Questions and Answers_75R60221R00007.pdf

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Solicitation #75R60221R00007

1. I saw a notice on sam.gov that EHBs will drop on or around Feb. 10, 2021. Does the govt.

still intend to host an industry day?

Response: The Information Day was conducted on February 17, 2021.

2. For EHBs DME Domain 1, I am not seeing any language around the number of awards.

Does the government intend to issue a single award, or is this a multiple award?

Response: Multiple award; however, the Government reserves the right to issue a single award. The Government has not determined the number of awards for Domain 1 or Domain 2.

3. Since Domain 2 is set-aside for small businesses (NAICS Code 541519 with a size standard of $30M), small businesses that qualify under the size standard may not have multiple large federal government contracts to meet the Organizational Experience requirements.

• Would the Government consider allowing one of the three projects to come from a subcontractor?

Response: Yes

• Are offerors required to possess three contracts that both address PMO Support and Enterprise Architecture, or can we address these requirements across the three contracts (ex: one contract reference addresses Enterprise Architecture; the remaining two contracts address PMO Support)?

Response: Government prefers that Offerors demonstrate both SA (SA references Enterprise Architecture or System Architecture from a EHBs perspective) and PMO Support experience, but we will review any experience submitted.

• Will the government consider revising the requirement to allow offerors to cite three contracts each with a total contract value of $2 million?

Response: No. However, we will accept and review any experience submitted.

4. As the subject RFP is issued for a resultant IDIQ under two separate domains dependent upon the business size standard Section L.2 – Domain Competition states that Large Business shall submit proposal for only Domain One (1). Please advise if the Government anticipates the award under Domain One (1) to be a single or multi-award?

Response: See Question #2.

5. A Our subcontractor raised a question that we would prefer to remain confidential with

HRSA regarding conflict of interest, specifically related to Domain Two, System

Architecture and PMO Services: If the offeror (including the subcontractor) was awarded under Domain Two, would this create an Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) concern that would prohibit the offeror (including the subcontractor) from pursuing other HRSA contracts related to enterprise architecture and infrastructure outside of EHBs?

Response: The OCI specified in the RFP is only applicable to EHBs contracts.

6. Can the government clarify Conflicts of interest between EHB PMO, EHB V&V, EHB

DME, EHB O&M and BPA for EA and EIS? And, if any conflicts apply, does it apply only to the Prime Contractor or will it apply to its Subcontractors and staffing partners’ added pre or post award?

Response: The OCI clause applies only to the Prime vendors who are fully responsible for performing the contract. They cannot propose themselves as prime or sub on the other mentioned EHBs program contracts. The new BPA for EA and EIS is not a EHBs program contract and is excluded from this OCI clause.

7. Is there an incumbent contractor currently performing these services, if similar services have been performed in the past, or if this is a new requirement. If this is a follow-on requirement, could you please provide the previous contract or task order number?

Response: Yes; HHSH250201800014B

8. Since Domain 2 will be set-aside for small businesses, like in the previous solicitation, will the Domain 1 bidders also have to meet small business requirements?

9. Will the HRSA EHB DME have COI between the 2 domains, i.e., can subs or primes be on both domains?

Response: Primes cannot be on both domains, but subcontractors can be on both domains.

10. The previous HRSA EHB DME solicitation accepted federal and commercial past performances with preference on federal. If HRSA is committed to innovating the EHBs many great references are coming out of the commercial practices. Will HRSA give federal and commercial past performance the same weight?

Response: Yes.

11. For the EHB SA/PMO the Level of effort for the proposal response is on par with the DME effort which is much bigger in size. Can the government consider revising the response outline for Domain Two to be in line with the opportunity size and scope?

12. Can you clarify the hypothetical projects are only two for Domain One and three for Domain Two?

13. In Domain one the pricing for hypothetical projects is required per the RFP. Does the same apply for Domain two as well?

14. In the industry day it was clarified Domain 2 is not a recompete of Deloitte contract. But it also mentioned the Domain 2 is not definitized.

• Does this mean Domain 2 is not yet finalized to be procured or not?

Response: Domain 2 is finalized and ready for procurement.

• If the Deloitte SA AND PMO contract is not expiring. What will be the difference between domain 2 and Deloitte’s current work in terms of scope?

Response: The EHBs SA PMO work will be performed under Domain 2.

15. For domain 2, the current language states only prime past performances are acceptable.

However the industry day stated this may change with 1 being allowed from sub. Please clarify.

Response: Only prime past performances are acceptable. The Information Day response was related to organizational experience in the technical proposal (Volume I) which is different from past performance (Volume III).

16. In EHB DME RFP_ Draft.pdf, Page 55, Domain Two for PMO services requires CMMI Certification, Page 72 then specifies CMMI Level 3 Certification (Dev).

Why is this required for PMO Services, and can the government remove this requirement?

Response: The Government has determined that a CMMI Level III Dev or Svc is necessary for Domain 2 and will not remove this requirement.

17. We are a SDVOSB business and so we would like to know if we are qualified to submit proposal for this RFP. Also, we would like to have your organization chart, the current incumbent and the contract details, and the budget information to provide a suitable proposal.

