Amendment_009_USM-HQ-13-0018.pdf

UNITED STATES MINT

SOLICITATION USM-HQ-13-0018

AMENDMENT NUMBER: 009

SOLICITATION DATE: 3/22/2013

SOLICITATION RESPONSE

DUE DATE:

5/03/2013

ISSUED BY/RESPOND TO:

Colleen.Grinnell@usmint.treas.gov Department of the Treasury United States Mint

CONTRACTOR NAME:

ADDRESS:

POINT OF CONTACT: TBD

PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: TBD

CONTRACT TYPE: TBD

ESTIMATED TOTAL VALUE:

DESCRIPTION:

AMENDMENT 009 to Solicitation USM-HQ -13-0018 for Order Management System – Retail Sales End to End Solution See Attached.

The Contractor agrees to furnish and deliver all items and perform all services as set forth herein. The rights and obligations of the parties to this contract shall be subject to and governed by the contract and all attachments thereto.

By executing this document, the Contractor agrees to all terms and conditions included herein and has read the Notice Regarding Inapplicability of Laws Governing Procurement or Public Contracts (I.26).

Offer

SIGNATURE

Typed Name:

Title:

Date: _____________________________

FOR

Acceptance

SIGNATURE

Typed Name:

Title: Contracting Officer Date: __________________________

FOR THE UNITED STATES MINT

mailto:Colleen.Grinnell@usmint.treas.gov

The purpose of this amendment is to make the following changes to the Solicitation.

1. Attached is the Question/Answer Listing as of 5:00 p.m., April 19, 2013.

Please note that the new answers are highlighted in yellow for ease of finding.

Please note that the United States Mint will not be extending the due date for proposal submission.

No. Volume Section Submitted Question Response Date

1 Past Performance 3/22/2013

In the RFQ document you state that the PCI and Past Performance documents should be emailed to you by 4/19 at 3:00 EST. On the Past Performance document (attachment 9) it says it is due 4/17 at 3:00 EST. Which is correct?

The Past Performance Volume and all associated Past Performance documents are due by April 19, 2013 at 3:00 EST.

2 General 3/22/2013 Is today's release a draft as indicated in the solicitation number? No. This is the final solicitation.

3 General 3/25/2013

On March 22 RFP USM‐HQ‐13‐0018 was released through FBO as you know. The front page of the solicitation shows the solicitation number as DRAFT USM‐HQ‐13‐0018. I wanted to confirm whether this is still a draft or if this is the final solicitation. This is the final solicitation.

4 Management/ Technical 3/26/2013

Given the PCI Level 1 Service Provider Requirement, please confirm this solicitation is limited to the list of vendors on Visa’s Global Service Provider Registry (http://www.visa.com/splisting/searchGrsp.do)? No, listing on the Visa Registry is not a requirement. 3/28/2013

5 General 3/26/2013

Regarding L.3 General Instructions, we will submit in Microsoft Word or Excel and the file Size of 4MB per Volume. Would USM allow the files be submitted in multiple 4MB emails that may or may not be zipped? For example, Volume II Technical’s 150 pages could be submitted electronically as “Volume II Technical, part 1 of 3” and part 2 of 3 and part 3 of 3.

Is this file submission acceptable?

Yes. The United States Mint would allow files to be submitted in multiple 4MB emails.

6 General 3/26/2013 Would USM allow PDF documents for email submittal with Word and Excel on CDs submitted with the hardcopies? No.

7 General 3/28/2013

As a PCI‐DSS Qualified Security Assessor (QSA) we have substantial experience in evaluating and validating solutions requiring PCI‐DSS Level 1 certifications. In the RFP, the US Mint asks for the PCI‐DSS Level 1 certification for the proposed solution by 19‐APR, however it is not possible to have this certification for the proposed US Mint solution. This is because it is not possible for a QSA to conduct a PCI‐DSS Level 1 assessment until our proposed US Mint solution components have been configured/deployed in our service environment in accordance with the specific US Mint requirements. This includes such items as being integrated with the US Mint systems specified in the SOO, POS hardware/software deployed at the US Mint, and PCI‐DSS related agreements in place with the US Mint payment processing provider (pay.gov). It will not be possible for any offeror to produce the PCI‐DSS Level 1 Service Provider certification for the proposed end‐to‐end US Mint solution unless there is an offeror that already provides this exact service to the US Mint as specified in the RFP. For PCI‐DSS Level 1 Service Provider compliance the in scope end‐to‐end hardware, software, processes and responsibilities need to be assessed. This assessment may even require review of US Mint processes for retail POS operations since sale location staffing resources are out of scope per the SOO. As currently stated, we believe this requirement severely limits competition and will prevent fair competition among highly qualified companies in the OMS field. Will the US Mint modify the timing of the PCI‐DSS certification date from prior to proposal submission to during the contract period of performance?

No, the United States Mint will not modify the submission date for of a PCI Level 1 Certificate past April 19, 2013. The United States Mint acknowledges that the Offeror will have to configure and interface their existing solutions with our it systems and therefore will not be able to provide a PCI level 1 certificate for an implemented United States Mint solution until the contract period of performance. To clarify our instruction, the Offeror is required to provide a PCI Level 1 certificate for existing systems and services the vendor proposes to use for the Mint end‐ to‐end solution.

8 Appendix 14 4/2/2013 In Appendix 14 (System Security Control Baselines) there are references to various guidelines, such as AC‐1 through PM‐11. Where can we find a copy of those guidelines?

