16PBGC-19-R-0028_Questions_&_Answers.pdf

Question

No.

RFP Document or Attached

Reference (or state "General") Paragraph No. Offeror Question

PBGC's Response

1 RFP Document Section I, para. I.2 Would PBGC please consider removing FAR 52.215‐1

Instructions to Offerors – Competitive Acquisition considering that the similar provision, FAR 52.212‐1

Instructions to Offerors ‐ Commercial Items, was also included in the solicitation? No.

2 RFP Document Section I, para. I.3 FAR 52.215‐8 Order of Precedence – Uniform Contract

Format is required in solicitation utilizing the uniform contract format provided by FAR 15.204. It appears the solicitation does not utilize the uniform contract format. The order of precedence is also provided within included FAR clause 52.212‐4, which appears to conflict with FAR 52.215‐8. Therefore, would PBGC please remove this clause?

No. The solicitation is prepared in Uniform Contract

Format.

3 RFP Document & FedBizOpps

Posting

Section L, para. Volume III

Section I.10, FAR 52.212‐1

Page 80 states that "offerors shall state that their proposal is valid for not less than 180 days." However, the text of the FedBizOpps posting for this solicitation states that "proposals must be valid for ninety (90) days after the due date.", and FAR 52.212‐1 states

"The offeror agrees to hold the prices in its offer firm for 30 calendar days". Would PBGC please verify which

The solicitation will be revised to reflect a validity date of 90 days.

4 RFP Document Section B, para. 3 The base period contract type is FFP, but the CLIN structure is organized similarly to the LH CLINs of the option period, with a focus on labor categories' monthly price. In the interest of aligning the CLIN structure to the objectives of the base period (the development of the blueprint) and to accommodate a completion period that may be less than 12 months (as noted in Section C, paragraph 3. Period and Place of

Performance), would the government consider revising the Base Period CLIN structure to be a single CLIN for the blueprint; a unit of 1; and request that the offeror propose a milestone invoicing schedule for the base period?

In the contract award, the base year will reflect a single

Firm‐Fixed‐Price (FFP) CLIN for the blueprint. However, for evaluation purposes, proposals should include the breakout of how the vendor arrived at the FFP.

5 RFP Document Section B, para. 3 The Option Period Labor Hour CLINs have an undefined scope that makes it challenging to estimate the level and nature of support needed, since the support will relate to an as‐yet unawarded Phase 2 contract. Would the government consider an alternative approach to the Option Period CLINs, whereby an offeror proposes a labor rate card for future use, and the government assigns an annual NTE dollar value as a placeholder for future ordering?

The pricing schedule for the option years will be revised to reflect NTE amounts. Vendors should provide their breakdown of rates and hours for the proposed labor categories to total the NTE amount.

6 RFP Document Section M.2.6 M.2.6, item 2 states that the offeror's proposed price will be evaluated to "assess realism and the probable costs to PBGC, including any improvements necessary to meet the needs of PBGC."

Per FAR 15.404‐1 (d) (2), the "Probable cost" evaluation technique is applicable to cost‐ reimbursement contracts only. Therefore, respectfully recommend that the government remove the reference to "probable cost" and confirm they will not be adjusting any offeror's Firm‐Fixed Price or proposed

T&M price.

If the probable cost language is not removed, please provide clarity as to how probable cost will be assessed

The following language will be removed from M.2.6:

"To assess realism and the probable cost to PBGC, including any improvements necessary to meet the needs of PBGC."

7 RFP Document Section L.1, para. 6 Item b. requires 12‐point print or larger, Times New

Roman style font. Will the government permit a minimum of 10‐pt font for tables, graphs and charts?

Yes, PBGC will permit a minimum of 10‐pt font for tables, graphs and charts.

8 RFP Document Factor 2, pg. 78 Can PBGC please exclude resumes from the technical volume page limitation? Yes.

9 RFP Document Volume I: Performance Work

Statement

Can PBGC please exclude the PWS from the technical volume page limitation? No.

Is PBGC open to the possibility of hiring separate firms for economic analysis and technology design?

Only one award will be made as a result of this solicitation. Contractor capabilities will be evaluated based on the evaluation criteria outlined in Section M.

Whether companies from Outside USA can apply for this? (like, from India or Canada) No.

12 Whether we need to come over there for meetings?

Yes, some meetings will require physical presence at

PBGC headquarters, depending on the nature and objective of the meeting. Some meetings will be via conference calls.

Can we perform the tasks (related to RFP) outside

USA? (like, from India or Canada) No.

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS IN RESPONSE TO SOLICITATION 16PBGC‐19‐R‐0028

14 Can we submit the proposals via email?

Yes, please see the Instructions to Offerors in Section L of the RFP.

15 RFP Document Section C, 2.3, 5.1.1

Please comment on the level of detail that is needed for programming specifications. For example, if we identify the need for an annuity factor module, would the blueprint also contain detailed specifications for the calculation algorithm including input and output requirements as well as testing plans or would some of these details be nailed down during the implementation phase?

Yes, the blueprint would contain the detailed specifications. However, the specific details are not necessary for replying to the RFP. The contractor should include the cost of developing all programming specs for the blueprint in its response to the RFP.

While the specific details will be worked out post‐ contract award during the blueprint phase, the proposal must include the anticipated time necessary do to this in its price proposal.

16 RFP Document Section C, 2.3(b), 5.2.1.11

With respect to incorporating recommendations from prior PIMS reviews, is the contractor expected to identify data sources, estimate the parameters, and determine the practicality of their implementation?

With respect to bankruptcy modeling, is the 2018 review completed and has PBGC decided on a new bankruptcy model?

Yes, the contractor will assist in identifying data sources, practicality, and a cost‐benefit analysis if necessary during the blueprint phase. A more general approach should be outlined in the response to the

RFP, but the price proposal should reflect preparing the detailed work.

17 RFP Document Section C, 5.2.1, 5.2.1.9

Are there system components or processes that PBGC does not intend to modify substantially for this design phase, for example, the data entry program, the plan sampling process, or the presentation of results? No. All aspects of PIMS will be examined.

18 RFP Document Section L, PAGE LIMITS

Please confirm that the PBGC requests the submission of three separately numbered documents for Volumes

I, II and III, each with its own table of contents?

Yes, please see the Instructions to Offerors in Section L of the RFP.

19 RFP Document Section C, 5.2.2

Does the PBGC use any particular Project Management methodology or tools that are required or recommended to be used to facilitate the objectives outlined in Section "5.2.2 Objective 2 – Execute Project

Management"? No.

RFP Document Section C, 7.1

Regarding section 7.1, in addition to FISMA guidelines are there any additional Confidentiality, Integrity and

Availability guidelines which need to be considered as part of our proposal?

No. FISMA is the law. Once a contract is awarded there are security clauses included that support FISMA.

20 RFP Document Section C, 7.1

Since the RFP seeks advisory services, is the paragraph on “Providing Cloud Computing Services” applicable? Yes, it is applicable.

21 RFP Document Section C, 5.1.2

In general are there any specific restrictions or guidelines for offshoring parts of the work, for example: writing programming specifications? All work must be conducted within the United States.

22 RFP Document Section C, 5.1.1, 5.2.2

For general project planning purposes are there any calendar periods we should be aware of when PBGC work flows may limit access to key resources at the

PBGC or others? No.

23 RFP Document Section C, 3.2

For general project planning purposes does the PBGC have office space for temporary staff meeting or working on the onsite during the project? Yes, to the extent necessary.

24 RFP Document Section C, 5.2.2

In general does the PBGC use any content sharing / collaboration tools for managing the various versions of the many documents this project will generate? Yes, SharePoint.

25 5.2.1.5

The RFP states "PBGC experience and market research suggests that use of a business rules engine would address...". Does PBGC currently use a business rules engine in an existing system? If so, which rules engine is used? If not which ones were contemplated as potentially likely candidates? Would PBGC prefer that modernized PIMS use the same rules engine?

No. It is up to the vendor to propose suggestions on a future business rules engine.

26 5.2.1.5

The RFP states "PBGC experience and market research suggests that use of a business rules engine would address...". Does PBGC anticipate that the functionality of the modernized PIMS rules engine would be made available to other systems at PBGC?

No. There are no current plans to integrate any component of PIMS with other PBGC systems.

27 5.2.1.5

The RFP states "PBGC experience and market research suggests that use of a business rules engine would address...". Was this assessment performed after the

Rules Engine assessment was performed for BCV? Will

PBGC share information on this experience and market research? Any documentation would be appreciated.

This RFP was written independent of any analysis done for BCV. Analysis around a business rules engine for this RFP should be specific to PIMS.

28 5.2.1.8

PBGC wrote "PBGC experience and market research suggest that hosting a database or rules engine in the cloud would allow database changes to be spun up and down quickly." but adds the question "What would be an alternative?" This seeming contrasts to 5.2.1.5 where the desire for a rules engine seems stronger. Is a distinction being made between the use of rules engine for calculation purposes vs. database purposes?

Please elaborate.

While we imagine the cloud to be the best host for future PIMS, PRAD's expertise is not in technology.

However, PBGC would consider alternatives, should a vendor believe one is a better solution.

29 RFP Document, p 19 5.2.1.8

PBGC wrote "PBGC experience and market research suggest that hosting a database or rules engine in the cloud would allow database changes to be spun up and down quickly." Can you please elaborate on what experience is being referenced? Is this market research analysis published anywhere? How was this validated? It is difficult to address perceived benefits without knowing what they are or assessing the cost‐ benefit implications as rules engines are typically requiring support resources greater than a database.

If the only difference in this section vs 5.2.1.5 contemplated is relative to being on a cloud, is PBGC experience and market research separate of that referred to in 5.2.1.5? Can PBGC share anything further for the purposes of developing a proposal to attempt

Any RFP reply should address the best platform for hosting future PIMS, whether it be in the cloud or otherwise. The proposal should also address, in general terms, a proposed plan for implementing a rules engine. Should analysis be needed to determine whether a rules engine is appropriate for the project, that should be outlined in the proposal.

30 RFP Document, p 19 5.2.1.8

This section suggests the database has been a pain point for PBGC. Can PBGC elaborate on some of the specifics? e.g. whether the problem has been associated more with inputs or outputs? Can PBGC provide a data dictionary which also indicates the source of incoming data?

PIMS is a model and not a system. The data structure of PIMS is constantly changing. Thus, using a database severely limits the flexibility of adding/removing data fields or tables since all changes require a third party

DBA.

31 RFP Document, p 83 M.2.3

As written item #3 reads "Experience in projections of company financial and bankruptcy" but seems to be missing some words.

It should read "…company financial status and bankruptcy." Changes will be made in Amendment

0001.

32 RFP Document, p 83 M.2.3

As item #6 as written sounds like the "Understanding of ERISA...." needed for a successful proposal could be just be legal knowledge or even administrative as opposed to the knowledge, skills and abilities to perform various actuarial calculations related to funding, cash flows and various other projections as well as assumption setting and other seemingly necessary actuarial and computational skills as might be demonstrated by certain actuarial credentials.

The contractor must have enough working knowledge of pensions, funding, and actuarial concepts to work with PRAD staff in the development of the logic.

Contractors will be evaluated in accordance to the evaluation criteria outlined in Section M.

33 PBGC Website

5.2.1.11 on p. 20 of the RFP references a PBGC website link. This webpage lists various MAP‐21 PEER

REVIEWS. The 2017 peer review is not posted. Is it available? Will it or any additional such peer reviews or other analyses be added to the items requiring research for this RFP if they were released after the date this RFP was released. If so please identify what

At the time this project is completed, suggestions made in any and all peer reviews done to that point will be considered for the blueprint for modernization.

The 2017 peer review is not complete at the present time.

34 General

Has PBGC performed any prior architectural or design analyses for PIMS in the last 8 years? If so is PBGC willing to share them or any portions thereof.

PIMS has completed an IT‐style architectural analysis that does not include the basic modular design of the model. PBGC is not sharing this information to avoid any prior analyses biasing a proposed future solution.

35 RFP Document, p 18 5.2.1.3

This section reads: "The new model should be completely accessible to PRAD staff..." What are the specific objectives of this requirement? For example, is one for PRAD staff to be able to make changes to the code to run their own simulations?

Yes. It is anticipated PRAD staff will work closely with the contractor. Upon completion of the project, PRAD staff should have full access to the model and be able to independently run and maintain the model. This does not preclude PRAD from asking for ongoing contractor assistance during the option years of the contract, as needed.

36 RFP Document, p 18+B46 5.2.1.3

This section reads: "The new model should be completely accessible to PRAD staff..." Is this literally about technological access or is this more about having the documentation and training to operate desired functionalities? As this requirement is stated there seems to be a potential risk to the contractor for the performance of staff users if the contractor is not sufficiently informed of 1) the existing staff's expected usage of modernized PIMS along with 2) some assessment of their knowledge and skills.

Upon completion of the project, PRAD staff should have full access to the model and be able to independently run and maintain the model. This does not preclude PRAD from asking for ongoing contractor assistance during the option years, as needed. PRAD staff collectively have actuarial and economic knowledge and experience.

37 General

For some positions it is not necessarily envisioned that all SMEs will need access to PBGC systems. Is it expected that a contractor's employee cannot begin work until the full PBGC onboarding has been completed with PIV card in hand?

PIV card access is required before accessing PBGC systems or data. However, if work that does not require specific PBGC data or systems access is required in support of the requirement, such work can commence when the period of performance begins.

38 General

Will PBGC extend the deadline by 10 days to allow sufficient time to finalize the necessary teaming agreements and to complete the proposal. It seems likely that most bidders will be offering some teaming arrangement. No.

RFP Document H3(b)(1)

There appears to be a conflict among two sentences.

“The contractor shall be ineligible to participate in any capacity in Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

(PBGC) contracts, subcontracts, or proposals therefor

(solicited and unsolicited) which stem directly from the contractor's performance of work under this contract.

[…] Nothing in this subparagraph shall preclude the contractor from competing for follow‐on contracts for advisory and assistance services.” Can you please clarify for the context of the current solicitation?

We cannot confirm or deny at the current time if contractors will be ineligible to participate in Phase 2, without knowing the proposed blueprint solution.

Interested vendors should follow the procedures in

FAR 9.503 when the solicitation for Phase 2 is released.

RFP Document, p 39 H.12(b)

Since the RFP seeks advisory services, is the paragraph on “Providing Cloud Computing Services” applicable? Yes, it is applicable.

RFP Document, p 39‐40 H.13(b)1, H.13(b)2

Since the RFP seeks advisory services, are the paragraphs on “Cloud Computing Services from Joint

Accreditation Board (JAB)‐Certified Cloud Service

Providers(CSP)” and “Cloud Computing Services from

Agency‐Certified Cloud Service Providers” applicable? Yes, it is applicable.

RFP Document, p 41 1

Since the RFP seeks advisory services, is the paragraph on “System Security and Continuous Monitoring Plans” and related reporting requirements applicable? Yes, it is applicable.

RFP Document, p 75

Proposals are due on August 16. In light of scheduled absences of key personnel, would the government consider postponing the due date by one week? No.

Section C, 2.3 Last paragraph (page 12) While clause 2.3 last paragraph says to apply for a waiver prior to the solicitation request of phase 2, it does not confirm waiver will be granted. Are we to assume waiver will be given? See answer below.

Section C, 3.1 Page 12 Clause 3.1 does mention that there is a distinct possibility that the contractor for phase 1 and 2 maybe the same thereby alluding that waiver will be given when applied. Please confirm if waiver will be given when applied.

We cannot confirm or deny at the current time as it cannot currently be determined if there is a conflict without knowing the proposed blueprint solution.

However, please note, anything in the Blueprint that leads to a vendor's proprietary system may increase the likelihood of a conflict of interest in Phase 2. See

Section 5.2.1.9 which states that a proprietary system is not desirable for PBGC in support of PIMS. PBGC will not consider the migration of PIMS to an Offeror’s

Proprietary System as a suitable system architecture modernization alternative. Interested vendors should follow the procedures in FAR 9.503 when the solicitation for Phase 2 is released.

Section H.3.e Page 31 The waiver clause does not specify the timeline when to ask for the waiver. We would like to have the waiver for Phase 2 prior to submission of proposal to this RFP. See previous answer.

General Given that the clarification sought above are critical for contractors to participate in this phase 1 RFP, for PBGC to get the best possible solution may we request the timeline for submission for the RFP be extended and positive clarifications be given forthright to the above questions. No.

48 RFP Document 2.3

Due to conflict of interest we will excuse ourselves from Phase 1, but are keen to be considered for Phase

2, subject to the Phase 1 outcomes. Will we automatically be sent the Phase 2 RFP document?

The RFP for Phase 2 will be solicited on FedBizOpps at a later date that is unknown at this time.

49 Section C 3.1

If the scope changes, during Phase 1 (Base Period pricing), do we have the ability to change the fee structure for Phase 2 (Option Periods 1 ‐ 4)?

Any future scope change requests will be reviewed by the Contracting Officer (CO) who will make a determination at that time. Any agreed upon scope changes will be issued in a bilateral modification from the CO.

50 Section C 4.2.1.1 (4)

Could you elaborate on how the PBGC is currently modeling the bankruptcy probabilities? Is it based on company‐specific variables, macroeconomic ones, both? How do they link to modeling of plans funded status?

PIMS models bankruptcy using a dynamic logic equation based on company‐specific variables.

Macroeconomic variables are not directly present in the logit equation, however their influence is captured with correlations between projected values of the company‐specific variables and projected values of financial market variables that determine plans projected asset returns and liability discount rates.

51 General

Can we utilize off‐shore developers to build required functionality understanding that no PII or sensitive data will go off‐shore?

No, all work must be conducted within the United

States.

52 General

Is the PBGC willing to disclaim implicit warranties

(fitness for a particular purpose and merchantability) for the design services, as they normally do not apply to design services under contract law? An express warranty will be offered for the design services.

Please ensure that the proposal clearly notes that exception is taken to the implied warranty provision of

FAR 52.212‐X in (insert business/pricing volume number) and that the express warranty in the proposal meets the criteria of a satisfactory warranty in FAR

12.404(b)(1).”

53 General

Is the PBGC willing to disclaim the implicit warranties for the design itself, as the design is not considered ordinary? An expressed warranty will be offered for the design. See previous answer.

54 General

Is the PBGC willing to cap direct damages arising out of the design services? No.

General

Has the PBGC considered parceling out sections of the work indicated in this RFP to several contractors with differing areas of expertise rather than a single contractor?

Only one award will be made as a result of this solicitation. Contractor capabilities will be evaluated based on the evaluation criteria outlined in Section M.

Can we move the proposal due date back to Aug 23 or later? No.

Can you clarify the fixed price vs hourly? Seems like its asking for fixed the first year. Would you also need rates for that component?

The base year will be Firm‐Fixed‐Price (FFP). In the contract award, the base year will reflect a single FFP

CLIN for the blueprint. However, for evaluation purposes, proposals should include the breakout of how the vendor arrived at their FFP.

58 Are model equations part of systems specifications?

All work related to the implementation and documentation of the new model will be completed in the blueprint phase and should be accounted for in the vendor's rice proposal, including specific model equations. Providing model equations is not necessary for the response to the RFP, but will be necessary to detail in the blueprint.

Can you confirm there is no PII (personally identifiable information) involved in this project? There is no PII involved in this project.

60 RFP Document, p 77

The RFP states "The following are excluded from the

Volume I page limitation count: cover page, table of contents, cover letter." Factor 2 of Volume I requires

Key Personnel Resumes and signed letters of commitment (if necessary). Will PBGC also exclude resumes and letters of commitment from the Volume I page limitation (30 pages)? Yes.

Are “side by side invoices” allowed for this procurement if a vendor team with another vendor? No.