Response to More Vendor Questions.docx
DOCX document 41 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Automated Litigation Support Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 15JPSS20R00000005
About this file
This Request for Proposals solicits automated litigation support services for the Department of Justice. Contractors will provide a wide range of professional services and products to support attorneys throughout the litigation process, including pre-filing investigation, discovery, trial, and post-trial activities. Services include document collection, processing, hosting, and production. Pricing will be fixed rates for individual services and cost-reimbursable for other activities. Subcontracting plans are required. Questions are due by November 12, 2019, with award anticipated in early 2020.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 25
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
No.
| Sol. Reference |
| Question/Comment |
| Response |
| 1 |
| C.6.3.8 Delivery Requirements, P.52 |
| The Government indicates that it estimates that 90% of document coding performed will be document determination, document determination and date, and mini coding. However, the figures provided in the Pricing Model in Attachment 1 for those three CLINs combined total only 61% of the anticipated coding (1.1M documents out of 1.8M documents). |
Will government please reconcile these differences?
The government has adjusted the annual quantities for document coding in Attachment 1.
| 2 |
| C.6.5. Electronic Collections, P.67 |
| Can the Government confirm that the media associated with Electronic Collections products will be provided by the Government to the contractor so that the work can be performed at the contractor’s facility without a need to travel to another location? |
If travel is required is it reimbursable separately?
See C.5.3 (g). Circumstances will vary in terms of the origin of the media. Local travel to retrieve collected media is not reimburseable in any circumstance. Periodically non-local travel will be required for onsite data collections, and this travel is billable.
| 3 |
| C.6.5(g) Electronic Collections, P.68 |
| C.6.5.(g) indicates that the cost of the hardware and software for delivering the data (for example an external hard drive) is to be included in the cost of each unit and are not separately billable. Please provide guidance for volume expectations given that some collections (such as a server image) could range dramatically from tens of GBs to hundreds of TBs? |
The government has no futher guidance for volume expectations other than Attachment 1.
| 4 |
| C.6.7 (b) Managed Web Hosting Services, P.75 |
| (b) Due to the Trusted Internet Connections (TIC) requirement as mandated by OMB, DOJ will provide data lines to the vendor’s facility. Until then each vendor will need to work with DOJ to route any traffic related to the work performed on behalf of DOJ through the TIC until such time that data lines have been provided. |
Please confirm that DOJ will provide the current contractor data centers with data lines for applications with .com sites hosted by the contractor.
At the government’s discretion DOJ will provide data lines for contractors as needed for systems that meet all DOJ security requirements and regulations.
Please note that the TIC requirements recently changed: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/M-19-26.pdf
| 5 |
| G.1.2(e) Contracting Officer’s Representative (CORs), P.109 |
| “The COR/ACOR has the responsibility to inspect all deliverables and authorization to certify (but not reject or deny) invoices for payment in accordance with Section G.5.” |
There is no Section G.5. What section should we reference?
G.1.2 (c)
| 6 |
| H. 6.4 (a) Compliance with IT Security Policies, Procedures and Requirements, P.134 |
| (a) For all Covered Information Systems, Contractor shall comply with all security requirements, including but not limited to the regulations and guidance found in the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2014 (“FISMA”), Privacy Act of 1974, E-Government Act of 2002, National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) Special Publications (“SP”), including NIST SP 800-37, 800-53, and 800-60 Volumes I and II, Federal Information Processing Standards (“FIPS”) Publications 140-2, 199, and 200, OMB Memoranda, Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (“FedRAMP”), (“FedRAMP”), DOJ Cybersecurity Standard, including DOJ Order 0904, Cybersecurity Program |
Is the cost to implement DOJ Order 0904 requirements including DISA-STIG, or CIS, etc. reimbursable or unbillable?
