Resposne Vendor Questions_ NIST RFQ No1333ND26QNB480367-7-29-26.pdf

1 | P a g e

Request for Quotations (RFQ) Number 1333ND26QNB480367

RFQ Section Page # Background / Context Vendor Question Response to Questions

SCHEDULE

Continued

3rd Page The solicitation states “Award a new base plus one year option for industry studies subscription serves.

- BASE POP - 10/01/26 -

09/30/2027 $45,000

- Option POP - 10/01/27 - 09/30/2028 $50,000”

Additionally, it also includes the following “Period of Performance:

10/01/2021 to 09/30/2022”

Please clarify the actual period of performance under this solicitation?

The period of performance in the statement of work was an estimate that an award could be made by September 1 and performance to start immediately. If not, then the start date would be October 1.

The SF1449 will be revised.

SCHEDULE

Continued

3rd Page The solicitation states “Award a new base plus one year option for industry studies subscription serves.

- BASE POP - 10/01/26 -

09/30/2027 $45,000

- Option POP - 10/01/27 - 09/30/2028 $50,000”

This page identifies amounts of

Are these amounts listed to establish a Not to Exceed budget requirement for this CLIN and the 10 user licenses?

Does the increase in cost from $45K to $50K that is listed indicate the escalation rate that will be applied to this

The figures were Government estimates based on market research. Offerors should quote as they are appropriate.

2 | P a g e

$45,000 for the Base POP and $50,000 for the Option POP.

procurement?

General Question

NA Previous contract / Incumbent Is this procurement a continuation of the work previously awarded to Chmura under contract #1333ND21PNB480477 that is set to expire on 09/30/2026?

No, the previous contract was awarded to IBISworld 1333ND20PNB480368.. That contract expired July 6, 2025.

RFQ:

Background Information / Evaluation Factors

Page 1 &

Page 1 of the RFQ states that award will be made to the offeror offering the best value using the "Lowest-Priced, Technically Acceptable method". However, Page 6 under CAR 1352.213-70 states that "All Technical Evaluation Factors, when combined, are significantly more important than price".

Could the Government clarify whether this solicitation will be evaluated using Lowest-Priced Technically Acceptable (LPTA) procedures or a Best Value Tradeoff process where technical capability is weighted higher than price?

Evaluation will be best value, Page one of the RFQ will be revised.

RFQ & SOW:

Schedule / Period of Performance

Page 3 &

(RFQ);

(SOW)

Page 3 of the RFQ lists conflicting dates ("10/01/2021 to 09/30/2022" and "10/01/26-09/30/27"), whereas Page 4 of the RFQ and Page 3 of the SOW specify the Base Period of Performance as September 1, 2026 to August 31, 2027.

Please clarify the official Period of Performance start and end dates for the Base and Option periods, and confirm if the dates listed on Page 3 of the SF 1449 continuation are typographical errors.

The period of performance in the statement of work was an estimate that an award could be made by September 1 and performance to start immediately. If not, then the start date would be October 1.

The SF1449 will be revised.

3 | P a g e

RFQ & SOW:

Requirements / Volume II Price Quotation

Page 2 &

(RFQ);

(SOW)

RFQ/SOW Specific Requirement #1 calls for a "minimum of ten (10) user site licenses... for NIST MEP Headquarters staff". However, Volume II instructions state, "The Government minimum requirement is subscription services for all of NIST MEP. Users may include a mix of both NIST MEP and MEP Center staff".

Will the baseline pricing quotation be evaluated and awarded based on 10 HQ user licenses, or include cost evaluation of the price proposal covering enterprise-wide access across all NIST MEP staff and external MEP Centers?

The minimum requirement is 10 MEP staff users. How a vendor quotes the licenses and if necessary, enterprise-wide access is the vendors responsibility. Vendors may price alternate subscription models but must meet the minimum requirements.

RFQ & SOW:

Requirements / Volume II Price Quotation

Page 2 &

(RFQ);

(SOW)

RFQ/SOW Specific Requirement #1 calls for a "minimum of ten (10) user site licenses... for NIST MEP Headquarters staff". However, Volume II instructions state, "The Government minimum requirement is subscription services for all of NIST MEP. Users may include a mix of both NIST MEP and MEP Center staff".

For the additional pricing needed for scaling beyond 10 licenses, can the government provide specifics on the anticipated expanded user base in terms of actual numbers to inform a unit/tiered pricing structure?

The minimum requirement is 10 MEP staff users. How a vendor quotes the licenses and if necessary, enterprise-wide access is the vendors responsibility. Vendors may price alternate subscription models but must meet the minimum requirements.

RFQ: Volume II - Price Quotation Instructions

Page 6 In Volume II - Price Quotation, the solicitation specifies: "Please provide pricing for Table 1".

However, the table in the solicitation schedule on Page 4 is not explicitly designated as "Table 1".

Could the Government confirm if "Table 1" refers to the CLIN table provided on Page 4 of the RFQ, or if a separate pricing table format is intended for submission?

Yes

RFQ:

Addendum to

FAR 52.212-1

(Proposal Formatting)

Page 5 The RFQ requires submission of Volume I (Technical) and Volume II (Price), including sample reports for NAICS 3364 and NAICS 33441, but does not detail page limits or specific document formatting.

Are there page limitations, font size requirements, or file format preferences (e.g., PDF narrative, Excel price schedule) for Volume I and Volume II? Do the required

There are no page limits or format preferences for the sample reports. It should reflect the capability of the offeror.

4 | P a g e sample reports count toward any overall page limit?

RFQ: CAR

1352.239-71 (Section 508 /

EIT

Accessibility)

Pages 14–

CAR 1352.239-71 specifies that offerors must submit representation information concerning product accessibility by completing a VPAT template.

Should the completed VPAT be included as an appendix within Volume I (Technical Proposal) or as a separate attachment, and will VPAT compliance be formally scored under Factor 1: Technical Capability?

An assurance of VPAT is required. The contractor shall provide proof the system is 508 complaint. If not explain why the system is not 508 complaint.

RFQ & SOW:

Technical Capabilities & Data Sharing

Page 2 &

(RFQ);

(SOW)

Specific Requirement #3 states that "solutions that provide capabilities to legally distribute and share this research data with a defined group of key NIST MEP stakeholders will be evaluated favorably".

Will data-sharing and distribution capabilities be evaluated as part of Factor 1 (Technical Capability), and are there specific stakeholder counts or distribution protocols offerors should detail to receive favorable consideration?

The ability to share some data outputs will be considered and evaluated under Technical Capability. MEP would like to share information with awarded MEP Centers. MEP will not share analytic analysis outside of MEP Headquarters or awarded MEP Centers.

SOW Specific Requirements

Page 2 Specific Requirements #5 states “RSS data feeds on industry updates”

Can you clarify what you expect to be included in the “industry updates"?

Industry updates should communicate the frequency and data involved in analytic updates to reports.

5 | P a g e

SOW: Specific Requirements

Page 2 Specific Requirements #6 states “Provide NIST MEP with quarterly reports that provide the usage by each user, and a detailed listing of the industry reports by NIACS”

Can you clarify what you expect to be included in the “detailed listing of the industry reports by NAICS”

NIST MEP is expecting usage reports that highlight usage by user, as well as usage by type of industry (NAICS codes).