Consolidated_Questions_for_Amendment_01_Posting.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 45 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Actuarial Techology Support Services (ATSS) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 16PBGC19R0007
- Issued by
- Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
About this file
This federal contract opportunity announcement solicits proposals for Actuarial Technology Support Services to support the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's Office of Information Technology. Interested parties must submit proposals in response to solicitation number 16PBGC19R0007 by the specified date. The single Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity contract awarded will have a base year of twelve months and nine option periods of twelve months each. Responsible sources must be registered in the System for Awards Management Database to be eligible. The specific objective of the contract is to provide support for actuarial technology systems including the Integrated Pension Insurance Modeling system and Benefit Calculation system. Services required include operations and maintenance, enhancements, and disposition activities. The anticipated award date is March 2019 and questions must be submitted by the date in Section L.5 of the RFP.
Questions and Responses - Amendment 01
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 20
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 | Section/ Attachment | Page # | PBGC Response | ||
| 1 | Please confirm that in the column titled "Unit" on the B.5 IDIQ Price Schedule, the number of hours or number of units is not requested. | Attachment B.5 IDIQ | The unit for each proposed labor category is "HR". The number of hours (number of units) is not requested. | |||
| 2 | For item 4.2.3.1 Tier 3 tickets data "30 calls/emails per month, 80 service desk tickets per month", is the 30 calls/emails included in the 80 service desk tickets per month? | Attachment C.2 | 17 | No | ||
| 3 | RFP and attachment C.2 doesn’t provide information regarding number of reports and dashboards developed in the IPFVB system. How many reports and dashboards are developed which are expected to be supported by the operations team? | Attachment C.2 | 7 | There are 260+ reports in BI Publisher and a handful of ASCII reports maintained and supported by O&M team. With the exception of a prototype dashboard created to demonstrate how the business might visualize the status of various tasks they perform during PBGC’s quarterly procedures, we do not have a dashboard. | ||
| 4 | It is understood that the IPFVB system collects data from multiple systems, including TAS, Form 5500, CMS. Where is the data transformation logic built into the application to match data from different sources? Is it build in the data extract layer? | Attachment C.2 | 6 | The data transformation logic resides in the data extract layer which is composed of ODI, EDQ, PL/SQL and Java. | ||
| 5 | How are the business rules are implemented to generate financial reports and to transform data. Are all the business rules hard coded in the application or configurable in the application? | Attachment C.2 | 6 | Business rules are implemented in Middle-tier (WebLogic using Java classes). The IPVFB valuation system supports the PBGC approach to valuation where most “pension plan provisions” are very static and are set by statute or regulation. Thus, PBGC does not have a requirement to expose all valuation “business rules” via a typical check box / drop down menu/entry-point coding approach. However, the IPVFB valuation is configurable via the Valuation Parameter screen (controls mortality tables [IPVFB supports 7 different types of mortality table – Male/ Male Healthy, Male Receiving Social Security, etc.], interest rates, expense assumptions, etc.) and the Valuation Inventory screen that controls which of the 5,000 plans terminated by PBGC will be included in the respective valuation. Any new / unique plan provision that PBGC opts to support (for example, plans with multiple benefit start dates instead of a single start date) would be addressed via IPVFB’s regularly scheduled system upgrades. | ||
| 6 | Attachment C.6. was provided with several rows filtered out and not shown. Please confirm that all rows, including hidden ones, are applicable. | Attachment C.6 | All 57 rows apply to the contract. No, the red font doesn’t carry any meaning. | |||
| 7 | Other than the criteria described for Key Personnel (p. 58-59), are there specific requirements for the various labor categories described attachment L.3.a? | Attachment L.3.a | No. Specific requirements are for the key personnel only. | |||
| 8 | The requested information for the crosswalk includes “# of FTE’s” and “# of Hours” in columns C and D respectively. It is not clear for what period these columns would cover nor does the RFP provide enough information to identify the appropriate number of resources or hours at the IDIQ level. Should these columns be left blank or removed? If not, please provide guidance. | Attachment L.3.a | Do not delete rows or columns. Fill in Column B for LCATs proposed at the IDIQ level. Fill in Column C and D, the number of FTEs and number of Hours, for the labor categories proposed for Task Order 1. Columns C and D should not be completed for labor categories proposed for inclusion in the IDIQ contract unless they are also proposed for Task Order 1. | |||
| 9 | Can offerors propose additional labor categories? Or can additional labor categories be approved at the Task Order level post-award of the IDIQ? | Attachment L.3.a | No. Offerors are to cross walk their labor categories to the closest standardized labor category in Attachment L.3.a. | |||
| 10 | Please confirm that subcontractors are not required to submit the information in Attachment L.3.b. (Proposed Labor Build Up). | Attachment L.3.b | Subcontractors are not required to submit the information requested in Attachment L.3.b. Attachment L.3.b pertains to the Prime Contractor labor build up for all labor rates proposed at the IDIQ contract level. The prime contractor's rates will be fixed at contract award. | |||
| 11 | If subcontractors are required to submit the information required in Attachment L.3.b. (Proposed Labor Build Up), can PBGC please permit subcontracts to submit this information directly to the PBGC Contracting Officer due to the sensitive nature of the information required in this attachment? | Attachment L.3.b | Subcontractors are not required to submit the information in Attachment L.3.b. | |||
