Amendment_01_Questions_and_Responses_Posting.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 27 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Risk Management Early Warning & eFiling Support Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 16PBGC19R0005
- Issued by
- Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
About this file
This document contains questions and responses related to a solicitation for Risk Management Early Warning and eFiling Support services. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) seeks to issue a single Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity contract for these services to support the Office of Information Technology. The base period is eight months with nine one-year option periods. Booz Allen Hamilton is the incumbent contractor. Responses clarify that the small business goals are based on total contract dollars, provide the start date for the period of performance, and explain the purpose of various pricing attachments. Off-site work requires advance approval, and experience with Mitratech products remains a requirement.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 18
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
Sheet1
| No. | Question | RFP Section/Attachment | Page # | PBGC Response |
| 1 | Will the government please clarify whether the small business goals specified in section L.4 are based on a percentage of the total dollars allocated to subcontractors or on a percentage of the total dollar amount funded to the contract. | L.4 SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION (VOLUME III) | Page 94 | The offeror's small business goals are a percentage of the total contract dollars. |
| 2 | On Page 2 of the RFP, the Period of Performance is identified as 6/1/2019. On Attachment L in section 2.1, the Period of Performance is estimated to begin on 5/24/2019. Which date should be used for the Period of Performance start date for proposal submission? | SF-33 and Attachment L 2.1 | 2 | June 1 is the start transition date. Please see revised Attachment L.2.1 Task Order |
| 3 | In Attachment B .5 RMEW IDIQ Price Schedule, there are line items for Firm Fixed Price (FFP), Time and Material/Labor Hour (T&M/LH), and Cost Reimbursement (CR). However, the Labor Category (LCAT) column is greyed out for them all. Below the CR line is where an example LCATs is listed for Program Manager. Can PBGC clarify what is being requested in this Price Schedule? Since pricing for the IDIQ itself will be covered throught the rate card proposed in Attachment L.3.a RMEW Labor Category Crosswalk, please clarify the purpose of Attachment B.5. | B.5 | N/A - Excel Spreadsheet | The labor category column for each sub line item is greyed out because PBGC is not requesting the Offeror to proposed LCATs at the subCLIN level. LCATs should be proposed at the CLIN level. There are no rates requested in Attachment L.3.a. Attachment B.5 becomes the Price Schedule for the contract. | |
| 4 | In Attachment B.5 RMEW IDIQ Price Schedule, Burdened Hourly Rate and Unburdened Hourly Rate are requested. For IDIQ rate cards, as with standard GSA schedules, rates are not distinguished between Burdened and Unburdened. Can PBGC remove this requirement from the RFP? | B.5 | N/A - Excel Spreadsheet | Both rates are required. Unburdened rates are required for potential Cost-type tasks orders. Burdened rates are required for labor hour-type task orders. | |
| 5 | Attachment L.3.b is requested for the IDIQ LCAT rate build up. However, the information requested (Fringe Benefits %, Overhead %, G&A %, and Profit Associated with Labor %) is not normally provided. Since no resources are being priced for the IDIQ (only for Task Order 1), profit is not calculated until resources are mapped to LCATs and priced for an awardable Task Order. Can PBGC clarify the purpose of Attachment L.3.b and if it can be removed from the RFP requirements? | L.3.b | N/A - Excel Spreadsheet | The unburdened (raw) labor rate is the basic gross compensation you pay your workers for services rendered. Your burdened labor rate includes all the costs connected with hiring those workers i.e. holidays and PTO, besides gross wages and salaries. This will give a better idea of what your actual and proposed costs are for doing business are per Labor Category. | |
| 6 | Does this solicitation have any small business socio-economic set asides or is it full and open? | SF33 Cover | 1 | This is a full and open competition. | |
| 7 | What is the NAICS code and size standard for this solicitation? | SF33 Cover | 1 | The NAICS code is posted on the FBO notice page: 541611 Administrative and General Management Consulting Services. | |