Please find the NIST 800‐53 v4 Final Public Draft at http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/drafts/800‐53‐ rev4/sp800_53_r4_draft_fpd.pdf. Refer to Appendix F of NIST 800‐53 v4.

OMS II RFP Questions as of April 19, 2013 5:00 PM

9 General 4/2/2013

After receiving the Mint's response to the earlier question regarding PCI‐DSS certification, can you also provide a determination on the following? As an e‐Commerce solution provider we use several different approaches to assist our clients achieve PCI‐DSS compliance.

Several large e‐Commerce customers use our Payment Gateway, which is PCI‐DSS Level 1 certified, to handle all their cardholder data functions. This results in simplified PCI‐DSS compliance since our Payment Gateway handles the storage, processing, and transmission of cardholder data. This is where our PCI‐DSS Level 1 certification resides as the rest of the solution has been reviewed by a QSA and determined to be out of scope for PCI‐DSS compliance. The PCI‐DSS certification for the entire e‐Commerce solution is client specific and resides with the client (merchant of record). The US Mint has stated in the RFP that the US Mint remains the Merchant of Record. However, given the US Mint’s mandate that we utilize Pay.gov as the payment gateway this results in our PCI‐DSS Level 1 certification no longer being applicable since it cannot be a solution component. Therefore, will US Mint allow offerors to present evidence that existing customers have achieved PCI‐DSS Level I certification based on implementing the software and services of the offeror's proposed solution?

Yes, the response must demonstrate evidence of PCI‐DSS certification for the existing solution in operation today on which the Mint solution would be based.

10 SOO 4/3/2013

Which USM staff will require training? CSRs? Content Managers?

Training will be required for selected USM staff for all applications that will be using as a business tool. The Offeror is responsible for staffing and managing the contact center and warehouse fulfillment staff. Therefore, the contractor will be responsible for training its staff to use the applications. The Offeror's proposed solution and roles and responsibilities will dictate the training required for USM staff.

11 SOO 4/3/2013

Is there any other data, other than customers, orders, categories, products, that need to be migrated?

The RFP contains information identified by the USM as of the release of the RFP, however, the USM anticipates that there may be more data identified for migration during requirements sessions with the selected contractor.

12 SOO 4/3/2013

Will USM staff configure eCommerce marketing elements like promotions or customer loyalty? Or will contractor be responsible for configuring and managing promotions?

It is expected that USM staff will be involved in day‐to‐day content and marketing functions on the e‐Commerce Web front‐end and product set‐ up in the OMS. The Offeror should propose expected areas of responsibility based on services they provide.

13 SOO 4/3/2013 Will business customers use the same interface as retail customers?

The Offeror should propose the solution that best meets the needs of both customer segments.

14 SOO 4/3/2013

Which OS/browsers need to be supported, specifically?

It is expected that the contractor‐provided e‐Commerce Web front‐end will support all major OS/browsers, to include mobile platforms. The USM is not dictating the specific browsers, however, there is an expectation that best‐in‐business practices will be used supporting the prevailing technology used by consumers. It is expected that the contractor will keep pace with emerging technologies/services in the marketplace.

15 SOO 4/3/2013 Does pay.gov offer any built‐in fraud detection/prevention features?

Please refer to the Pay.gov reference documents. If needed, please request the documentation in accordance with Section J of the RFP.

16 SOO 4/3/2013

Which system currently manages the multiple warehouses? Is the shipping cost to current customers affected by the warehouse that the product is being shipped from?

Exacta warehouse management system is currently used in the (one) USM contractor‐based warehouse/fulfillment center located in Plainfield, IN.

The USM currently charges a flat shipping and handling fee per order.

Note: It is required that the Offeror propose a warehouse management system supporting its own warehouses.

RFP I.2 Insurance

4/3/2013

How is market value defined?

The current market value for any item in inventory is the United States Mint’s current sale/retail price of the inventory item (regardless of whether the United States Mint is offering the covered item for sale/retail at the time of the loss). For items in inventory that are not sold by the United States Mint as individual items (lenses, boxes, inserts, packaging materials, etc.), the appropriate cost to replace the item would be used to value the item.

RFP I.2 Insurance

4/3/2013

What are allowable exclusions to the insurance policy?

The insurance shall cover and pay for any physical loss and damage to United States Mint furnished property the contractor maintains, including but not limited to loss occasioned by: theft of, unauthorized removal of, damage to, negligence or destruction of United States Mint‐furnished property. The United States Mint will consider any proposed exclusions that do not materially affect this required coverage.

RFP I.2 Insurance

4/3/2013

Would the US Mint consider revising their insurance terms to better suit the terms available in the commercial insurance market? If offerors have exceptions to the United States Mint terms and conditions, the offeror should follow the instructions outlined in Section L.4.7.3

Statement of Objectives 5. Conditions

4/3/2013

The Mint has indicated that the required "go live" date for the proposed solution is October 1, 2014. Considering this milestone date, what is the anticipated award and project start up date? The anticipated award and project start date is September of 2013.

Attachment 1 & Attachment 8

All

4/3/2013

The objectives stated in the draft and final RFP remain clear; however, the addition of the evaluation criteria in the final RFP have caused some confusion around the government’s definition of a turnkey end‐to‐end solution. Specifically, the Section M criterion (SFT1) states that:

• The full end‐to‐end solution must be in operation today for a minimum of one customer.

• The Government will highly rate offerors that propose subcontractors that have a current role in the proposed end‐to‐end solution.