| 12 | Is this Attachment L.3.b only used for showing the build up for Fixed Price Labor Rates? | Attachment L.3.b | All labor rates within the IDIQ will be fixed. Attachment L.3.b applies to the burdened labor rates proposed for each CLIN. | |||
| 13 | In Attachment L.3.b, is the template requesting the build up for each labor category by CLIN or is the Base/Option Year a better indicator? | Attachment L.3.b | Attachment L.3.b is requesting the burdened labor rate buildup for each labor category proposed under each CLIN for the base and all options. | |||
| 14 | In anticipation for subcontractor labor under a cost reimbursement type contract, where should offerors provide the methodology for calculating pricing for subcontracted positions? | Attachment L.3.b | PBGC is not requesting offerors to submit the methodology for calculating pricing for subcontracted positions. | |||
| 15 | For the Operations Lead key personnel function, would an additional 4 years of IT experience be considered as a substitute the a Bachelor’s degree requirement? | H.5 | 58 | No, a Bachelor's degree is required. | ||
| 16 | For the Actuarial Systems Developer, would the government consider a revision to the statement of “Expertise in Oracle, Java, and C# based applications” to “Expertise in Oracle, Java, and C++ based applications” because the current systems do not have C# listed as a technology? | H.5 | 59 | No | ||
| 17 | Since this is an IDIQ contract, will the Government clarify if the Key Personnel listed in this section are for the Task Order 1 or at the IDIQ level? | H.5 | 57 | The Key personnel listed in response to the Task Order are also expected to be at the IDIQ level. However, not all IDIQ key personnel may be applicable to each Task Order; this is for the offeror to decide based on the scope of work. | ||
| 18 | Would the government consider expanding the page limit on the Management approach to 10 pages in order to allow offerors to adequately and clearly address the section 4.1 of the PWS and Section L.2.3.3 (Evaluation Subfactor 3.3)? The Management Approach requirements described in the solicitation are comprehensive and five pages will not likely be sufficient to address all of them. | L.1.6.2 | 96 | No | ||
| 19 | Item 1 references Attachment L.3. Is that meant to be Attachment L.3.a ATSS Labor Category Crosswalk? | L.3.1 | 101 | Yes. L.3.1, paragraph 1 should reference L.3.a ATSS Labor Category Crosswalk. | ||
| 20 | Attachment B.5 Task Order doesn’t appear to have an Assumptions tab as mentioned in the RFP. Will the Government provide a template for this tab? | L.3.2 | 102 | Please add a tab to the spread sheet for assumptions. | ||
| 21 | Section F.2 states all work is to be performed at a PBGC site. However, Section L.3.2 Item c. requests "Fully burdened hourly rate (for both Government Site and contractor site) for each LCAT proposed for the task order CLIN." In addition, the pricing schedules, Labor Category Crosswalk, and Proposed Labor Buildup files are not set up for entry of both Government Site and Contractor site rates. Please confirm offerors are only to propose Government site rates for this IDIQ. | L.3.2 | 102 | Offerors should provide only government site rates. | ||
| 22 | Would PBGC provide an annual amount for Travel and ODCs to provide an accurate comparison of pricing for the Task Order that only focuses on each offeror’s labor category mix and prices? | L.3.2 | 102 | Leave this blank. PBGC will provide the amount for the travel at the time of award | ||
| 23 | Section L.3.2 Item g. states "Hourly rate discounts proposed for the task order, if applicable." However, the Attachment B.5 Task Order does not contain entry points for documenting discounts. Please confirm offerors are permitted to add columns to document their proposed discount per this requirement. | L.3.2 | 102 | Yes, new columns can be added at the end. Do not alter the existing columns | ||
| 24 | What is the weighting assigned to each one of the evaluation factors? | M.2 | 109 | As indicated in M.2, Technical Factors are in descending order of importance. Technical Factors (Factors 1-7), when taken together, are more important than Price. | ||
| 25 | In reference to Section H.5, due to the rarity of individuals with both Java and Microsoft .NET / C# expertise, would PBGC change the third bullet of Experience, Expertise, and Certifications for the Actuarial Systems Developer (page 59) to “Expertise in Oracle based and either Java or C# based applications”? | H.5 | No | |||
| 26 | Can you please elaborate on the definition of "Service Management software?" Is this referring to an application such as HP Service Manager or any applications that track progress, defects, status, etc.? | Solicitation_19R0007_rev_9122018.pdf | Last bullet in final Key Personnel Function | Service Management software refers to any applications/tools that track progress, defects, status, etc. | ||
| 27 | Can you clarify the scope of the phrase "Analyzing existing processes and recommending a risk-based actuarial framework for actuarial | |||||
| processes, including the annual and quarterly assumptions review?" Some assumptions analysis requires contractor assistance but much of the assumptions are set by the PBGC. Does this bullet point confirm that the scope of the role of contractors and assumption setting is increased relative to the current contract? | Attachment_C.2_ATSS_Environment_and_Requirements.pdf | First bullet in section 2.4.2 | PBGC envisions a more proactive approach to our assumption setting in the future such that we may utilize our contractor support as part of our assumption setting more extensively than we do in the current contract. As an example, we anticipate using contractor support to annually review and recommend assumption and method changes for PBGC consideration. | |||
| 28 | Should the reference to "2.4.1 ATSS Systems Unique Requirements" be "2.4 ATSS-Specific Requirements" (both on page 18 of document Attachment_C.2_ATSS_Environment_and_Requirements.pdf)? | Attachment_L.2.1_ATSS_Task_Order_1.pdf | Scope section, 2nd bullet point, 2nd item | Yes | ||
| 29 | Task Order 1 states that the beginning of the Period of Performance is "Est. beginning May, 2019", and the RFP lists the Period of Performance as "05/01/2019 to 04/30/2020" on page 2. But the FedBizOpps posting states that "The award date is anticipated to be March 2019". Which date (March or May) should be considered the start of the 60 day Transition-In process (which is activated by Task Order 1 and is described in Section 4.1.3.1 of the RFP as not to exceed "60 days after contract award")? This will affect the timing of staffing decisions, because the Performance Standards state in row 5 that "The service provider shall be 75% staffed no later than 30 days after the kickoff meeting and 100% staffed by 60 days.", and the Initial Project Kick-off Meeting is set to be "Five days after award" in section F.7 (page 44) of the RFP. | Attachment_L.2.1_ATSS_Task_Order_1.pdf | Period of Performance section | Start day of Transition in process is expected to begin 05/01/2019. | ||
| 30 | In the Performance Standards spreadsheet, 40 of the rows (rows 17-26, 28-36, and 38-58) contain content, but have a small row height that renders them not visible without manipulating the spreadsheet. Was the content of these rows intended to be included in the performance standards (resulting in 57 rows of standards), or were they intended to be deleted (resulting in 17 rows of standards)? | Attachment_C.6_Performance_Standards.xlsx | rows 17-26, 28-36, and 38-58 | All 57 rows apply to the contract. | ||
| 31 | What is the current volume of BCV and IPVFB software defects/issues per Quarter or Year | “C.2 ATSS Environment and Requirement” | IPVFB: 150 defects and stories combined per year. BCV: 20 defects per year | |||
| 32 | How many enhancements exist in the backlog and/or enhancement log | “C.2 ATSS Environment and Requirement” | The enhance items vary based on the scope of the work and PBGC priorities. IPVFB: 131 stories are existed in backlog. | |||
| 33 | What are the types of issues/risks tracked per system and applications | “C.2 ATSS Environment and Requirement” | We track the business Risks that are categorized by using one of the 19 OMB Risk Categories: | |||
| 1=Schedule | Risk associated with schedule slippages, either from lack of internal controls or those associated with late delivery by vendors, resulting in missed milestones. | |||||
| 2=Initial costs | Risk associated with “cost creep” or miscalculation of initial costs that result in an inaccurate baseline against which to estimate and compare future costs. | |||||
| 3=Life-cycle costs | Risk associated with misestimating life-cycle costs and exceeding forecasts, reliance on a small number of vendors without sufficient cost controls. | |||||
| 4=Technical obsolescence | Risk associated with technology that becomes obsolete before the completion of the life cycle and cannot provide the planned and desired functionality. | |||||
| 5=Feasibility | Risk that the proposed alternative fails to result in the desired technological outcomes; risk that business goals of the program or initiative will not be achieved; risk that the program effectiveness targeted by the project will not be achieved. | |||||
| 6=Reliability of systems | Risk associated with vulnerability/integrity of systems. | |||||
| 7=Dependencies and interoperability between this investment and others | Risk associated with interoperability between other investments; risk that interoperable systems will not achieve desired outcomes; risk of increased vulnerabilities between systems. | |||||
| 8=Surety (asset protection) considerations | Risk associated with the loss/misuse of data or information; risk of technical problems/failures with applications; risk associated with the security/vulnerability of systems. | |||||
| 9=Risk of creating a monopoly for future procurements | Risk associated with choosing an investment that depends on other technologies or applications that require future procurements to be from a particular vendor or supplier. | |||||
| 10=Capability of agency to manage the investment | Risk of financial management of investment, poor operational and technical controls, or reliance on vendors without appropriate cost, technical and operational controls; risk that business goals of the program or initiative will not be achieved; risk that the program effectiveness targeted by the project will not be achieved. | |||||
| 11=Overall risk of project failure | Risk that the project/investment will not result in the desired outcomes. | |||||
| 12=Organizational and change management | Risk associated with organizational-, agency-, or government-wide cultural resistance to change and standardization; risk associated with bypassing or lack of use or improper use or adherence to new systems and processes because of organizational structure and culture; inadequate training planning. | |||||
| 13=Business | Risk associated with business goals; risk that the proposed alternative fails to result in process efficiencies and streamlining; risk that business goals of the program or initiative will not be achieved; risk that the investment will not achieve operational goals; risk that the program effectiveness targeted by the project will not be achieved. | |||||
| 14=Data/info | Risk associated with the loss or misuse of data or information, risk of compromise of citizen or corporate privacy information; risk of increased burdens on citizens and businesses because of data collection requirements if the associated business processes or the project (being described in the Exhibit 300) requires access to data from other sources (federal, state, and/or local agencies). | |||||
| 15=Technology | Risk associated with immaturity of commercially available technology and reliance on a small number of vendors; risk of technical problems/failures with applications and their ability to provide planned and desired technical functionality. | |||||
| 16=Strategic | Risk associated with strategic/government-wide goals (i.e., President’s Management Agenda and eGov initiative goals); risk that the proposed alternative fails to result in the achievement of those goals or in making contributions to them. | |||||
| 17=Security | Risk associated with the security/vulnerability of systems, web sites, information and networks; risk of intrusions and connectivity to other (vulnerable) systems; risk associated with the evolution of credible threats; risk associated with the misuse (criminal/fraudulent) of information; must include level of risk (high, medium, basic) and what aspect of security determines the level of risk (e.g., need for confidentiality of information associated with the project/system, availability of the information or system, or reliability of the information or system). | |||||
| 18=Privacy | Risk associated with the vulnerability of information collected on individuals or risk of vulnerability of proprietary information on businesses. | |||||
| 19=Project resources | Risk associated with "cost creep," miscalculation of life-cycle costs, reliance on a small number of vendors without cost controls, or (poor) acquisition planning.ss, technology, etc. details. | |||||
