The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
Questions Template Enterprise Services – Talent Acquisition Managed Services
QUESTION RESPONSES
Questions submitted in response to the RFP have been answered below and are ordered by their corresponding page number in the document.
Please note: duplicate questions were consolidated to create a Mutually Exclusive Collectively Exhaustive list.
| Question Number |
| Page Number |
| Question |
| Answer |
| 1 |
| 4 |
| ATO letter, how do we request this letter |
| For an on-premise solution, if a solution was deployed at another federal agency, a copy the ATO letter (or evidence for the same) will help us assess that the solution has already undergone standard security assessments required from an ATO standpoint for federal agencies. However, please note that any on-premise solution will have to go through the DOC ATO process, and the previous ATO will be filed as an artifact. |
For a Cloud based solution, the solution shall be FedRAMP certified (moderate/high). The Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP) certification provides a security package that covers initial baseline, security documentation, authorization, and continuous monitoring processes for Cloud bases services. A FedRAMP certified service provider shall provide the security package as an evidence of the certification.
Please note, any solution (either on-premise or cloud) will have to go through the DOC ATO process.
| 2 |
| 6 |
| The RFQ states that invoicing shall be on a monthly basis. Assume a bidder has a FFP subscription model that provides for three enterprise subscription alternatives including a monthly subscription, an annual subscription with monthly installments, and an annual subscription with a single subscription payment at the beginning of the subscription year, and that each subscription type has a different pricing level for monthly (most expensive), annual with monthly installments (less expensive), and annual single payment (least expensive). There is no difference in the service offering other that subscription duration and discounting. Should the bidder submit ONLY the monthly (most expensive) payment alternative per the RFQ language, or provide the less expensive (higher discount) alternatives as well? |
| The required response to Phase I pricing of the solicitation is a standard rate card. The evaluation will consider technical and pricing information to determine the top two offers who can meet the Government's full requirements. Additional pricing information to develop the Fixed Unit Price (FUP) for cost/hire and Fixed Firm Price (FFP) for build and implement will be provided, as needed, during Phase II. |
Offerors should always provide the pricing requested in the solicitation in order to be responsive, but may also provide alternative pricing solutions that will be considered.
| 3 |
| 16 |
| During this IDIQ the need to develop/design extensive training materials will be required. Therefore, will the Government consider Contractor developed/designed training materials as the Contractor’s property with the Government having a license to use said materials? |
| The Contractor is expected to train their own staff in compliance with Federal HR policies and regulations, and maintain all relevant materials. The Contractor will also be expected to provide training input, content, and materials as needed to DOC for key stakeholder training. |
| 4 |
| 16 |
| Does the Agency agree that the clause 1352.227-70, Rights in Data, Assignment of Copyright, does not apply to preexisting Commercial products or to modifications, enhancements, improvements or additions to such products first produced under the contract? |
| Any solutions developed using funds provided by DOC including modifications, enhancements, improvements, or additions to Commercial products for the use of DOC will be property of DOC. Any solutions developed using investments made by the Contractors will remain Intellectual Property of that Contractor. |
| 5 |
| 16 |
| In the event of disciplinary action dismissal does the 15-day requirement still apply |
| No, in the event of a disciplinary action the 15-day requirement will not apply. |
| 6 |
| 16 |
| Does the contracting officer have to approve the key personnel at the start of the contract |
| The Key Personnel bid are considered as part of the technical response for award of the IDIQ. No additional approval is necessary for the awardee unless changes are made to the Key Personnel. |
| 7 |
| 20 |
| The Statement of Work does not include training on the managed service as a responsibility of the offeror. Please clarify which Key Partner is responsible for training. If it should be included as a responsibility of the offeror, please identify where it aligns in the SOW and if there are additional labor categories that should be included in pricing. |
| The awardee is expected to train their own staff and maintain all relevant materials. The Contractor will also be expected to provide training input, content, and materials to Enterprise Services for Enterprise Services-provided training for customers, Local HR, etc. |
For the Contractors' training responsibilities, they are encouraged to leverage whichever LCAT they deem fit.
| 8 |
| 29 |
| Paragraph 4 states: “To meet all necessary expectations for design, implementation, and operations of TA managed services, respondents must meet the following technical requirements within their quote. More specific requirements will be released within each Task Order issued beneath this IDIQ. The Contractor shall address in its quote its capability and plans to:..” |
Given that proposal instructions and evaluation factors provide a detailed outline, which does not address Part II SOW Paragraph 4, please confirm that these 10 requirements are to be address in future task orders and not in the Phase I response due on October 29, 2018? If a response is necessary, we request amendment to Part III to provide page count to respond.