• How well the size, scope, and complexity of the customer(s) environment relate to the size, scope, and complexity of this effort.

• Offerors that can demonstrate more than one instance of successfully implementing and operating the full end‐to‐end solution will be rated higher.

In reading the objectives, a full “end‐to‐end solution” encompasses the software order management system along with the physical logistics infrastructure to include the fulfillment warehouse, contact center, direct mail functions, along with on‐site POS locations.

While a potential Offeror may be able to demonstrate experience in the implementation of the end‐to‐end software solution for a customer who uses a different provider for the physical logistics; i.e. warehouse, shipping, contact center, POS sites, and direct mail centers;

the criterion appears to limit competition to an Offeror who does not outsource the physical logistics aspect of the total solution. How will the government rate Offerors who can demonstrate current and successful performance of the end‐to‐end software solution external to the physical logistics?

The Offeror must propose both systems and physical logistics to run the end‐to‐end business. The Offeror's solution may include outsourced components. The end‐to‐end solution will be evaluated as per Attachment 8, Section M. Please note, the Offeror is responsible for integration to the direct mail processing provider and is only responsible for POS systems, and not staffing to run the sales locations.

Statement of Objectives 2. Scope

4/3/2013 The Mint is currently on Oracle V11.5.10. When is the migration to R12 anticipated?

The USM anticipates completing the upgrade to Oracle R12 by early 2014.

Statement of Objectives 2. Scope

4/3/2013

It is assumed that the initial implementation of the proposed solution will require integration with the current Oracle E‐Business backoffice applications including Oracle Federal Financials. Can it also be assumed that the scope of the OMS II program will include ongoing support for the Oracle E‐Business Suite applications that support the program?

The contractor will be responsible for implementation and maintenance for all applications that are part of their proposed solution, as well as the interfaces between the contractor's solution and the USM legacy systems.

The contractor is not expected to provide support for those USM legacy systems.

Statement of Objectives 2. Scope

4/3/2013

Can it be assumed that if additional software licenses, e.g., Oracle licenses for customer facing solution, will be included in the bidder's full response or does the Mint want to procure the licenses separately?

Offerors are responsible for providing a full response that includes necessary components (to include software licenses) required for the Offeror to run an end‐to‐end solution on behalf of the USM. The USM does not anticipate procuring, owning or managing any aspect of the end‐ to‐end solution.

Statement of Objectives Appendix B

4/3/2013

Does the Government have a specified approach to the Project Management Plan, such as the Project Management Institute (PMI) standards? Or is the Contractor expected to suggest an approach and have it approved by the Government (as well as other documents defined under Project Planning and Monitoring activities)?

It is up to the Offeror to propose Project Management standards and techniques they will utilize, if awarded the contract, as part of their Project Planning and Monitoring activities.

Appendix A:

Functional/Business Requirements

1.2 Order

Management Capability

4/3/2013

1.2.14 ‐ Data Conversion. Please provide additional information on the specific conversion requirements including the items e.g., types of data, historical data retention requirements. Please see Attachment 3 of the RFP for information on anticipated data migration. It is expected that formalized requirements gathering will be conducted prior to finalizing the data migration plan.

Appendix A:

Functional/Business Requirements

1.6 Point‐of‐Sales

(POS) System

4/3/2013

Does the Mint want to replace its current POS solution or retain the current system and have it integrated with the current Oracle backoffice applications?

The USM is seeking to replace its current POS system with a new solution.

Appendix B: Deliverables and Content Requirements

Program Management:

Transition Out

4/3/2013

What is the anticipated timeline for a transitioning out period? Will the full incumbent team be available for the entire transition period or will staffing be gradually reduced following award?

The current contact center and fulfillment operations contract requires a transition out period to a new vendor over a six‐month period. The IRIS support services contract provides for a 90‐day transition period.

Attachment 1 6.4

4/3/2013

Recognizing that the U.S. Mint currently uses the Bureau of Public Debt’s (BPD) Administrative Resource Center (ARC) as its Shared Services Provider for the current Oracle applications footprint, can it be assumed that the Mint would prefer for BPD to host any additional Oracle Applications that would be bid as part of the proposed solution? If not, is there a preference toward using an OMB‐certified federal or commercial shared services provider to support the applications?

The Offeror should not assume ARC will be used to host any applications proposed by the Offeror. There is no preference toward using federal or commercial shared services provider.

Attachment 1 6.4

4/3/2013

What are the current SLAs in place for system performance, the contact center, and order fulfillment?

The Offeror should propose service level agreements (SLA) based on their own best practices taking into consideration anticipated customer satisfaction levels and costs associated with those SLAs. The USM is not dictating SLAs.

Attachment 2 Section 1 No Section

4/3/2013

What is the total and/or average SKU count. The SOO cites 450‐500 SKU but Attachment 2 Historical Data lists 1025‐1202 SKU?

The approximate number of SKUs listed in the SOO (450‐500) represents active products and their associated replacement parts.

The metrics in Attachment 2 represents all products, active and inactive, but no replacement parts.

32 SOO / Attachment 1 Section 6.4 4/3/2013 What is the average master case dimension (L x W x H)? Average master case dimensions are 19" x 18" x 5".

33 SOO / Attachment 2 Section 6.4 4/3/2013 What is the average master case weight? Average master case weight is 30 lbs.

34 SOO / Attachment 3 Section 6.4 4/3/2013 On average, how many coins are in each master case? Average units per master case are 65.