Response: The organization chart will not be provided as part of RFP.

Response: See Question #7 Response: The Offeror shall provide the level of effort to perform contract.

18. Is IV&V's current Prime Vendor eligible to respond to Domain 2 (SA/PMO) RFP?

Response: No.

19. Is IV&V's current subcontractor to a prime vendor eligible to respond to Domain 2

(SA/PMO) RFP?

20. Is a company eligible to be a subcontractor in responding to both Domain 1 & 2 RFPS?

21. Can a small business bidding on domain 1 as a sub can also bid on Domain 2 as a prime?

22. Can a large business bidding as a prime on enterprise wide EA and EIS BPA bid on Domain

2 as a sub?

Response: Yes. Assuming the question is referencing the recently solicited HRSA Enterprise wide EA and EIS BPA which are unrelated to the EHBs program contracts.

23. How many awardees will be expected?

Response: The Government has not determined the number of awardees.

24. Who will furnish the Lab/Test equipment and space? where is the equipment location right now? Who is responsible to transport the devices after awarded? Could government provide the list of devices?

Response: There is no lab or test equipment requirement.

25. Can a business WITHOUT CMMI Level3 (Dev) certification submit a proposal, and still be awarded?

Response: Not for Domain 1. The Government will accept CMMI Level 3 (Dev or Svc) for Domain 2.

26. Does government have the distance or driving time requirement for the contractor facility?

Response: Vendor’s primary office location servicing the contract should be within a 50-mile radius of 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD.

27. Can offeror choose other persons as the key personnel in the proposal, instead of the program manager? Or one of key personnel must be the program manager, as it stated in G.4, page 19 on solicitation

Response: No

28. Should this say "Domain Two (Small-Business Set Aside)" Page 72, Domain One (Small-

Business Set Aside)

29. Page 72 (1) "... provide a written proof of CMMI Level 3 Certification (Dev) at the time of quote submission. CMMI Level 3 or better will be accepted, but not rated higher for the purposes of the proposal." If Domain 2 is a small business set aside, why is there a requirement for small businesses who perform PMO services to be CMMI 3 Dev Certified? CMMI certifications require thousands of dollars and this will restrict lots of small businesses from being able to meet this requirement. I am requesting that this requirement be removed for small businesses.

Response: The Government has determined that CMMI Level 3 (Dev or Svc) is necessary for Domain 2 and will not remove this requirement.

30. Will the attendee list from industry day be published?

31. Will there be an Orals component, code challenge?

Response: Orals component, but no code challenge.

32. Will it be a phased approach with a down select?

Response: See RFP.

33. Can you clarify if one Past performance can be used as a subcontractor?

Response: All past performance reported should be for the prime contractor.

34. Can a vendor provide two past performance from the same agency but different projects?

35. On page 32 there is a typo “ by adopted by DME, V&V and O&M contractors”

36. Can you clarify that the Task Area 4 – HRSA Security and Records Management Requirements is only guidelines but not a task to perform within HRSA

Response: Task Area 4 is a task.

37. In the EHB DME RFP_ Draft, Page 26 - The OCI statement implies an anticipated conflict with current or future tasks. Would the government please elaborate on any currently known conflicts or anticipated future types of conflicts that the tasks identified in this RFP (EHB SA and PMO) will be considered an OCI?

Response: Prime Offerors responsible for EHBs O&M, SA-PMO (new), EA-PMO, V&V, and DME (new) services.

38. Since some of the tasks in this RFP is work, currently being performed, has the Government identified any OCI with other HRSA projects / contracts that cannot be satisfactorily avoided or mitigated?

Response: See response to Question#37.

39. Does the Government perceive there is an OCI between EHB DME tasks and the EHB SA and PMO tasks?

Response: See response to Question#37.

40. If a vendor is awarded this work and encounters an OCI, would a mitigation plan be acceptable to HRSA?

Response: Only if mitigation plan mitigates OCI.

41. On page 72 – EHBs DME RFP PDF document, it says” Domain One (Small-Business Set Aside). Could you clarify that this is Domain two instead of Domain One

42. Are the orals mandatory for both Domain 1 & 2?

43. Can the government confirm that Task 4 & 5 & 6 are not part of deliverables but they are HRSA standards and guidelines for vendors to follow for the course if this contract

Response: Task Areas 4, 5, & are tasks.

44. Page 54 in the RFP does not clearly indicate how many pages response is required for each domain. Please provide additional clarification on page limit for each domain. Can you also provide page limit response for each Hypothetical projects?

Response: Domain 1 – 90 pages and Domain 2 – 75 pages. The response to hypothetical projects must be included in these page limits.

45. Do we have to include Cost breakdown or consolidate dollar value for hypotheticals?

Response: Cost breakdown.

46. Will the government allow the CMMI Level 3 Certification (SVC) proof for the processes compliance requirement?

Response: Domain 1 requires CMMI Level 3 Dev and Domain 2 can have CMMI Level 3 Dev or CMMI Level 3 Svc).

47. Is the Offeror required to provide experience in both architecture oversight and PMO in all three past performances or can we cover them individually in each one of the past performances?

Response: Can cover individually.

48. On Page 48 of the RFP document, there’s a reference to “Ending the HIV Epidemic: Pre- Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) Implementation and Dissemination; Solicitation# 75R60220R00001.” Please confirm this is a typo and is irrelevant to this solicitation.

49. On Page 53 of the RFP document, it states, “Proposals shall include an initial page with the information required by the clause at paragraph (c)(2) and shall be submitted in four (4) volumes as outlined below: Volume I Technical Proposal, Volume II Business Proposal, Volume III Past Performance.” Please confirm there are only 3 required volumes as listed.

50. On Page 70 of the RFP document, it states, “The Offeror shall provide a list and description of three (3) or more large enterprise DME projects within the past three (5) years that demonstrates the Offeror’s experience with similar scope, size, and complexity as this requirement.” Please confirm whether the experience is within 3 or 5 years.

Response: 5 years

51. Can experience for subcontractors be included to support the Corporate Experience requirements on page 70 and 71 of the RFP document? In particular, for projects where the prime and subcontractor have worked collaboratively to support a DME project.

Response: Yes for one of the 3 projects required under Volume I for Corporate Experience.

52. Page 80 of the RFP document states, “The Government will conduct a past performance evaluation of the Offeror’s past performance as well as that of its subcontractors.” How many Past Performance references are required? How many past performance references should be from subcontractors?

Response: Three (3) past performance references for the prime only.

53. Please confirm if Offerors are to submit this form (SF-LLL Disclosure Lobbying Activities) with the proposal? If so, please confirm it should be included in Volume II.

Response: Yes, if Offeror participate in lobbying activities and should be included in Volume II.

54. Vol III Past Performance. Please specify any instructions or limitations for the Past

Performance volume. Is anything to be submitted in addition to the questionnaires that are to be completed by references?

55. Given that the Statement of Work encompasses the broad scope of DME services for the

EHBs, please provide additional details on the level of granularity the Government requires within the project plan.

Ref: L.5 Technical Proposal Instructions – Volume I “A detailed project plan must be submitted indicating how each aspect of the statement of work is to be accomplished...”

56. Please confirm the resumes and letters of commitment should be submitted as an Appendix.

(Ref: L.5)

57. It seems that 2, 3, 4, and 5 will be covered in Volume I and Volume III.

• Please clarify what offeror’s should submit as part of Volume II to demonstrate meeting requirements for items 2, 3, 4, and 5.

• Please specify what proof is required to demonstrate “possession of required facilities and equipment”.

Response: A brief description facilities and equipment available at the primary place performance will suffice. Pictures if available could be added in the Appendix.

58. The SOW states that the 45-day period can start later than the deployment/release date but it also mentions that the Project planning at the Task Order level shall account for accommodating the projected 45 day warranty days within the performance period. Can

Offerors assume that the issuance of the task order by the Government will account for the delayed start for the 45-day warranty?

Response: The Offeror must ensure that the release or use of the product is commenced 45-days before the end date of period-of-performance for a task order. The start date and end date is specified in each task order.

59. The table “Domain One – 1.5 45-Day Production Deployment Software Service” states that the DME vendor is responsible for fixing the “Existing code that is not modified for this release, however an issue is identified during the testing cycle for this release.” In order to account for the effort to resolve the existing issues in the legacy code, will the Government provide the list of the issues beforehand?

Response: This is in reference to unknown issues or scenarios in legacy code that surface at the time of integration and testing for which a list cannot be provided. If issues are identified by the end user in advance (i.e., a known issue), the O&M vendor will fix the issue. However, any critical issues identified during the DME testing phase which will impact stakeholders or functionality, the legacy code must be fixed by the DME vendor. Government will work with Offerors to prioritize and schedule the fixes.

60. Please clarify when the DME vendor is responsible in case of the 45 Day - Out of Warranty such that the effort can be accounted for in the project planning.

Response: See response to Question#59.

61. Ref: Attachment F-EHBs-DME-Labor_Categories-SR_CS. Please confirm that this file should be labeled as Attachment Q.

Response: The file has been renamed to Attachment Q1.

62. Ref: Attach Q: The years of experience required for both the Cloud Developer/Engineer and Cloud Architect is noted as >= 7 years. Will the Government be able to extract the required expertise in the cloud domain with 7 years of experience for the desired Cloud Architect?

63. Please clarify how many resumes we need to present as part of Key Personnel requirements in each domain?

Response: Resumes must be submitted for all domain specific Key Labor Categories as described in Attachments Q1 and Q2 for Domain 1 and 2, respectively.

64. How many awards will be made for each Domain?

Response: The Government has not determined the number of awards for Domain 1 or Domain 2,

65. In Volume I as part of Organizational Experience, do you mean our past performance? If yes, how many do we need to present?

Response: No. Organizational experience is the type of work you performed and Past performance is how well you performed.

66. Volume II reads “Organizations shall provide a copy of their current negotiated indirect rate agreement with the Federal Government”. Please clarify are you referring to items such as GSA Schedule 70 etc...

67. In Volume II, section 2. Admin and Management Data, what do you mean by “Record of

Past Performance”?

68. RFP Page 22 - What are the maximum number of vendors the Government plans to make awards to under each Domain of this Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Solicitation?

Response: The Government has not determined the number of awards for Domain 1 or Domain 2.

69. RFP Page 72. Understanding of the Need and CMMI Certification - May a Small Business offeror that is currently in the process of a CMMI Certification application submit a proposal in response to this solicitation if they anticipate receiving the certification well ahead of award?

70. SOW: The Common Task Areas on page 11 include HRSA Security and Records

Management Requirements, HHS Privacy, and Federal Records Management and Retention.

These are the same as Task Areas 4, 5, and 6 in Domain Two. Can the government confirm whether these tasks should be addressed as Common Tasks Areas 2, 3, and 4 or as Task Areas 4, 5, and 6?

Response: Proposal should address it as listed in the RFP for each domain.

71. SOW: Does the government currently have a system to support EVMS?

72. SOW: Under “Earned Value Management,” HRSA mentions the use of “Microsoft Project or HRSA-approved software.” Does HRSA consider Microsoft Project a viable option for Earned Value Management?

73. SOW: Under Task Area 1, it states “Len Management methods.” Does the government intend for this to say “Lean”?

74. SOW: Under Task Area 1.2 #6, it states, “Over the life of the contract, implement 100% automated unit test for all software modules...” Is this a goal to be accomplished by the end of the contract or a requirement at the start of the contract?

Response: Start of the contract. It is a target for all EHBs code by the end of the contract.

75. SOW: Under Task Area 1.2 #6, it states, “Over the life of the contract, implement 100% automated unit test for all software modules...” What are the current or planned GFE automated testing tools?

Response: Refer to tools and technology document (Attachment A7) of the RFP for a list of tools.

76. SOW: Under Task Area 1.2 #10, it states, “Over the life of the contract, develop and execute a plan for maintaining a maximum of 2 versions of the latest common components and third party tools/technologies…” Is this a goal to be accomplished by the end of the contract or a requirement at the start of the contract?

Response: Start of the contract for all new task orders. It is also a target for all EHBs code by the end of the IDIQ performance period.

77. SOW: Under Task Area 1.3 #4, it states, “Automate 20-25% of functional, and regression tests year by year.” What is the current percentage of automated testing?

Response: Estimated to be less than 10%.

78. SOW, Task 1.3: #6: What are the current or planned GFE tools for security testing?

Response: Refer to tools and technology document (Attachment A7) of the RFP for a list of tools.

79. SOW, Task 1.4: #5 states “Address any defects resulting from the deployment within 45 days.” Can the government define whether these are business days or calendar days?

Response: Calendar days.

80. SOW, Task 1.5: #4 states, “At a minimum, schedule deployed releases at least 45 days prior to the end of this contract’s performance period.” Does this refer to the overall contract performance period or each option period?

Response: Performance period at task order level

81. SOW, Task 1.5: “For defect tickets escalated from the HRSA Customer Support Center…” what tool does the government use to track support tickets?

Response: JIRA.

82. SOW, Task 1.5: Can the government provide ticket details on how tickets are defined by severity and/or prioritization?

Response: They can vary depending upon the product module and are defined at the task order level.

83. SOW, Task 1.6: #1: Request the government provide historical data metrics on the average number of trainings developed per year.

Response: 20-25.

84. SOW, Task 1.6: #6: Request the number of Customer Support Center staff members to be trained.

Response: 25-30.

85. SOW, Task 1.7: #4: What is the current and planned GFE for preparing these videos?

Response: Vyond and Adobe Captivate are used to create the media. The created media can be used for in-house training or uploaded on to the HRSA YouTube Channel.

86. SOW, Task 4: “Report all suspected and confirmed information security and privacy incidents and breaches…no later than one hour.” Can the government confirm that this notification is during work hours?

Response: Must be reported within the hour of discovery during work or non-work hours.

87. Is EHB lift and shift migration to Azure Cloud finished or still in progress? Which vendor is working on this project?

Response: One non-production EHBs environment was lifted and shifted in 2020.

Multiple vendors participated in the effort and are irrelevant to the RFP response.

88. What is the status of the GAAM Module Modernization?

Response: GAAM is still in EHBs legacy platform.

89. What is the status of the POC for Database migration to Azure Cloud? Did HRSA decide to use Azure SQL Instance as the migration target?

Response: POCs is in progress at this time no determination has been made. The Offeror must propose their own ideas in the proposal based on their own experience and outcomes for similar projects.

90. What is the Status of POC/Pilot for File Server migration to Azure Cloud? Did HRSA Azure cloud infrastructure support this hybrid migration model?

Response: POCs is in progress at this time no determination has been made. The Offeror shall propose their own ideas in the proposal based on their own experience and outcomes for similar projects.

91. Can the government explain how Deloitte will work with the Domain Two awardee(s) on system architecture and PMO support services?

92. If the work under Domain Two is separate from Deloitte’s work, will there be any overlapping or integrated activities between the Domain Two awardee(s) and Deloitte?

Response: The work under Domain Two is not separate from Deloittes’s work.

93. Are contractors permitted to respond to both domains, or would this create a conflict of interest? For example, can a small business submit as a subcontractor on Domain One and as a prime on Domain Two?

94. The RFP states that the offeror “shall demonstrate that their key personnel are ready to submit onboarding paperwork within five (5) days after award.” What information do offerors need to provide to adequately demonstrate this criteria?

Response: Demonstrate that the proposed personnel are current/future employees of the Offeror along with a signed letters of commitment. Any additional evidence that shows current or recent clearances to perform work for federal government would be helpful (e.g., currently badged). Copies of actual clearance documents, badges, and any confidential information should not be submitted.

95. The RFP states, “If subcontractors are being proposed, provide information to support the qualifications of the subcontractors (e.g., resumes, vitae’s, signed letters of commitment, etc.).” Should offerors provide letters of commitment on behalf of the subcontracting company itself, or for any staff coming from the subcontracting company?

Response: Any staff coming from the subcontracting company.

96. Re: resumes and letters of commitment: Are offerors required to submit letters of commitment for proposed staff currently employed by the offeror?

97. Re: Phase Two: Design Challenge, The government provides the factors for the design challenge but does not explain the format or delivery method. Will offerors be expected to design and develop a prototype within a specific timeframe? Will there be an oral presentation component? Please provide further detail.

98. How many projects should offerors cite in the Past Performance Volume?

99. Can offerors cite a project from a subcontractor as one of our past performance projects?

100. RFP p. 66: (Hypothetical Two – Records Management): “Previously HRSA had piloted

Documentum (a COTS product) which was shut down because of the cost for customization, operation and maintenance.” Please explain which customizations HRSA is looking for in a desired records management solution.

Response: HRSA is looking for a new innovative solution. The customizations must meet the NARA requirements of M-19-21 as specified in the RFP.

101. RFP p. 66: Please provide clarifying detail on Hypothetical Two - Records Management

(same section as above question). Are all records document content, or are there other types of records?

Response: EHBs contains data elements (in data tables), multi-media, and documents (files).

102. RFP: p. 74: Hypothetical Project Two: Multi-Cloud Strategy speaks of migrating to cloud providers and expanding from the single cloud provider used today (Azure). Should the desired solution approach also account for post transition activities, including provisioning new cloud services, managing compute and other utilization metrics, have governance in place to limit overuse and track spend, among other things?

Response: The RFP is specific to only proposing and implementing the hypothetical scenario. The vendor may include any additional relevant (post or pre-implementation) information.

103. One of my clients leverages both off-shore labor (including some employees who are not US citizens) and rural sourcing (U.S. residents in tertiary markets) for the dual benefit of exceptional technical qualifications and competitive labor rates, both of which are attractive to commercial clients. Is either/each of these options acceptable to HRSA in response to the IDIQ referenced above?

Response: All personnel proposed must meet the Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD-12) badging requirements for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://psc.gov/services/intake-suitability-badging

104. Please confirm that there is150 page limit for each RFP's Domains (1 &2) response

Response: See RRP.

105. Hypothetical projects requiring FTE breakdown - please confirm our response should be limited to only the listed labor categories on the "Attachment F"? If not is the vendor allowed to choose beyond those categories to satisfy the project requirements?

Response: Offeror may propose categories other than those listed in Attachments Q1 and Q2. However, the pricing information must include the price for the labor category proposed.

106. Design Challenge requirements - are these challenges requirements applicable for both domain one/two SOW? or will there be different ones at the Phase 1 down selects?

107. Solicitation Section M.5.1, Rating Standards for Non-Price Proposal, Rating Standard for

Design Challenge (page 80), states that “responses to questions, if any, will be considered by the evaluators in determining the Offeror’s score”. a) At what stage in the Design Challenge process is it anticipated that such a question and answer process with the offerors will take place? b) Will doing so first require the establishment of a Competitive Range, and constitute discussions?

108. Solicitation Section M.5.1, Rating Standards for Non-Price Proposal, Rating Standard for

Design Challenge (page 81), identifies a 1-5 point grading scheme, and a 1-3 point weighting scheme.

https://psc.gov/services/intake-suitability-badging

• a) Please confirm the Government’s intent to numerically score the Design Challenge.

• b) Assuming that the Design Challenge will be numerically scored, how will those ratings be combined with the adjectival ratings that are assigned to the offerors’ written Technical proposals?

• c) At what point in the process will the weights be assigned? Before or after the submission and/or evaluation of the offerors’ proposals?

109. During Industry Day, the Government indicated a need to award before May 2021. Can the Government please explain the constraint or business imperative associated with that date?

Response: It is based on the Government’s need.

110. B.2.3 Consideration and Payment: “...the Contractor shall be reimbursed on a time and materials, cost-reimbursement basis, a firm-fixed-price basis, or a combination of cost reimbursement and firm fixed price. Each task order awarded under the contract shall include one or more of the labor categories in Section B.2.2, and the Contractor shall be reimbursed for costs incurred for labor based on the unloaded hourly rates proposed in its contract cost proposal.” Noting the reference to unloaded hourly rates, can the Government explain under what circumstances the contractor would only be reimbursed at unloaded hourly rates, especially given that B.2.2 establishes ceiling rates by labor category and that task orders may also be FFP or T&M? The Government stated during Industry Day that no cost-reimbursable task orders would be released under this contract.

Response: See RFP

111. OCI: Will the Government confirm—per information provided at Industry Day—that subcontractors, MSA vendors, or suppliers currently providing labor to the EHBs O&M, V&V, EA, and PMO contracts are precluded from bidding DME as a prime, subcontractor, or vendor/supplier, or from providing staff augmentation under MSAs?

112. OCI: Please confirm —per information provided at Industry Day—that an OCI exists between Domain 1 and Domain 2 and that subcontractors, MSA vendors, or suppliers cannot participate in both domains.

Response: OCI does not apply to subcontractors.

113. Will the Government confirm that the transmittal letter, cover pages, table of contents, acronym list, copies of relevant certifications, and CPARs are excluded from page count limitations?

114. During Industry Day, the Government stated that 2 past performance references from the prime contractor and 1 past performance reference from the subcontractor would be allowed.

Will the Government confirm that these past performances as described will be allowed for Volume III – Past Performance?

Response: Past performance is for the prime only.

115. Will the Government confirm that Volume III – Past Performance and the Organization

Experience are separate sections and volumes?

116. Will the Government confirm that the references provided in Volume I – Technical, Organization Experience and Volume III – Past Performance, do not need to be the same references?

Response: Same projects are preferred, but not necessary.

117. Will the Government confirm that Offerors may cite organizational experience and past performance of a wholly owned subsidiary as prime experience, as long the Offeror confirms that the subsidiary will have meaningful involvement in the execution of the program?

Response: The Government cannot provide a response because “meaningful involvement” was not quantified to make a determination.

118. As proposals are to be submitted electronically in PDF and Excel, will the Government please specify any file size limitations for successful email submission?

Response: Total attachments size contained in a single email should be less than 25 MB

119. Will the Government clarify whether Domain 1 is single award or multiple award? If multiple awards, can the Government specify how many awards are intended to be awarded for large businesses vs. small?

Response: The Government has not determined how many awards will be made to large businesses vs. small for Domain 1 or Domain 2.

120. “A detailed project plan must be submitted indicating how each aspect of the statement of work is to be accomplished. Your technical approach should be in as much detail as you consider necessary to fully explain your proposed technical approach or method. The technical proposal should reflect a clear understanding of the nature of the work being undertaken.” Will the Government describe what is required in the Project Plan, given that the proposal is IDIQ in nature and no specific scope of work is specified? With the understanding that each task area could have multiple projects, could the Government clarify the level of detail and scope to be covered by the Project Plan?

121. Will the Government confirm that the Project Plan is not within page count and can be submitted as an appendix to the technical proposal?

122. L.14 Hypothetical Projects: Will the Government confirm where pricing for the hypothetical projects should be located within Volume II – Business Proposal?

123. L.14 Hypothetical Projects: Will the Government confirm whether the services of the hypothetical projects should be priced as time and materials or firm-fixed-price?

Response: Firm fixed price

124. L.14 Hypothetical Projects: Will the Government confirm that any non-labor services will be priced as cost-reimbursable?

125. L.14 Hypothetical Projects: The Government did not provide inputs necessary to estimate costs—such as user base, raw data sizes, annual data growth rates, and intended use of the solution for Hypothetical Project 2—would the Government consider allowing Offerors to only price the services required?

Response: No. The SOW section titled “III. ELECTRONIC HANDBOOKS SYSTEM OVERVIEW” provides the information on user base and data sizes. For the purposes of the proposal assume a 10% annual growth rate.

126. M.5.2 Evaluation-Technical Approach: Please confirm as you stated in the Industry Day that the Government is open to considering open-source technology with an appropriate rationale.

127. Will the Government provide favorable evaluation to Offerors with a SAFe® Gold

Partnership to ensure more predictable, higher quality work products?

128. M.5.4 – Will the Government confirm additional resumes beyond the required 15 KP will not be evaluated, as providing significant additional resumes would give an unfair advantage to the incumbent contractor?

Response: Submitting the Key Personnel’s resumes is the requirement. Additional resumes (no more than 25 additional) for agile team product owners with letters of commitment will be considered holistically. Considering the estimated value of awards listed in Section B.2 of the RFP, the total number of personnel required to perform the work is sizable under the IDIQ. Because the number of Offeror’s responding to the solicitation and the awardees are unknown, each Offeror is expected to have high resource availability (15-25 agile teams) for performing work under Domain 1.

129. M.5.4 – Will the Government confirm the level of background check/suitability for this program, including any U.S. residency requirements if applicable?

Response: See response to Question #103 and a 3 years of US residency is required for public trust clearance.

130. M.5.5. b – “The Offeror shall propose different size of Agile teams to address low, medium, and complex solutions at the task order level. The Offeror shall propose one (1) cross-cutting agile team to support the more delivery focused 15-25 agile development teams every year.

The workloads and number of Agile teams may vary every year.”

• Will the Government define the different sizes of small, medium, and large Agile teams that currently perform this work?

Response: Typically agile team’s sizes can go up to 9 members. It is up to the offeror to come up with the exact sizing in the defined categories.