Offerors must describe their technical approach and solution to be successful. The items described in Part II, paragraph 4 as required under performance are identified throughout the proposal instructions with regard to how work will be accomplished, organization, cyber and IT protocols, etc.
Page count will remain the same.
| 9 |
| 21 |
| Was there an incumbent provider previously or currently, if so who is the provider? |
| There is no commercial incumbent provider for TA as a managed service. |
| 10 |
| 22 |
| Where does DOC envision the interface points for Talent Acquisition? |
| Please reference Attachment-5: HRIT Functional Architecture Overview. |
| 11 |
| 22 |
| Where does DOC envision the interface points for Talent Management? |
| All inclusive Talent Management services, other than what is identified in the SOW (Section 3: Scope), are not required to be addressed in the proposal. As such, Talent Management questions will be deferred to the point at which specific Task Orders are released for those capabilities. |
| 12 |
| 22 |
| Where does DOC envision the interface points for Employee Performance Management? |
| All inclusive Talent Management services, other than what is identified in the SOW (Section 3: Scope), are not required to be addressed in the proposal. As such, Talent Management questions will be deferred to the point at which specific Task Orders are released for those capabilities. |
| 13 |
| 25 |
| Are you looking for the vendor to replace the current electronic MGS with their own system, or utilize the current system? |
If contractor uses MSG system what is the cost of the licenses?
Contractors are expected to provide an enterprise-wide Applicant Tracking System (ATS); Contractors may choose to continue using the current ATS (MGS), or propose a new solution.
Information on pricing will not be provided at this time, as the Phase I pricing volume is solely comprised of a rate card. Additional information to develop the Fixed Unit Price (FUP) for cost/hire and Fixed Firm Price (FFP) for build and implement will be provided, as needed, during Phase II.
| 14 |
| 26 |
| Please clarify if second to last bullet should read “Complies with…identity management…as described in Section 4.0…” |
| Confirmed; the solicitation has been updated. |
| 15 |
| 26 |
| Contractors are allowed to use MGS, but the government will not provide licenses as GFE. Based on their GSA Schedules, MGS offers their software on a subscription basis based on agency headcount. If a contractor plans “consistent use of existing MGS”, how will they be granted access to use the software? |
| If the Contractor chooses to continue using MGS, the Contractor will need to procure their own MGS licenses and provide as part of their FUP cost of services (in Phase II pricing). However, the proposed solution is required in Phase I. |
| 16 |
| 27 |
| How many job announcements has DOC posted to 3rd party job boards other than USAJOBS in the last 3 years? Does DOC expect the managed services provider to have a similar volume of 3rd party job board postings available in the TA technology? |
| This information is not available at this time; job postings to third party job boards vary by Bureau. |
| 17 |
| 27 |
| In A-2: TA CONOPs, candidates appear to access the ES portal, whereas p. 27 of the RFP indicates candidates may have access to the vendor portal. Does DOC envision that candidates, in all recruiting stages, will have access to the Contractor’s Talent Acquisition contact center? |
| DOC expects that the applicant enters through USAJobs, which interfaces with the Contractor solution (i.e. ATS). DOC expects that the portal is accessible to DOC employees only. |
| 18 |
| 28 |
| Will the contractor be expected to handle Personnel Action Request (PAR) processing for onboarding specifically? |
| PAR processing for onboarding is out of scope at this time. |
| 19 |
| 28 |
| Scope is defined as “Support suitability activities to include credit check, drug testing, physical fitness tests, or other requirements.” Please clarify if DOC intends that the offeror should be prepared to subcontract for these services, or if “manage pre-employment processes” means DOC intends to contract separately and the offeror will be responsible for managing processes working with those vendors. |
| DOC expects the Contractor to support these activities (i.e. coordinating/scheduling exams, relaying results, providing recommendations). |
| 20 |
| 28 |
| Onboarding Services - Can you please clarify what services the contractor will be responsible for? Will this service include scheduling these sessions (i.e. department orientation) or will this be more involved, i.e. administering the onboarding sessions? |
| DOC expects that onboarding includes activities such as scheduling and hosting Department orientation. Additional information to be provided in future Task Orders. |
| 21 |
| 29 |
| How do we get FedRAMP authorization |