SOO / Attachment 4 Section 6.4

4/3/2013 How are shipments from the Mint received at the distribution center. Courier, LTL, secure vehicle, or other? Armored carrier, common carriers, and UPS, USPS, etc.

SOO / Attachment 5 Section 6.4

4/3/2013 How are shipments from the Mint configured. Palletized cases, secure container, or others?

Typically palletized cases.

SOO / Attachment 6 Section 6.4

4/3/2013 What is the average number of cases shipped, per shipment, from the Mint to the distribution center?

Average number of cases shipped per shipment 2,100 (average of 250‐300 shipment per year).

38 SOO / Attachment 7 Section 6.4 4/3/2013 What is the average annual inventory turns? On average there were 1.03 turns for FY11 and .87 for FY12.

39 SOO / Attachment 8 Section 6.4 4/3/2013 What is the average number of master cases in inventory? The average number of master cases in inventory is 96,200.

SOO / Attachment 9 Section 6.4

4/3/2013 When picking and processing orders, do coins have to be picked in serial number sequence?

The USM does not currently pick in serial or lot sequence.

SOO / Attachment 10 Section 6.4

4/3/2013 When receiving and processing orders, what is the current order cutoff time from customers? The USM does not currently impose a cut‐off time.

SOO / Attachment 11 Section 6.4

4/3/2013

What is the required order turnaround time for shipping customer orders? In other words, from the time the customer places the order, how long does the distribution center have to ship the order?

The Offeror should propose service level agreements (SLA) (cycle times) based on their own best practices taking into consideration anticipated customer satisfaction levels and costs associated with those SLAs. The USM is not dictating SLAs.

SOO / Attachment 12 Section 6.4

4/3/2013

When picking an order, in addition to the coin:

‐Is a display box required for all orders?

‐If so, is the same display case SKU used for each coin SKU, or can the customer choose a display case SKU for each coin SKU?

‐If a display case is not required for all coins, what percentage of the orders require a display box?

‐Is a certificate or other documentation required for shipment with each order?

‐If so, what documentation is required to be shipped with the coin?

‐Are the documents specific to the individual coin (eg, is a certificate with a serial number matching the coin serial number required to be shipped with the coin)?

‐If so, where are the serial numbered certificates printed?

All shipments require a packing slip and promotional inserts. Please see Attachment 2, Historical Data, for information on orders utilizing the gift wrap. All standard products are already fully assembled and no additional kitting is required. If kitting is required for special projects, a special task order will be negotiated.

SOO / Attachment 13 Section 6.4

4/3/2013

Is the distribution center operation responsible for ordering coins from the Mint to maintain desired distribution stocking levels by SKU to meet customer orders, or does the Mint "push" coins to the distribution center?

The USM will initiate all shipments to the fulfillment center based on its production schedule, forecasting and other consideration for maintaining inventory levels.

SOO / Attachment 14 Section 6.4

4/3/2013

What is the physical inventory count frequency requirement? The USM requires at a minimum a quarterly physical inventory count.

Offeror should propose inventory counting procedures suitable to the inventory and circumstances.

SOO / Attachment 15 Section 6.4

4/3/2013 What is the cycle count frequency requirement? Offeror should propose procedures/guidelines for cycle counts suitable to the inventory and circumstances.

47 SOO / Attachment 16 Section 6.4 4/3/2013 For physical inventory count and cycle count, is a serial number count required? The USM does not currently pick in serial or lot sequence.

SOO / Attachment 17 Section 6.4

4/3/2013

For the call center, what is the current expected queue time before answering a customer call?

The Offeror should propose service level agreements (SLA) based on their own best practices taking into consideration anticipated customer satisfaction levels and costs associated with those SLAs. The USM is not dictating SLAs.

SOO / Attachment 18 Section 6.4

4/3/2013

Provide a list of all metrics by which the distribution center will be measured including a definition of the metric, the required performance level, and the frequency of measurement?

The Offeror should propose service level agreements (SLA) based on their own best practices taking into consideration anticipated customer satisfaction levels and costs associated with those SLAs. The USM is not dictating SLAs.

SOO / Attachment 19 Section 6.4

4/3/2013

Provide a list of all metrics by which the call center will be measured including a definition of the metric, the required performance level, and the frequency of measurement?

The Offeror should propose service level agreements (SLA) based on their own best practices taking into consideration anticipated customer satisfaction levels and costs associated with those SLAs. The USM is not dictating SLAs.

SOO / Attachment 20 Section 6.4

4/3/2013

The SOO states that the contractor must reduce the US Mint's current cost of operation.

What is the US Mint's current cost of operation, what is the reporting measure, and what is the definition of that reporting measure (eg, cost per unit shipped, cost per call answered, aggregate annual operating expense, etc.)?

We will evaluate proposals with the intent to verify that the overall price is fair and reasonable (please see Section M). Note: total costs over the past five years have been approximately $260 million including shipping charges.

SOO / Attachment 20 Section 6.4

4/3/2013

What is the threshold for success when determining a reduction the US Mint's current cost of operation? Is it a specific percentage reduction or is it an overall dollar amount? What is that amount or percent?

We will evaluate proposals with the intent to verify that the overall price is fair and reasonable (please see Section M). Note: total costs over the past five years have been approximately $260 million including shipping charges.

SOO / Attachment 21 Section 6.4

4/3/2013

For returns processing, is there a requirement to match the returned coin serial number to a customer purchase? The USM does not currently "serialize" its coins. Additionally, we do not track products by a sequence or serial number to a specific order.

