PBGC Responses to Contractor Questions.pdf

PBGC Responses to Industry Questions

1. The pricing document "Attachment+7+-+Pricing+Schedule+Table.xlsx" has the following errors (I believe), see the highlights below. Based on the CLIN description, I believe, they should be for Option Year 1 and Option Year 2 with appropriate period.

RESPONSE: This error has been corrected under Amendment 1 to the solicitation.

2. I saw the subject line reference number and we are interested in supporting this requirement. The FedConnect listing does not have any documents attached to it. Please advise on any attachment etc...with response. Again we are interested. I know what you state below with the response date, however on FEDCONNECT it states 5/12/2025 at 2 PM for submission.

RESPONSE: The initial solicitation is no longer available on FedConnect. PBGC canceled that solicitation and posted a new one under the identical Notice ID 16PBGC25R0056 on SAM.gov. Please reference the new RFP submission deadline posted in SAM.gov.

3. We would like to know if this is a brand new contract OR if there is (was) an incumbent performing these services. If not brand new, could you please provide the current / previous contract number?

RESPONSE: This is a recompete of Contract No. 16PBGC20C0024. Lynchval Systems

Worldwide (CAGE: 3H8F9) is the current incumbent performing these services. The total contract value is $12.1M over five years.

4. Can you please tell us what vehicle will be used for this opportunity?

RESPONSE: This solicitation posted on SAM.gov under Notice ID 16PBGC25R0056 is the only solicitation vehicle being used to fulfill this requirement.

5. What will be the total value of the contract for this opportunity?

RESPONSE: The government will not share its internal estimate for this opportunity;

however, see #3 for the current contract value. Also see Attachment 2: Legacy PIMS Task Map and Labor Projections.

6. Given the number of government estimated part-time resources listed in the SOW, does the PBGC anticipate any issues with remote work being approved by the COR? What is the expectation of on-site work, given remote work approval?

RESPONSE: PBGC has amended the PWS to allow contractor personnel to work remotely without restriction. Contractor personnel who choose to work at PBGC headquarters may do so if desk space is available.

7. Instead of part-time resources, are there any issues with combining the government estimated resources into full-time resources?

RESPONSE: The contract will be firm-fixed-price; contractors are free to propose their own staffing solutions as long as those solutions comply with the terms of the contract.

8. When is it anticipated that SE PIMS or ME PIMS be decommissioned? If it is during the

POP, will the only resource/services anticipated being needed the actuarial services?

RESPONSE: SE PIMS is anticipated to be decommissioned in late summer 2026, during the base year of the POP. The associated work is laid out in section 3.2, item #17. After the system is decommissioned, neither technical nor actuarial services will be required for SE PIMS. It is not anticipated that ME will be decommissioned during the POP. See Attachment 2: Legacy PIMS Task Map and Labor Projections for additional details associated with tasks associated within this requirement.

9. Would the PBGC please consider a short extension to the due date, to Wednesday 05/21/2025?

RESPONSE: Yes, under Amendment 3, the solicitation closing date has been extended to

05/22/2025.

10. Could the government please provide 10-day extension?

RESPONSE: See previous response.

11. Pricing Schedule (Section 1.2 – ""EA"" Unit of Measure): Could you confirm whether

""EA"" refers to instances (e.g., per device, per license) or personnel (e.g., per employee)? This will help us structure our pricing accurately.

RESPONSE: "EA" is a reference to each Technical Assistance/Special Project ticket submitted to the contractor to perform the requirements associated with the task.

12. What was the incumbent’s annual cost for Operations & Maintenance (O&M) of the

Legacy SE and ME PIMS models, if applicable?

RESPONSE: The Government declines to share this information; however, it is important to note that the scope of work under the current solicitation is different than the scope of any previous contract for this work. Also see #s 3 and 5.

13. Are the Technical Assistance (TA) requests (3 EA per year) stated as a maximum quantity, or do they reflect a historical average?

