Amendment_0003_QA_2-7-18.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 16 KB Posted
- Attached to
- RFP for Quantitative Research Analytical Data Support (QRADS) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 50310218R0002
- Issued by
- Securities and Exchange Commission
About this file
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON AMENDMENT 0002 CHANNELS 1, 2, 4, AND 5
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 34
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Question# | Section | Paragraph | Page 80 | Question | Answer |
| 1 | H.19.1 | Channel 2 KPs | 51 | Section H.19.1 Indicates Senior Statistical Programming Analyst as KP for Channel 2. However, the Labor Rates Table and Attachment L-2 refer to Statistical Programming Analyst. Can you please clarify which is correct? | Section H.19.1 of the RFP has been updated to correctly reflect the Statistical Programming Analyst. |
| 2 | L | Vol. I - Tab B - 508 Compliance | 80 | The Section 508 conformance information is required to be submitted in each Channel proposal in accordance with H.12. Please clarify, what response is required by offeror if the offeror is only proposing services and no products. Page 10 of the VPAT references ‘Name of Product/Version’. If a vendor is not proposing products (only services) as part of our response, do we still need to complete attachment H-6 VPAT Instructions? | A VPAT would not be required, although some form of confirmation of staff’s accessibility knowledge and examples of previous compliant deliverables would need to be provided and would be an acceptable option to a VPAT. Channel 2 and 4 would require 508 compliance. This is a link to Section 508.gov that would apply to Channel 2 and 4. https://section508.gov/refresh-toolkit/applicable-508-standards-and-exceptions-chart#website. A VPAT would only be required after a tool was produced prior to SEC acceptance. |
| 3 | We request an extension from February 9 to February 19 | The government has considered the request for an extension for proposal submission for Channels 1, 2, 4, and 5 and has determined that it will not provide an extension because the actual requirements for the those channels have not changed. | |||
| 4 | What is the Government's rationale for the 65% reduction in ceiling value while maintaining the same requirements and scope? | The Government updated its estimated maximums to more accuretly reflect the anticipated dollars that will be expended against each Channel at the IDIQ level. This does not impact the requirements nor the scope of the Sample Task Orders nor the scope of the overall IDIQ contracts. | |||
| 5 | What is the Government's plan to ensure the small business awardee is not set up for failure and significantly increasing the risk of receiving a negative CPAR or a cancelled contract due to the imbalance of scope and limiting the small business to insufficient resources to execute the requirements? | The Government is not limiting the small businesses to insufficient resources. Offerors need to determine their resources based on the actual requirements as opposed to the estimated maximum values. | |||
| 6 | What is the Government’s rationale for not providing a due date extension given the impact on proposed technical solutions and pricing that may need to be modified, teaming agreements that may need to be terminated, and personnel that will have to be released from their commitment to this contract? | The estimates are just that, estimates of the maximums. The Government did not deem that updating the estimated maximums would require an extension because the Government did not ascertain that any teaming agreements/technical solutions would be impacted by the changes in estimated maximums at the IDIQ level. Vendors are only proposing labor categories and rates at the IDIQ level. Costs based on the actual required labor categories and hours are being proposed at the Sample Task Order level and that information has not been changed for Channels 1, 2, 4, and 5. Therefore, the proposal due dates for Channels 1, 2, 4, and 5 is not changed. | |||
| 7 | What is the Government's rationale for deviating from its customary fair treatment of small businesses to what is, in effect, penalizing the small business community? | The Government does not understand this question. The Government is in no way trying to penalize small businesses as the SEC values the small business community and the diverse expertise that many of them are able to bring to the agency. Small businesses may bid on all channels even though Channel 1 is specifically set-aside for small businesses and we encourage them to do so. | |||
| 8 | Would the Government consider making Channel 3 a small business set aside? | The Government completed its review of all of the Channels to determine which Channels could be set aside for small business. No more Channels will be set aside for small businesses based on the Government's review. | |||
| 9 | Would the Government consider increasing the dollar ceiling of Channel 1 to accomodate the requirements of that Channel? | The Government believes that the estimated ceiling of Channel 1 accommodates the requirements of that Channel. | |||