54 Attachment 9 CPQ 4/3/2013

With Regard to Attachment 9‐ Contractor Performance Questionnaire: Does the past performance include both prime and sub (team past performance) or only the prime past performances is considered? One past performance references may be for a sub‐contractor.

55 RFP Section L.4.2 4/3/2013

Security requirements Sections L.4.2 and L.4.3 : If you can please clarify FISMA requirements. Does the prime have to be FISMA Certified at the time of submission or at delivery?

No Prime is not expected to be FISMA certified at time of proposal submission. Prime will have to go through a Security Assessment & Authorization analysis for certification and accreditation during the delivery cycle.

RFP B.5

4/3/2013

The sentence which states: “Salaried employee hours are limited to 40 hours per week, fewer hours charged to other tasks, and less contractor paid time‐off hours.” What does the clause “fewer hours charged to other tasks” mean?

The United States Mint intends to limit salaried employees to billing 40 hours a week. "Fewer hours charged to other tasks" means a salaried employee working on multiple tasks is limited to billing all clients a total of 40 hours.

RFP C.2

4/3/2013

States that "the Contractor assures by completing the Electronic & Information Technology Accessibility Standards Evaluation spreadsheet (Attachment C‐1) that products and services offered in response to this solicitation conform as stated in the spreadsheet to the Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Standards at 36 CFR 1194." Please clarify if the completed attachment should be part of the proposal submission, or completed post‐award.

If it is part of the proposal submission, please indicate what volume it should be included in.

The completed C‐1 form should be submitted as part of the Contracts Volume.

RFP I.5, I.6, I.7, I.8 and I.9

4/3/2013

The SOO Paragraph 5, page 3 states that the Government will not own any hardware or software. Therefore licenses and non‐data proprietary rights would not be held by the Government. Will the Government remove these clauses?

These clauses will be removed at time of award if they are not applicable to the solution the United States Mint is contracting for.

RFP I.15

4/3/2013

The SOO Paragraph 5, page 3 states that the Government will not have any ownership of software. Does the Government anticipate any contractor acquired software purchases during the course of this contract? If not, please remove this clause.

This clauses will be removed at time of award if they are not applicable to the solution the United States Mint is contracting for.

RFP I.33

4/3/2013

The SOO Paragraph 5, page 3 states that the Government will not have any ownership of hardware or software. The Rights in Data should apply to Government data, and not to software, materials, or creative works. Can this clause be modified?

If offerors have exceptions to the United States Mint terms and conditions, the offeror should follow the instructions outlined in Section L.4.7.3

RFP L.3

4/3/2013

This states that "...subcontractor consent forms..." are excluded from page count. Where are subcontractor consent forms required in the proposal, and what is this consent for? The words "subcontractor consent forms" should be removed from L.3.

RFP L.4.5

4/3/2013

The Price volume includes a cover page, Attachments 4 and 5, and “Appendix 2 Sub‐ contracting Plan (Price Breakdown).” Does the Government want Attachments 4 and 5 imbedded in the price proposal so that they can be opened from that document? Or are they to be attached separately? Or should the pricing volume contain image copies of the spreadsheet pages?

Per the RFP the price volume shall consist of the completed pricing template (Attachment 4) and completed operating cost scenarios (Attachment 5). Attachment 4 and 5 should be separate excel spreadsheets sent to the USM.

RFP L.4.5.1. Item 4

4/3/2013

4. Appendix 2 Sub‐contracting plan (Price Breakdown).

There was no Appendix 2 provided with the RFP. Please confirm that the reference to Appendix 2 should actually be a reference to L.4.5.2, Sub‐Contracting Plan. If that is not correct, please provide clarity about Appendix 2.

Yes, the instructions for the subcontracting plan is included in the RFP Section L.4.5.2. The words "Appendix 2" should be removed from L.4.5.1 Item 4.

RFP L.4.5.2

4/3/2013

L.4.5.2 SUB‐CONTRACTING PLAN

Offerors are required to propose an accurate sub‐contracting plan. The prime shall submit Subcontractor pricing in a password protected file with its proposal submission.

Q1: Please provide additional detail about the subcontrator pricing. Does the US Mint anticipate that the Offeror will provide separate pricing for the subcontractors and that subcontractors pricing will not fall under the Offeror's pricing? Please clarify what is required to satisfy this requirement.

Q2: How shall the Offeror provide the password for the protected file to the US Mint?

Q1. Per the solicitation the sub‐contracting plan's purpose is to establish the specific roles and responsibilities. Additionally the build up of the subcontractors role should be submitted and should roll up to the prime's pricing proposal.

Q2. Passwords can be emailed to the Contracting Officer at the USM with the protected file.

RFP L.4.7.2

4/3/2013

Offerors responding to this solicitation are required to submit available Voluntary Product Accessibility Template(s) (VPATs) for any products, services and other components of their proposed solutions covered by Accessibility Laws, Regulations and Policies (as defined above), ...

Where are the "Accessibility Laws, Regulations and Policies" defined ‐ the RFP says "as defined above", but no location is found. Please identify the location. Please see section C of the RFP document.

RFP L.4.5.2

4/3/2013

"To that end, the offeror must include the following information and submit it in two formats:"

Please explain the two formats in which the data must be provided.

L.4.5.2 should also include the following language which represents the second format: Percentage breakdown of Sub‐contracting plan

• Name/Identification of the Prime contractor

• Name/Identification of each sub‐contracting firm

• Copy of Contract and/or Agreement between Prime and Subcontractor

• Narrative description of each R&R in the chart (matrix). Offeror shall provide the same matrix provided in response to Management Volume, Staffing and Personnel

• Detailed pricing percentage breakdown for the Prime and its Sub‐ contractors (the sum is to total up to 100% including the value portion provided by the Prime). The 4MB limitation is an internal infrastructure constraint. The United States Mint will allow files to be submitted in multiple 4MB emails.

RFP L.4.5.7. Item 8

4/3/2013

8. Accessibility (Reference L.4.4.2 for instructions)

L.4.4.2 does not exist. Please confirm the reference should be to L.4.7.2 Accessibility Submissions.

L.4.7.1 Item 8 should read "Accessibility (Reference L.4.7.2 for instructions)"

RFP L.4.6

4/3/2013

This states that “Offeror shall include one reference from the Relevant Experience sub‐factor in the Management Volume.” However, in Attachment 8 the Technical Volume has this requirement. Please confirm if L.4.6 was meant to refer to the Technical Volume.

L.4.6 was meant to read "from the Relevant Experience sub‐factor in the technical volume."

69 RFP L.4.6 4/3/2013

If Offeror has subcontractors, would the Government accept a past performance reference from them for one or more of the reference submissions?

Yes. One of your past performance references may be for your sub‐ contractor.

RFP L.4.6

4/3/2013

Can we provide an end‐to‐end solution through more than one reference? For example, we currently supply both e‐commerce and fulfillment, but through different contracts. Could we show full capability across two or more references?

Please see Attachment 9, Sections L and M, SFT1.

RFP L.4.7.1 Item 3

4/3/2013

Requests a copy of "Section K in its entirety" be included in the Contracts Volume. Our organization is registered in the Federal System for Award Management (SAM). Would it be acceptable to provide our DUNS number to identify our SAM record, in lieu of a completed Section K?

No. Section K must be completed and submitted as part of Offerors proposal.

RFP L.4.7.1 Item 7

4/3/2013

Requests a copy of offeror's "Financial Statement for past three years." These documents are very large and would exceed the file size limitation of 4MB for volume submissions. Due to the file size of our financial statements, normally we provide a web link to the publicly available documents. Would this be acceptable? If not, please advise on what would be an acceptable way to transmit/present these large files.

.PDF submission of financial statements are acceptable as are URLs to financial statements.

RFP L.4.7.3

4/3/2013

Section L.4.7.3 indicates that offerors may take exception to solicitation's terms and conditions and, consistent with the flexibility the Mint has under 31 U.S.C. 5136, the Mint may consider these items in negotiations with offerors. Question 1: In this procurement, does the Mint anticipate flexibly negotiating with offerors on terms, e.g., on price protection, liability, indemnity, intellectual property, etc., or requiring more literal compliance with the solicitation's provisions? Question 2: Moreover, to the extent an offeror has a previously negotiated agreement with the Mint, will the Mint allow the offeror to incorporate relevant provisions from that agreement into its proposal/the resulting contract?

If offerors have exceptions to the United States Mint terms and conditions, the offeror should follow the instructions outlined in Section L.4.7.3.

Previously negotiated terms and conditions do not apply.

RFP ‐ Att 4

4/3/2013

Pricing instructions require capital lease/purchase options and alternatives. The SOO Paragraph 5, page 3 states that the Government will not own any hardware or software.

Please clarify why there are capital lease/purchase options in the pricing instructions.

Per Attachment 4 Section A.7 the offeror can price capital and other up front costs as two alternatives. Alt.1 in the year purchased and billed to the government or Alt.2 leased or amortized over the life.

RFP ‐ Att 4 Column J

4/3/2013

"Sut‐Total" is the column header.

Q1: Should that be Sub‐Total?

Q2: What value is that column to contain?

Q1. On the physical design worksheet column J should be "Sub‐Total".

Q2. The sub‐total column is removed.

RFP ‐ Att 8

4/3/2013

Section L bullet 3 calls for a completed Appendix A spreadsheet.

Q1: Can the Government confirm that this is considered a compliance matrix and is therefore excluded from the page count?

Q2: Is it to be submitted as a separate file or imbedded into the MS Word document as file;

or should it be pasted in as a MS Word table and filled out in MS Word?

Appendix A is excluded from the page count. Appendix A should be completed in its original Excel format.

RFP ‐ Att 8

4/3/2013

Bullet 3 under Section M calls for a QASP. Is this considered part of the PWS and therefore not included in the page count?

The QASP is part of the PWS. The PWS does not have a page limit.

RFP ‐ Att 8

4/3/2013

Instructions for Management Factor 2 Section L require a response to SOO Task 6.1 Program Management. SOO Task 6.1 states that the Program Management task "shall identify the work required to manage and perform all the activities in this scope of work up to the point of completing the transition‐out." It further refers to "provide and manage resources to execute tasks and produce deliverables as defined in the PWS." This would seem to indicate that a PWS is required in the Management Volume. However, the PWS is in the Technical Volume Subfactor 4. Please clarify if the Government wants a PWS in the Management Volume that duplicates the PWS in the Technical Volume.

There is only one PWS and it must be submitted as part of the technical volume.

RFP ‐ Att 8

4/3/2013

Section L requires a copy of the contract and/or agreement between prime and subcontractor. Each of our subcontractor agreements are many pages in length. Does the Government want a copy of each of these, or would it be sufficient to name the relationship (e.g. subcontract, teaming agreement, partnership, or other relationship). If a full copy is required, then does this count in the page count limitation of 100 pages?