| 34 | What is the average number of tickets/incidents per release, and how many tickets/incidents are outstanding/open | “C.2 ATSS Environment and Requirement” | Historically IPVFB has 120 calls/emails/tickets per quarter. There are no outstanding tickets at present for IPVFB. | |||
| 35 | What is the release schedule per system and applications | “C.2 ATSS Environment and Requirement” | We expect one to three releases based on priority per system (Task Order 1) | |||
| 36 | What is the expected uptime (e.g., 24 x 7, 9 x 5) requirement? Are there associated SLA’s for these requirements? | “C.2 ATSS Environment and Requirement” | We expect the systems to be up during core business hours of support | |||
| 37 | Does PBGC have any prioritization list of applications for automation/modernization | At present, PBGC is working on an approach for modernization of its applications. We do not have any additional information at this time. | ||||
| 38 | Can the government provide information on the data governance process for new and existing data to ensure quality? Is there a list of data quality issues that are impacting quality delivery of calculations | Refer to Enterprise Data Standard in Attachment_C.4.2.b_ITSLCM_Handbook_v3.0 them to EA data.pdf. The COR will work with the vendor to determine the LOE and implementation plan to address any data quality issues after the contract award. | ||||
| 39 | Approximately how many specific unique calculations are there | The IPVFB system contains over 12 major. Each major calculation contains a series of sub calculations (50+). Ultimately, the number of calculations is roughly equivalent the number of lines of code in the system. Please note, all calculations within IPVFB are completed using Generally Accepted Actuarial Principles (GAAP) and contain the necessary detail such that calculations are appropriate, valid, and auditable. | ||||
| 40 | For Factor 1, and Subfactors 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3, can the Government clarify if Appendices A though D should immediately follow their sections or be placed at the end of the Volume? | Solicitation L.1.6.2 | 96 of 114 | The Appendices should be separate standalone documents. | ||
| 41 | Can the Government clarify that 4.11.I. is a typo and should read 4.1.1.J since J covers Program Management Reviews? | Solicitation L.2.3.3 and M.3 | 99 of 114 and 111 of 114 | L.2.3.3 and M.3 refer to all of C.4.1.1 | ||
| 42 | Can the Government clarify that sections 4.2.1, 4.2.2, and 4.2.3 should be 4.3.1, 4.3.2, and 4.3.3? | Solicitation 4.3 | 36 of 114 | Yes | ||
| 43 | What is the Government’s estimated schedule for reaching their down select decision? | Solicitation L.2.7 Factor 7: Oral Presentations | 101 of 114 | The schedule cannot be determined at this time. | ||
| 44 | For the orals presentation, what media, if any, is the proposed orals presentation to be presented in? | Solicitation L.2.7 Factor 7: Oral Presentations | 101 of 114 | Those offerors selected will be provided detailed instructions at the time the oral presentation is scheduled. | ||
| 45 | Since the Work Breakdown Structure is an Excel file, can the Government confirm that it can be submitted as a separate Appendix B from the Technical Volume? | Solicitation L.1.6.2 and L.2.3.1 | 96 and 98 of 114 | Yes. All appendices are to be submitted separate documents. | ||
| 46 | Since the Proposed Staffing by Labor Category is an Excel file, can the Government confirm that it can be submitted as a separate Appendix C from the Technical Volume? | Solicitation L.1.6.2 and L.2.3.2 | 96 and 98 of 114 | Yes. All appendices are to be submitted separate documents. | ||
| 47 | The Schedule of Deliverables indicates that a Subcontracting Plan will be required Yearly – prior to exercise of option. Will the Government require a new or revised Subcontracting Plan every year or is referring to the Subcontracting Plan Report to be submitted semi-annually? | Solicitation F.7 Schedule of Deliverables | 43 of 114 | PBGC is referring to the Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS) as defined in FAR 52.219-9 subparagraphs (a) and (d)(10)(iv). | ||
| 48 | Can the Government please confirm that the Contracting Hours Report is only applicable for T&M, LH and CR type Task Orders? | Solicitation F.7 Schedule of Deliverables | 43 of 114 | Yes | ||
| 49 | 1) Would the Government consider revising this requirement so consent to subcontract is only required if a contractor does not have an approved purchasing system in accordance with FAR 52.244-2? | Solicitation H.3 Subcontracting and H.4 Contract Term and Renewal | H.3 paragraph 1 H.4 paragraph 2 | FAR 44.201-2 (b) states " even if the contractor has an approved purchasing system, 41 U.S.C. 3905 requires notification before the award of any cost-plus-fixed-fee subcontract, or any fixed-price subcontract that exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold or 5 percent of the total estimated cost of the contract. Alternate I to 52.244-2 implements this FAR requirement. | ||
| 50 | 2) Can additional subcontractors be submitted with Task Order proposals adding them as an approved vendor under the IDIQ with acceptance of the Task Order proposal? | Solicitation H.3 Subcontracting and H.4 Contract Term and Renewal | H.3 paragraph 1 H.4 paragraph 3 | Yes you can assuming compliance with the terms and conditions of 52.224-2 Alt I. | ||
| 51 | Is there a helpdesk number for the PBGC Secure Proposal site in case there are issues uploading the documents? | Solicitation L.1.2 Proposal Submission Instructions | 94 of 114 | General questions about the LeapFile can be addressed to the PBGC HelpDesk at 202-326-4000 extension 3999 | ||
| 52 | 1) How is Best Value determined during performance? 2) Can the Government please add a cure period and/or include a reference to FAR 49.4 Termination for Default to this clause? | Solicitation H.4 Contract Term and Renewal | 57 of 114 | Section H.4 page 57, this sentence has been revised to read as follows: Any task order not providing satisfactory past performance to the Government due to any issue(s) identified by the COR shall be addressed immediately and potentially lead to a TO and/or contract cancellation. | ||
| 53 | Can the Government specify what items are to be included in the configuration management plan and when it is to be delivered? | Solicitation 4.2.2.11 | 29 of 114 | It will be specified at the time of Project Planning in accordance to ITSLCM. | ||
| 54 | Can the Government provide the breakdown of tickets by priority? | Attachment C.2 | 17 of 19 | See Questions 34. | ||
| 55 | Can the government please confirm the total percentage for all small businesses across socio-economic categories listed is cumulative at 23% and not additive (23%+5%+5%+3%+3%) for a total of 39% across socio-economic categories? Can the government also confirm that the figure is based on subcontracted dollars, and not total contracted dollars? | Solicitation L.4 | 103 of 114 | The total for all categories of subcontracted dollars is 23% of the total contract value. The categories of subcontracting are not in addition to the 23%. | ||
| 56 | Would the Government provide years of experience and education requirements for the list of PBGC LCATS in attachment L.3.a? | Solicitation L.2.3.2 | 98 of 114 | No. This is up to the offerors to propose. | ||
| 57 | Can the Government confirm that the technology stack listed in the table is for the legacy BCV application or for the modernized BCV system? | Attachment C.2 2.3.2.1 | 14 of 19 | These technology details are for both. | ||
| 58 | Is this table a complete and updated list of software used to support IPVFB? For example, is Plumtree and SP2010 still being used? | Attachment C.2, 2.3.1.1 | 8 of 19 | We no longer use Plumtree | ||
| 59 | In order to allow time for vendors to adequately develop a solution, will the government please grant an extension of 1 week to the due date? | General Question | No | |||
| 60 | Should the vendor provide a PDF of the MS Excel WBS as Appendix B in the MS Word technical proposal as well as provide the actual MS Excel file or should we only provide the MS Excel file with the WBS as part of our submission and simply reference the file name in Appendix B of the MS Word technical proposal? | L.2.3.1 Subfactor 3.1: Technical Approach | Page 98 of 114 | All appendices are to be submitted separate documents. The WBS should be summitted in Excel. | ||
| 61 | This requirement states “Provide your management approach to satisfying PWS 4.1.1 Program Management and 4.1.2 Project Management. Discuss your approach to manage at the task order level, across task orders, and across contracts (if proposing on multiple contracts). – The reference to “proposing on multiple contracts” appears to be a carryover from PBGC’s original approach of released all IDIQs concurrently. Please clarify that is the case and that this reference is not relevant to this IDIQ submission. | Section L.2.3.3 Subfactor 3.3: Management Approach | Page 99 of 114 | Please delete the reference to , "and across contracts (if proposing on multiple contracts)" | ||
| 62 | Please confirm the sentence "Each of the five (5) contracts will be managed by a single COR within these divisions." is not relevant to this IDIQ submission. | Introduction | Page 11 of 114 | Please delete this text: Each of the five (5) contracts will be managed by a single COR within these divisions. | ||
| 63 | Please provide the type and number of software licenses needed to support the Task Order ATSS TO-01. | L.3.2 Task Order Pricing | Page 102 of 114 | For ATSS TO-01, the vendor is expected to maintain 50 software licenses for Agilecraft. PBGC is currently in the process of maintaining all licenses in a centralized location managed by PBGC Federal staff. The ATSS contractor may have to work with the COR to transfer the licenses to PBGC if needed or allow PBGC to purchase it upon expiration. | ||
| 64 | Please provide the estimated number and location of anticipated travel for Task Order ATSS TO-01. | L.3.2 Task Order Pricing | Page 102 of 114 | Travel related to this Task Order is not likely; however, a Task Order CLIN is established and will be funded to cover any travel that may be required. | ||
| 65 | In the table in Section L.1.6.2 "Volume I: Technical Proposal," Subfactor 4.4: Transition is listed under Factor 3: Response to Task Order Request. Can the government please confirm that Subfactor 4.4, Transition, should be numbered as Subfactor 3.4? | Technical Proposal Organization | Page 96 pf 114 | Yes | ||
| 66 | is there an incumbent contractor currently providing these services? If yes, who is it? | Yes. Aderas and Salient | ||||
| 67 | What will be the competition type for this opportunity? | Full and Open | ||||
| 68 | The RFP states “Provide at least three (3) Past Performance Profiles in the technical volume as prime and no more than two (2) for each subcontractor consistent with all task areas detailed in the PWS.” Will the Government clarify if there is a minimum number of past performance profiles required for each subcontractor? | L.2.6 Factor 6: Past Performance | 100 | No, there is no minimum number of past performance profiles required. | ||
| 69 | The RFP states “Provide at least three (3) Past Performance Profiles in the technical volume as prime and no more than two (2) for each subcontractor consistent with all task areas detailed in the PWS.” Will the Government clarify that the three past performance profiles required should be from the prime contractor performing similar work as a prime contractor? | L.2.6 Factor 6: Past Performance | 100 | Yes | ||
| 70 | In order to clearly demonstrate a commitment to quality and a true adequate accounting systems and practice, we suggest the government require all contractors to be Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) audited and approved for use. Being DCAA compliant ensures a company meets all the requirements of the government and has the financial strength and capacity to fulfill any government contract. Will the PBGC consider adding a requirement that all contractors must provide evidence that their accounting system(s) have been audited by the DCAA and approved for use? | L.3.3 Accounting System. The Offeror shall provide a copy of the Government approval/determination that its proposed accounting system is adequate for the identification and recording of cost under cost- reimbursable type contracts. | Section L.3.3 Accounting System has been revised as follows: The Offeror shall provide a copy of the Government approval/determination that its proposed accounting system is adequate for the identification and recording of cost under cost reimbursable type contract and has been audited by DCAA and approved for use. | |||
| 71 | Will the Government confirm whether a contractor is required to have fully executed teaming agreements with small businesses at the time of proposal submission to satisfy the requirements of the Small Business Participation requirement? | L.4 SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION | 103 | This is up the prime contractor. | ||
