrix Capability #009 Manage Reporting Requirements. Where can we find additional details on ERS? Is this an existing system that requires an integration? Does it require a portal?

Details on ERS are in Attachment 2 – Current PPS Portfolio Interfaces.

Question 91 Attachment B – Requirements Traceability Matrix Capability #018 Ad Hoc Pretrial Services Investigation/Report. Please provide samples and use cases for pretrial ad hoc system forms and ad hoc reports.

The Government has made available upon request, business capability detail documents which provide additional information. These are Attachment 5 -PPS CCMS Pretrial and Lifecycle Business Capability, Attachment 6 - PPS CCSM Presentence Business Capability, and Attachment 7 - PPS CCMS Post Conviction Business Capability.

Question 92 Attachment B – Requirements Traceability Matrix Capability #019 Manage Pretrial Risk Assessment (PTRA). Is the PTRA Tool included in the scope of the IOC? Or is this an integration as part of IOC?

The Pretrial Risk Assessment is in scope for the IOC.

Question 93 Attachment B – Requirements Traceability Matrix Capability #019 Manage Pretrial Risk Assessment (PTRA). Would the Government be open to potentially replacing this tool if the vendor’s solution can provide similar functionality?

No. The government expects the offeror to provide the PPS Pretrial Risk Assessment in its solution.

Question 94 Attachment B – Requirements Traceability Matrix Capability #025 Manage Pretrial Release, Detention Orders, & Hearing Results. Is integration with CM/ECF part of IOC scope?

No.

Question 95 Attachment B – Requirements Traceability Matrix Capability #027 PT Status Report. Will offerors be provided with a sample of the PS 38 status report?

No. But Offerors can find details about the report and its content in the business capability detail documents which are available upon request. These are Attachment 5 -PPS CCMS Pretrial and Lifecycle Business Capability, Attachment 6 - PPS CCSM Presentence Business Capability, and Attachment 7 - PPS CCMS Post Conviction Business Capability.

Question 96 Attachment B – Requirements Traceability Matrix Capability #032 [Standard Guideline] Presentence Investigation & Presentence Report (PSI & PSR). Please provide samples and use cases for the 11 non-standard Presentence Investigation types.

Offeror's can find details for these capabilities by viewing the Business Capability Detail Documents that are available upon request. These are Attachment 5 -PPS CCMS Pretrial and Lifecycle Business Capability, Attachment 6 - PPS CCSM Presentence Business Capability, and Attachment 7 - PPS CCMS Post Conviction Business Capability. As part of the demonstrations, participants will be provided redacted PSR's necessary to complete the demo scenarios.

Question 97 Attachment B – Requirements Traceability Matrix Capability #032 [Standard Guideline] Presentence Investigation & Presentence Report (PSI & PSR). Will offerors be provided with samples of the reports?

See question 96.

Question 98 Attachment B – Requirements Traceability Matrix Capability #045 Download Presentence Forms. Please provide the quantity of presentence forms.

Attachment B Requirements Traceability Matrix indicates 44 forms.

Question 99 Attachment B – Requirements Traceability Matrix Capability #045 Download Presentence Forms. Will offerors be provided with samples of these 44 forms?

No. These forms will not be provided.

Question 100

Attachment B – Requirements Traceability Matrix Capability #094 Manage Search says, “The solution shall provide an industry standard relevance search engine with the ability to search structured and unstructured data and documents”. Is there a specific data platform or tool that the Government requires to support unstructured data requirements?

No. The Government expects the offeror to suggest solutions or tools that fit with the overall platform proposed.

Question 101

Attachment B – Requirements Traceability Matrix Capability #100 Workflow Management. The RFP calls for the solution to provide automated no-code workflow management. Is the government willing to consider a low-code workflow modification?

Yes. The government is willing to consider low-code based on SaaS SDK where future releases/patches that will not break SaaS. Attachment B – Requirements Traceability Matrix and Attachment 4 – RTM for IOC are updated. Please see “v2” version of these attachments for the updates.