Contractors would need to meet these standards prior to receiving and handling any DOJ data, and the costs of compliance are not reimburseable.
| 7 |
| H.6.4 (a)(5) Compliance with IT Security Policies, procedures and requirements, P.134 |
| Please provide additional guidance, requirements, and specifications regarding specific tools or procedures required to meet DOJ policy for Information Security Continuous Monitoring (ISCM)? |
Does implementing DOJ ISCM policy meet this requirement, and if so are the costs reimbursable or unbillable?
DOJ possesses tools for electronic monitoring of information systems, as well as an information system dedicated to tracking the security posture of any information system against applicable NIST 800-53 standards. However, (See H.5.6 (f)), Contractor must obtain a DOJ Authority to Operate (ATO) and/or FedRAMP authorization during the performance of the contract, prior to hosting any DOJ data. FedRAMP has its own requirements for certification, the costs for which are not reimburseable.
| 8 |
| I.1 Clauses Incorporated by Reference, P.154 |
FAR 52.222-62 (Paid Sick Leave under Executive Order 13706) was not included in ‘Section I - Contract Clauses’ of the RFP.
Will this clause be added to incorporate the requirement into the contract?
FAR 52.222-62 is added, please see the revised solicitation.
| 9 |
| L.3.2.3.2 (5) Contract/Task Order Management, P.189 |
| Will the government allow the Quality Control Plan (QCP) to be attached as an Appendix outside of the page count? |
No.
| 10 |
| Attachment 1 Pricing Tables |
| While the industry trend has been for a diminishing need for scanning to digital image to the point that many commercial eDiscovery vendors no longer offer such a service, the volumes provided in the Attachment 1 Cost Model for scanning (CLINs 01-0001, 01-0002, and 01-0003) is 102.7 million images. |
What causes this large volume in the image numbers?
The government has adjusted the annual quantities in Attachment 1.
| 11 |
| Attachment 6 Digital Image Scanning Specs |
| F & L indicators are not clear. Please reissue examples, or clarify how vendors are to use the information provided. |
| F & L indicators are used to represent the physical fastenings of the hardcopy source documents, either the stapling pattern, binding clip, or both. |
| 12 |
| Attachment 9 Labor Categories |
| Will the government allow significant experience in lieu of a degree requirement? |
| The qualifications are per Attachment 9. Any waiver for significant experience is at the discretion of the cognizant COR. |
| 13 |
| H.11(a), p . 148 |
L.3.2(b)(2), p. 183 L.3.2.3.1(3), p. 185 Q: If an individual being proposed as one of the key personnel labor categories in Section H.11 works for a subcontractor, is a Letter of Commitment required?
Yes
| 14 |
| L.3.2.3.1(4), pp. 187-188 |
| Q: We assume that no Letter of Commitment is required for any non-key position. Is this assumption correct? |
| Correct |
| 15 |
| C.4.4.4(c), p. 29 |
| The RFP states “Physical separation of materials from other Contractor projects, including projects under other Government contracts, and between DOJ component users under this Contract, is required. Some Contractor facilities and employees may require DSS clearance.” |
Q: We believe the term “materials” does not include data or electronic files, and this example speaks to physical items such as boxes, office supplies, and other things a person can touch. Can the government define the term “materials” in the above section, and provide an example describing its application in a real-world scenario?
The government requires physical separation between projects within the same DOJ component, and between DOJ components, and this includes data. Offerors need to explain how their infrastructure will prevent “materials”, including data, from spilling over into another project or into another DOJ component.
| 16 |
| L.3.1.7(b)(4), p. 182 |
| The RFP states, “For all CLINs that contain subcontracted effort, explain how the unit prices and compensation data reflect the subcontracted portion of the effort and whether the subcontractor(s) will submit compensation data (and this pricing questionnaire) directly to the Contracting Officer.” |
Q: Is it the intent of the government to only require this information for non-commercial services?
No, it is not the intent.
| 17 |
| L.3.1.7(b)(4), p. 182 |
| The RFP states, “For all CLINs that contain subcontracted effort, explain how the unit prices and compensation data reflect the subcontracted portion of the effort and whether the sub, contractor(s) will submit compensation data (and this pricing questionnaire) directly to the Contracting Officer.” |
Q: Is this requirement limited to non-commercial services for subcontractors with total contract revenue in excess of $10M?
