QA_Set_1__8_14_17_ODEP.pdf

RFP #1605DC-17-R-00018

Job Accommodation Network-Q&As Set 1

1. Reference: RFP Section B. Supplies or Services and Prices, pp 1-2

a. The RFP document begins with Section B. Where/what is Section A? Is it the

SF1449 form?

USDOL Response: The SF1449 is considered Section A.

b. On p 4 of the RFP, the government states, “The contractor shall present approximately 90 training sessions annually.” This requirement is not listed in the deliverables tables. The incumbent has a long history of providing on-site training sessions at this level, where all requests have been pre-approved by ODEP. In such instances, the inviting entity is responsible for reimbursing the JAN for all associated travel costs, thus substantially reducing the burden on the government. Will this be considered an allowable practice under the proposed contract?

USDOL Response: Yes. A modification to the RFP clarifying this issue is forthcoming.

2. Reference: RFP Section B, Paragraph 2.1.3 Contractual Terms (pp 6-7) AND

Section D.6 (p 74).

The RFP lists specific federal holidays, which it references in Section B, paragraph

2.1.3 Contractual Terms (pp 6-7) and in Section D.6 (p 74). In both instances, the

RFP states, “The Contractor is not required to perform services on the holidays…” Is the Contractor obligated to provide only the specified holidays to its employees, or does it have the latitude to adhere to its own, already institutionally-established and implemented set of holidays, provided those are clearly indicated and provided to the government in advance on an annual basis?

USDOL Response: Yes, up to six (6) additional days.

3. Reference: Section C. Descriptions and Specifications, PWS PART 4.

CONTRACTOR FURNISHED PERSONNEL, ITEMS and SERVICES, Paragraph 4.1.3.2 System Migration, pp 13-14.

As the incumbent, system migration would not be necessary. Hence, the Key personnel listed in this section would not be needed. Does the incumbent need to indicate that these individuals do not need to be hired?

USDOL Response: Yes, indicate in the proposal that these personnel will not be required as no system migration will be necessary.

4. Reference: Section C. Descriptions and Specifications, PWS PART 5:

SPECIFIC TASKS, 5.9 TASK 9. Web Site Migration, Hosting and Content

Management, 5.9.4 Web Hosting through 5.9.11.Disposition Services, pp.

27-41.

The RFP makes frequent references to requirements addressing cloud-based services. If the offeror does not use and does not plan on using cloud-based services for the operation of this project, may these be designated as “Not

Applicable” within the response?

USDOL Response: While cloud-based services are preferred, the offeror should describe what is being proposed.

5. Reference: Section C. Descriptions and Specifications, PWS PART 5:

Management, 5.9.4 Web Hosting through 5.9.11.Disposition Services, pp.

27-41.

The RFP makes numerous references to DOL and ODEP documents that are not available on-line and obligates the offeror to provide services and engage in practices that are in compliance with the policies, regulations, and requirements stated in these documents (DOL Computer Security Handbook; Department COOP

& Disaster Recovery Plan; DOL System Development Life Cycle Management

Manual; DOL regulations, policies, and procedures [as referenced under first bulleted item on p 31 of the RFP]; DOL record retention requirements [as referenced in the third bulleted item on p 32 of the RFP]; and ODEP Computer Security

Handbook Volume 6: Contingency Planning). Will the government provide copies of these documents to potential vendors so that offers can be made with the full awareness and knowledge as to these many obligations? Or, alternatively, will the government stipulate that if the offeror is in compliance with other applicable listed guidelines and requirements (that is, FISMA, NIST, FISCAM, OMB, E-Government

Act of 2002, FedRAMP, NARA, US-CERT Federal Incident Notification Guidelines, and FARs), that is shall be in compliance with all DOL/ODEP requirements, as well?

USDOL Response: DOL’s documentation follows NIST guidelines and this can be used a basis to meet DOL/ODEP requirements.

6. Reference: Section C. Descriptions and Specifications, PWS PART 5:

Management, 5.9.10 Continuity of Operations and Disaster Recovery

Management, paragraph 1, p 41.

On p 41 of the RFP, within the third bulleted item under “The Contractor shall, at a minimum:” requires the Disaster Recovery Site be in a “different geographical location (within the continental United States) than the primary site,” but it does not specify a minimum distance constituting a “different geographical location.” Would the government please stipulate the minimum distance it would consider a Disaster

Recovery Site as being located from the primary site in order to comply with this requirement?

USDOL Response: After a risk assessment of the primary site, the distance to the disaster recovery site should be great enough between the two locations to provide a distance that will not be affected by natural disaster incidents, electrical power disruption events, pandemics, or other threats affecting the primary site's geographic location.

7. Reference: Section D. Deliverables and Performance, 5.6 Task 6. Formal

Collaboration (line 5), p. 50.

On p 50 of the RFP under Task 6, there is a deliverable of a “formal collaboration” with a frequency of annually; # of Copies—1; Media/Format—NA; Submit to COR;

First due date—within one year of beginning of PoP. But on Page 6 of the RFP, the definition of a Formal agreement specifies, “Formally documented partnership between ODEP and other federal, state, or local entities that directly lead to ODEP policy or practice outcomes in support of employment for people with disabilities.

This would imply the offeror would not have the authority to develop or engage in formal agreements. Additionally, descriptions of Task 6 on p 22 does not include language related to formal collaboration. Will the government clarify if the deliverable stated on p. 50 is, indeed, to be a formal collaboration?

USDOL Response: The deliverable on p. 50 refers to the Collaborative

Relationships outlined in Task 6 on p. 22. The term “Formal Collaboration” on

p. 50 refers to the relationships described in Task 6. This is distinguished from the “Formal Agreements” listed on p. 6.

8. Reference: RFP Section J.3. PROPOSAL PREPARATION &

ORGANIZATION, Special Notice to Offerors, Paragraph 2, p. 150

The RFP lists a number of specifications for preparation of the response documents, but accepted font(s) are not included. Will the government accept the Ariel font (12

pt) as an appropriate font for the response documents?

USDOL Response: Yes.

9. Reference: RFP Section J.4. PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL, pp. 150-151.

Are letters of support permitted?

USDOL Response: No.

10. Is there an incumbent on this contract? If so, please provide the incumbent name, current contract number, length, value of the contract?

USDOL Response: The incumbent is WVU Research Corporation which was awarded a grant for these services, The grant agreement number is OD-23442- 12-75-4-54, with a period of performance of September 17, 2012 to September 16, 2017. The award amount for this requirement was $12.5 million.

11. Will the government accept accessible PDF files of Volume 1, Volume 2, and the appendices [for the CD rom submission]? Or must those be provided only in MS Word and Excel file formats?

USDOL Response: You may submit it in PDF if the files are 508 compliant.