| 72 | The RFP states “c. A completed Attachment L.3 Labor Category Crosswalk that is consistent with Attachment L.2.1.2, Proposed Staffing by Labor Category, submitted as part of the technical proposal volume. PBGC Sample Labor Categories are provided to standardize the review of proposed staffing and labor rates across all offerors. Offerors shall select applicable PBGC sample labor categories that most closely match the proposed internal company labor categories and functions. Offerors are not required or encouraged to include all PBGC sample LCATs in their proposals. All LCATS the Offeror anticipates for future task orders must be identified within L.3 and included for each CLIN in Attachment B.5 IDIQ.” Will the Government clarify the IDIQ attachment B.5 requirement? Example "Project Manager at $101 and Project Manager $102" under the CPFF contract type. Should we provide Two Rates for the same LCATs in the IDIQ B.5 Attachment? | L.3.1 Factor 2: IDIQ Price Proposal | 102 | Attachment B.5 ATSS IDIQ Price Schedule has been revised to reflect burdened and unburdened labor rates for each labor category proposed for each CLIN. | ||
| 73 | What are the requirements of the IT Governance Coordination Board? Is this the same as the CCB described elsewhere in the solicitation or an additional Board? | H.12.d | 70 | The GCB ensures that all OIT policies, processes, standards and procedures are developed, coordinated and implemented using an integrated approach; are compliant with federal and PBGC policies; are auditable; and are reviewed for continuous improvement. The GCB is a different than the CCB. The Contractor is not expected to interact with the GCB; rather, the Contractor is expected to comply with all OIT policies, processes, standards and procedures approved by the GCB | ||
| 74 | What services need to be provided by a JAB-Certified CSP? | H.13.b.1 | 70 | At this time there isn’t a need for these services but if there is a future need for managed services (cloud based), a bilateral modification will be executed. | ||
| 75 | Are the builds of all the components the same across all desktop deployments? Or, have some been modified to support specific plans, users, business needs, etc.? | Attachment C.2, Section 2.3.2 | 9 | BCV Desktop Application build will be same across all desktop deployments. The usage is based on the user role, plan and business needs. | ||
| 76 | Are the tools modified from time to time to support the specifics of new plans as they enter the system | Attachment C.2, Section 2.3.2 | 10 | Based on the business case demand BCV Applications will be modified. In general, historically, these have been addressed twice a year. | ||
| 77 | 4.2.3.3 indicates there are 80 DevOps patches per year. Is the Contractor responsible for installing patches in the lower environments, testing, and documenting a deployment plan for the Infrastructure Team to follow when deploying to the upper environments? If not, please clarify Contractor's responsibilities | Attachment C.2, Section 2.3.3 | 17 | Yes, the contractor is responsible for installing patches in the lower environments, testing, and documenting a deployment plan for the Infrastructure Team to follow when deploying to the upper environments. | ||
| 78 | Will the Contractor have access to monitor performance of the systems covered by this standard in the production environment? | Attachment C.6 | Standard 4 | The Government and contractor will jointly identify the methods to which this standard will be gauged. | ||
| 79 | This requirement seems to indicate that if the contract price is higher in any option year than in the base year, the Contractor will fail this performance standard. Please confirm or clarify. | Attachment C.6 | Standard 4 | The expectation is for vendors to bring efficiencies in System Operations & Maintenance that will negate inflation costs. The words "O&M" will be added before "cost". See the revised Attachment C.6. | ||
| post revised Attachment C.6 | ||||||
| 80 | The last bullet indicates that Section 2.4.1 of Section C.2 IT Environment and Unique Requirements is in scope. Section 2.4.1 includes hours of service for both IPVFB and BCV. Should this be updated to indicate that BCV is not included? | Attachment L.2.1 | Scope | Task Order 1 will only address IPVFB support. The correct reference is 2.4. Please see revised Attachment L.2.1 TO 1 | PD to post Revised Attachment L.2.1 | |
| 81 | Please provide information on the IPVFB application and the nine BCV components to help us understand the size and complexity, including the following: | Attachment C.2 | IPVFB and BCV Systems information is provided below by each category. Note: BCV is not in Scope for TO 1. At present BCV is a Client/Server System; we are providing details based on it's present state. | |||
| 82 | * Lines of code | Attachment C.2 | IPVFB contains a total of ~ 350k lines of code (PL/SQL ~ 18,200; Java ~ 155k; EDQ ~50k; ODI ~50k; and BI Publisher (SQL in data models) ~75k). |
BCV Client Applications: "ACT-Runtime - approximately 41,000 lines of code" , "ACT-Design – approximately 8,000 lines of code", "ACT-ValTool - approximately 30,000 lines of code", "ACT-DRS - approximately 25,000 lines of code", "ADT - approximately 20,000 lines of code", "Archive Access – approximately 7,500 lines of code" ,"Archive Utility - approximately 12,000 lines of code", "ATPBGC – approximately 38,000 lines of code", "Leo – approximately 186,000 lines of code", BCV Web Based Applications: "Batch PACS – approximately 48,000 lines of code", "PACS – approximately 300,000 lines of code"
| 83 | * Number of database tables | Attachment C.2 | 419 DB tables for IPVFB. For BCV, ~30 Oracle Tables, and ~700 Access Tables | ||
| 84 | * Number of stored procedures | Attachment C.2 | 41 stored procedures for IPVFB. For BCV there are ~6 oracle stored procedures and several complex queries in Access application. | ||
| 85 | * Number of ETL routines | Attachment C.2 | 10 ETL routines for IPVFB. | ||
| 86 | * Number of test cases | Attachment C.2 | ~700 test cases for IPVFB. ~370 test cases for BCV | ||
| 87 | * Number of requirements | Attachment C.2 | The number of requirements for IPVFB is 1000+ . The number of requirements for BCV (Including Leo) are 900+ | ||
| 88 | Are there security findings, material weaknesses, OIG audit findings, or POAMs on IPVFB and BCV? If so, will resolving them be part of the work under this contract? | General | There are no major security findings, material weaknesses, OIG audit findings, or POAMs on IPVFB and BCV. IPVFB had findings (~7) that were recently submitted for closure. Yes, resolving security findings will be part of the work under this contract. | ||
| 89 | The sections reference “Section C.2 – Systems Data Table”. We were unable to locate this section in the RFP. Please clarify. | RFP Section 4.2.3.1, Section 4.2.3.3, Section 4.2.3.6 and Section 4.2.3.9 | Page 32 of 114, Page 33 of 114, Page 35 of 114 | The Systems Data table is located in Section C.2, which is Attachment C.2 – Section 2.3.3. | |
| 90 | Deliverable for Section 4.2.2.2 references an “Attachment B”. We could not locate “Attachment B”. Please clarify. | Section F.7 – Schedule of Deliverables | 44 of 114 | Delete the reference to (Attachment B). See revised Section F.7 | PD to post revised section F. |
| 91 | In Section L.1.6.2, the organization of Volume 1- Technical proposal does not prescribe a section or appendix for a PWS under Factor 3. Is a PWS needed for Task Order 1 as a part of this proposal submission? If yes, please provide page limitation details. | Section G.2 – TO Proposals, Section L.1.6.2 | Page 49 and 96 | See Attachment L.2.1 Task Order 1 - Amd 1, Scope, for the relevant sections of the IDIQ PWS that apply to Task Order 1. A revised L.2.1 is included. | PD to post revised Attachment L.2.1 TO 1 |
| 92 | The last line in this section references “Attachment L.2.3.2 Proposed Staffing by Labor Category”. This attachment cannot be located. Does the Government mean “Attachment L.2.1.2 Proposed Staffing by Labor Category”? Note: “Attachment L.2.1.2” is referenced in L.3.1 of the RFP. | Section L.2.3.2 Subfactor 3.2: Staffing Approach | 98 of 114 | Yes, Attachment L.2.1.2 is the appropriate reference for section L.2.3.2 Staffing Approach. In Section L.3.1 IDIQ Price Proposal, the appropriate reference is L.3.a LCAT Crosswalk. | |
| 93 | The section on Program Management Reviews references Section 4.11.1. Should it be 4.1.1? | Section L.2.3.3 Subfactor 3.3:Management Approach | 99 of 114 | Yes. | |
| 94 | The section on Quality Control Plan references the term “QAP”. Given that the contents of a QCP and a QAP are different, can the Government confirm that it is looking for a QCP that addresses the topics in the Section titled “Quality Control Plan”. | Section L.2.3.3 Subfactor 3.3: Management Approach | 99 of 114 | Yes; replace QAP with QCP. | |
| 95 | We request that the 10 page limit be removed for Appendix D: Draft Quality Control Plan | Section L1.6.2 Volume 1 Technical Proposal | 96 of 114 | The 10 page limit for the Draft Quality Control Plan is unchanged. | |
| 96 | This section mentions “consistent with those in Attachment L.3”. We are unable to locate Attachment L.3 in the list of attachments. Is the reference to the PBGC Sample Labor Categories in Attachment L.3.a? Please clarify. | Section L.3.1 IDIQ Price Proposal | 101 of 114 | Yes, attachment L.3.a is the correct reference in paragraph 1) and paragraph c. | |
| 97 | “…for the Base and all Option Periods for each contract proposed (Attachment B.5 IDIQ)”. Please clarify the term “each contract proposed”. Does the Government intend to award more than one contract as a part of this solicitation | Section L.3.1 IDIQ Price Proposal | 101 of 114 | The government intends to award 1 contract. Please delete the text 'for all contracts proposed'. | |
| 98 | Given that the list of enhancements that may be required to the system(s) for each of the contract years in not specified/will be decided during the course of the contract, Please confirm that the offerers are not required to price CLIN 0005 “Enhancement Services” (and 1005, 2005, 3005, etc. through 9005) as a part of this proposal submission. | Section L.3.2 Task Order Pricing Proposal AND Attachment_B.5_ATSS_TO_1_Price_Schedule | 102 of 114, | Offerors are not required to provide pricing for CLINs 0005, 1005, 2004, 23005, 4005, 5005, 6005, 7005, 8005 or 9004. These CLINs will be funded on an as needed basis. | |
| 99 | Bullet point 1.f requires us to document the assumptions in the “Task Order Assumptions” tab. Since this tab does not exist in the Excel file, can the offerer create the tab and document the assumptions in it? | Section L.3.2 Task Order Pricing Proposal Bullet point 1.f requires us to document the assumptions in the “Task Order Assumptions” tab and Attachment_B.5_ATSS_TO_1_Price_Schedule | 102 of 114 | Please add a tab to the spread sheet titled, 'Assumptions'. | |
| 100 | This section does not mention the requirement to complete Attachment L.3.a at the task order level. However, the header information on Attachment L.3.a mentions “Submit for the IDIQ response and for each Task Order response. Proposed Labor Categories and Loaded Rates shall be submitted for the IDIQ. All columns are required for the task order” Indicating that this attachment is required for the task order response. Please clarify. | Section L.3.2 Task Order Pricing Proposal Attachment L.3.a ATSS Labor Category Crosswalk | 102 of 114 | Attachment L.3.a applies to both the IDIQ and the TO; The LCATs proposed for the TO will include number of FTEs and number of hours proposed for each LCAT, whereas these columns will be left blank for the LCATs proposed for the IDIQ contract. | |
| 101 | When the file is opened, 17 performance requirements are displayed. However, the total number of requirements (including the hidden lines) are 57. Please confirm if the contractor will be evaluated for only for the 17 displayed requirements. If the answer is that all 57 performance requirements will be tracked for the performance standard, does the red color in line 34 signify anything. | Attachment C.6_Performance Standards | All 57 rows apply to the contract. The red font doesn’t carry any meaning. | ||
| 102 | Certain system features such as response times, usability, etc. may be outside the control of the contractor as it the issues could be related to network or infrastructure issues, etc. Will the Government consider these factors when evaluating the performance standard? | Attachment C.6_Performance Standards, Performance Requirement in Excel Line 19 | Yes. | ||
| 103 | This performance requirement is best suited to new functionality/enhancement/modernization efforts and not maintenance releases that do not involve User Experience modification of existing systems. Does this performance standard requirement apply to maintenance releases? | Attachment C.6_Performance Standards, Performance Requirement in Excel Line 20 –“Is the system user friendly, adequate hints built in the application, Proper error message displayed.” | Yes. | ||