| The Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP) is a government-wide program that provides a standardized approach to security assessment, authorization, and continuous for cloud products and services. All proposed cloud-based systems must be FedRAMP certified. Please visit FedRAMP.gov for more information. |
| 22 |
| 29 |
| Please describe the existing processes implemented and/or contemplated HR Information Technology(ies) in place at Commerce delivering and supporting the Talent Development and Employee Performance Management functions. |
| All-inclusive Talent Management services, other than what is identified in the SOW (Section 3: Scope), are not required to be addressed in the proposal. As such, Talent Management questions will be deferred to the point at which specific Task Orders are released for those capabilities. |
| 23 |
| 30 |
| Does the Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML)-based Identity and Access Management (IAM) solution provided cover all Bureaus that are in scope? |
| Yes, SAML-based authentication has been established with all in-scope Bureaus. We expect our Service providers to be able to support SAML 2.0 or WS-Fed protocol. |
| 24 |
| 36 |
| Can the Government please provide the historic workload for FOIA actions? |
| This information is not available at this time. |
| 25 |
| 38 |
| The NAICS code listed in the RFP (541612) does not match the NAICS code listed in the FBO posting (561311). Please confirm the applicable NAICS code for this solicitation is 561311. |
| The appropriate NAICS code is 561311. |
| 26 |
| 38 |
| The description of Phase II states that, “the top two selectees will each be awarded a $500k contract.” Will this contract be a standalone contract or an IDIQ with one task order? |
| Phase II will be executed using two standalone contracts for the purposes of demonstrating accuracy, quality and efficacy of their proposed solution. The contracts will terminate at the conclusion of Phase II with the award of a single IDIQ contract to the successful offeror. |
| 27 |
| 39 |
| How does DOC define “Development of TA Applicant Tracking Prototype?” Will DOC provide vendors with use cases and provide a certain amount of time for vendors to configure their systems to meet use cases? Does DOC expect presentations of use cases to occur closer to the beginning of the development phase or toward the end? |
| DOC will provide mock data for use in the Applicant Tracking Prototype. Additional information on the timing of prototype development will be provided to the chosen Contractors at the beginning of Phase II. |
| 28 |
| 39 |
| Activity #7 in the Milestone Schedule indicates Phase II will occur from January 2nd, 2019 ‐ November 22nd, |
2018 – April 26th, 2019. Please confirm that Phase II will span January 2nd, 2019 – April 26th, 2019.
Confirmed; the solicitation has been updated.
| 29 |
| 40 |
| Please clarify how many hard copy documents for each Volume are required (Technical Proposal, Past Performance, Price Proposal). |
| Volumes 1 through 3 are submitted in hard copy with a soft copy in locked PDF form of each volume included on a single flash drive. Offerors shall submit: 7 copies of Volume 1, 3 copies of Volume 2, and 3 copies of Volume 3. Each volume shall be in a separate binder. Volumes 1 and 2 shall not contain any pricing information. |
| 30 |
| 40 |
| Please confirm that written proposals may be hand delivered to the address provided. |
| Confirmed; written proposals may be hand delivered. Offerors are responsible for timely submissions regardless of delivery method. Offerors must consider delays in shipping and security when planning their submissions. Electronic submissions, i.e. email, fax, etc will not be accepted. Late proposals will not be evaluated. |
| 31 |
| 41 |
| The bullet ‘…Offers shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft (MS)…’ seems to imply that an electronic version should be submitted but conflicts with the bullet ‘Submission will be provided in hard copy format only’. Please clarify if an electronic version of the proposal response should be submitted. |
| Proposal responses shall be submitted in hard copy, with a soft copy locked in PDF form of each volume included on a single flash drive. The latter shall be readable by Word 2007, MS Excel 2007, or in a text searchable PDF format, as applicable. |
| 32 |
| 41 |
| Does Commerce have a comprehensive PD library in place currently? If so, will bidders have access to this data for Phase II? |
| No, DOC does not have a comprehensive PD Library in place. |
| 33 |
| 41 |
| Please confirm that standard front matter (e.g., cover, cover letter, TOC, compliance matrix) do not count toward page limits for Volumes 1 and 2. |
| Confirmed; standard front matter will not count towards the page limits. |
| 34 |
| 42 |
| The RFP states that the transition approach should include details for the stand up of “Integration with established Enterprise Services technologies … and existing and new third party technologies …” In order for offerors to provide a credible integration plan, will the Government provide details about the current technologies in place and the types of allowable integrations available for those technologies? |