| 10 | L-6 - Sample Task, Channel 2 | Attachment L-6 page 1-9 | Can the government expand on the level of complexity and the number of inputs/interfaces to allow us to better scope the level of effort required? | The OIDS system utilizes SAS 9.4 and Python to produce reports containing financial data and analysis. The reports leverage different data sources, from Oracle, to SAS datasets. A report can have multiple data sources, for which additional code may be needed to synthesize data on the back-end. Statistical and programming skills are required to be successful, and financial, economic and securities knowledge highly advantageous to create new and novel analytical reports for the benefit of financial regulators. There are multiple requirements and challenges that make this an complex task. | |
| 11 | General | Due to Amendment 2 and the need to review changes, will the government extend the proposal deadlines for all channels for another week to allow time for review? | The Government will not extend the time for the submission of proposals in response to channels 1,2,4, and 5 at this time, given that the actual requirements for those channels have not changed. | ||
| 12 | Page 83 Tab D (5) | The RFP states "A work breakdown structure and schedule that describes how the Offeror will successfully complete the requirements of the sample task order. The work breakdown structure shall identify the proposed personnel, their labor categories, and hours proposed to accomplish the requirements of the sample task order." Sample task orders do not have user stories or business/functional/non-functional requirements. Please provide details on what the government expects to see in contractor's schedule (as part of this response) without actual requirements. Or is this only expected once the contract is awarded? | What is requested in 5) is the vendor's best estimate of the personnel (including Key Personnel), labor categories and hours needed to support the sample Task Order/Channel, given the vendors' understanding of the work as described in the Scope section of the Sample Task Order for the respective Channel to which the offeror is proposing. This is required with the offerors proposal submission. | ||
| 13 | Attachment L-3 | 2nd Paragraph | The form states both that PPQ’;s are due for Channels 1,2,4 and 5 by Feb 9th at 12:00 but goes on to state “Past Performance Questionnaires shall be submitted to QRADS2@sec.gov NO LATER THAM 12:00PM EST February 23, 2017” Please correct so we don’t confuse the person providing feedback. | The February 23, 2018 date refers to the due date for Channel 3 PPQs and the attachment has been updated accordingly. | |
| 14 | Section L.8.2 - General Format Instructions | In the Proposal Organization Table, the last item talks about Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Not applicable to Small Business). For the purposes of this exemption does the size standard of revenue below $27.5 Million apply or should we have to follow the size standard of $15 Million under NAICS Code 541690? | The size standard associated with NAICS code 541690 applies. | ||
| 15 | H.19.1 Channel 2 | Statistical Programming Analyst | The government changed the labor category from a Senior designation but still requires a Master’s Degree. We request removing the Masters requirement if the position is not at a Senior level. | The government acknowledges the change but is not changing the requirement at this time. | |
| 16 | H.12 | Para. 4 | Page 44 | Is it the SEC's intent for Offerors to complete and submit a separate VPAT template for each line in the Sample Task Order schedule (ex. Master Project Plan) as part of this solicitation? Is it also the SEC’s requirement for the VPAT to apply to scheduled items that are pure professional services support of SEC requirements and current SEC technologies (e.g. an update to an existing SAS report)? If the VPAT is not required for this submission, is SEC requesting a 508 compliance statement from the Offeror to agree to with all product and service deliverables? | Channel 2 and 4 would require 508 compliance. This is a link to Section 508.gov that would apply to Channel 2 and 4. https://section508.gov/refresh-toolkit/applicable-508-standards-and-exceptions-chart#website. A VPAT would only be required after a tool was produced prior to SEC acceptance. 1. The VPAT is the standard method to verify and determine if an e-deliverable or product is 508 compliant. All e-deliverables, such as the Master Project Plan, if required to be posted to an SEC website, are required to be 508 compliant. The VPAT would be submitted as part of the deliverable and not at the point of the solicitation. 2. The VPAT would be submitted as part of the product or e-deliverable and not required for the solicitation. The SEC is requesting a 508 compliance statement from the Offeror to agree to that all product and service e-deliverables developed during the course of the contract will be 508 compliant. |
| 17 | Amendment 0002 mentions that the Q&A questions 37 and 43 were changed, but 43 wasn't changed. was there another question | Question 37 was changed to more accurately coincide with the answer to question 43 to make sure the past performance questionnaire guidance is clear. | |||
| 18 | Why have the dollar amounts been changed in the table under B.2 | The estimated dollar amounts were changed to more accurately reflect the Governments estimated maximums based on previous history, current need, and anticipated need. Again, these are just estimates. |
mailto:QRADS2@sec.gov Sheet2
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it.