• Will the Government provide the definition of low, medium, and complex solutions? For example, is complexity based on LOE/number of hours, number of interfaces, etc.?

Response: Policy updates which takes a month or less to develop and deploy usually fall under low or medium. Any solution that requires architectural updates, or development of new architecture or substantial changes to system-to-system interfaces usually will fall under the complex category.

131. M.5.5. b – “For the purposes of staffing the hypothetical projects, the Offeror shall report values in full-time-equivalents (FTEs) and their proposed key/non-key labor categories/role.”

However, within the evaluation for the Hypothetical Projects found in Section M.5.3, “The response for each project shall include the following sections: 1) Requirements; 2) Assumptions; 3) Proposed technical design; 4) Proposed number and type of staff; 5) Cost for each hypothetical project separately (to be included in Volume II – Price Quote) and 6) Proposed timeframe to implement the scenario.” Will the Government confirm that, except for pricing, all information with regards to the Hypothetical Projects should be located within the Hypothetical Projects section outlined in the Instructions?

132. M.5.5. b – Will the Government clarify which Task Order/Project scope of work is requiring resource estimations, as multiple projects can be awarded to multiple vendors under the total scope of work required for EHBs? Would the Government consider removing this requirement at the IDIQ level so that it may be required at the subsequent task order level?

Response: No. The Offeror must clearly state their assumptions on the total level of support they can provide in their response to various task orders for the duration of the

IDIQ.

133. M.5.3 – Will digitization be required in Hypothetical Project Two – Records Management?

If so, can the Government provide an estimate on the volume of documents requiring digitization and related timelines (e.g., documents per month)?

Response: As stated in the RFP SOW (III. ELECTRONIC HANDBOOKS SYSTEM OVERVIEW), the current database size is 1.38 TB and the size of unstructured data is ~ 7 TB. All records are currently electronic and digitized.

134. M.5.5. b – “The Offeror shall provide a list and description of three (3) or more large enterprise DME projects within the past three (5) years that demonstrates the Offeror’s experience with similar scope, size, and complexity as this requirement.”

• As discussed at Industry Day, will the Government confirm that the organizational experience projects must have haven performed within the past 3 years?

Response: 5 years

• Also, will the Government verify that the same work for the same customer performed across multiple sequential contracts cannot be used as multiple past performances? For example, if an Offeror has provided DME services for an agency under three successive contracts, the Offeror should not be allowed to provide three past performances for the work.

135. M.5.5.7 “For all listed projects as organizational experience, the Offeror shall describe the

DME portion of the work performed by the Offeror in percent revenue and percent staff terms. For example, if the Offeror lists a project that includes DME and Operations and Maintenance (O&M) tasks, the Offeror shall exclude the portion of revenue/staff that would be performing non-DME tasks. Also, the Offeror shall identify the portion of the DME work performed by the Offeror that is claimed as organizational experience. If this data is not presented in the proposal, the listed project would be deemed to have not met this evaluation criterion.”

When the Government asks Offerors to identify the portion of the work that is claimed as Organizational Experience, is the Government requiring a description of the work performed or some other quantitative measure? If a quantitative measure, will the Government clarify what is required?

Response: Both qualitative and quantitative measures must be reported. For example, the qualitative measure would describe the complexity of the work, system interfaces, and a quantitative measure would be # of FTE’s, $ value of DME activity, etc.

136. M.5.5.7 requires the key personnel for the incoming contractor begin performance on Day One of the Transition-In Period and further enumerates a list of responsibilities required in the Transition Plan.

• Does the Government expect the Transition-In period to begin immediately upon IDIQ award, or after respective TO details are released?

Response: Transition-In period begins when a task order containing the transition-in task is awarded to the Offeror.

• Will the Government confirm if the Government’s intent to evaluate our transition approach to transitioning the work described is assuming successful award of a Task Order associated with that effort?

137. SOW: What containerization tools is HRSA currently using for EHBs?

Response: None.

138. Solicitation Section B.2, Consideration and Payment (pages 5-7), identifies “Proposed Labor Categories” for Domains One and Two. Are offerors required to employ and propose ceiling rates for each of those Labor Categories? Can offerors propose any alternative or additional Labor Categories?

Response: The Offeror can propose other additional labor categories and respective rates.

139. Solicitation Section F.5, Reporting Requirements and Deliverables (page 17), states that

“[t]he Contractor shall submit the items in quantities and during the time periods indicated above to the following address or electronically as mutually agreed” (emphasis added).

Please clarify the italicized phrase.

Response: The individual items and timelines will be specified at the Task Order level.

140. In Solicitation Section G.4, Key Personnel (page 19), the two paragraphs appears to be redundant. For clarity, it is suggested that the first paragraph be deleted.

141. Solicitation Section G.13, Performance Criteria and Quality Assurance Surveillance Plans (page 22), states that “[t]he Contractor shall submit a Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) as part of any task order proposal submitted. This proposal shall contain draft performance criteria and deductions. All QASPs will be negotiated prior to task order award” (emphasis added).

• Please verify that the reference to “this proposal” is referring to a future Task Order proposal rather than the offeror’s proposal in response to this Solicitation.

Response: Yes.

• Please explain what type of deductions are contemplated.