| Please reference Attachment-5: HRIT Functional Architecture Overview for the expected integrations. Additional information on integration details will be provided in Phase II for the development of the Detailed Technical Documents. |
| 35 |
| 43 |
| Is there any volume of data that DOC expects to have migrated to the new Talent Acquisition solution? If yes, what type and volume of data? |
| Please reference Attachment-5: HRIT Functional Architecture Overview for the expected integrations. Additional information on integration details will be provided in Phase II for the development of the Detailed Technical Documents. |
| 36 |
| 44 |
| Is the Subcontractor Profile the information that is described above i.e. the subcontractor’s role, core capabilities/specializations/ capacity, and identified functions/performance areas which does not count towards the PMP page limit? |
| Confirmed |
| 37 |
| 44 |
| The RFP states that “Subcontractor Profiles shall be limited to one page per subcontractor and do not count towards the PMP page limitation.” There does not appear to be a separate page limitation defined for the PMP. Is this statement intended to indicate that Subcontractor Profiles will not count against the 40 page total limit for the Technical Proposal? |
| Confirmed |
| 38 |
| 45 |
| Given there is a limited amount of federal programs that are similar to the Department of Commerce's Talent Acquisition project, can you please describe how non-government client references will be evaluated? Will they be viewed and scored equally to government client references? |
| Past performance evaluations provide a perspective of risk to the Government for successful performance. Key factors are those references that are similar in size and scope (relevancy) and how current they are. The references will be scored equally within those parameters. Given this information, it stands to reason that if two offerors had exactly the same past performance in every way, with the only exception that one provided services to Federal organizations and the other to civilian organizations, the one with the Federal organizations would be slightly more relevant given this work is for a Federal agency. |
| 39 |
| 45 |
| This section states that “Offeror may provide performance information of predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant.” If citing performance information for key personnel who have relevant experience, but are not linked to a referenced past performance, offerors are unlikely to have access to all of the information requested in the 11 bullets in this section. May offerors use a modified format when providing performance information for key individuals? |
| Yes; offerors may use a modified format in this circumstance. |
| 40 |
| 45 |
| The proposal asks for resumes for key personnel. Do these individuals have to be currently employed with the company or just candidates that will be hired upon award of contract |
| Key Personnel may be candidates that will be hired upon contract award. However, a formal Letter of Intent is required in this circumstance. |
| 41 |
| 46 |
| The 'statement' required on the cover letter for proposal submission appears incongruous to a competitive FAR Part 12 procurement for commercial items. Please reconsider this requirement. |
| The Government reserves the right to obtain other than certified cost or pricing data to determine the price is fair and reasonable. Because offerors are likely to provide different solutions to meet the needs, it may be necessary to request additional pricing data. This statement is not in conflict with FAR Part 12. |
| 42 |
| 50 |
| Will the Government please consider amending the evaluation weighting to consider the Factor 1 - Technical Approach as more important than price? |
Rationale: Enterprise Services can significantly reduce overall implementation and program risk by considering offerors with the highest degree of technical and management competency.
The question appears to miss the intent of providing the relative importance of the factors. The integrated assessment and trade-off of the price and non-price factors as outlined does not preclude the proposing of a superior solution, which may also result in a higher price. The evaluation factors and weights outlined in the solicitation remain as is.
| 43 |
| 50 |
| Within the Technical Approach, all four Elements are weighted equally. Will the Government please consider revising these weightings such that Element 1 – TA Managed Services and Element 3 – Program Management Plan are considered more important than Element 2 – Talent Management Capabilities? |
Rationale: Evaluating offerors with such a weighting on capabilities materials could result in suboptimal offeror selection. Reducing the weighting on Element 2 would allow offerors to showcase their talent management capabilities without diluting evaluation for the primary talent acquisition need.
Elements have been realigned. After which, elements 1, 2, 3 are weighted approximately equal in importance. Element 4 is less important than the previous three.