RESPONSE: The quantity of 3 EA for each Technical Assistance CLIN states a maximum quantity for the individual CLIN. The total number of TA requests in a single year can vary significantly, so Optional CLINs for Technical Assistance Requests have been added to the pricing schedule in quantities of 3 to manage the possibility of additional Technical Assistance Requests being requested and performed by the contractor. Scope can be determined by referring to the "Technical Assistance (TA) Requests" section of PWS section 3.0 as well as referring to Attachment 2: Legacy PIMS Task Map and Labor Projections for additional details.

14. Regarding the SE-PIMS Decommissioning, could you elaborate on the anticipated scope, specific tasks, or any critical risks PBGC foresees?

RESPONSE: Section 3.2 Line # 17 of the Performance Work Statement lists tasks related to the decommissioning of the SE PIMS system.

15. Does PBGC prefer or expect a specific software development methodology (Agile, Waterfall, hybrid) for system modifications?

RESPONSE: Currently we expect a hybrid software methodology.

16. Could you clarify the anticipated timeline or duration of heavy initial development versus routine O&M workload during the first six months of the Base Year?

RESPONSE: There will be no heavy initial development to complete this requirement.

Both SE & ME PIMS systems are active and operational.

17. When evaluating corporate experience, how much emphasis does PBGC place on direct PBGC or federal pension system experience versus relevant commercial experience?

RESPONSE: PBGC will determine relevancy based on the degree of similarity to the work described in the PWS.

18. For past performance references, which specific performance criteria (e.g., responsiveness, accuracy, timeliness) are most critical to PBGC?

RESPONSE: Broadly speaking, PBGC will seek information on quality, schedule/timeliness, and management/business relations. PBGC will weigh these categories approximately equally.

19. Does PBGC give preference or additional consideration to proposals exceeding the minimum deliverable timelines or providing enhanced support?

RESPONSE: PBGC will determine the awardee based on the results of the assessment outlined in the instructions and evaluation criteria.

20. Could you specify if PBGC has a preferred or required structure or format for Volume 1 (Corporate Experience & Past Performance)? Is there a certain organization of information you prefer?

RESPONSE: This volume shall not exceed three (3) typed pages using a minimum of 10-point font. The page count does not include the cover page. Volume 1 shall be completed in Adobe PDF format and include all the information requested in the solicitation. Offerors are otherwise free to use their discretion.

21. What are some common pitfalls or mistakes in past proposals that have led to disqualification or lower evaluation scores?

RESPONSE: The Government will make an award to the responsible contractor who submits the most advantageous proposal at a fair and reasonable price.

22. The legacy contract number in the description (16PBC20C0024) appears to have a typographical error. Can the government please confirm this is a recompete of 16PBGC20C0024 awarded to Lynchval Systems Worldwide on 9/1/2020, expiring 8/31/25?

RESPONSE: Yes, 16PBGC20C0024 is the correct contract number and is awarded to

Lynchval Systems Worldwide on 9/1/2020, expiring 8/31/25.

23. Is the incumbent contractor eligible to bid on this requirement?

RESPONSE: Yes.

24. Do incumbent staff have right of first refusal for positions under the new contract?

RESPONSE: No.

25. The Task Map and Labor Projections lists five (5) labor categories:

a. Are any/all of these considered key personnel?

RESPONSE: No, the information in the following table represents an estimate of the labor categories and hours of effort the Government believes will be necessary to successfully perform this work. PBGC is providing this information purely to assist interested contractors in preparing their proposals. Offerors should not rely exclusively upon this information, but instead use it as one of multiple considerations in formulating their proposals. Offerors may deviate from this estimate as deemed appropriate.

Ultimately, each contractor bears responsibility for developing its own staffing plan and proposal prices. Furthermore, if selected for award, PBGC will expect the contractor to perform the work as defined in the contract at the agreed contract price.

b. Does the government require offerors to submit resumes of proposed personnel?

RESPONSE: No, there is no key personnel submission requirement.

c. None of these positions appear to be full-time based on the project hours listed. Is it permitted for offerors to combine positions provided the proposed resource has the necessary qualifications?

RESPONSE: See #s 7 and 26.a.

26. Lynchval Systems offers pension administration and evaluation software as a product, but it appears PRAD developed PIMS in-house using C++ and runs it in a standard Microsoft Azure cloud environment. Can the government confirm the current PIMS system does not use any proprietary software that would advantage one offeror over others?