Question 102

Attachment B – Requirements Traceability Matrix Capability #101 3rd Party Portal Management. Need clarification on having self-service portals where district staff, vendors, clients and law enforcement agencies can interact with the district and manage relevant activities.

It is expected that third parties will utilize an E-Portal to facilitate communication and manage activities with PPS offices as required.

Question 103

Attachment B - Requirements Traceability Matrix Capability #124 Security Management. Can you further elaborate on the requirements for each of these? Particularly digital signature.

No. We are looking for the offeror to demonstrate these capabilities in their proposed solution.

Question 104 Document USCA19R0062. Section L-1 (Instructions) – 2.0 (Instructions). Part A Base BPA Item 1 – Business Proposal. Please confirm there are no page limits for Part A-Base BPA, Section 1) BPA Business Proposal.

Yes. There are no specific page limits for Part A Base BPA – BPA Business Proposal.

Question 105 Document USCA19R0062. Section L-1 (Instructions) – 2.0 (Instructions). Part A Base BPA Item 1 – Business Proposal. Please confirm that the BPA Business Proposal is to be submitted as a separate file.

If yes, please confirm that the following naming convention is acceptable: “BPA Business Proposal – (Offeror’s Name).” Please confirm that the BPA Business Proposal response is not page limited.

Yes. The BPA Business Proposal is a separate file and the naming convention stated in the question is acceptable. There is no specific page limit.

Question 106 Document USCA19R0062. Section L-1 (Instructions) – 2.0 (Instructions). Part A Base Item 2 – BPA Technical Proposal. Part A Section 2 requests the vendor supply a FedRamp High Certification. Is that certification excluded from the 50-page limitation for this section?

Yes. The FedRamp accredidation package is excluded from the 50-page limit.

Question 107 Document USCA19R0062. Section L-1 (Instructions) – 2.0 (Instructions). Part A Base Item 2(a). Please confirm that the response to this requirement is not page limited.

Please see question 106.

Question 108 Document USCA19R0062. Section L-1 (Instructions) – 2.0 (Instructions). Please clarify if Parts A and B should be in a single file or separate files (with the exception of the documents specifically called out as separate files, such as Technical Proposal).

Part A and B can be submitted as separate files.

Question 109 Document USCA19R0062. Section L-1 (Instructions) – 2.0 (Instructions). Please clarify if all sub-parts of Part A should be included in a single file or each sub-section as a separate file (e.g., should Part A Business Proposal, FedRamp High, and Past Performance all be in the same document?)

Part A Base BPA – BPA Business Proposal can be one file and Part A Base BPA – BPA Technical Proposal can be another file.

Question 110 Document USCA19R0062. Section L-1 (Instructions) – 2.0 (Instructions). Please confirm that Attachment B (Requirements Traceability Matrix) is not counted toward the 50-page limitation for the BPA Technical Proposal.

Yes. Completion of Attachment B does not count toward the 50-page limit.

Question 111 Document USCA19R0062. Section L-1 (Instructions) – 2.0 (Instructions). The instructions indicate that “The BPA Technical Proposal part b) related to the Requirements Traceability Matrix is limited to a total of fifty (50) pages. This page limit applies to the written technical response only. A cover page and table of contents page do not count towards the page limit. The Requirements Traceability Matrix spreadsheet is a separate submission and completed as instructed.” Please confirm the completed spreadsheet (Attachment B) is excluded from the page count restriction.

Please see question 110.

Question 112 General. Would the AOUSC be open to receiving an Executive Summary that is excluded from the 50-page limitation?

No.

Question 113 General. Would the AOUSC be open to receiving a Compliance Matrix that maps our solution to the overall Objectives found in Section 2.0 Overall Objectives in document USCA19R0062 that is excluded from page count?

Offerors can submit this type of matrix, but it will count toward the page limit.

