Questions and Answers 50310224R0009.pdf

SEC NON-PUBLIC INFORMATION 50310224R0009

5/24/2024

SEC RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS: RFP 50310224R0009

Ques�on 1: Provide addi�onal informa�on on why RFP #50310224R0009 was re-announced on May 15, 2024 (from prior RFP #50310224R006 originally due May 3, 2024).

Answer 1: The requirement was re-announced due to the lack of responsive offers.

Ques�on 2: Is there a current incumbent contractor for this RFP?

Answer 2: The current incumbent is ICE Data Pricing and Reference.

Ques�on 3: Within the RFP, Sec�on L.8 indicates that offerors should “use the Level of Effort iden�fied above (i.e., the 44 es�mated labor hours) for each period to price the requirements iden�fied in the contract Statement of Work” and later indicates “fixed costs shall be fully burdened and include all costs (direct and indirect), overhead, and profit.”

a. On Price Proposal submissions, does the SEC prefer only one item per op�on period (i.e., the 44 es�mated labor hours) and the associated price inclusive of labor, fixed costs, and profits?

Or, does the SEC prefer a more itemized price proposal; for example – the cost for each of the a) 44 es�mated labor hours; b) fixed costs and c) assumed profit clearly delineated?

b. If the SEC prefers a more itemized price proposal, does the SEC prefer itemiza�ons for third-party data costs specifically?

Answer 3: This is a firm fixed price contract, with one consolidated contract line item per period of performance.

Ques�on 4: Within the RFP, Sec�on H.7 indicates a VPAT 2.4 should be submited and offeror “shall indicate for each line item in the schedule where each product or service is compliant or non-compliant with accessibility requirements.” Is it acceptable to submit a VPAT 2.4 based on the por�on of the technical solu�on that has been completed and indicate we will complete and submit a follow-up VPAT

2.4 based on the full technical solu�on a�er contract award? If not, how does the SEC recommend poten�al offerors approach this?

Answer 4: Yes, that will be accepted as long as the delivered products and services are compliant.

Ques�on 5: With respect to security and accessibility controls iden�fied in the RFP’s Sec�on H.6, H.7, and H.8, is there anything in addi�on to VPAT 2.4 the offeror needs to submit to the SEC to comply with the iden�fied security requirements?

Answer 5: The RFP iden�fies security requirements throughout the sec�ons of the solicita�on.

Ques�on 6. Can the offeror submit reference leters, including contact informa�on consistent with informa�on requested in the RFP’s Past Performance sec�on, as Past Performance? If so, will this be evaluated by the SEC to provide a poten�al score for the Past Performance component?

Can the SEC recommend submi�ng anything else related to the offeror’s prior professional roles that could be used to provide a poten�al score for the Past Performance component of the RFP?

Answer 6: Past performance documenta�on may include references per RFP Sec�on M.2, Evalua�on of Factors.

Ques�on 7: Within the RFP, Sec�on C-10 highlights the SEC may “recommend enhancements to the 13F List, including enhancements to maintain compa�bility with the SEC’s other systems (e.g., EDGAR), to keep the 13F List technologically up-to-date or improve the presenta�on of the informa�on provided to the public in the 13F List.” Are there any enhancement areas that are top-of-mind for the SEC with respect to the 13F List Services?

Answer 7: No further enhancement is iden�fied at this �me.

Ques�on 8. Within the RFP, Sec�on C-4 (“Scope of the 13F List”), Part E states “Each 13F List must be current as of the calendar end date of the calendar quarter (“Current Date”) to which such 13F List relates” and Sec�on F-3 (“Schedule of Deliverables”) indicates the 13F List should be delivered “within 1- 2 business days before the end date of each calendar quarter(“Submission Date”).” We believe this is a contradic�on, as the Submission Date cannot be before the Current Date. We observe that prior 13F Lists published at htps://www.sec.gov/divisions/investment/13flists (collec�vely, “Prior Published 13F Lists”) are current as of the 15th day of the last month in the calendar quarter.

a. Can you please clarify the desired “Current Date” and desired “Submission Date” such that the Submission Date is a�er the Current Date?

b. More specifically, does the SEC want a Technical Approach that is consistent with Prior Published 13F Lists or consistent with an alterna�vely defined Current Date and Submission Date?

c. Should we notate which Current Date and Submission Date we are assuming in our Technical Proposal within the “Excep�ons, Devia�ons, and Assump�ons” sec�on?

Answer 8: The submission date is within 1-2 business days a�er the end date of the quarter (target quarter) as stated in the corrected Statement of Work (dated 5/24/2024).

Ques�on 9. Within the RFP, Sec�on C-4 (“Scope of the 13F List”), Part C states the 13F List “should be organized alphabe�cally by name of the issuer.”

a. Can you please clarify if the SEC wants alphabe�cal sor�ng consistent with Prior Published 13F Lists?

b. If so, should we notate this sor�ng assump�on – to be consistent with Prior Published 13F Lists – in our Technical Proposal within the “Excep�ons, Devia�ons, and Assump�ons” sec�on?

Answer 9: Alphabe�cal sor�ng is desired for the upcoming contract (for the period 2024-2029). The sor�ng order of the current published 13F list, which is predominantly in alphabe�cal order, is also acceptable.

Ques�on 10. The text of the RFP does not indicate which CUSIP codes should be assigned to Call and Put op�ons. Does the SEC want op�on CUSIP codes consistent with Prior Published 13F Lists? If so, should we notate our dummy CUSIP code assump�on - to be consistent with Prior Published 13F Lists – in our Technical Proposal within the “Excep�ons, Devia�ons, and Assump�ons” sec�on?

Answer 10: Any offer should either be based on the CUSIP codes in the current Official List of Sec�on 13(f) Securi�es or iden�fy any assump�ons or devia�ons in the offeror’s technical proposal.

Ques�on 11. Within the RFP, Sec�on L.3 indicates Technical and Price Proposals should be separate and complete. Does the SEC prefer the Technical and Price Proposals to be submited as separate files or a single file with each, separate proposal – Technical and Price – delineated?

Answer 11: Proposals must be physically separated so that the costs/prices are not reflected in the Technical Proposal.

Ques�on 12. Within the RFP, Sec�on I, several contract clauses from FAR are included by reference. Is there anything the SEC would like to call out that must be submited – subject to these included clauses by reference – to ensure a proposal submission is valid and not classified as non-responsive?

Answer 12: Compliance with the included FAR and SEC clauses is mandatory.

Ques�on 13. Within the RFP, Sec�on L.5 indicates proposals should include (preferably on the submission cover leter) a fax number. Is a fax number required?

Answer 13: A fax number is not required in the proposal.