| 8 | Is this solicitation being released under an existing contract vehicle (i.e. GSA)? | SF33 Cover | 1 | No. | |
| 9 | Who is the incumbent for this contract? Is the incumbent eligible to prime this solicitation? | 4.1.3 | 14 | Booz Allen Hamilton is the incumbent contractor and supported by subcontractors including Duff & Phelps. Yes; the current incumbent is allowed to propose as prime. | |
| 10 | What is the current FTE level support for the incumbent support by task area? | 4.1.3 | 14 | Offerors should propose FTE staffing in accordance with their technical approach. | |
| 11 | How many on-site seats will be available for this contractor support? | F.2 | 14 | The Government will provide on-site seats for all proposed contractor staff. | |
| 12 | Will the Government consider providing an Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) for their estimate of FTE hours by task area to prevent a low bidder from undercutting the current level of support? | H.5 | 14 | See Question/Answer 10 | |
| 13 | Does the scope of this contract include Enterprise Architecture support or interacting with the EA Division (EAD)? | 4.2.1.1 | 15 | The scope of this effort includes interacting with the EA Division but does NOT include support for the EA Division. The scope includes providing information regarding RMEW program technology to EA, interfacing with EA to introduce or update RMEW technologies on the Technical Reference Model (TRM), participating in interviews as SMEs for EA initiatives and keeping current some system specific EA artifacts such as the RMEW data models. | |
| 14 | We EA modeling tool(s) are currently being utilized? | 4.2.1.1 | 15 | The tool currently used by the EA Division is Troux. | |
| 15 | Is there currently an existing authoritative IT Investment Management process in place? What is the maturity of the process? | 4.2.1.2 | 15 | Yes. PBGC follows an investment management process with an IT Portfolio Review Board (ITPRB). Annual reviews and regular monitoring of investment performance are conducted. The ITPRB has been in place for several years and is operating at an average level of maturity. | |
| 16 | What tool(s) are currently being utilized for Configuration Management? | 4.2.2.11 | 22 | PVCS, HP ALM | |
| 17 | Is the TRB an established mature board/process? | 4.2.2.12 | 23 | Yes | |
| 18 | What tool(s) are currently being utilized for data modeling? | 4.2.2.13 | 23 | Erwin | |
| 19 | What tool(s) are currently being utilized for BPR? | 4.3.1 | 29 | No established or standard toolsets are being used. | |
| 20 | Under Corporate Experience, PBGC wants experience in Mitratech's Team connect. Does the prime need to have that experience or is it acceptable if Mitratech's Team Connect experience is offered by one of the team members? | M.3 Factor 2 | 99 | The corporate and staff technical experience can be met by any member of the proposed team as long as that experience meets the stated requirements. | |
| 21 | How many contractors are currently performing the tasks under this PWS and who they are? | 4.1.3.1 | 22 | Please see Question/Answer 9 | |
| 22 | Can PBGC provide the current # FTE under different labor categories supporting the PWS 4.2.2 ITSLCM Execution Service for Enhancement and Maintenance and 4.2.3 ITSLCM Operations and Disposition Services? | L.3.1 | 90 | See Question/Answer 10 | |
| 23 | The section mentions Attachment L.2.3.2 but there is no such attachment. Did PBGC mean L.1.2.2? | L.3.1 | 90 | The attachment referenced in L.2.3.2 (Factor 3.2) should be Attachment L.2.1.2, Proposed Staffing rather than L.2.3.2. The attachment is referenced correctly in L.3.1. The labor categories just need to be consistent between the proposed staffing in the technical proposal and the labor categories provided in the pricing proposal. | |
| 24 | Are Joint Ventures allowed? If a offerors does an unpopulated Join Venture and one of the JV partners have Metrotech experience, will that count as the Corporate experience of the offeror | M.3 Factor 2 | 99 | JVs are permitted as defined by the FAR; Also see Question/Answer 20. | |