No, it is not limited in that fashion.
| 18 |
| L.3.1.7(b)(4), p. 182 |
| The RFP states, “For all CLINs that contain subcontracted effort, explain how the unit prices and compensation data reflect the subcontracted portion of the effort and whether the subcontractor(s) will submit compensation data (and this pricing questionnaire) directly to the Contracting Officer.” |
Q: Is this requirement limited solely to CLINs in Tables B2 through B4 where the Offeror includes subcontractor pricing in the basis for developing our pricing for the respective CLINs, regardless of intent to subcontract a portion of those services at the Task Order level?
No, the requirement is not solely limited to that.
| 19 |
| L.3.1.6(c)(1), p. 181 |
| The government is asking for a fixed unit prices for each CLIN listed in Table B-1, which has total quantities listed per CLIN. However, it is our understanding that the average order size is significantly smaller, which will impact the Fixed Unit Price. |
Q: For evaluation purposes, does the Government want Offerors to price these based on the total units listed as a single order quantity? Or will the Government provide an average order size upon which to base the Fixed Unit Price for these items?
This is a business decision each offeror will have to make based on its own projection of anticipated volume of work.
| 20 |
| B.3(c)(6), p. 3 |
| RFP defines B-1 thru B-5 as a “billable rate for hourly personnel…. or salaried personnel…. which shall include all costs for overtime hours worked.” However, B-5 is an Other Direct Cost CLIN. |
Q: We assume this reference should be to B-1 thru B-4 only. Is this assumption correct?
As consultants and other experts can be billed as an Other Direct Cost, this clause can apply to the B5 table.
| 21 |
| C.5.1.1(r), p. 38 |
Attachment 1 This section refers to a “Non-Contractor Site” rate, which is no longer in the Attachment 1 scanning rates for MEGA 5.
Q: Will the Government update the RFP to resolve this discrepancy?
C.5.1.1 (r) has been revised.
| 22 |
| C.6.4.6.3(b) page 66 |
Attachment 1 The last sentence identifies a separate CLIN, but we do not see the separate CLIN in the Attachment 1 pricing table. 01-0025 is the “surcharge” CLIN. “A separate CLIN is provided for transcript synchronization when that service is ordered on a standalone or separate pass basis.”
Q: Should there be another separate CLIN?
No. The statement regarding a separate CLIN has been removed from C.5.2.7 (b).
| 23 |
| Attachment 1, Table B1 |
| Although the Base Period is only six (6) months long, the formula in the spreadsheet uses the same multiplier as for the full-year option periods. |
The Government addressed this question in the Responses to Vendor Questions; however, Attachment 1 still uses the same multiplier in the Base Period as it does for Option Periods 1 through 6.
Q: Should the spreadsheet formula or the Base period in the cost model be updated to divide the cost in half to reflect the shorter period of performance?
The formula has been updated, and Attchment 1 has been revised.
| 24 |
| Attachment 1 Pricing Tables |
| Q: For Table B5, can the Government please provide a dollar value for each CLIN to be evaluated? |
| Table B5 is a cost plus pricing structure. The annual quantities represent estimated dollar values. |
| 25 |
| Attachment 3 |
| The revised Attachment 3 which correctly references the Wage Determination table for Washington, DC area as 2015-4281 Rev 14 dated 7/16/19. However, the revised SOW still references the wrong revision. Paragraph B.3.(c).(10) on page 5 still references 2015-4281 Rev 7. |
| Please see the updated solicitation. |
| 26 |
| C.5.2.2.1, page 60 |
| C.5.2.2.1 on page 60 provides the Delivery Requirements for Intake and Processing to Load Files – with Data Enrichment. The section references one back to C.5.1.1.2 which pertains to the number of pages that need to processed for Scan to Digital Image. We think that the reference should have been to C.5.2.1.1. which provides throughput requirements in TBs per one week calendar period for Intake and Processing to Load Files. |
Correct, the reference should be to C.5.2.1.1 and the RFP has been corrected.
| 27 |
| Attachment 1 |
| The revised Attachment 1 Price Table provides a Unit of Measure for CLIN 01-0023 as per page. However, Section C.5.2.6.1 of the SOW provides requested throughput rates in terms of files and terabytes. Can the Gov’t reconcile this discrepancy? |
| C.5.2.6 (c) states that the billing unit for this CLIN is on a per page basis. Files and file size are just a simplified way for the government to measure throughput, apart from billing. |
| 28 |
| H.6.4 (j) page 138 |
| The RFP states, “DOJ, at its discretion, may suspend Contractor’s access to any DOJ Information, or terminate the contract, when DOJ suspects that Contractor has failed to comply with any security requirement, or in the event of an Information System Security Incident (see Section V.E. below),” There is no Section V.E. |
Q: What is the correct section reference?
The correct reference is Section H.6.6, please see the updated solicitation.
| 29 |
| K.1(a), p. 160 |
| The NAICS code for the prime contractor is identified as 541199 with a size standard of $11M. IAW the Small Business Act, section 8(d) and 13 CFR 121.410, the prime contractor is responsible for selecting a NAICS code for its subcontractors. |
Q: Does the government intend to evaluate the offeror's SB subcontractors based on this NAICS code included in the solicitation or upon the appropriate NAICS code identified by the offeror specific to the work to be performed by the subcontractor?
The NAICS code identified for the work required on the base contract is 541199. The DOJ will use that NAICS code for proposal evaluation for overall award. At the order level, DOJ will rely upon the representation made to the prime contractor based on the prime contractor’s selection of the NAICS code that it believes best represents the products or services being acquired.
| 30 |
| L.3.1.3(a), p. 176 |
| This section states, “This subcontracting plan shall comply with the requirements of FAR 19.7.” The section then lists other requirements that are above and beyond FAR 19.7 and FAR 52.219-9, such as details related to performance incentives and evidence of corporate commitment |
Q: Is the Government expecting this additional information in a separate narrative? If not, where should it be provided?
All details, percentages, performance incentives, and evidence of corporate commitment for each business category addressed as required by the FAR, should be contaitned in the subcontracting plan.
| 31 |
| L.3.1.3(a), p. 176 |
| This section states, “This subcontracting plan shall comply with the requirements of FAR 19.7.” The section then lists other requirements that are above and beyond FAR 19.7 and FAR 52.219-9, such as details related to performance incentives and evidence of corporate commitment |
Q: Is the government expecting to see copies of ISRs or SSRs as evidence of our corporate commitment to SB concerns, or is there other evidence that the government expects to see related to this requirement?
The government will review subcontracting plans as required by FAR 19.705. The government is not expecting to see copies of previously submitted ISRs or SSRs as part of a subcontracting plan.
| 32 |
| L.3.1.3(a), p. 177 |
| This section includes the following note, “Orders placed by both the prime and all first-tier subcontractors will count towards achieving the goals set forth above.” This practice has not been included in the FAR at this time. |
Q: Will the government consider removing this requirement since the FAR does not currently allow this type of reporting?
Please see revised solicitation.
| 33 |
| Attachment 1 Pricing Tables_revised.xlsx |
| The formulas in the Grand Total column (column U) only total the base period and five option periods. Please revise Attachment 1 so that all the Grand totals include base plus six options (columns N through T) |
| Attachment 1 has been revised. |
| 34 |
| Attachment 1 Pricing Tables_revised.xlsx |
| The volumes for all units across the B tables have the same volume in the 6-month base year as in columns for full-year option years. Please update the formulas in the Base period column N to be =+D[xx]*M[xx]/2 to reflect the half year duration of the Base period. |
| Attachment 1 has been revised. |
| 35 |
| Attachment 1 Pricing Tables_revised.xlxs; |
RFP Section B.2 ( c ) Minimum and Maximum Quantities/Amounts
It’s understood that the estimated costs in Table B-5 represent the Government's best estimate of ODCs as they relate to contract support and do not necessarily represent actual or budgeted/funded needs. It’s also understood that there is no guarantee that the annual estimates for each CLIN will accurately reflect actual quantities ordered in the performance of the contracts awarded under this Solicitation. That notwithstanding, the quantities in Table B-5 are significantly greater than those under the predecessor contract, leading us wonder if this was intentional.
