Vendor_Question_CIREN_RFP-693JJ918R000050_FINAL.pdf

Vendor Questions – Government Responses | July 25, 2018 Quality Control of the Crash Injury Research and Engineering Network (CIREN)

SOLICITATION #693JJ918R000050

Vendor Question Government Response 1 Section B (page 4) of the RFP states “Subject to prior written approval of the

Contracting Officer, the Contractor may revise the list and/or labor category descriptions provided.” The RFP appears to narrowly restrict proposals to those involving two full-time employees with the title’s Principal Scientist and Associate Scientist. This is indicated in multiple locations of the RFP, including sections B.3.1 and B.3.2 (page 4), C.6.1.c (Page 13), L.9 (page 61), L.9.2 (pages 62-63), M.2 (Page 69). This contractor believes it can submit a proposal that would provide better value (technically and monetarily) to NHTSA if we are able to propose different labor distributions than the two positions indicated in the RFP. Would such a proposal be accepted for evaluation? Would such a proposal receive fair treatment under Evaluation Factor M.2?

Offerors may suggest alternate labor mixes. The proposal must include the resumes for the proposed personnel that describe the experience and qualifications in a way that demonstrates equivalent capability to what is described in the RFP. The technical evaluation will still focus on the noted capabilities/qualifications of interest, but will not rate negatively a proposal with a different labor mix. Offerors must propose their best solution based upon their understanding of the requirements.

2 In addition, section C.6 (page 13) of the RFP indicates the position of Program Manager, yet that is not listed in as one of the labor categories in Section B. May a Program Manager be identified that is not also either the Principal Scientist or Associate Scientist?

The Program Manager role may be performed by one of the primary labor categories or may be an auxiliary person.

3 Will NHTSA offer an extension for RFP response? We are currently responding to solicitations and need to balance the resources needed to respond.

No, the RFP response due date will not be extended.

4 What is this anticipated start date for this Contract?

NHTSA anticipates issuing a contract award on/around September 2018.

5 What is anticipated for the contractor’s involvement in writing edit checks? Will the contractor be writing logic statements?

Expected contributions for edit checks include identifying needs, developing the logic, testing the logic, and implementing the checks into the data system. This is expected to be a continuous effort where existing checks are maintained and/or retired as necessary to adapt to changes.

6 Section B states that all key personnel must have gone through NHTSA crash investigation training already, but C.6.1.d. states that untrained personnel must complete NHTSA crash instigation training. Can you please clarify if the personnel need to have completed the training prior to award?

It is desirable for the key personnel to be trained and knowledgeable about data requirements upon award, but NHTSA acknowledges this may not be possible and will do its best to accommodate training needs. Formal training opportunities may be limited, but a plan for on-the-job training by experienced personnel may meet the needs of the program on a temporary basis.

7 Can you please provide examples and clarification as to what technical support is needed in sections C.6.4.c?

The technical support required may vary, but would likely involve tasks such as reviewing data tables for proper translation, checking variable and attribute lists for user documentation, developing remedies for translation problems, and editing the data dictionary.