QUESTION 1

“Having heard the bidder feedback — particularly the comments about the fragmented platform experience and the need for better data access — what stands out to you? Is this consistent with what you’ve been hearing internally?”

QUESTION 2

“Several bidders rated the current platform 7-9 out of 10 — but then described specific frustrations with data access, document export, and having to jump between windows. It sounds like bidders have adapted to the limitations rather than being genuinely satisfied. Does OAS feel the current platform reflects the standard you want for the program going forward?”

QUESTION 3

“One bidder rated the platform 3 out of 10 specifically because they can’t export data to analyze in their own tools. Across both rounds of our survey, data export was consistently the most requested capability. From a regulatory standpoint, we see nothing in FAR Part 12, the Privacy Act, or the existing 24 CFR 291 framework that would preclude requiring this — data export to qualified participants who’ve already executed a Confidentiality Agreement is well within existing authority. Should the solicitation explicitly require one-click data export, or has that capability been assumed but never written into the PWS?”

QUESTION 4

“We’ve picked up some chatter — and we’re not sure how accurate it is — that there may be interest in mandating a specific white-label or third-party system as part of the next solicitation, similar to the current arrangement. But the market feedback we’ve gathered tells a different story. Bidders described having to jump between multiple windows and platforms. One confirmed the current TS doesn’t operate its own portal. Another rated the platform 3 out of 10 specifically because of data access limitations. A third said it should all be integrated at once instead of jumping from window to window. Is there a reason that outweighs this bidder sentiment to continue down the path of a mandated third-party platform?”

QUESTION 5

“Based on that — would it make sense for the solicitation to either require a single integrated platform, or at minimum include platform seamlessness and user experience as part of the evaluation criteria? That way offerors who invest in a unified bidder experience are recognized for it in the scoring.”

QUESTION 6

“Bidders clearly want to export data and work in their own tools. But some also mentioned wanting in-browser filtering and search. These are easy features to implement — if a platform could do both, let bidders explore data on screen AND export it cleanly, would that be something OAS would want to require in the solicitation?”

QUESTION 7

“The largest bidder in our survey — Carrington, one of the biggest HVLS participants — specifically asked for AI-powered document search. Other bidders focused on basics like export and filtering. If a TS could deliver both the fundamentals AND intelligent features like automated document classification or bid anomaly detection, would OAS want that reflected in the evaluation criteria?”

QUESTION 8

“This feedback process has shown how much actionable intelligence you can get just by asking the right questions of the right people. We gathered meaningful platform requirements from 8 bidders in less than two weeks. Doesn’t it make sense — before the solicitation goes out — to have an impartial party, whether that’s a Program Financial Advisor, a risk contractor, or even an internal resource, conduct a more comprehensive requirements-gathering effort? Not just with bidders, but with OAS staff, the PFA, servicers, OGC — everyone who touches the platform. And then use that to develop a robust platform requirements section in the PWS so that by contractual mandate, the platform actually meets your needs rather than leaving it to the TS’s discretion?”

QUESTION 9

“Can you share the current thinking on solicitation timing? When does OAS expect to release the RFP, and is it going through GSA, 8(a) competitive, or full and open? Understanding the vehicle helps us think about how to structure our recommendations.”

QUESTION 10

“We’ve heard some chatter — and to be clear, no specific information was obtained from any bidders on this, it’s just industry conversation and nothing we’d share publicly — that the contract may be splitting into separate pieces. And frankly, given the different nature of the assets, a split makes sense on some level — single family forward and reverse loans are fundamentally different from multifamily and healthcare, and there’s historical precedent for separate TS support. But it’s worth thinking about the counterparty risk math. With one contract, you have one contractor who can fail to perform. With two, you’ve doubled that risk. With three, you’ve tripled it — three separate contractors to vet, three transition-ins to manage, three platforms to oversee, three points of potential failure. Each additional contract isn’t just additive administrative burden — it’s a multiplicative increase in the risk that something goes wrong on any given sale. Even if OAS sees value in separating MF and Healthcare from the single family programs — has there been consideration of at least keeping MF and Healthcare together under one contract? Two contracts instead of three meaningfully reduces that counterparty risk while still achieving the specialization you’re looking for.”

QUESTION 11

“Who structures the solicitation and evaluation criteria? We’ve drafted proposed PWS language based on the bidder feedback — would it be helpful to share those drafts with the team writing the solicitation?”

QUESTION 12

“If you could write five non-negotiable requirements into the solicitation for the TS platform — things that any offeror must demonstrate they can deliver — what would those be?”

QUESTION 13

“The PWS has no platform reliability SLAs. One bidder reported a system timeout during a live bid. Should the solicitation include explicit uptime requirements during bid windows?”

QUESTION 14

“If there’s a demo requirement in the evaluation — is it contractor-guided or does OAS define the scenarios? Structured demos around specific use cases let you compare offerors against the same standard.”

QUESTION 15

“Two bidders independently questioned BPO-based pricing. A simple platform toggle could show both BPO and UPB views simultaneously — it’s just a calculator, not a policy change. Would that be useful?”

QUESTION 16

“Should the platform be required to support mission features — nonprofit carve-outs, NSO tracking — as a toggle that can be activated per sale? This could also be part of a structured demo — showing offerors can dynamically incorporate mission features on the fly.”

QUESTION 17

“One bidder requested cover bid disclosure. The FDIC already does this — they publish bid summaries with winning and cover amounts. FAR Part 14 requires bid abstracts be publicly available after award. Has OAS explored this practice?”

QUESTION 18

“Settlement tracking is standard in private loan markets (S&P ClearPar) and was the #2 most-requested feature from bidders — yet it’s absent from the current TS platform. What has prevented this? Is it technical, contractual, or just never prioritized?”

QUESTION 19

“I helped develop the original post-sale reporting portal, so I know the challenges. The OIG has repeatedly flagged this area. With mission provisions already being removed from recent CAAs, is this the right time to restructure post-sale reporting to reduce audit exposure? 24 CFR 291.611 gives OAS authority to adjust per Sale Notice — no rulemaking needed.”

QUESTION 20

“Five years from now, in the final option year — what does success look like for OAS?”

QUESTION 21

“Is there anything we haven’t covered — any lesson from the past 25 years of this program — that you want the next TS to know going in?”