| 104 | Are all tools licensed and paid for by PBGC or should any license costs be included in the contractor response? | Attachment C.2 Environment and Requirements, C.2.3.1.1, IPVFB Technology Stack | 8 | These cost are not the contractor's responsibility and should not be in the proposal. | |
| 105 | Which other browser support will be required by IPVFB/BCV other than Internet Explorer? | Attachment C.2 Environment and Requirements, C.2.3.1.1, IPVFB Technology Stack | 8 | At minimum Chrome, IE and Edge needed to be supported. | |
| 106 | There is reference to a modernized BCV system architecture using Oracle, .Net, Sharepoint, and MS Office. Is there a modernization effort already underway for this system? If not given the outdated technology of the BCV system, is it foreseen that a technology modernization shall be required under the contract? | Attachment C.2 Environment and Requirements, C.2.3.2, BCV | 13 | BCV is not within the TO 1 scope. | |
| 107 | Are all tools licensed and paid for by PBGC or should any license costs be included in the contractor response? | Attachment C.2 Environment and Requirements, C.2.3.2.1, BCV Technology Stack | 14 | Yes, all tool licenses are paid for by PBGC except for Agilecraft license, which will be reimbursed to vendor through ODC's. PBGC is currently in the process of maintaining all licenses in a centralized location managed by PBGC Federal staff. The ATSS vendor may have to work with the COR to transfer the licenses to PBGC if needed or allow PBGC to purchase. | |
| 108 | There is a reference to Tier 3 on-call availability. Is this 24 hour, 7 day/week support or something less? What is the required SLA for Tier 3 events and is this broken out by severity? | Attachment C.2 Environment and Requirements C.2.4.1, Hours of Support | 18 | Tier 3 Support is required during core business hours. Please refer to the System Performance Requirement 'Response time to SD tickets' for SLA. | |
| 109 | The Task Order indicates ODCs are included, if applicable, and the pricing schedule has a place holder for the Base Year and each option year. Can PBGC provide guidance on the budget amount that should be included? What software might be considered and which year the software would be targeted? Number of trips per year are expected to COOP or FBA sites? | Attachment_B.5_ATSS_TO_1_Price_Schedule, Other Direct Cost and Travel | 1 | PBGC will determine the ODC funding at the time of award. Vendor can consider 50 licenses for Agilecraft in their budget which will be reimbursed through ODC. No trips to FBA sites are expected and 1-2 trips to the COOP sites (local travel) is expected. Local travel is not reimbursed by the government. | |
| 110 | Please confirm that the header should be relabeled "ATSS" | Attachment_B.5_ATSS_TO_1_Price_Schedule, TO RMEW | 1 | Yes | |
| 111 | Without enhancement scope or insight into the enhancement product backlog , establishing an NTE $ total would likely be inaccurate (0005B). What is the volume and relative LOE of the current enhancement backlog? | Attachment_B.5_ATSS_TO_1_Price_Schedule, TO RMEW | 1 | Enhancement CLIN is not to be priced, See Attachment B.5 TO 1 Price Schedule | |
| 112 | Does PBGC expect to require Disposition Services each year for both BCV and IPVFB program areas? If not, can PBGC provide guidance or roadmap for Disposition Services scope for the Base year through Option year 9? | Attachment_B.5_ATSS_TO_1_Price_Schedule | Option Years | BCV is not included in TO1. Disposition services are not expected for IPVFB as it was recently modernized. | |
| 113 | Should the respondee assume that BCV will remain out of scope for the TO1 option years? If not, what option year is expected to include BCV? | Attachment_B.5_ATSS_TO_1_Price_Schedule | Option Years | TO 1 is for IPVFB only. BCV inclusion will be determined in the future | |
| 114 | Given that modernization activities could be substantial consisting of replacing an entire application, shall the contractor presume for pricing purposes that such activities would be scoped and prioritized against the regular O&M activities so that the existing team could complete or will possible future modernization be accommodated/priced through a future RFTOP? | 4, Scope | 17 | Modernization is in scope of the IDIQ. It is not in the scope of the TO 1. | |
| 115 | Do the systems and applications have current and accurate documentation which will be maintained through transition? Are there any process/procedure/SOP documents that will need to be created/drafted from scratch? | 4.1.2.5, 4.1.2.5 System Documentation and Documentation Maintenance | 20 | Yes, the systems and applications have current and accurate documentation that will be maintained through transition. There is no need to create process/procedure/SOP documents from scratch. | |
| 116 | Are the Transition In/Out time periods in addition to the term of the contract? | 4.1.3 Transition Support | 21 | No. | |
| 117 | Is this section possibly mis-numbered as it is contained within Section 4.3? May affect 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 as well. | 4.2.1, Business Process Automation/Re-engineering | 28 | No the sections are not mis-numbered. Business process automation/re-engineering can be a 4.2 requirement and a 4.3 requirement. | |
| 118 | What is the estimated annual frequency of small efforts? | Solicitation_19R0007_rev_9122108.pdf, 4.2.1.2, AA and Feasibility studies | 14 | Government anticipate one to two per year | |
| 119 | what is the estimated annual frequency of larger analysis efforts? | Solicitation_19R0007_rev_9122108.pdf, 4.2.1.2, AA and Feasibility studies | 14 | Government anticipate one to two per year | |
| 120 | What is the estimated annual frequency of EAD BNA data calls? | Solicitation_19R0007_rev_9122108.pdf, 4.2.1.2, Business Needs Analysis | 14 | Government anticipate one to two per year | |
| 121 | States contractor must be versed in wide variety of SDLC methodologies. Is the contractor able to propose a specific proven and appropriate approach for the scope in its performance of the SDLC activities or must the contractor utilize the existing methodology employed for a given system/group at PBGC? | Solicitation_19R0007_rev_9122108.pdf, 4.2.2, Execution Services: Modernization, Enhancement and Maintenance | 24 | Offerors may propose innovative and cost effective solutions | |
| 122 | Do these backlog items represent desired enhancements; if not, what do they represent? | Solicitation_19R0007_rev_9122108.pdf, 4.2.2.10 , Demand and Backlog Mgmt. - "A. Collect and maintain backlog items for system changes." | 21 | Yes, in addition to bug fixes, audit findings, user requests etc. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .