The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
Questions & Answers
| # |
| Document/Appendix Name and Reference |
| RFP Document Statement |
| Question |
| Answer |
| 1 |
| Attachment 5 - CLIN Structure |
| For Labor Hour CLINs, are offerors expected to use a blended rate, or add lines for each labor category and rate being proposed for each CLIN, or is the government’s intent that the Project Manager fill the Project Management CLIN and the Litigation Support Lead fit the Case Management Support CLIN? |
| For CLINs 0001 and 0002 and the corresponding CLINs in the Option Periods, Offerors are not expected to add lines for each labor category. Offerors shall propose a blended rate. |
| 2 |
| Attachment 5 - CLIN Structure |
| Column B provides references to PWS sections 4.4.1 - 4.4.5. However, these sections are not listed in the PWS. Will the government please provide the correct reference? |
| The OCC has added Task numbers to clarify PWS references. |
| 3 |
| Attachment 5 - CLIN Structure |
| On the tabs that show pricing by year, offerors are instructed to provide pricing for licenses by per seat user and concurrent users. Please confirm the governments intent is to go with EITHER named user licenses or Concurrent user licensing? |
| The OCC’s intent is to go with EITHER named user licenses or Concurrent user licenses. |
| 4 |
| Attachment 5 -CLIN Structure - All Tabs |
| CLIN 0011 and 0012. Can we bid only one type of user licenses, or are we required to bid both types? |
| The OCC’s preference is for concurrent user licensing, however, If concurrent licensing is not available, the OCC will accept proposals with only one type of license. Document “2031JW19R00002”, PART IV, 5.0, has been amended. |
| 5 |
| Attachment 5 -CLIN Structure - All Tabs |
| CLIN 0011 and CLIN 0012 reflect differing quantities between the “All” tab and quantities in tabs corresponding to each contract year. Therefore we expect that the unit price determined within the yearly tabs (“Base”, “Option 1”, “Option 2” and “Option 3”) will differ from the unit price proposed on the “All” tab, but the extended total amounts (column H) within the yearly tabs will agree with those shown in the “All” tab. Can you confirm? |
| The yearly tabs (“Base”, “Option 1”, “Option 2” and “Option 3”) should have been deleted prior to the posting of Attachment 5. Please use the updated Attachment 5 provided with Amendment 0002 which only contains the “All” tab. |
| 6 |
| Attachment 5 -CLIN Structure - Base Tab |
| CLIN 0020 shows no quantity. Should we assume quantity should be 500, as shown on “All” tab? |
| This tab should have been deleted prior to the posting of Attachment 5. Please use the updated Attachment 5 provided with Amendment 0002 which only contains the “All” tab. |
| 7 |
| Attachment 5 -CLIN Structure - All Tabs |
CLINs 0010, 0030, 0049, 0068 would appear to be an estimate of the “end state” GB of data to be hosted in the solution, with billing occurring on a monthly basis at the established CLIN rate billed each month based on actual usage. Has OCC considered that based on the timing of the actual monthly quantities that the aggregate of monthly units will exceed the 15 TB in the Base Year and therefore should increase the CLIN amount to the equivalent of 15TB per month or more? Please consider the following example.
| Month |
| New Data Added (gb) |
| Monthly Quantity Billed (gb) |
| Sum |
| 15,000,000 |
| 180,000,000 |
In the above example, assuming a transition in of 15 Terabyte of data migrated (the stated assumption of data to be migrated), in month 1 equates to 180,000,000 GB of monthly hosted data aggregated for the year with no additional data beyond the 15tb. Therefore, the extended total volumes of each CLIN is potentially being understated.
Attachment 5 has been amended to reflect that the unit is “per Gigabyte per Month”. Additionally, the unit quantity has been amended to reflect the OCC’s estimated annual amount. This will allow for fluctuation month to month.
| 8 |
| Attachment 5 -CLIN Structure - All Tabs |
For CLINs 0010, 0030, 0049, 0068 please confirm that consistent with the invoicing instructions, the stated FFUP is “$/gb/month”?
For example, 1,000 gigabytes hosted in January, would be charged the CLIN rate times 1,000 gigabytes. If in February the government’s hosting decreased to 500 gigabytes, the government would be charged the CLIN rate times the 500 gigabytes hosted.
Yes. Attachment 5 has been amended to reflect that the unit is “per Gigabyte per Month”. Additionally, the unit quantity has been amended to reflect the OCC’s estimated annual amount.
| 9 |
| Attachment 5 -CLIN Structure - All Tabs |
| CLIN 0010 eDiscovery Review Platform: Hosting and System Maintenance indicates an FFUP, with each unit equaling a gigabyte. The government estimates 15,000 gigabytes. The pricing tables do not allow for tiered pricing for hosting. Would the government consider adding or accepting offers with pricing tiers (e.g. Up to 1,000 GB hosted per month, 1,000.1- 4,000 GB hosted per month, 4,000.1+ GB etc… 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? |
| Offerors are require to propose as is. However, Offerors may provide tired pricing in additional to the single rate. If Offerors propose the additional tier pricing, Offerors may submit an additional Attachment 5. Each Tier may be reflected as CLINs “a”, “b”, “c”, etc. to the respective CLIN. For example, CLIN 0010 would be: CLIN 0010a Tier 1, CLIN 0010b Tier 2, CLIN 0010c Tier 3, etc. The OCC will select the pricing option for hosting and system maintenance that is more preferable to the Government. Document “2031JW19R00002”, PART IV, 5.0 and PART V, 3.0 have been amended. |
| 10 |
| Attachment 5 -CLIN Structure - All Tabs |
| CLINs 6 and 7 regarding processing and loading data as they exist in the pricing tables do not allow for tiered pricing. Would the government consider adding or accepting offers with tiers (e.g. 0-50 GB, 50.1-250 GB, 250.1 - GB etc…) which will enable significant cost savings that can be provided to the government as quantities increase and efficiencies of scale can be realized? |
| No, the OCC will not accept proposals with tiered pricing for processing and loading data. |
| 11 |
| Appendix 2 – Requirements Traceability Matrix – Entry 111 |
The government includes a mandatory requirement that the “Contractor shall provide System Security Package (SSP) and information related to any FedRAMP and/or FISMA certifications.” Is this a requirement for the contractor to provide to OCC upon award, or is this required to accompany the proposal submission?
Deliverable is due 5 business days after award.
Offerors are reminded that per the RFP, “ The Contractor's Cloud Service Offering (CSO) must be FedRAMP Authorized by May 25, 2019. Offeror's whose solution is not FedRAMP Authorized by the established date will not be evaluated further and ineligible for award.”
| 12 |
| Appendix 2 – Requirements Traceability Matrix – Entry 14 |
| The government includes as a mandatory requirement that “The system shall support the onboarding/set-up of new cases in the system in an automated fashion, without necessitating Contractor intervention or assistance.” Would OCC please clarify what is intended by this requirement including if this is for the Optional Litigation Hold or the Hosted Solution (Processing/Hosting/Review/Production)? |
| The OCC requires the ability to set up new cases in the hosted solution without requiring vendor assistance. Load, processing, etc. remain the responsibility of the vendor. |
| 13 |
| Part III, 4, DTAR 1052.219-75 |
Clause 1052.219-75 (c) indicates that “Contracting Officer may provide as an incentive, a bonus score, not to exceed 5% of the relative importance assigned to the non-price factors. If this incentive is used, the contracting officer shall include language in the solicitation indicating that this adjustment may occur.”
Question: Can the Government elaborate/define the overall rating system/method and how would the incentive NTE 5% would be calculated and applied when applicable?
This incentive will not be used.
| It appears from the proposal instructions that the Government is not requiring a technical approach; the Government is requiring Corporate Experience, the Requirements Traceability Matrix, Key Personnel, a Data Migration Approach, responses to the Use Cases, and Past Performance within Volume II. Please confirm that no technical approach is required with the proposal. |
| A technical approach is not required. |
| 15 |
| RFP, 5.0 ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS, Pg. 26 |
| "Offeror’s shall submit their proposal via one (1) email but in two (2) separate volumes (Volume I & Volume II). Each Volume may consists of multiple files. Emails shall not exceed 20 megabytes." |
| If the offeror's combined proposal exceeds 20 megabytes (even after using file condensing methods), please confirm it is acceptable for the offeror to submit their proposal via two separate emails. |
| This is acceptable to the government. Document “2031JW19R00002” has been amended. |
| 16 |
| RFP, 5.0 ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS, Pg. 33 |
| "Proposals shall be clearly and concisely written as well as neat, indexed (cross indexed as appropriate), and logically assembled." |
| Please confirm Offerors may choose to re-arrange the sections of RFP Section 5.0 to increase readability when crafting their proposal. |
| Offerors may rearrange the sections of the RFP as long as the proposal contains distinct sections for each evaluation factor. |
| 17 |
| RFP, 3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS, Pg. 50 |
| "The Government will consider the Offeror’s ability to prepare and implement a data migration plan that achieves efficiencies and other advantages for the Government." |
| Could the Government name "other advantages" they are looking for with the Offeror's data migration plan? |
| The OCC will not answer this question because the OCC does not want to limit innovation. |
| 18 |
| RFP, 3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS, Pg. 50 |
| "The Government may contact references of the proposed Key Personnel and previous employers to verify the accuracy of the information contained in the résumé and to further assess the qualifications and suitability of the proposed Key Personnel. The Government may consider information received from other sources in its evaluation of Key Personnel." |
| If the Government may contact references for the key personnel, should Offerors provide one reference for each key personnel to be included on each key personnel resume? |
| Yes, Offerors shall provide one reference for each key personnel to be included on each key personnel resume. Document “2031JW19R00002” has been amended. |
| 19 |
| RFP, 7.0 OFFEROR'S ASSUMPTIONS, Pg. 51 |
| "Offeror’s Assumptions, while not a separate evaluation factor, will be reviewed. Assumptions will be evaluated in the context of the evaluation factor to which they apply." |
| Please confirm any non-cost-related assumptions of the Offeror are not page-limited and may be included in an appendix to Volume 2. |
Non-cost related assumptions shall be included with the Offeror’s response addressing the corresponding evaluation factor and will be held to the page limitations. For example, an assumption made while addressing the Data Migration Approach Scenario would be included with the response and within the 4 page limit.
| 20 |
| RFP, 5.0 ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS, Pg. 26 |
Please confirm Volume I is not page-limited.
Volume I is not page-limited.
| 21 |
| RFP, 5.0 ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS, Pg. 27 |
| "Volume I: The offeror shall ensure that the following items and information are submitted with their proposal: |
….Completed OCC 1052.237-8002."
| Please provide provision OCC 1052.237-8002. |
| The OCC does not require completion of OCC 1052.237-8002. Document “2031JW19R00002” has been amended to remove this requirement. |
| 22 |
| RFP, 5.0 ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS, Pg. 26 |
| "The OCC has established the Not-to-Exceed amounts for Trial Presentation Services (Optional) and Travel Requirements. " |
| Although we do not anticipate exceeding the estimated $25,000 per annum travel costs, will funding be increased if additional travel is required and approved by OCC? |
| If additional travel is required beyond $25,000 per annum, then the OCC will increase the funding prior to requiring the travel. |
| 23 |
| RFP, 5.0 ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS, Pg. 27 |
| "If a portion of the requirement will be subcontracted, at least one corporate experience example shall reflect a similar type of arrangement. " |
If the only portion of the requirement the Offeror intends to subcontract is an optional PWS task area, please confirm the Offeror does not need to provide a corporate experience example reflecting a similar type of prime-subcontractor arrangement.
The Offeror does not need to provide a corporate experience example reflecting a similar type of arrangement for when an optional PWS task area is to be subcontracted. The OCC intent for this requirement was if the eDiscovery system was to be subcontracted. Document “2031JW19R00002” has been amended to reflect that this applies when the eDiscovery system will be subcontracted.
| 24 |
| RFP, Data Migration Scenario #1, Pg. 29 |
| "OCC’s legacy eDiscovery platform, Summation Pro 6.3, contains 20 cases in which work is ongoing. Data from the 20 cases, including but not limited to metadata consisting of attorney coding and redactions, must be migrated to the OCC’s new eDiscovery platform in the Cloud." |
| Please confirm the Offeror can assume both clean and redacted images will be provided to ensure successful migration into the new eDiscovery platform. |
| Yes, Summation will provide both clean and redacted images. |
| 25 |
| RFP, Data Migration Scenario #1, Pg. 29 |
| "The 10 cases containing more than 100,000 records primarily consist of emails and their attachments." |
| Please confirm the Offeror can assume email data in the Summation platform resides in MSG/EML format. |
| Yes, Summation email data resides in MSG/EML format and extracted text and metadata. |
| 26 |
| RFP, Use Case #2, Pg. 31 |
| "She also needs to be able to easily search for and identify what text has been redacted, and readily determine whether the reviewers on the team are applying redactions consistently." |
| "To confirm, the OCC attorney would like to search for the specific text that has been redacted from a document rather than the text in the applied redaction, e.g. “Redacted” or “Attorney-Client Privileged,” or to the text of a document after it has been redacted to confirm all protected information has been appropriately removed." |
| Confirmed |
| 27 |
| RTM, Req.ID 41 |
| "System shall provide the capability to scan paper documents and create associated metadata." |
| Please confirm pricing for additional requested services not listed in Attachment 5 - CLIN Structure, such as scanning services, can be provided in an appendix to Volume 1. |
| Offeror shall fit these services into the OCC’s CLIN Structure and may include as a pricing assumption. |
| 28 |
| Attachment 5 - CLIN Structure, Base Period, Option Period 1, Option Period 2, Option Period 3 |
| There appears to be CLINs reflected on the "All" tab of Attachment 5 - CLIN Structure that are not reflected in the Base or Option Year tabs, such as 0011a, 0011b, 0012a, 0012b, 0031a, 0031b, 0032a, 0032b, etc. Can the Government please provide a revised attachment? |
| The yearly tabs (“Base”, “Option 1”, “Option 2” and “Option 3”) should have been deleted prior to the posting of Attachment 5. Please use the updated Attachment 5 provided with Amendment 0002 which only contains the “All” tab. |
| 29 |
| Attachment 5 - CLIN Structure, "All" tab |
| Based on CLIN 0012a & 0012b, 0032a & 0032b, 0051a & 0051b, and 0070a & 0070b from the "All" tab of Attachment 5 - CLIN Structure, is it safe to assume the Government anticipates a 5-1 ratio of per seat users to concurrent users? If not, what ratio should be assumed? |
| This is a safe assumption. The OCC’s intent is to go with EITHER named user licenses or Concurrent user licenses. |
| Is the updated VPAT form required, or will a provider supplied for[m] be acceptable? |
| A provider supplied form is acceptable. Document “2031JW19R00002” has been amended to reflect that a provider supplied form is acceptable. |
| Section 5 of 2031JW19R00002.docx asks for a completed OCC 1052.237.8002. This was not provided and not referenced in the document at other points. Can the OCC please provide a link to this document? |
| The OCC does not require completion of OCC 1052.237-8002. Document “2031JW19R00002” has been amended to remove this requirement. |
| Relativity does not allow for resellers to provide concurrent licensing options. How should we, as respondents price this option into the pricing matrix? |
| The OCC’s preference is for concurrent licensing, however, If concurrent licensing is not available, the OCC will accept proposals with only one type of license. Document “2031JW19R00002”, PART IV, 5.0, has been amended. |
Would the agency consider adding FAR Clause 52.226-1? This is the Indian Incentive Program (IIP) and is designed to encourage the use of Indian Organizations, Indian-Owned Economic Enterprises, Alaska Native Corporations and Native Hawaiian Small Business Concerns by providing an incentive to prime or sub-tier contractors who subcontract with Indian Organizations, Indian-Owned Economic Enterprises, Alaska Native Corporations and Native Hawaiian Small Business Concerns.
The OCC will not be including FAR 52.226-1. Per FAR 26.104, “Contracting officers in civilian agencies may insert the clause at 52.226-1, Utilization of Indian Organizations and Indian-Owned Economic Enterprises, in solicitations and contracts if—(a) In the opinion of the contracting officer, subcontracting possibilities exist for Indian organizations or Indian-owned economic enterprises; and (b) Funds are available for any increased costs as described in paragraph (b)(2) of the clause at 52.226-1.” The OCC market research did not demonstrate subcontracting possibilities exist for the identified groups and funds are not available for the increase.
