Questions and Answers.pdf

# Question PWS/RFP Reference Answer

Before we can prepare a proposal, it is essential we have sufficient time to consider responses to vendor inquiries. The contract is very important to all parties, and offerors want to consider your needs carefully. Responses will impact key aspects of proposal preparation. To that end, we respectfully request a proposal deadline extension of 10 business days after the time that all answers are posted in an addendum or to 12:00 PM (ET) on Friday, August 11, 2022, whichever is later. General

RFP due date has been extended to 11 AUG 2022. See SAM.gov for additional details.

2 Is there an incumbent for this work? If so, could the IRS please provide the existing contract #? General

TIRNO-17-D-00006 - Contract; 2032H8-21-F- 00127 – Task Order

3 Do title pages, cover letters, and tables of content count against the page limits of each volume? General

No.

The cover letter indicates that IRS intends to issue a single award IDIQ contract under NAISS [sic] code 519190 – Internet Publishing and Broadcasting and Web Search Portals [emphasis added]. Please note that NAICS 519190 is “All Other Information Services” (consistent with the sam.gov posting).

NAICS code 519130 is “Internet Publishing and Broadcasting and Web Search Portals.” Please clarify if 519190, All Other Information Services is the intended NAICS code for this procurement. Cover Letter

Current NAICS code is correct; there are aspects of the work that do not fall expressly within the parameters of NAICS 519130.

Section 2.1 indicates that each task order will be one year from the effective date of award. Section III Proposal Submission Instructions indicates that offerors are to provide pricing for a base plus four option years. Is it a correct understanding that the Period of Performance is a base year plus four (4) option years?

Section 2.1 Period of Performance

Yes.

Section 4.1 indicates that Criminal Investigation employees have enhanced research requirements, but no information is provided related to what enhanced research content is required. Are we correct in our understanding that we are to propose content that the offeror believes would be beneficial to Criminal Investigation employees, to be quoted post-award, upon indication by IRS of interest in the selected content?

Section 4.1 IRS Criminal Investigation Data Requirements

Yes.

7 [C]an IRS provide contractors with details related to the enhanced research content so that this content may be described and priced accordingly?

Section 4.1 IRS Criminal Investigation Data Requirements

See Section 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 of the PWS; if vendors wish to include law enforcement-specific content/product that they offer in their pricing proposals, they may do so.

If IRS requires pricing for the enhanced research content with submission of proposals, can IRS please explain how this enhanced research content and pricing will be evaluated by IRS?

Section 4.1 IRS Criminal Investigation Data Requirements

The Government will not be mandating a specific CLIN pricing structure; see Section 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 5.1.1 of the PWS. Also see Section IV of the RFP for details about the Technical and Price factors.

Section 4.1 IRS Criminal Investigation Data Requirements states: “Additionally, Criminal Investigation employees have enhanced research requirements and the authority to access data that may not be available to other employees under this contract.” Do Criminal Investigation employees require additional data beyond what's listed in Sections 4.2 Mandatory Content And 4.3 Highly Desirable Content? If so, can the IRS clarify what additional data Criminal Investigation employees need beyond these requirement sections?

Section 4.1 IRS Criminal Investigation Data Requirements

See Section 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 of the PWS; if vendors wish to include law enforcement-specific content/product that it offers in its pricing proposal, they may do so.

Can the IRS provide the average daily data volume or average daily query volume? Section 4.2 Mandatory Content

The requested data set information is not available.

11 Does the solution/product require an API connection to an on-premise database, or would extracts suffice? Section 4.2 Mandatory Content

There will be no interface (exchange of data) with any IRS database. Vendor is free to propose solutions they feel will best align with the requirements of the PWS.

Section 5.1 indicates that there are approximately 20,000 users of Asset and Locator Services but includes a table from December 2020 indicating 15,069 users. Can IRS provide a more current breakdown table by function (e.g., breakdown of users as of 2022)? Section 5.1 User Population

Current user population is approximately 17,000. The Government will not be providing a breakdown by function.

13 Can IRS clarify which user band or CLIN that IRS is purchasing under for the current task order? Section 5.1 User Population

Please see Factor 4 – Price.

Can the IRS provide the expected number of concurrent users?

Section 5.1.1 User Population Detail

The number of concurrent users fluctuates constantly; the concurrent user population can reach up to approximately 17,000 users.

Will any technology infrastructure or hosting services be available to the contractor?

Section 5.2.2 Operating System Requirements "It is mandatory that any research service offered run under Windows 10 as well as any successor Microsoft operating system adopted by the IRS."

No.

Will IRS networking teams be available to test and validate connectivity?