RESPONSE: No, the current PIMS system does not use any proprietary software that would advantage one offeror.

27. This chart contains several acronyms for what appear to be departments within PRAD or IT but do not appear in the PWS or other documents (e.g., BISD, BCMD, ITBCM). If the government could please clarify the role of these team members in the overall PIMS support process that will help us in preparing our response.

RESPONSE: Attachment 3 includes these acronyms, which are defined as follows:

PRAD - Policy, Research and Analysis Department BISD - Business Innovations Services Department ITIOD - Information Technology Infrastructure Operations Department ITBCM - Information Technology Business Change Management BCMD - Business Change Management Division

Attachment 3 provides the detailed sequence of interactions between various team members and can be referred to for this purpose. In general, on a day-to-day basis the offeror would interact most with (1) PRAD actuaries, who are the business users who need to run the model; and (2) BISD specialists, who help to support overall system compliance and facilitate interactions with ITIOD.

28. If there is an incumbent contractor, has the scope or size of the contract changed in any nontrivial way between the incumbent contract and the present solicitation?

RESPONSE: The contract type has changed from labor hour to firm-fixed price. The scope has been modified to incorporate requirements and continued operations after SE PIMS decommissioning. The estimated workload for this requirement projects a reduction of work and services based on the decommissioning of SE-PIMS.

29. What is the estimated workload for this PWS?

RESPONSE: See Attachment 2: Legacy PIMS Task Map and Labor Projections.

30. PWS 3.2(1): What is the approximate monthly or annual volume of user-reported issues or tickets for the ME-PIMS and SE-PIMS models, so we may estimate the level of effort for O&M tasks?

RESPONSE: The ME PIMS model is contained within a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and therefore O&M is highly limited to troubleshooting problems within Excel. Issues arise infrequently - roughly 1-3 times a year. For the SE PIMS model, we would expect 3-10 issues/tickets per year. Issues/tickets for both systems have been low-medium complexity over the past few years.

31. PWS 3.1: Are there any specific minimum actuarial credentials (e.g., ASA, FSA, EA) or security clearance requirements for the personnel who will support actuarial studies and modeling?

RESPONSE: There are no minimum credential requirements. No security clearance is required beyond Public Trust.

32. PWS 3.3(8)-(9): Does PBGC require specific automated testing tool standards or code coverage thresholds (e.g., 80% coverage) for unit, regression, or performance testing?

RESPONSE: No.

33. PWS 3.4.4: Beyond standard project/status meetings, are there recurring governance board meetings or other formal work sessions (e.g., IPT sessions) that the contractor is required to schedule, facilitate, or attend at a set frequency?

RESPONSE: Currently, no. Only standard project status meetings are required.

34. PWS 3.4.6: The PWS states a 60-day transition-in period and a transition-out plan 30 days before contract end. Beyond these, does PBGC require any overlap (e.g., shadowing period) between incumbent and successor contractor staff for knowledge transfer?

RESPONSE: No, there is no further overlap beyond what is stated in the PWS.

35. PWS 3.1–3.2: What is the estimated number of active PBGC end-users (or user groups) who regularly run the Legacy PIMS models, so that we can plan concurrent user support and training sessions?

RESPONSE: For each of the PIMS models, there are primarily two PBGC end-users and a few additional intermittent end-users, but these specific end-users vary by model.

36. Does the Government require any specific background checks (e.g., Public Trust) or other personnel security clearances for contractor staff? Will contract staff be issued Government laptops to access PIMS?

RESPONSE: Public Trust is required for staff. Yes, PBGC will issue Government-approved laptops and all work shall be performed on Government-approved devices.

37. Solicitation Section 4.1(b)(1): For the Price Analysis, does the Government want contractors to provide a detailed labor breakdown (e.g., labor categories, hours, indirect costs) for each CLIN, or is a single firm-fixed price per CLIN sufficient with minimal cost detail?

RESPONSE: A single firm-fixed price per CLIN is sufficient. However, PBGC may request additional pricing detail during negotiations, if it decides to hold them.