| 44 |
| 50 |
| The RFP states that “Any offer that is determined to be ‘unsatisfactory’ in one or more Factors will be eliminated from the evaluation process without further consideration.” Will the Government please define the rating scale it intends to use during evaluation of proposals (i.e., what other ratings besides “unsatisfactory” are possible to be awarded for each Factor)? |
| An adjectival rating methodology will be used consisting of Excellent, Satisfactory, Marginal and Unsatisfactory for the Technical Factor. The same four with the addition of a Neutral rating for Past Performance. Pricing will be evaluated as described in the solicitation. |
| 45 |
| 51 |
| The RFP states the offeror will be evaluated on “Commercial and Federal experience delivering these services, including Points of Contact (POCs) for each experience referenced.” Please clarify how DOC intends to conduct this evaluation as part of Factor 1, when Factor 2 addresses the Past Performance Evaluation. |
| DOC considered this comment and removed the phrase. Please note any additional changes in the Final RFP. |
| 46 |
| 53 |
| KEY: Deputy Program Manager. In Attachment 8 there is a “Deputy Project Manager.” Are these meant to be the same position? If so, please clarify whether this position should be referred to as Deputy Program Manager, or Deputy Project Manager |
| They are the same. Attachment 8 has been updated accordingly to reflect the same title. |
| 47 |
| 53 |
| KEY: Senior Staffing Specialist. Please confirm that this is the same as Attachment 8’s “Staffing Specialist Senior.” If not, please provide a description |
| They are the same. Attachment 8 has been updated accordingly to reflect the same title. |
| 48 |
| 53 |
| KEY: Classification Lead. Cannot find this labor category in Attachment 8. Please clarify. |
| Added Classification Lead to Attachment 8 |
| 49 |
| 53 |
| KEY: Sourcing Strategist. Cannot find this labor category in Attachment 8. Please clarify |
| This person represents a Staffing SME as identified in Attachment 8. |
| 50 |
| 54 |
| To provide the Government with the most accurate price estimate, please provide the estimated hours by labor category. |
| The proposal requirement is for the hourly loaded price per LCAT. |
| 51 |
| 55 |
| Will the contractor have an opportunity to implement sourcing strategies prior to being given the recruitment packages for these specific positions being considered for the ‘Processing of Hiring Actions’ |
| Contractors are encouraged to use their sourcing strategies, as appropriate, to meet the Phase II Processing of Hiring Actions deliverable. Status against the DOC 80 day model will be evaluated. |
| 52 |
| 56 |
| The RFP states that during Phase II, contractors are required to work with Monster Government Solutions. Would DOC consider being flexible on this requirement and allowing the offer to bring a prototype of their proposed solution? For vendors that do not intend to use MGS, this represents a significant investment in work that will not be re-used, and that the MGS solution will not fully demonstrate the offeror’s proposed capabilities. |
| The Phase II Processing of Hiring Actions must be completed in a staff augmentation model using current technology to mitigate security risks. |
| 53 |
| 59 |
| Can the government describe your approach for evaluating the viability AND risk of each bidder's solution? |
| A Technical Evaluation Team will evaluate the technical proposal responses to assess viability and risk associated with each technical response in accordance with the solicitation. A Past Performance Evaluation Team will assess the risk of successful performance the offeror presents based on historical activity. This will also be an indicator of viability. |
| 54 |
| 40 & 47 |
| Please clarify if there is a conflict between the offer acceptance period of 120 days and the pricing to remain firm for 240 days. |
| Proposals submitted in response to this solicitation shall remain firm for at least 240 days after the date specified for receipt by the Government and shall contain a statement to this effect. |
| 55 |
| 40 & 47 |
| Please confirm that the validity period should be 120 days from due date of the RFP to the government? |
| Proposals submitted in response to this solicitation shall remain firm for at least 240 days after the date specified for receipt by the Government and shall contain a statement to this effect. |
| 56 |
| 5 & 48 |
| Section I.8.1 Labor Rate Pricing (p. 5) states that “rates in effect at time of Order placement will remain in effect for 12-consecutive months regardless of changes in the annual effective labor rates.” |
Section III.7.2.2 Binding Rate Card (p. 48) states "The rate card of the chosen contractor will be considered binding and enforced for all applicable Orders on the contract."
These two statements appear to contradict each other. Please confirm that the binding rate card will be in effect on all task orders and that the rates will escalate on each individual task order according to the escalation schedule and timing in the rate card.
The statements are not in conflict. Section III is applicable to the proposal and evaluation of offerors. It requires offerors to submit fully burdened hourly rates for each LCAT (rate card). The rate card allows for annual escalation of rates over the life of the contract. The selectee's rate card will be part of the awarded contract and govern labor prices throughout the IDIQ performance.