Per the RFP Section L.4.5.2 the sub‐contracting plan should contain a copy of the contract and agreement only between the prime and the subcontractor. There is no page limits for the pricing volume however, the file size limitation is 4MB. The 4MB limitation is an internal infrastructure constraint. The United States Mint will allow files to be submitted in multiple 4MB emails.

RFP ‐ Att A Multiple OS/Browser

Support

4/3/2013

What type and version of browsers do you intend the solution to support (including both web and mobile)?

It is expected that the contractor‐provided e‐Commerce Web front‐end will support all major OS/browsers, to include mobile platforms. The USM is not dictating the specific browsers, however, there is an expectation that best‐in‐business practices will be used supporting the prevailing technology used by consumers. It is expected that the contractor will keep pace with emerging technologies/services in the marketplace.

RFP ‐ Att A Mobile Responsive

Platform & Mobile Site (.m)

4/3/2013

Could you please clarify the Mobile Responsive Platform? Do you intend to implement a mobile web solution (accessing the website using a mobile web browser) OR to develop a native/hybrid application that is distributed via a mobile application store?

Does the responsive platform mean that the solution should take into consideration a mobile responsive design (UX) and implement the mobile site to meet the user experience needs on mobile devices with different form factors (ex: smart phone, tablet etc.)?

Do you intend to design and develop a completely different and task based user experience on a mobile device?

We expect the Offeror to propose best‐in‐business mobile practices to include responsive design that adapts to the screen resolutions of all standard mobile devices. We expect both a mobile Web solution as well as native mobile applications. It is expected that the most accessed information and executed tasks on our e‐Commerce site have a quality interface and experience on mobile devices.

RFP ‐ Att A Mobile Responsive

Platform & Mobile Site (.m)

4/3/2013

What type of mobile devices/platforms do you to intend to target?

It is expected that the contractor‐provided e‐Commerce Web front‐end will support all major mobile devices. There is an expectation that best‐in‐ business practices will be used supporting the prevailing technology used by consumers. It is expected that the contractor will keep pace with emerging technologies/services in the marketplace.

RFP ‐ Att A Mobile Responsive

Platform & Mobile Site (.m)

4/3/2013

What type and level of website functions/features do you intend to mobilize? For example, will users be able to transact from a mobile device?

It is expected that the contractor‐provided e‐Commerce Web front‐end will support all major mobile devices and e‐Commerce activities. Our current "desktop" e‐Commerce function can be accessed through mobile device browsers. However, it is expected that a mobile responsive site will be used to improve the user experience on those devices and increase ease of transactions. The Offeror should propose capabilities for mobile applications in Appendix A.

RFP ‐ Att A Mobile Responsive

Platform & Mobile Site (.m)

4/3/2013

Do you have a mobile strategy in place? For example, types devices/platforms to target and development tools/frameworks to be used for mobile development We are in the beginning stages of implementing our mobile strategy. The strategy includes services that will be provided under this contract to offer a mobile responsive e‐Commerce experience and mobile applications.

RFP ‐ Att A

Mobile Responsive Platform &

Mobile Site (.m) 4/3/2013 Have you already defined mobile requirements for capabilities, integration, support, etc?

No, requirements have not been defined.

RFP ‐ Att A

Mobile Responsive Platform &

Mobile Site (.m) 4/3/2013

Have you already researched and analyzed what other eCommerce websites offer on a mobile platform? We have not conducted formal research on this topic.

RFP ‐ Att A Mobile Responsive

Platform & Mobile Site (.m)

4/3/2013

What is the expected load on the mobile website, frequent users or occasional users?

We are steadily seeing an increase in the number of users accessing our e‐ Commerce Web site via mobile devices. In FY12, approximately 7.7% of customers used a mobile device to access our site. Please see Attachment 2, historical data, for additional Web site metrics.

RFP ‐ Att A

Mobile Application Development

Support 4/3/2013

What is your existing mobile maturity level in terms of staff, process, tools/products, techniques, platforms?

We do not have existing staff, processes or tools for a mobile strategy.

Our current e‐Commerce Web platform is not mobile responsive and we do not currently offer native apps.

RFP ‐ Att A Mobile Application

Development Support 4/3/2013

What type and level of existing infrastructure and resources do you plan to leverage?

We do not have existing infrastructure. Our e‐Commerce Web site does display on mobile devices, however, we do not have a mobile responsive site, designated style sheets, or differing functionality.

RFP ‐ Att A

Mobile Application Development

Support 4/3/2013

Do you intend to collect usage/behavioral analytics from the mobile website for mobile marketing/promotion purposes? Yes, we anticipate collecting usage/behavioral analytics for all Web access.

RFP ‐ Att A

Product Catalog Web Site &

Product Information Web Pages

4/3/2013

Do you have documented UX design standards and guidelines?

No, we do not currently have mobile guidelines.

RFP ‐ Att A

Product Catalog Web Site &

Product Information Web Pages 4/3/2013

Have you performed any usability evaluation/user research of the existing eCommerce website? Yes. We have been conducting periodic usability testing since 2007. That information can be provided to the contractor after award.

RFP ‐ Att A

Product Catalog Web Site &

Product Information Web Pages

4/3/2013

Has your user base been profiled or categorized for segmentation?

We have put together a demographic profile of our customers that includes age groups, ethnicity, income and gender. We have also identified high‐profile non‐customer target audiences based on those characteristics.