38. Solicitation Section 1.2, CLINs 0004, 0006–0010, etc.: Each Technical Assistance Request CLIN references “3 EA.” Are these three discrete requests per period, or is “3 EA” a not-to-exceed quantity? How should we interpret the scope of each TA request?

RESPONSE: See #14.

39. Solicitation Section 1.2, CLINs 0011–0012 & equivalents in option periods: For Special Project requests (1 EA each), what typical size or duration should we assume (e.g., an experience study spanning several months versus smaller one-off analyses) so we can accurately price these CLINs?

RESPONSE: Per PWS section 3, Special Project requests are independent from requests for Technical Assistance and are longer-term in nature. An example includes a project to perform the data and actuarial analysis to complete an experience study for a PIMS assumption. Smaller one-off analyses are not expected to be included.

40. Solicitation Section 1.2 Pricing Schedule: May we combine different labor categories

(actuaries, developers, IT support, etc.) within a single CLIN to derive our firm-fixed price, or should each CLIN reflect a single labor category rate?

RESPONSE: A firm-fixed price should be proposed for each CLIN. The labor mix shall be determined by the contractor.

41. PWS 3.2: Could the Government provide any historical or forecasted monthly incident ticket volume (including severity or complexity breakdown) for both Legacy ME-PIMS and SE-PIMS, so we can estimate the O&M effort?

RESPONSE: The ME PIMS model is contained within a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and therefore O&M is highly limited to troubleshooting problems within Excel. Issues arise infrequently - roughly 1-3 times a year. For the SE PIMS model, we would expect 3-10 issues/tickets per year. Issues/tickets for both systems have been low-medium complexity over the past few years.

42. PWS 3.2(1)–(15): Is there a typical schedule or baseline set of routine maintenance tasks (e.g., environment monitoring, backups, periodic system checks) for ME-PIMS and SE- PIMS? If so, how many hours per month do these typically require?

RESPONSE: For the SE Model, 1 or 2 days per month of IT support may be necessary, although there is no typical schedule. The ME PIMS model is contained within a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and therefore O&M is highly limited to troubleshooting problems within Excel and expected to be significantly lower effort than O&M for SE

PIMS.

43. PWS 3.2: Approximately how many system patches or upgrades (OS, database, or application-level) do you anticipate per year for both ME-PIMS and SE-PIMS, and what is the expected complexity (low/medium/high) of these patches?

RESPONSE: Approximately 1 to 2 system patches are expected annually. These are expected to be of low-to-medium complexity.

44. PWS 3.2(7): How many audit activities (e.g., internal, external, FISMA-related) are expected each year, and how many hours of contractor support have been historically needed for these audits (e.g., data gathering, responding to findings)?

RESPONSE: It is expected that 100-200 hours of support will be needed for audit activities.

45. PWS 3.4.5: How many user training sessions are typically requested per year (for ME-

PIMS and/or SE-PIMS), and what is the average number of attendees or session duration?

RESPONSE: User training sessions are infrequent and there have not been any in the past few years. Ad hoc training may be requested for new end-users that joins PRAD, although these have not been requested in recent years.

46. PWS 3.2(11): How many Disaster Recovery (DR) tests are planned each year for the

Legacy PIMS systems, and can you provide a rough estimate of the level of effort to plan, execute, and document each test?

RESPONSE: Currently, neither SE nor ME PIMS are part of the DR exercises.

47. PWS 3.1 & 3.3: On average, how many legislative or regulatory changes require model updates to ME-PIMS or SE-PIMS each year, and what is the typical complexity (e.g., minor vs. major overhaul) of those changes?

RESPONSE: The number of Technical Assistance requests requiring model updates varies significantly year-to-year, but is expected to fall within the total range (0 to 18) for all CLINS included in the PWS. Complexity can also vary by request. Refer to the sample hours in Attachment 2 for information about the estimated level of required support.

48. PWS 3.1 & 3.3: For each Projections Report cycle, how many model enhancements or modifications are typically introduced, and how many test cycles (including regression testing) do you usually conduct?

RESPONSE: The number of model enhancements or modifications varies by year based on the requirements for that year. For years with significant changes in pension law, additional modifications may be required. For years with little-to-no changes in pension law, a modest number of modifications may be required and more limited to model enhancements. Refer to the sample hours in Attachment 2 for information about the estimated level of required support.

49. PWS 3.2: Approximately how many active end-users regularly run or interact with the

Legacy ME-PIMS and SE-PIMS models, and do they typically require concurrent access or ongoing user support?

RESPONSE: For each of the PIMS model, there are primarily two PBGC end-users and a few additional intermittent end-users, but these specific end-users vary by model.

There is limited need for concurrent access and there is periodic user support required.

50. PWS 3.3 & 3.4: How many Technical Assistance (TA) Requests arise per year on average?

RESPONSE: The number of Technical Assistance requests requiring model updates varies significantly year-to-year, but is expected to fall within the total range (0 to 18) for all CLINS included in the PWS.

51. PWS 3.3 & 3.4: What is their typical complexity (e.g., quick policy analysis vs. multi-step modeling)?

RESPONSE: Complexity can vary by request. Some requests are very minor updates to the model and other requests require more substantial changes to the programming.

Refer to the sample hours in Attachment 2 for information about the estimated level of required support.

52. PWS 3.3 & 3.4: On average, how many model runs or scenarios are required per TA request?

RESPONSE: The number of model run varies by request, with the majority of requests requiring 1-3 runs. Occasionally requests can require 4-8 runs.

53. PWS 3.3 & 3.4: Do TA requests usually involve both ME-PIMS and SE-PIMS simultaneously, or just one model?

RESPONSE: An individual TA request will typically require one or more runs from either the ME PIMS or the SE PIMS model, but typically not both models in one request.

54. PWS 3.3 & 3.4: How many review or approval cycles (e.g., stakeholder checks, final sign-offs) are typical for each request?

RESPONSE: The offeror must satisfy the review requirements outlined in PWS section 3 and the requirements of the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan in PWS section 5. At a minimum, this requires at least one internal quality review prior to providing deliverables to PBGC. PBGC will review delivered work products and assess the quality against the requirements of the PWS.

55. PWS 3.4: How many Special Projects do you typically initiate per year, and what is their average scope or duration (e.g., multi-month experience studies vs. short one-off analyses)?

RESPONSE: In the past few years we have not initiated any Special Projects, but may require this type of support during the contract's period of performance. Per PWS section 3, Special Project requests are independent from requests for Technical Assistance and are longer-term in nature. An example includes a project to perform the data and actuarial analysis to complete an experience study for a PIMS assumption. Smaller one-off analyses are not expected to be included.

56. PWS 3.4: What phases or tasks are typically required (e.g., data gathering, multiple model runs, final deliverables)?

RESPONSE: The anticipated tasks of a Special Project include data collection, data scrubbing and analysis, modeling (which may or may not include PIMS), and reporting.

Refer to the sample hours in Attachment 2 for information about the estimated level of required support.

57. PWS 3.4: How many review/approval cycles (e.g., stakeholder or executive review) are common for these projects?

RESPONSE: The number of PBGC review and approval cycles varies by Special Project, but is expected to be 1 rigorous cycle and 1-2 higher level cycles.

58. PWS 3.4: Do Special Projects often require effort in both ME-PIMS and SE-PIMS, or typically just one environment?

RESPONSE: Some special projects are expected to be completely outside of the PIMS models, such as a data analysis or experience study used to support PIMS model parameters. If a Special Project does incorporate PIMS modeling, it will be for just one of the two models.

59. Is PBGC open to modernizing its processes to include using AI?

RESPONSE: The proposed solution must meet the terms of the contract, including information security terms.

60. Are there any other programming languages we should be aware of for SE PIMS and T-

PIMS?

RESPONSE: The programming languages required to complete the requirements of the

PWS are C++, SQL, and c# for SE PIMS, and VBA for ME PIMS. PBGC end-users utilize SAS and Python for separate purposes, but use of SAS and Python is not required to complete the requirements.

61. Confirm Volume 1 is only 3 pages.

RESPONSE: Confirmed.

62. Confirm table of contents will not be included in the page count for Volume 1.

63. Confirm there is no technical or management approach requirement.