NLS_Solicitation_Questions_and_Answers_.docx

Questions for 1625DC-19-R-00005

1) In section L.5 of the RFP is this instruction “b. Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document, the text size shall be no less than 12 point.” Would it be acceptable to use type as small as 10 point in tables and exhibits? The capacity that tables afford to compare a row of data elements efficiently is lost when large type renders individual cells too big.

Yes, this is acceptable

2) Section L.6 includes this instruction.

Cover Letter/ SF- 1449/ Amendments/ Reps & Certs

No limitation Up to 2 pages for the Cover Letter only. No page limit for the SF- 1449 and Reps & Certs.

One (1) electronic copy submitted as attachment in accordance with the instructions stated in Section L.3.

Must be Excel and Microsoft Word (2013)Compatible)

Would it be acceptable to the government for offerors to provide the price volume in Excel file with other elements as a PDF file? Certain elements of price proposals, beyond the budgets, are not Word files in their native formats and are most efficiently combined in PDF files.

Yes, this is acceptable

3) Reviewing the Price Proposal Excel spreadsheet for Tasks 1 and 2 (Management and security), it appears that only 12 months are expected to be reported in this spreadsheet (per the quantity listed in column I). This differs from other ongoing tasks like User Services or Advisory Services, which have additional 12-month periods listed later in the table. How should the bidders represent the expected price for the remaining years of the contract period after the first 12 months? If the single line currently in the spreadsheet is intended to include the full contract period, how should the bidders include COLA adjustments and other differentials between years for these tasks?

There will be up to 54 months of CLINs 0001 and 0002. Please see the revised documents “RFP Attachment 1 - Price Proposal (Company Name).” Offerors now have the opportunity to provide yearly rates for these CLINs.

4) The RFP includes a “Sample Member Records File” to be produced “for BLS review.” Does BLS plan new consent language to indicate that respondent contact information will be shared directly and completely with the agency? Will summary statistics of the Sample Member Records file be adequate for BLS review?

No re-consent is necessary as all information collected or created by the survey belong to BLS.

5) The RFP specifies that the Child and Young Adult survey shall include children from birth – age 20 and shall include assessments of children through age 14. Beginning in round 27, the child/in-person assessment portion of this group was discontinued due to the extremely low numbers of younger children and instead all children ages 12-20 received the young adult interview (with some age-related modifications where appropriate). Does the BLS wish to continue the R27-28 pattern or to return to an in-person assessment regime for the small number of younger children?

BLS wishes to continue the NLSY79 Child/YA R27-28 pattern.

6) In section 1.3.2 (page 16), the RFP includes the statement that “Records Retention Records include correspondence (??)…”; the parenthetical question marks appear in the text. Can the BLS clarify the intention of this statement? Is there some question about types of correspondence to be preserved or some other qualification on the preservation of correspondence that we should be aware of?

Thank you, this marked an internal question. Please note that emails concerning NLS decisions are considered a form of correspondence and should be retained for possible inclusion in a records retention package.

7) In section 2.2.4 (page 20), the RFP includes the statement that “The Contractor shall report the estimated cost incurred by the Contractor for all security-related activity for the quarter…. The security cost report shall be provided in the security progress report.” In a fixed-price contract, detailed cost reporting and accounting is generally not required and simply maintaining these records will carry an additional cost. Additionally, the only mentions of a quarterly security progress report are in the context of reporting on an active POA&M item. Are the security and cost reports to be provided only for quarters in which there is an active POA&M and address only POA&M costs and progress? Does this suggest that BLS plans to reimburse the cost of POA&M work?

BLS is no longer requesting the cost reports for security and IT, and will not reimburse for POAM work.

8) Is it allowable for the Electronic Data Management System (EDMS) to be a cloud based Software as a Service (SaaS) or Platform as a Service (PaaS) offering (e.g. Dropbox)?

Cloud Providers should be FedRamp certified. Furthermore, if any sensitive information is stored within the system, it is usually best if the system provides encryption. Finally, if any respondent identifiable information will be stored on the system, anyone from the Cloud provider that may require access to the information to provide assistance would have to be willing to become agents under CIPSEA.

9) Section 2.2.0 mentions the Bureau of Labor Statistics IT Security Manual (ITSM). Since it cannot be made available as part of the RFP, could you describe how it differs from the NIST 800-53 moderate baseline and DOLCSH? What sort of security controls would the selected Contractor need to implement on top of NIST 800-53, which are found in the ITSM?

The BLS ITSM is specific agency guidance in support of the NIST 800-53 and the DOL CSH. The information is restricted access and as stated not made available within the RFP. No additional controls on top of 800-53 are required for the Contractor.

10) Security controls found in NIST 800-53 Appendix J (Privacy Controls) are not classified with the same Low/Moderate/High baseline classification as the controls found in Appendix G. Which of the Privacy Controls will the Contractor be required to implement as part of the "moderate" baseline specified in the contract?

It has been determined that the controls found in Appendix J fall entirely under BLS jurisdiction. Items where contractor input may be required (AR-5 for example) have become deliverables.

11) Section 1.4, general information, subsection 1.4.1, quality control, includes this sentence: “Three copies of a comprehensive written QCP shall be submitted to the CO and COR within 5 working days when changes are made thereafter.” This sentence seems to imply the submission of an initial quality control plan but no such deliverable is specified. In the absence of an initial plan, should we assume that submission of changes is unnecessary?

The contractor shall deliver a QCP to the Contracting Officer (CO) and Contracting Officer Representative (COR) within 30 calendar days of contract award. Thereafter, QCP shall be re-submitted in writing to the CO and COR within five (5) working days of when any changes are made. After Acceptance of the QCP, the contractor shall receive the CO’s acceptance in writing of any proposed changes.

A new deliverable will be created for the initial QCP.

12) Pg. 43 of the RFP includes the following sentence: “. and telephone interviews have been used to a lesser extent. The most recent round of the NLSY97 was conducted primarily by phone with a significant minority of cases requiring in-person outreach. Recent founds of the NLSY79 have used telephone as the primary mode of data collection, though some interviews are still conducted face-to-face. BLS is interested in exploring the use of other data collection modes, such as the Internet. Different modes of data collection can affect the financial cost of a survey, as well as the quality of data obtained from that survey.”

In order to budget the impact of alternative modes of communications and data collection can BLS indicate any anticipated restrictions on the following?

· Mass texting?

· Embedded URLs which include the project name in texts and emails?

· Including the project name in appointment setting websites?

· Using preloaded non-PII respondent information in web questionnaires if unique passwords are provided to respondents?

· Using preloaded PII respondent information in web questionnaires if unique passwords are provided to respondents?

· Naming the project in voicemails left on the cell phone or landline provided by the respondent as their main contact?

We removed this paragraph. While BLS currently cannot take advantage of different modes of collection given security and privacy concerns, that may change in the future. If those restrictions are removed, BLS will work with the vendor to update contract policy at that time. BLS cannot indicate at this time when there might be changes to the restrictions on the alternative modes of communications and data collection listed above.