We expect a more detailed breakdown of purchase habits and interactions with the Mint in the future.

RFP ‐ Att A

Product Catalog Web Site &

Product Information Web Pages

4/3/2013

Would you be able to share your current approximate # of users, # of pages, site map, UI components (images/videos), content types/formats/sources?

FY12 visits = 14.5 m. FY12 visitors = 7.6 m. FY12 Page Views = 920 m.

There are approximately 2,500 Web pages. Files include: JPG, 12,763;

PNG, 103; GIF, 53; CSS, 37; PDF, 34; JS, 18; HTML, 11 (Web pages are created dynamically); CUR, 1; SWF, 1. You can access the site map at:

http://catalog.usmint.gov/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/SitemapView?langI d=‐1&storeId=10001&catalogId=10001.

RFP ‐ Att B IT Security and Privacy Planning and Certification

4/3/2013

To conform to the security standards and guidelines suggested in the RFP, we foresee use of assessment tools and technologies to perform the same. Does the US Mint expect the contractor to put in place such tools as a part of the overall solution, or would the US Mint conduct these periodic tests by itself to validate the conformance of security / privacy issues?

Yes for both, contractor services shall possess and utilize assessment tools and technologies for security and privacy compliance outline in RFP. Yes, the contractor as well as the United States Mint will conduct periodic reviews to validate security and privacy compliance requirements.

RFP ‐ Att A Infrastructure

4/3/2013

If the vendor has capabilities to provide both cloud service and a hosted solution, is there a preference which way the Mint would like to proceed with the solution? The USM expects the Offeror to propose an end‐to‐end solution that it maintains. The USM does not have a preference for a deployment method so long as it will not own any hardware or software.

RFP ‐ Att A User Group Management

4/3/2013

Could you please elaborate on the user group management functions that you wish the CRM solution to support? Specifically, is this related to customer segmentation processes that are used to assist with email marketing activities? If not, please comment.

User groups are expected to be different classes of customers (i.e. bulk, special discount, international, etc.). We expect to use this functionality for product offering and marketing to specified user groups.

RFP ‐ Att A POS Hardware and

Software 4/3/2013

How many POS installations do you wish for the solution to provide? Would the POS installations include self‐service kiosk type of systems?

Currently, the USM supports two permanent POS locations and a traveling sales unit (three units in use at any given time). The Offeror may propose self‐service systems under Section 4 of Appendix A.

RFP ‐ Att A IVR Order Tracking

4/3/2013

Would the IVR system allow users to enter order numbers and respond with tracking information, or would the IVR facilitate routing calls to agents for appropriate sourcing of order history / tracking information?

It is expected that many self service options (please refer to Appendix A Section 1), such as order tracking be offered through the IVR. The Offeror should propose its IVR solution that is most appropriate.

RFP ‐ Att A E‐Gift Certificate Management

4/3/2013

Does the US Mint consider importing or legacy E‐Gift Certificates into the new solution/system? If so, could you help us understand how many E‐Gift Certificates currently need to be imported? How are E‐Gifts Certificates paid (or) settled for currently? Are there any integrations additionally that we need to account for with US Mint Financial system for E‐ Gift Certificates?

Yes, e‐gift certificates with an outstanding balance should be migrated into the new system. There are approximately 3,950 outstanding e‐gift certificates. Current e‐gift certificates are settled within the OMS and as such requires no additional integrations.

RFP ‐ Att A Customer Data Maintenance

4/3/2013

Certain examples cited against this requirement include processes fulfilled by 3rd party service providers, example Address Validation/Standardization service provider such as FedEx, Code1Plus etc. Also NCOA may be considered as services provided by 3rd Party.

Could we consider such services provided by 3rd party systems and therefore identify them as a part of our integrated solution? Yes.

RFP ‐ Att D USM Data Mart

4/3/2013

Are there any PCI restrictions of transmitting/storing data for processing through US Mint systems that we should be aware of for Data Mart integrations cited in this section?

We do not transmit or store PCI (credit card) information in our Data Mart.

RFP ‐ Att D USM Data Mart

4/3/2013

As a part of the data migration efforts from the legacy system to the new system, are there any considerations on migrating passwords for existing registered users?

This will have to be determined during requirements gathering sessions;

the intent is to minimize adverse impact on the customer.

RFP ‐ Att D USM Data Mart

4/3/2013

What is the peak volume that the US Mint wishes to scale to in terms of handling order volume per hour / day? Are there any requirements to support this view?

Please refer to Attachment 2, Historical Data. These numbers reflect the limited capacity of our current system and preclude us from identifying actual peak demand. The Offeror should propose a solution for their ability to scale.

RFP ‐ Att A FAQ

4/3/2013

The current website http://answers.usmint.gov site displays FAQ information. Is the FAQ collected and maintained by a CRM solution used to power the answers.usmint.gov site?

Would it be fair to assume that FAQ and therefore part of usmint.gov (answers.usmint.gov) is also in scope for the OMS‐II initiative?

Currently, the USM utilizes an existing CRM tool to manage its FAQs. It is expected that the proposed end‐to‐end solution provide for FAQ management, as this is within scope of this contract. It is expected that the FAQs will reside on catalog.usmint.gov in the future. Note: Contractor will not be responsible for content that resides on the information site, www.usmint.gov.

Technical ‐ Appendix A:

Functional / Business

Requirements

1.1.13 & 2.1.8

4/3/2013

We understand that the USM currently has 3rd party post‐call and e‐Commerce survey capabilities in place.