Section 5.2.4 IP Address Restriction Requirements "The Contractor shall coordinate with the COR or their designee to assure only IRS IP addresses can be used to access their product by IRS users"

Upon award, the successful offeror will be provided with a range of usable IP addresses for use in conjuction with its proposed solution. IRS IT support staff will be available to assist in the event the successful offeror has any problems with connectivity. The Government will address any other connectivity issues internally as applicable.

Will the IRS be required to connect to the Contractors service via VPN?

Section 5.2.4 IP Address Restriction Requirements "The Contractor shall coordinate with the COR or their designee to assure only IRS IP addresses can be used to access their product by IRS users"

IRS users will connect to the vendor's proposed solution via the IRS network and/or an IRS VPN connection utilizing the range of IP addresses discussed above.

Section 4.1 indicates that Criminal Investigation employees have enhanced research requirements, but no information is provided related to what enhanced features are required. Are we correct in our understanding that we are to propose features that the offeror believes would be beneficial to Criminal Investigation employees, to be quoted post-award, upon indication by IRS of interest in the selected features?

Section 5.4.1 Criminal Investigation Feature Requirements

Yes.

19 [C]an IRS provide contractors with details related to the enhanced features so that these features may be described and priced accordingly?

Section 5.4.1 Criminal Investigation Feature Requirements

See Section 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 of the PWS; if vendors wish to include law enforcement-specific content/product that it offers in its pricing proposal, they may do so.

If IRS requires pricing for the enhanced features with submission of proposals, can IRS please explain how this enhanced features and pricing will be evaluated by IRS?

Section 5.4.1 Criminal Investigation Feature Requirements

The Government will not be mandating a specific CLIN pricing structure; see Section 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 5.1.1 of the PWS. Also see Section IV of the RFP for details about the Technical and Price factors.

Regarding the Mandatory content, SEC data - SEC EDGAR is the system of record for publicly-accessible filing information for publicly-traded companies and is freely accessible without a login ID. Another mandatory requirement, Links to various free websites - can the SEC EDGAR requirement be met by directing the user to this system-of record? (it is user-friendly and can be included in training sessions), or will the IRS consider moving the requirement to highly-desired content?

Section 5.4.3 Highly Desireable Features

The IRS will not move this requirement to highly desirable. Vendors are free to propose the product/service mix they feel will best meet the requirements of the PWS.

The RFP notes that Highly Desirable Content and Features are not limited to the bullets listed in Sections 4.3 and 5.4.3, respectively. Is it appropriate to list additional features and functionality that incur add-on costs and to list these costs in the price proposal as optional while separately providing a cost for the mandatory (standard law enforcement) offering?

Section 5.4.3 Highly Desireable Features

Vendors are free to propose additional features and functionality at their discretion;

optional and/or add-on item or feature pricing shall be clearly delineated as such in the Price Proposal.

Will the IRS expect the Contractor to integrate with an enterprise Identity Provider for Authorization and Authentication? Section 5.5.1 User Account Data

No.

Section 6.2 is labeled “Period of Performance,” but the provision appears to be related to invoicing?

Should the section be labeled “Invoicing”? Section 6.2 Period of Performance

Section updated to reflect correct information.

The Specific Acceptance Criteria do not appear to be consistent with the Section 6.3 Deliverables, which identify deliverables as “electronic access to data”.

More specifically, the Specific Acceptance Criteria refer to “work products” and “drafts for review and discussion” among other things. This does not appear to be relevant to the online information subscription product that offerors will be providing to IRS pursuant to this RFP. IRS end users conduct their own individual research using the online research platform provided by the offeror. There is no “work product” provided by the offeror. Please clarify if/how Section 6.4 is relevant to the requested electronic access to data. Additionally, please note that the section number (Section 5) cited in the first line of Rejection Procedures is incorrect.

Section 6.4 Inspection and Acceptance

Section is boilerplate language used in OBSA solicitations; the work product in question would be access to data that the vendor would be providing. Section 6.3 has been designated in the rejection procedures in lieu of Section 5.

We have noted several clauses and provisions in the RFP that are not the most current versions, so have noted those below and request clarification of the applicable terms.

RFP Section II – Clauses and Provisions

Vendors identified several clauses, incorporated both by reference and by full text, that required updating. The Contract Specialist has updated all CLINs to reflect their most recent versions in all cases identified.

We note that the list of FAR clauses/certifications that offerors must complete includes FAR 52.209-12, but we do not see FAR 52.209-12 included in the solicitation. Please clarify.

RFP Section II – Clauses and Provisions

Added.

For Section 508 compliance, we are accustomed to stating our certification. In the compliance section of the RFP -IR1052.239-9000 Section 508 Information, Documentation and Support (Dec 2019) - A list of requirements for support and documentation is listed, but not a specific of what is to be documented and supported. We assume this to be the various assistive software systems used by individuals with disabilities but would not be products we produce or support. As a portal provider, our features activate and provide outputs for those technologies to use and translate.

RFP Section II – Clauses and Provisions

The Section 508 Office identifies those Chapters and specific requirements applicable to acquisitions based on their respective PWS. Offerors are responsible for compliance with the terms of the solicitation, to include all applicable 508 clauses. So long as a vendor solution is compliant or able to function with 508 compliant products and/or services as applicable, vendors are free to propose the solution that they see as best able to satisfy PWS requirements.

The submission instructions require offerors to complete a list of FAR clauses/certifications (highlighted in yellow). Can you please clarify whether these completed clauses/certifications should be included as part of the Technical Volume or the Price Volume? Also, is it a correct understanding that the clauses/certifications do not count towards the page limits?

RFP Section III - Proposal Submission Instructions, 1.0 Delivery of Proposals

Assumptions; conditions; exceptions;

completed clauses as requested in the Proposal Submission Instructions; and standard commercial license agreements (including VPAT, etc.) shall be provided by vendors as a separate addendum from both the Technical and Price volumes. There’s no page limit associated with this addendum and vendors shall clearly identify it as an Addendum to their proposals. References made to elements of the Addendum in either vendors’ Technical or Price volumes shall be clearly identified with a detailed footnote.

Addendum content *does not* count toward page limits for either the Technical or Price Volume.

We note that the list of FAR clauses/certifications that offerors must complete includes FAR 52.209-12, but we do not see FAR 52.209-12 included in the solicitation. Please clarify.

RFP Section III - Proposal Submission Instructions, 1.0 Delivery of Proposals

Clause added to Section II.

We note that FAR 52.222-22 is highlighted in yellow in the solicitation, but it is not included in the submission instructions as one of the FAR clauses/certifications for offerors to complete.

Please clarify whether offerors should complete/submit FAR 52.222-22.

RFP Section III - Proposal Submission Instructions, 1.0 Delivery of Proposals

Please complete; added to the list of highlighted clauses in Section III.

We note that FAR 52.222-25 is highlighted in yellow in the solicitation, but it is not included in the submission instructions as one of the FAR clauses/certifications for offerors to complete.

Please clarify whether offerors should complete/submit FAR 52.222-25.

RFP Section III - Proposal Submission Instructions, 1.0 Delivery of Proposals

Please complete; added to the list of highlighted clauses in Section III.

Regarding clauses/certifications listed in this section that do not involve completion of information, should offerors acknowledge acceptance of those clauses/certifications?

RFP Section III - Proposal Submission Instructions, 1.0 Delivery of Proposals

Formal acknowlegement of acceptance is not required, but vendors may do so at their discretion.

The submission instructions indicate that the “Management Approach” goes into the Technical Volume. Is the “Management Approach” the same thing as the “Implementation and Operational (I/O) Plan” and “Training Plan” referenced in Factor 1? If not, can IRS please clarify what constitutes the “Management Approach”?

RFP Section III - Proposal Submission Instructions, 1.0 Delivery of Proposals

Language has been updated to reflect the I/O and Training plans.

The submission instructions provide offerors must “provide basis of estimate, labor categories, labor rates.” Basis of estimate, labor categories, and labor rates are not applicable to the commercial-off-the-shelf online subscription product that offerors provide in response to this solicitation. IRS end users access the subscription product to conduct their own research through their computer/web browser.

Will IRS please modify the language to read “Price volume to provide total pricing for one base year and four (4) Option Years of services included in attached PWS.”?

RFP Section III - Proposal Submission Instructions, 1.0 Delivery of Proposals

Language will be changed to reflect the suggested edit.

The solicitation places restrictions on both the largest font size allowed and the smallest font size allowed. Allowing for larger font sizes can help with document navigation and understanding. Would IRS please eliminate the restriction for largest font size allowed?

RFP Section III - Proposal Submission Instructions, 1.0 Delivery of Proposals

The Government will eliminate the largest font size restriction as requested. The smallest font size restriction will remain intact.

To ensure that offerors provide IRS with information needed to effectively evaluate responses, would IRS please extend the page limit for the Technical Volume to 75 pages (not including any exceptions, applicable ACR/VPAT, or any other related attachments)? Note that this is consistent with the previous Asset Locator solicitation.

RFP Section IV - Technical Acceptance Criteria and Basis for Award, Technical Volume

The Government has removed the Batch requirement that was present in the prior solicitation and has accordingly requested a smaller page limit for this solicitation. The Government will increase the Technical Volume page limit to 65 pages.

To ensure that offerors are able to provide IRS with complete pricing information, this offeror requests that IRS please extend the page limit for the Price Volume to 20 pages (not including licensing agreements, any exceptions, applicable ACR/VPAT, or any other related attachments).