Question 114 Document USCA19R0062. Section L-1 (Instructions) – 2.0 (Instructions). Please confirm that Attachment B (Requirements Traceability Matrix) should be a separate file from the BPA Technical Proposal.

The Attachment B file itself is a separately submitted document.

Question 115 Document USCA19R0062. Section L-1 (Instructions) – 2.0 (Instructions). Where should proposers include assumptions (if any)?

Offerors can include their assumptions as a separately submitted document that will not count toward page limits. See updated instructions in provision L-1.

Question 116 Document USCA19R0062. Section L-1 (Instructions) – 2.0 (Instructions). Please confirm that the 35-page limit for the BPA Call Technical Proposals excludes resumes.

The government is not seeking resumes as part of the technical proposals.

Question 117 Document USCA19R0062. Section L-1 (Instructions) – 2.0 (Instructions). Please confirm that the 11-point Times New Roman font restriction is only applicable to the BPA Call Technical Proposal.

The font applies to both the BPA Technical Proposal and the BPA Call Technical Proposals. Please see updated instructions in provision L-1.

Question 118 Document USCA19R0062. Section L-1 (Instructions) – 2.0 (Instructions). Please confirm graphics and tables may use a font smaller than 11-point as long as it is legible.

Graphics may be smaller as long they are legible.

Question 119 Document USCA19R0062. Section L-1 (Instructions) – 2.0 (Instructions). Can the government allow for flexibility for font requirement in graphics and tables as long as they are clearly legible?

See question 118.

Question 120 Document USCA19R0062. Section L-1 (Instructions) – 2.0 (Instructions). Please confirm that the BPA call USCA19BPAC1009 and BPA call USCA19BPAC1010 pricing excel documents and narrative do not fall within the provided page counts.

The BPA call pricing documents do not fall within the page limits.

Question 121 Document USCA19R0062. Section L-1 (Instructions) – 2.0 (Instructions). Will the AOUSC entertain awarding BPA Call USCA19BPAC1010 at a later date after major milestones are met with BPA Call USCA19BPAC1009 and both the vendor and AOUSC have a better understanding of the scope of work, specifically around helpdesk and development support?

The government will award BPA call USCA19BPAC1010 when it is ready to begin deployment of the Initial Operating Capability.

Question 122 Document USCA19R0062. Section L-1 (Instructions) – 2.0 (Instructions) Part B for BPA Calls. The call order responses are limited to 35 pages. Clause 2-65 (p. 14) requires key personnel. The call orders specify key personnel. What information on the qualifications of key personnel is required? Is there a format for resumes or presentation of qualifications? Is this information included within the 35-page limit?

See question 116.

Question 123 General. Does the government intend for the offerors to submit key personnel resumes for each BPA Call?

See question 116.

Question 124 General. While there are requirements for key personnel in both Calls, and while requirements for the information to be provided in resumes during performance may be found in USCA19R0062, 2-65 on page 14, there is no mention of either a requirement to provide resumes in the offeror’s response or how the resumes will be evaluated. Please clarify whether resumes are required as a part of the response, in what part of the response the resumes should be provided, and how the resumes will be evaluated. Also, if resumes are required, please exclude them from the page count.

See question 116.

Question 125 Document USCA19R0062. Section L-1 (Instructions) – 2.0 (Instructions). In reviewing the structure of the proposal response for the BPA and both BPA Call Orders, it appears that there are requirements in Part A, BPA Technical Proposal, that should also be addressed in the BPA Call Orders. For example, Requirement Traceability Matrix requires a detailed response describing how the proposed solution meets or exceeds the objectives of the BPA. To maximize upon the space restrictions, is it acceptable to cross-reference our response in the BPA with our responses to the BPA Call Order?

Yes. This is acceptable.

Question 126 Document USCA19R0062. Section L-1 (Instructions) – 2.0 (Instructions) Part B Items 1(a) and (1b).