Response: Deductions will vary and would be based on the QASP and the performance criteria defined for each task order. Deduction will be commensurate with the value of rework necessary or business impact. A specified percent of total task order value will be listed as potential deduction(s) at the time of the award.

• Please clarify at what stage in the Task Order competition process that the offeror’s

QASP will be negotiated. Will that be done with all offerors or just the apparent successful offerors?

Response: Prior to award of task order.

142. Solicitation Section H.1, Food (page 25), states that “[f]ood (including but not limited to meals, light refreshments, and beverages) is not to be provided and is an unallowable cost”.

While it is understood that food purchases by the contractor would not be an allowable cost to the Government, please explain why a contractor would be precluded from doing so for their employees at the contractor’s own expense.

Response: A contractor is not precluded from providing food for their employees at the contractor’s own expense.

143. Solicitation Section L.1 General Instructions, paragraph 1 (page 52), states that “[t]his solicitation has a two-phased approach - Phase One: Technical Written Proposals and Phase Two: Design Challenge. Only proposals rated “Good” or higher under Phase One: Technical Written Proposal will move forward to Phase Two: Design Challenge.”

• Does the evaluation of Phase One include the Technical, Business, and Past Performance volumes?

Response: Technical

• If so, is a rating of Good required for each of those three volumes?

144. Solicitation Section L.5, Technical Proposal Instructions - Volume I, paragraph 5 (page 54), states that “[t]he technical proposal shall not exceed 150 single-spaced pages, excluding resumes and other required appendices”. Please verify that the allocation of those pages to the different proposal sections is at the offeror’s discretion.

Response: See -RFP.

145. Solicitation Section L.6, Business Proposal Instructions - Volume II, paragraph 2, Administrative and Management Data, subparagraph 4 (page 56), states that “[t]he Offeror must identify all Government-owned property in its possession...” Please explain how the Government will evaluate offerors that propose the use of Government-owned property and offerors that do not have access to Government-owned property in order to ensure the fairness and “level playing field” for the acquisition.

Response: Government-owned property is not an evaluation criterion.

146. Solicitation Section L.6, Business Proposal Instructions - Volume II, paragraph 2, Administrative and Management Data, subparagraph 6(e) (page 57), states that “[t]he Offeror must have the financial capability to support the estimated yearly amount of the contract” and “[t]he Offeror shall be prepared to answer questions concerning financial resources and working capital”.

• How will the Government assess the offeror’s financial capability to support the estimated yearly amount of the contract?

• At what stage of the source selection process does the Government contemplate requesting this additional information, and will it be requested from all offerors?

• Will doing so first require the establishment of a Competitive Range, and constitute discussions?

Response: See RFP.

Response: If discussions are held with Offerors.

147. Solicitation Section L.14 (page 60) refers to the Hypothetical Projects that must be addressed by the offerors, however, that provision contains only limited instructions as to what information needs to be included in the offerors’ proposals (i.e., cost and travel data) as opposed to more comprehensive/complete information that would appear to be required in Section L, Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offerors. Please resolve this apparent omission.

Response: The Offeror should include any other pertinent cost information that they consider necessary in the proposal that is expected to be borne by the government.

148. Solicitation Section M.4, Award Criteria (page 62), states that “[t]he non-price evaluation factors below will be used to determine best value” (emphasis added), but lists those evaluation factors as Factor 1: Technical, Factor 2: Price, and Factor 3: Past Performance.

• Please clarify this provision.

• Please indicate the relative order of importance of the evaluation factors.

• When all non-price factors are combined, are they significantly more important than cost or price, approximately equal to cost or price, or significantly less important than cost or price?

• Should not the Price Factor instead be referred to as the Business Factor?

• Please verify whether each of these factors are part of the Phase One evaluation.

• Are there sub-factors within any of the non-price factors? If so, what are they, and what is their relative order of importance?

149. Solicitation Section M.4, Award Criteria (page 63), states that “[t]he order of importance for the Design Challenge evaluation factors [is] listed below”, however, it is unclear where that order of importance is included.

150. Solicitation Section M.4, Award Criteria (page 63), states that “Technical proposals that receive an overall rating of “Good” or higher and whose cost/price proposal are found fair and/or reasonable will [be] moved to Phase Two - Design Challenge” (emphasis added).

Solicitation Section L.6, Business Proposal Instructions - Volume II, paragraph 1, Cost and Pricing Data (page 55), requires that the offeror submit a cost proposal in sufficient detail to enable the Government to establish that the proposed costs are reasonable and realistic, and Solicitation Section M.6, Cost Evaluation (page 83), states that “[c]ost will be evaluated separately from past performance and other non-price factors, and will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness” (emphasis added). Please resolve these apparent inconsistencies.

151. Solicitation Section M.4, Award Criteria (page 63), states that “Technical proposals that receive an overall rating of “Good” or higher and whose cost/price proposal are found fair and/or reasonable will [be] moved to Phase Two - Design Challenge”.

• Please explain the Government’s methodology for the employment of this dual phase acquisition process, and the relative order of importance of the written technical proposal and the Design Challenge.

• Will offerors that receive less than a “Good” overall rating or…