Examples:
· The estimated annual cost of Industry Specialist/Consultant increased 3,900.00% from $1,000,000 to $40,000,000.
· The estimated annual cost of Miscellaneous Translation/Interpreter Services increased 13,900.00% from $25,000 to $3,500,000.
Questions:
1. Please confirm the annual quantities in Attachment 1 Pricing Tables_revised.xlxs, Table B-5 are correct.
1. If correct, assuming a reasonable, realistic and balanced fixed multiplier is proposed, what are the consequences if an offeror’s submitted price exceeds $1,500,000,000.00, the value described in RFP Section B.2 as the maximum aggregate amount of all Task Orders issued under the solicitation for the entire term of these contracts, including all options which may be exercised?
1) The estimated quantities in Table B-5 have been adjusted.
2) All bids will be evaluated regardless of whether they are below or above the proposed celling
| 4 |
| Attachment 1 Pricing Tables_revised.xlxs |
| The annual volumes indicated in table B-1, for the most part, are orders of magnitude greater than the equivalent in Mega 4. For example, while paper scanning declined significantly during Mega 4, the pricing table for scanning to digital image volumes show 100 Million pages annually, driving the total volume of scanning to digital images to 650 Million pages for the duration of the contract. Many of the other identified product volumes are also similarly high compared to prior contract volumes and trends, including the new Electronic Collection CLINs. Please confirm that the values listed under Table B1, Column M are to be total contract volume instead of an annual volume. If they are intended to be total contract volumes, please issue a modified Pricing Attachment with the revised annual volumes. |
| The annual estimated quantities have been revised and Attachment 1 has been updated. |
| 5 |
| Attachment 8 Anticipated Workload at Time of Contract Award revised and C.4.4.1(c) |
| The anticipated workload for the EOUSA and Criminal divisions is listed as an annual billing level of about $25 million. The required minimum unbillable management resources per division identifies resources for less than $25 Million and over $25 Million, but not equal to $25 Million. Please confirm that the threshold in the Table in Section C.4.4.1 (c) should read “Over $10.0 Million and less than or equal to $25.0 Million. |
| Confirmed. The table in C.4.4.1 (c) has been updated. |
| 6 |
| Attachment 8 Anticipated Workload at Time of Contract Award_revised and C.4.4.1(c) |
| The anticipated workload for the Civil Rights division is listed as an annual billing level of $10 million. The required minimum unbillable management resources per division identifies resources for less than $10 Million and over $10 Million, but not equal to $10 Million. Please confirm that the threshold in the Table in Section C.4.4.1 (c) should read “Over $10.0 Million and less than or equal to $25 Million. |
| Confirmed. The table in C.4.4.1 (c) has been updated. |
| 7 |
| L.3.2.2(b)(1), page 185 and M.2.2(1), page 200 |
| Based upon Q&A 79, offerors are to disregard reference to the sub-section title “Document Acquisition.” |
Please revise the RFP to delete “Document Acquisition” from L.3.2.2(b)(1) and M.2.2(1) as an evaluation factor.
The RFP has been revised.
| 8 |
| L.3.2.2(b)(2), page 185 |
| Based upon Q&A 117, Section C tasks are C.6.5 for Electronic Collections and C.6.7 for Early Case Assessment. |
Please revise the RFP to delete L.3.2.2(b)(2) “Electronic Collections and Early Case Assessment (ECA)” from Litigation Support Services C.6 since they are defined as C.5 Products.
L.3.2.2 (b) (2) has been updated.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .