16PBGC20R0016 Amendment0001.pdf

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing items 8 and 15, and returning or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended. is not extended.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS. IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER NUMBER

IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15C. DATE SIGNED

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X)

CODE

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

Previous edition unusable

The purpose of Amendment 0001 is to: 1) publish Questions and Answers (Q&As); and 2) correct errors. Specifically, the following changes are made (see attached).

1 3

16PBGC20R00160001 JAN 24, 2020

PD

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORP

PROCUREMENT DEPARTMENT

1200 K ST NW

WASHINGTON DC 20005-4026

16PBGC20R0016

DEC 27, 2019

See Schedule

JAN 24, 2020

Attachment Page

PAGE 2 OF 3 16PBGC20R00160001

16PBGC20R0016, Amendment 0001 ME PIMS Recorded Model Peer Review

1. SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD, M.3 RELATIVE ORDER

OF IMPORTANCE is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:

“3. RELATIVE ORDER OF IMPORTANCE

The factors below are listed in descending order of importance:

Factor 1: Technical Capabilities and Experience Factor 2: Company Resource – Personnel Factor 3: Past Performance Factor 4: Price When Factors 1, 2, and 3 are combined, they are significantly more important than Factor 4: Price.”

2. The following chart includes answers to questions received in response to the solicitation number 16PBGC20R0016:

Question No.

RFP

Document or Attached Reference

Paragraph No. Offeror Question PBGC's Answer

1 RFP, p. 8 C.1

Please describe the ME PIMS recoded model. If there are multiple Excel workbooks that require review, please provide a description of each workbook and the type of review that is expected for each file.

The ME PIMS recoded model is a complex Excel workbook with multiple calculation worksheets. The contractor should review the model to ensure any and all calculations are accurately performed consistent with current laws and PBGC ME regs.

2 RFP, p. 8 C.1

The RFP references the "previous ME PIMS model". Please describe the previous model and how the contractor will be able to access this model.

PRAD can provide deterministic runs on the previous ME PIMS model for comparison with the ME PIMS recoded model. We do not anticipate that the contractor will need to access the previous model's underlying coding.

3 RFP, p. 8 C.1

The RFP states "The recoded model generally uses the same methodologies, assumptions, and algorithms as the previous ME PIMS model." Please describe how the methodologies, assumptions, and algorithms of the previous ME PIMS model are documented.

A global review of the methodologies and assumptions of the ME PIMS model is outside the scope of this Solicitation.

PRAD can provide deterministic runs based on the previous ME PIMS model for comparison to ME PIMS recoded model. The contractor is expected to comment on differences between the models based on these runs.

4 RFP, pp. 6 & 8 B.1 & C.1

The General Description on page 6 states the contractor will "provide recommendations for modeling enhancements" while in paragraph 4 on page 8 states "the objective of the review is to ensure accuracy…rather than identify improvements to the structure." In addition, the Deliverables on page 8 only seem to require recommendations regarding

Recommendations are part of the deliverable and should include suggestions to improve the accuracy of the model calculations.

Attachment Page

PAGE 3 OF 3 16PBGC20R00160001

16PBGC20R0016, Amendment 0001 ME PIMS Recorded Model Peer Review any differences between the recoded model and the previous model. Please clarify whether recommendations are part of the deliverable and if so, what types of recommendations are expected.

5 RFP, p. 8 C.1

The second bullet in the third paragraph states the contractor will "identify changes in methods and assumptions from the previous model by comparing outcomes." Will PRAD staff be available to run both the previous ME PIMS model and the ME PIMS recoded model to provide the outcomes for comparison?

PRAD can provide deterministic runs on the previous ME PIMS model and the ME PIMS recoded model for comparison.

6 RFP, p. 8 C.1 Please confirm whether or not the contractor is reviewing the data entry process.

No, the contractor is not reviewing the data entry process.

7 RFP, p. 8 C.1

Paragraph 5 states "all other inputs did not change as part of the recoding."

Please describe what is meant by "all other inputs".

Reviewing model inputs is outside the scope of this Solicitation.

8 General

Have there been any previous peer reviews performed on the ME PIMS recoded model? If so, please provide a copy of the prior peer reviews.

No

All other terms and conditions of the solicitation number 16PBGC20R0016 remain in full force and effect.