Section I is the operational parameters that will be applied during performance and merely states that if a 1-year task order is issued at month 6 of the base period, the base period hourly rate (from the rate card) will prevail for 12 consecutive months, or until month 5 of the IDIQ Option 1 period. Should there be an option year on the issued task order, the IDIQ Option 1 rates will apply beginning in month 6 of the period, or when the task order option begins.
| 57 |
| 50, 59, & 60 |
| Section 8. Milestone Activity #5: Government Evaluations of the RFP states "The Technical Factor is more important than the Past Performance Factor, and when the two non-price Factors are combined, they are approximately equal to the Price Factor". Section 11. Milestone Activity #8: Phase II Government Evaluations of the RFP states "The Technical Factor is approximately equal to the Price Factor." |
These two statements indicate that Price is approximately equal to half of the total evaluation scoring in both Phase I and Phase II evaluations. This equal weighting of non-price factors and the price factor creates risk that the Government will award to the lowest price and minimally acceptable technical offer. This equal weighting of non-price and factor factors also contradicts paragraph C of section 12.1 of the RFP, which states "the Government is more concerned with obtaining superior technical and management capabilities than with making an award at the lowest overall cost to the Government."
In order to award to the offeror with superior technical and management capabilities and therefore increase the likelihood of success of the Talent Acquisition Program, we suggest the Government revise the evaluation weighting to reflect its desire to obtain superior technical and management capabilities. Will the Government revise the evaluation weighting in Phase I and Phase II evaluations such that non-price factors are significantly more important than the price factor?
We also recommend that the following language and evaluation methodology be adopted and incorporated into the RFP for Phase I and Phase II evaluations:
“Non-price factors are significantly more important than price. Price will be evaluated for reasonableness and affordability. Award will be made to the offeror with the highest rated non-price scores with a reasonable and affordable price. Price will be the determining factor through a tradeoff process only when the non-price scores of the highest rated proposals are equal.”
The question appears to miss the intent of providing the relative importance of the factors. The integrated assessment and trade-off of the price and non-price factors as outlined does not preclude the proposing of a superior solution, which may also result in a higher price. The evaluation factors and weights outlined in the solicitation remain as is.
To preclude any confusion between the stated significance, paragraph C of Section III, paragraph 12.1 has been revised
| 58 |
| N/A |
| The diagram does not reflect USAJobs. Please clarify, as integration with enabling systems and specifically USAJobs is listed as an objective of the RFP (II.2 Objectives p.26 of 60) |
| Contractors must enable an integration with USAJobs. |
| 59 |
| N/A |
| Did the government use contractor assistance to develop your talent acquisition strategy and procurement? If the answer is yes, is this contractor precluded from bidding on this solicitation? |
| The acquisition strategy decisions are inherently governmental functions and performed solely by government personnel. Enterprise Service's Key Partner, Deloitte Consulting LLP (see Table 2), supported the development of the documentation and artifacts for this procurement. As such, Deloitte Consulting LLP has had unequal access to information and is prohibited from bidding on any work related to this procurement, as a Prime or Sub-contractor. |
| 60 |
| N/A |
| Please provide a breakdown of hires by Occupational Series |
| For the purposes of Phase I of this procurement, please refer to Section 1 (Background) of the SOW. |
| 61 |
| N/A |
| Please provide a breakdown of hires by GS level |
| For the purposes of Phase I of this procurement, please refer to Section 1 (Background) of the SOW. |
| 62 |
| N/A |
| Please provide a breakdown of hires by location. Are we correct in assuming all hires will be in the US? |
| For the purposes of Phase I of this procurement, please refer to Section 1 (Background) of the SOW. |
| 63 |
| N/A |
| Please provide a breakdown of hires by transfer (internal to government) vs. external |
| For the purposes of Phase I of this procurement, please refer to Section 1 (Background) of the SOW. |
| 64 |
| N/A |
| How many separate bargaining units are in place across DoC currently? Do any of those bargaining agreements have a material impact on the way in which roles are filled, i.e. are processes differentiated from the 80-day hiring model? |
| The Contractors will be expected to adhere to the DOC bargaining units. |
| 65 |
| N/A |
| Who currently supplies DoC with assessments today? If multiple vendors, is it possible to receive a list of vendors as aligned by Bureau? |
| Additional information, such as current state details, will be provided in Phase II as needed. |
| 66 |
| N/A |
| Are you using any HR Analytics tools today? If so, which tools? |