RFP Section IV - Technical Acceptance Criteria and Basis for Award, Price Volume

The Government has removed the Batch requirement that was present in the prior solicitation and has accordingly requested a smaller page limit for this solicitation. The Government will increase the Price Volume page limit to 15 pages.

The Section number cited for these items (Section II

– Clauses and Provisions) appears to be incorrect.

Should this reference Section I – Performance Work Statement?

RFP Section IV - Technical Acceptance Criteria and Basis for Award, Factor 1

References corrected.

Factor 1 indicates that offerors will be evaluated based on their Marketing Plan. Yet, Section 5.7 of the Performance Work Statement simply requires vendors to attend IRS events and does not indicate the need for a Marketing Plan. Please clarify whether offerors should include a marketing plan and, if so, the types of information expected.

RFP Section IV - Technical Acceptance Criteria and Basis for Award, Factor 1

Marketing Plan should include at a minimum the items detailed in Sections 5.7 and 5.8 of the PWS.

Factor 2 indicates that IRS will “subjectively evaluate, through hands-on analysis” the extent to which an offeror’s databases, system features, and search methods meet the needs set forth in the PWS. However, unlike the previous Asset Locator RFP, there is no mention in the RFP of trial access.

Please clarify if IRS intends trial access as a component of the evaluation. If so, we request an opportunity for offerors to train/provide guidance to evaluators on the use of their subscription products. In the alternative, to facilitate evaluation of offers, would IRS consider a formal demonstration process to allow offerors to demonstrate their offered product(s) to members of the evaluation team?

RFP Section IV - Technical Acceptance Criteria and Basis for Award, Factor 2

Trial Access will be required as part of the evaluation. Training from the vendor for trial access will *not* be required; if the Government has questions regarding the trial access period, the Government will reach out to vendors directly. The Government will be requiring operational capability demonstrations (OCDs) during the evaluation.

Factor 2 indicates that offerors will be evaluated based on the mandatory content, “highly desirable” content, and mandatory features. Please clarify if IRS will be evaluating “highly desirable features.”

RFP Section IV - Technical Acceptance Criteria and Basis for Award, Factor 2

Yes; please review Factor 2 – Online Tool Content and Features for details.

Please clarify whether IRS will be evaluating the “enhanced” Criminal Investigation Data Requirements and the “enhanced” Criminal Investigation Feature Requirements (Section 4.1). If so, please clarify the method of evaluating the Criminal Investigation offerings, in the absence of specific requirements indicated in the RFP.

RFP Section IV - Technical Acceptance Criteria and Basis for Award, Factor 2

CI requirements are not being separately evaluated from other requirements of the PWS. Please see sections 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and

5.1.1 of the PWS.

Please clarify whether the information requested in Factor 2 should be included in the Technical Volume and subject to the applicable page limit.

RFP Section IV - Technical Acceptance Criteria and Basis for Award, Factor 3

Factor 2 info shall be included in Technical Volume and is subject to that page limit.

Factor 4 references “… as well as applicable personnel (by fully burdened labor category) expected to perform the tasks over the life of the contract.” As referenced above, personnel and labor categories are not applicable to the commercial-off-the-shelf online subscription product that offerors provide in response to this solicitation. IRS end users access the subscription product to conduct their own research through their computer/web browser.

Will IRS please modify the language to read “Offerors shall propose their pricing for work to be performed under the PWS. Offerors shall propose their pricing for the base period and each option period for the following user count tiers:”

RFP Section IV - Technical Acceptance Criteria and Basis for Award, Factor 4

Language will be changed to reflect the suggested edit.

Would IRS please identify which user band that offerors will be evaluated against for the base plus four (4) option years?

RFP Section IV - Technical Acceptance Criteria and Basis for Award, Factor 4

The Government will evaluate against Band D as identified under Factor 4.

The RFP notes that Highly Desirable Content and Features are not limited to the bullets listed in Sections 4.3 and 5.4.3, respectively. Is it appropriate to list additional features and functionality that incur add-on costs and to list these costs in the price proposal as optional while separately providing a cost for the mandatory (standard law enforcement) offering?

RFP Section IV - Technical Acceptance Criteria and Basis for Award, Factor 4

Vendors are free to propose additional features and functionality at their discretion;

optional and/or add-on item or feature pricing shall be clearly delineated as such in the Price Proposal.

Should vendors provide a firm-fixed price (FFP) for multiple quantities of users as outlined in the RFP pricing section? That is, should vendors provide a single price for “up to” the defined number of users in each user bucket?

RFP Section IV - Technical Acceptance Criteria and Basis for Award, Factor 4

Yes.

Sheet1