| 25 | Section B.2 Type of Contract lists "Incentive" as a type of Task Order contract. However, neither Section F.6 Contract Type (page 44 of 103) nor Section G.2 Ordering Procedures (page 50 of 103) list Incentive as a type of Task Order. Should Incentive be included in Section F.6 and Section G.2? If so, please provide detail on what Incentive includes. if not, should Incentive be removed from Section B.2? | B.2 Type of Contract | 6 of 103 | FAR Subpart 16.4 gives the contracting officer the ability to include two categories of incentive contracts, Fixed Price and Cost-Reimbursement incentive contracts (which are part of the IDIQ structure) these will be determined at the task level and in accordance with the best interest of the government. Far 16.401 (e)(1) defines the types to be utilized as Award-fee, Far 16(402)1 Lists Cost Incentive types of contracts Far 16(402)2 List Performance Incentives which includes (c) Technical performance incentives (e) Lists performance tests and/or assessments of work performance and Far 16 403 List Delivery Incentives. Again these are utilized by the Contracting Officer as the Task Orders necessitate. | |
| 26 | How many Tier 3 support tickets should the contractor expect to receive per year, on average? Of those tickets, how many are related to data quality versus application issues? | Section 4.2.3.1. Tier-3 Technical and Operations Support | 33 of 103 | On average there are approximately 396 tickets per year. 120 can be attributed to data (queries, updates, changes) and approximately 60 related to application software/hardware issues. The remaining tickets are associated with investigative/training requests from users. | |
| 27 | Has the prior contract COR approved off-site work under the incumbent's contract? If yes, could PBGC please explain what was approved? | F.2 Place of Performance | 43 of 103 | Under this contract, all work is to be performed at a PBGC site. Any work anticipated to be performed at a non-PBGC site, including to meet project schedules or deadlines, must be requested in advance in writing by the Contractor, and agreed to by the Contracting Officer Representative (COR). The Contractor shall schedule and attend meetings and present documents at the PBGC site unless agreed to in advance by the COR. Whether work is performed at the PBGC site or non-PBGC site, the Contractor will utilize PBGC provided PBGC equipment and access, and the Contractor will maintain all PBGC deliverables and work products on the PBGC network exclusively. | |
| 28 | Will PBGC allow for off-site non-key Sustainment/Maintenance support? | F.2 Place of Performance | 43 of 103 | See Question/Answer 27 | |
| 29 | Table F.7 Schedule of Deliverables, section 4.1.1 Deliverable Description Quality Assurance Plan states for the frequency "Monthly during OY 1. Quarterly in the out years". Should this state monthly during Base Year instead of OY 1? | F.7 Schedule of Deliverables | 44 of 103 | Yes, Monthly review for Base Year and OY 1. Then quarterly in the out years starting with OY2. Section F of the solicitation has been revised in Amendment 01. | |
| 30 | In an effort to enhance competition and to minimize the appearance this solicitation is targeted for the incumbent contractor, would PBGC consider removing the requirement for the key technical staff member to have experience with “Mitratech” software products and the “TeamConnect” software platform; [OR allow potential competitors’ to propose key technical staff members who have experience with similar products?] This restrictive requirement gives the incumbent an unfair competitive advantage. By removing this requirement (or changing it to require less specific/broader experience with the products) PBGC will level the competitive playing field and potentially generate more competition which will most likely allow for a wider selection of solutions—all to the benefit of PBGC. | H.5 Key Personnel Functions | 59 of 103 | The requirement for experience with Mitratech products will remain. The core solution for RMEW is based on a commercially accessible MitraTech COTS solution widely available in the marketplace. Experience with MitraTech products is not exclusive to PBGC nor the incumbent and is key to the successful performance of this work. | |
| 31 | Section L.2.6 Factor 6: Past Performance on page 92 of 103 and Section Factor 6: Past Performance on page 102 of 103 seem to disagree on the number of past performance profiles required. Page 92 states that offerors provide at least 3 as prime and no more than 2 for each subcontractor. However, page 102 states that in the event an offeror submits more than 3 references, it is the Government's prerogative as to which 3 will be evaluated. Could PBGC please clarify this discrepancy? | L.2.6 Factor 6: Past Performance; | |||
| Factor 6: Past Performance | 92 of 103; | ||||
| 102 of 103 | There is no discrepancy. The offeror is the prime contractor. Page 102 refers to the offeror's (Prime Contractor) 3 references. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .