V.3_Questions_and_Responses_for_16PBGC19R0009_Enterprise_eDiscovery_Tool_Services.pdf

V.3 Questions and Responses for 16PBGC19R0009 Enterprise eDiscovery Tool Services

1) The pricing tables do not allow for tiered pricing for Document/Case Preprocessing and Ingestion into Relativity (CLIN X002). Would the government consider adding tiers (e.g.

0-50 GB, 50.1-250 GB, and +250 GB) which will enable significant cost savings that can be provided to the government as quantities increase and efficiencies of scale can be realized? Reference: Supplies and Services or Price/Costs, Section 2 Pricing Schedule, Pages 5-9

Response: PBGC will add a tiered pricing structure to several of the original CLINs.

The Pricing Schedule will be amended. An amended solicitation will be posted to FBO.gov. The closing date for response will be extended.

2) The pricing tables do not allow for tiered pricing for Data Hosting (CLIN X003). Would the government consider adding tiers (e.g. Up to 500 GB hosted per month, 500.1-1,000 GB hosted per month, and 1,000.1+ GB hosted per month) which will enable significant cost savings that can be provided to the government as quantities increase and efficiencies of scale can be realized? Reference: Supplies and Services or Price/Costs, Section 2 Pricing Schedule, Pages 5-9

Response: See the response to question number 1.

3) The pricing tables do not allow for monthly billing for User Licensing (CLIN X001).

Would the government consider making these monthly units which will enable significant cost savings that can be provided to the government by allowing for variability on pricing based on usage? Reference: Supplies and Services or Price/Costs,

4) The pricing tables do not allow for monthly billing for Data Hosting (CLIN X003).

Would the government consider making these monthly units which will enable significant cost savings that can be provided to the government by allowing for variability on pricing based on usage? Reference: Supplies and Services or Price/Costs,

5) Upload of load-ready data versus raw data and self-service capability -- General Description of Supplies or Services and Price/Cost (page 5), and Section 2.0:

Background and Introduction (page 12) Both “secure upload of documents” and “ingestion support or intake of raw or structured documents into a case” are outlined. Are these distinct functions, such as upload of loading-ready third party data versus upload of raw data that requires processing for text and metadata extraction? If so, does the former case in particular (“secure upload of documents”) require full self-service functionality?

In other words, is PBGC requesting that in-house personnel be able to load third party load-formatted data directly into the hosting environment?

Response: These are outlined as distinct functions: the secure upload of documents, which could include both raw or structured (read “loading-ready”) material, and subsequent ingestion into a case (in a discovery review system). The first must originate in-house; the second should at least be supported by the solution via ingestion support (read “vendor-assisted intake process”). A solution can also allow for in-house “full self-service” of ingestion, but this is not required by the SOW.

6) Multi-factor authentication via soft versus hard tokens General Description of

Supplies or Services and Price/Cost (page 5), Section 2.0: Background and Introduction (page 12), Section 2.1: Objective (page 12), and Requirements A5, A5.1, A5.2 (pages 15-16) A request is made for “multi-factor secure logins that can be tied to HSPD-12 PIV credentials”. Section 2.1 further notes that “alternate second factors such as tokens for any non-government employee user” are acceptable. Is there a preference on whether multi-factor authentication is provided using hard or soft authentication tokens? Do PBGC security and support protocols allow for the use of both options or just one? Is there a preference or directive for non-PBGC users? Note that this affects the pricing structure for user licensing and therefore impacts the Firm Fixed Pricing that we are able to provide.

Response: PBGC security and support protocols do allow for the use of both options (i.e. the use of HSPD-12 PIV credentials and also hard or soft authentication tokens)

– so this is not a limit to the solution. However, there is a preference for use of the issued PIV credentials for government employees. A non-governmental user would not have a PIV credential and therefore would require an alternate authentication method, but there are no non-PBGC users at this time and therefore this support would be optional in a solution.

7) Software integration expectations About PBGC Discovery and Electronic Discovery

Needs (page 12) The RFP states “The OGC uses its internal business support systems (such as Microsoft Office 365) and its federal systems of record (SORs) to manage its Information Governance, Identification, and Preservation / Collection phases and does not need an external system for these functions.” Will you expect the proposed solution to push/pull data between the existing systems for Information Governance, Identification, and Preservation / Collection tool sets? If so, can you please provide the name of those software programs? Additionally, As the OGC has other SORs established for its Information Governance, Identification, and Preservation / Collection, can you confirm that the functionality in Relativity Legal Hold will not be within the scope of the features used by PBGC where Relativity is the proposed solution for commercial case review tools?

Response: No. The SOW explicitly requires a secure file transfer solution to allow the upload of raw or structured files which can subsequently be ingested into a discovery review system, as well as the download of finalized files in production formats. The solution is not expected to interact with or interface to any PBGC SOR used for Information Governance, Identification, or Preservation, or transfer files from any system used for Collection. This “gap” between the systems has been key to PBGC’s overall discovery strategy and has allowed internal systems to mature at their own appropriate rates. And – yes, Legal Hold cannot be within the scope of the solution since this would require additional connections to PBGC-internal systems which are not permitted in the SOW. (Nothing precludes a selected solution from changing and improving functionality over the period of performance after initial selection, with appropriate contract modifications as required.)

8) Response Due Date Solicitation/Contract Order (page 1), Section 8. Offerer Due

Date/Local time Given the timing of the RFP, there are critical personnel who would provide key information with pre-approved leave due to the Thanksgiving holidays.

Would the PBGC extend the RFP due date by 14 days?

Response: The closing date will be extended however the revised closing date will not be extended by 14 days.

9) Case Review Start Timeline Section 2.3 Detailed Requirements Table, Section H4.9

(page 24) The RFP states “The users should be ab le to start using the case review tool within 30 minutes or less.” What is this 30-minute time requirement measuring from?Can you please clarify if this is 30 minutes from set-up of a case, creation of a user, or from receipt or issuance of the request for set-up of access?

Response: This target time is only referring to the time it would take a user (an experienced attorney with an understanding of discovery goals and methods) to begin effectively reviewing case documents in a selected case review tool which is unfamiliar to them – not the time it takes to add users to the system, set up a case, or staff the user to the case. This is meant to generally indicate the quality of commercial review tool which would be acceptable to PBGC as part of the overall solution. As with all of the detailed requirements that apply to review tools, kCura’s Relativity has already been deemed to adequately meet the requirements and therefore no detailed justification is needed.

10) Pricing Schedule If available, please provide the CLINs tables for Base and all Option Years in native Excel format to ensure integrity and accuracy of Volume II submissions.

Response: The Pricing Schedule will not be provided in Excel.

11) Section 2.3 Detailed Requirements Table -- If available, please provide the capability requirements table in native Excel format.

Response: The Detailed Requirements Table will not be provided in Excel.

12) Solicitation Section: Instructions to Offerors, Solicitation Paragraph: 4, Electronic

Submission, Offerors’ Written Proposals General Instructions, page 52 -- The Contractor is required to provide a copy of all applicable SLAs or other commercial terms and conditions with regard to O&M support. The SLAs are not included in the page count for the technical volume. Please confirm that it is acceptable for offerors to place the SLA documentation in an appendix to the Technical Proposal.

Response: Yes, SLA documents may be added in an appendix to the Technical Proposal.

13) Solicitation Section: Instruction to Offerors, Solicitation Paragraph: 4, Electronic

Submission, Proposal Format, page 54 -- Please verify that offerors may use an industry standard sans serif font (e.g., Arial) for tables and graphics.

Response: As noted in V1 responses, font size and style within charts and graphics can be smaller than 12 points and different from Times New Roman. Tables within the body of the proposal should follow the 12 pt Times New Roman requirement.

14) Solicitation Section: Instruction to Offerors, Solicitation Paragraph: 4, Electronic

Submission, Proposal Format, page 54 -- Please verify that offerors may use a smaller font size for tables (10 point) and graphics (8 point).

Response: As noted in V1 responses, font size and style within charts and graphics can be smaller than 12 points and different from Times New Roman. Tables within the body of the proposal should follow the 12 pt Times New Roman requirement.

15) Solicitation Section: Supplies or Services and Price/Cost; 2. Pricing Schedule (page

5) -- For CLINs 0002 & 0004, we understand PBGC would like the review tool to have document/case preprocessing and ingestion into Relativity & production capabilities.

With regards to the pricing schedule, would you anticipate these tasks (document/case preprocessing/ingestion & production) being performed by PBGC personnel or offeror’s personnel?

Response: The pricing for ingestion and production support should include personnel support of these functions – i.e., the offeror’s personnel are performing these tasks with or for the PBGC (in-house) personnel. But this does not preclude a solution from allowing the in-house personnel from performing the tasks themselves as well.

The in-house staff at PBGC has many attorneys with heavy case loads but little access to support staff; PBGC is interested to see how different proposals handle this relationship between the personnel at the vendor and the attorney teams at the agency (see question number 5 above).

16) Solicitation Section: Instructions to Offerors; 2. Questions Concerning Solicitation (Page 51) -- When does PBGC expect to release responses to the vendor questions submitted by 11/21/18?

Response: Responses will be posted in groups beginning on or before November 21, 2018.

17) Solicitation Section: Instructions to Offerors; Proposal Format (page 54) -- We think the Detailed Requirements table from section 2.3 would look best in Landscape orientation. Would it be acceptable if the Detailed Requirements table is in Landscape orientation and the rest of the proposals is in Portrait orientation? We would keep the same paper size, font, margins, and spacing requirements as instructed.

Response: Yes, the detailed requirements table may be submitted in Landscape.

18) (We are) proposing Relativity as well as another solution. In filling out the Requirements Table for the other solution it is looking like we will be over the page limit for Volume 1. I am wondering if as a table this would not be counted against our page count? Referencing Page 54 of the solicitation: Page numbers shall be centered in the bottom margin and Page limits associated with each volume are provided below. PBGC will not evaluate or consider any pages that exceed the page limits listed for each item in the table below. Cover pages, table of contents, and tabs are not included in the page count.

Response: The Detailed Requirements Table may be submitted as an appendix.