| Additional information, such as current state details, will be provided in Phase II. DOC will work with Phase II Contractors to determine analytics requirements based on the future state Enterprise Architecture. |
| 67 |
| N/A |
| Are you currently using any talent sourcing tools? |
| Any use of sourcing tools varies by Bureau. |
| 68 |
| N/A |
| What talent sourcing channels are used by the Department? i.e. social media, digital advertising, traditional advertising (print/radio/billboard/bus/etc.) |
| Talent sourcing channels vary by Bureau. Various Bureaus use channels such as occupational specific job boards, LinkedIn, and Professional Associations. |
| 69 |
| N/A |
| What is your interview to hire ratio? |
| This information is not available at this time. |
| 70 |
| N/A |
| What is the offer to accept ratio? |
| This information is not available at this time. |
| 71 |
| N/A |
| What is the phone screen to interview ratio? |
| This information is not available at this time. |
| 72 |
| N/A |
| What is the current cost per hire? |
| This information is not available at this time. |
| 73 |
| N/A |
| Please provide a percentage breakdown of the applicants by source (ie, job boards, website, LinkedIn, direct sourcing, etc) |
| This information is not available at this time. |
| 74 |
| N/A |
| Is there a contact center in place today? If so, is it a differentiated center from your Employee Service Center |
| The Enterprise Services contact center is currently supported by GDIT for contact center technology and Tier 1 support. In addition, the PAR, Benefits, and Payroll vendor provides Tiers 2 and beyond support. |
| 75 |
| N/A |
| How many Talent Management calls do you receive on an annual basis? Can you enumerate by Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3? |
| All inclusive Talent Management services, other than what is identified in the SOW (Section 3: Scope), are not required to be addressed in the proposal. As such, Talent Management questions will be deferred to the point at which specific Task Orders are released for those capabilities. |
| 76 |
| N/A |
| What is the average handle time for Talent Management related calls? |
| All inclusive Talent Management services, other than what is identified in the SOW (Section 3: Scope), are not required to be addressed in the proposal. As such, Talent Management questions will be deferred to the point at which specific Task Orders are released for those capabilities. |
| 77 |
| N/A |
| How many FTE are handling Talent Management calls today? |
| All inclusive Talent Management services, other than what is identified in the SOW (Section 3: Scope), are not required to be addressed in the proposal. As such, Talent Management questions will be deferred to the point at which specific Task Orders are released for those capabilities. |
| 78 |
| N/A |
| Will hiring activities be required/expected to be processed in any language other than English? |
| No; hiring activities will be required in English only. |
| 79 |
| N/A |
| How many LMS systems are currently in use by DoC? Can you list those in use? |
| All inclusive Talent Management services, other than what is identified in the SOW (Section 3: Scope), are not required to be addressed in the proposal. As such, Talent Management questions will be deferred to the point at which specific Task Orders are released for those capabilities. |
| 80 |
| N/A |
| How are Learning Administration requests (Add a course to the catalog, schedule a course) managed? (email, forms, case management tool?) |
| All inclusive Talent Management services, other than what is identified in the SOW (Section 3: Scope), are not required to be addressed in the proposal. As such, Talent Management questions will be deferred to the point at which specific Task Orders are released for those capabilities. |
| 81 |
| N/A |
| Would your prime vendor be required to manage your existing learning vendors? If so, please provide a list of the existing vendors |
| All inclusive Talent Management services, other than what is identified in the SOW (Section 3: Scope), are not required to be addressed in the proposal. As such, Talent Management questions will be deferred to the point at which specific Task Orders are released for those capabilities. |
| 82 |
| N/A |
| How many learning activities are processed across DoC annually? |
| All inclusive Talent Management services, other than what is identified in the SOW (Section 3: Scope), are not required to be addressed in the proposal. As such, Talent Management questions will be deferred to the point at which specific Task Orders are released for those capabilities. |
| 83 |
| N/A |
| How many Learning Administrators (or their equivalent) are there within the Department? |
| All inclusive Talent Management services, other than what is identified in the SOW (Section 3: Scope), are not required to be addressed in the proposal. As such, Talent Management questions will be deferred to the point at which specific Task Orders are released for those capabilities. |
| 84 |
| N/A |
| Please provide clarification around the technical architecture for connections to USA Hire, USA Staffing and USA Learn? |
| The Technical Architecture of these tools will depend on the proposed Contractor solution. |
| 85 |
| N/A |
| Is DOC have a preference of leveraging flat file exchanges or Web Services/API’s? Are either of these unacceptable to DOC? |
| DOC accepts both options, yet prefers Web services/APIs. |
| 86 |
| N/A |
| Are there existing contracts with external vendors related to hiring (job boards, LinkedIn, background screening, assessment providers, etc.) that would be furnished as GFE? |
| There are no existing contracts with external vendors for the Contractor to use or leverage. |
| 87 |
| N/A |
| Please clarify DOC expectations for data migration for the initial go live in Oct 2019. What historical, JOA-in-process, or candidate-in-process data does DOC expect to be migrated? |
| DOC will provide this information in the Phase II Detailed Technical Documents guidance in support of the required Integration Management Plan. |
| 88 |
| N/A |
| Is there a formal onboarding plan and is that finalized? |
| A formal onboarding plan is prepared in draft as it is directly related to the selected solution and cannot be finalized until that solution is known. The onboarding plan is relative only to the selectee of Phase II. |
| 89 |
| N/A |
| Is there the need to integrate with any tax integrations forms? (i.e I9,W4, etc.) |
| Yes, the Contractor's solution must integrate with Tax forms. |
| 90 |
| N/A |
| Is there a defined Learning Process or does the contractor need to account for process alignment strategy as part of their service? |
| All inclusive Talent Management services, other than what is identified in the SOW (Section 3: Scope), are not required to be addressed in the proposal. As such, Talent Management questions will be deferred to the point at which specific Task Orders are released for those capabilities. |
| 91 |
| N/A |
| Is there the need to integrate with any external content vendors? If so, please let us know the content vendors. |
| All inclusive Talent Management services, other than what is identified in the SOW (Section 3: Scope), are not required to be addressed in the proposal. As such, Talent Management questions will be deferred to the point at which specific Task Orders are released for those capabilities. |
| 92 |
| N/A |
| Can you detail the user experience expected with these external content vendors if they exist? |
| All inclusive Talent Management services, other than what is identified in the SOW (Section 3: Scope), are not required to be addressed in the proposal. As such, Talent Management questions will be deferred to the point at which specific Task Orders are released for those capabilities. |
| 93 |
| N/A |
| Can you detail the amount of historical transcript records that will need to be brought over? |
| All inclusive Talent Management services, other than what is identified in the SOW (Section 3: Scope), are not required to be addressed in the proposal. As such, Talent Management questions will be deferred to the point at which specific Task Orders are released for those capabilities. |
| 94 |
| N/A |
| Can you detail the amount of current learning materials (i.e. online courses, videos, PDF’s, powerpoints, or other content) that needs to be loaded into the system? |
| All inclusive Talent Management services, other than what is identified in the SOW (Section 3: Scope), are not required to be addressed in the proposal. As such, Talent Management questions will be deferred to the point at which specific Task Orders are released for those capabilities. |
| 95 |
| N/A |
| Are you currently learning any virtual instructor training modules (i.e Webex, Adobe Connect, etc.) that we need to account for integration with? |
| All inclusive Talent Management services, other than what is identified in the SOW (Section 3: Scope), are not required to be addressed in the proposal. As such, Talent Management questions will be deferred to the point at which specific Task Orders are released for those capabilities. |
| 96 |
| N/A |
| Is there the need to send Learning completions to any third party system? |
| All inclusive Talent Management services, other than what is identified in the SOW (Section 3: Scope), are not required to be addressed in the proposal. As such, Talent Management questions will be deferred to the point at which specific Task Orders are released for those capabilities. |
| 97 |
| N/A |
| What is the DOC Performance Management tool today? Is there a plan to move to a centralized Performance Management System across Commerce? |
| All inclusive Talent Management services, other than what is identified in the SOW (Section 3: Scope), are not required to be addressed in the proposal. As such, Talent Management questions will be deferred to the point at which specific Task Orders are released for those capabilities. |
| 98 |
| N/A |
| Please confirm that Solicitation Number: 1331L5-18-R-13ES-0001 is the correct solicitation number for this effort. |
| Confirmed; the Solicitation Number is 1331L5-18-R-13ES-0001. |
| 99 |
| N/A |
| Would the government consider a 14-day extension? Given the revised scope from the RFI stage to the final RFP, this additional time will allow vendors the opportunity to re-architect a fully compliant proposal that meets and/or exceeds DOC’s requirements. |
| DOC will not extend the proposal submission date at this time. |
| 100 |
| N/A |
| Are the vendors currently providing these services to the Department of Commerce eligible to bid on this solicitation? |
| Managed TA services are not currently being provided to the DOC. All vendors are eligible to respond to this solicitation except those with unmitigable conflicts of interest (COI). Deloitte Consulting LLP is the only vendor with a known COI. |
| Pages 4 of 18 |
| 15 October 2018 |
image1.jpeg
