Questions_and_Answers.pdf

Question and Answers

86543F18Q00001 - Cost Estimator

QUESTION 1:

When are solicitation responses due?

ANSWER 1:

February 1, 2018 at 2:00 PM EST

QUESTION 2:

I am wondering if an incumbent exists for the potential requirement: Cost Estimator Tool &

Support Services outlined under 86543F18Q00001. If so, could you please provide the following information?:

• Vendor name

• Contract number

• Value

• Date of award

• Expiration date

ANSWER 2:

• Vendor name: The Bluebook International Inc.

• Contract number: DU100H-13-C-01

• Value: $1,450,000.00

• Date of award: 02/12/2013

• Expiration date: 02/12/2018

QUESTION 3:

Is this effort considered a new requirement or a follow-on? If is it a follow-on, could you provide the incumbent contract number? If this is a new requirement, could you provide an estimated value?

ANSWER 3:

This is a follow-on requirement. The current contract number is DU100H-13-C-01.

QUESTION 4:

Is this requirement currently being performed by THE BLUEBOOK INTERNATIONAL, INC.

(Contract#: DU100H13C01) and is set to expire on 02/11/2018? Am I missing any other vendors currently performing these services? If so, can I ask for the contract details?

ANSWER 4:

The incumbent is The Bluebook International Inc., and will expire 02/12/2018. The Bluebook International Inc. is the prime contractor.

QUESTION 5:

Does the government currently have a standard cost estimating tool? If so, what is the name of this product?

ANSWER 5:

The Government does not have a standard cost estimating tool. The tool is provided by the incumbent of the current contract, The Bluebook International Inc.

QUESTION 6:

Is there an incumbent contractor providing cost estimating support services? If so, is this contractor eligible to compete for this effort?

ANSWER 6:

There is an incumbent contractor providing cost estimating support services and the cost estimating tool. According to information in SAM, the incumbent contractor is eligible to compete for this effort.

QUESTION 7:

PWS para 5.1.14 states “. . . The estimates shall be archived in a format that is retrievable, capturing data that can be utilized to provide analytical insight, such as exceptions, trends, and quality control of expenditures.”

Requested Clarification: Please verify that the intent of this requirement is only for the tool provide the capability for an analyst to view and extract data to be used by a separate process to generate the required conduct external exception, trends, and quality analyses? If this is not the case, please identify any specific analytical.

ANSWER 7:

In addition to the winning contractor providing a cost estimating tool for 500 users, the contractor must also provide maintenance and web-based training. The tool may be used by a

HUD analyst to retrieve data to conduct additional analysis or insight. There is no requirement that the contractor provide analysis of the data provided.

QUESTION 8:

PWS pare 5.2 states “ . . . that the Installation and setup of Cost Estimating Tool should take place within 24 hours of award and or effective date.”

Requested Clarification: Please verify that the intent of this requirement is only for the tool to be available for download/installation within 24 hours of award and or effective date. Please clarify when the full-scale deployment of the tool to the approximately 500 user’s is expected.

ANSWER 8:

The intent of the requirement is that the tool be available for download/installation within 24 hours after receipt of approved user names, email addresses, and other required information from the designated government point of contact (POC). It is possible that the Government could begin providing that information within less than 24 hours after contract award.

QUESTION 9:

The documents mention system uptime 24/7 of 100%, but in one place also state an acceptable level of 95% (which would allow for maintenance). Which is the standard? As this is commercial, off the shelf software, there are typically periods of maintenance for upgrades, security patches, etc. during weekends or off use periods (system can’t be up 100%, 24/7, or it could not be upgraded – or the vendor would need to have double infrastructure to handle it which is not normal practice); are industry normal maintenance periods acceptable? Is the requirement 100% or 95%? (PWS Sections 5.1 and 5.1.1)

ANSWER 9:

The PWS, Section 5.1, AQL will be changed to 95%.

QUESTION 10:

The document asks about key personnel and percentage time spent on this project. Since this is off the shelf software, our normal staff will be managing it, and there would not be dedicated staff for HUD. So our intention is to list the percentage of time our normal staff spend working on the off the shelf product being bid. Is that acceptable?

ANSWER 10:

Offerors must propose a Primary Contract Manager and an Alternate Contract Manager for the requirement. Therefore, the contractor must propose who and how much time they will spend on the requirement.

QUESTION 11:

As the product to be used is off the shelf and one of very few products we offer (we are a small business), so it is conceivable that some of our employees spend 75%-100% of their time working on the repair estimating system. Time spent on the product is for all of our customers, not just for HUD, as with an off the shelf product there should be very little HUD-specific time/work needed.

ANSWER 11:

This appears to be a comment. We have no response.

QUESTION 12:

Is the QCP an evaluation factor that must be submitted with the bid, or can it be submitted within 30 days of award by the winning bidder?

ANSWER 12:

The QCP is an evaluation factor under the Management Plan factor and should be submitted with quote responses. See Section 6.1 of the PWS, “(or with the Contractor’s proposal if it is an evaluation factor)”.

QUESTION 13:

The document asks for letters of commitment, but if awarded we will utilize our existing staff as we do not need contingent subcontractors. Are letters required from our normal staff or is this section N/A because we are not planning to hire contractors or staff contingent on winning the award?

ANSWER 13:

As stated in the evaluation instructions, resumes and letters of commitment, for key personnel proposed, are required to be submitted with responses to the solicitation.

QUESTION 14:

As this is off the shelf software that meets all of HUD’s requirements and not a custom programming job, is it acceptable to submit our normal quality control and testing protocol documentation as our “Quality Control Plan” that covers the entire system or should we prepare a QCP specific to HUD’s bid requirements only?

ANSWER 14:

Commercial quality control plans are acceptable. However, please be advised to adhere to page count requirements under the solicitation and identify the plan submission as required by the solicitation as it will be evaluated as described in the solicitation.

QUESTION 15:

Will the recent government shutdown have any impacts on timelines associated with this RFQ?

ANSWER 15:

Because the government shutdown did not affect the schedule under the solicitation, the response date will remain unchanged.

QUESTION 16:

In reference to 5.1 and 5.1.1 in Performance Work Statement, the AQL for performance standard in 5.1 is listed as “100%” and the AQL for performance standard in 5.1.1 is listed as

“95%.” Can HUD explain the difference?

ANSWER 16:

The PWS, Section 5.1, AQL will be changed to 95%.

QUESTION 17:

In reference to 5.1.12 in Performance Work Statement, how does HUD define “Name of the

Requestor” and “Date of Request”?

ANSWER 17:

The “Name of the Requestor” will be the user’s name (not a username or password), and the

“Date of Request” is the date that the estimate is requested.

QUESTION 18:

In reference to 4.1 Surveillance Techniques, what does HUD wish vendor to include in the generated documentation delivered to the GTR?

ANSWER 18:

GTR/COR will review documentation as described in PWS Sec. 5.1.14 and any user feedback submitted to GTR/COR during the surveillance period.

QUESTION 19:

Is there a limitation on the number of pages allotted for the Pricing Section of vendor responses?

ANSWER 19:

There is not a page limitation for the price section.

QUESTION 20:

Does HUD wish to receive both a breakdown of price as described in Attachment 4 and the

Contract Line Item Numbers summary as described in Attachment 5? Or if only one is needed, which should be submitted?

ANSWER 20:

Both are required. The offeror must provide a breakdown (pricing detail) of their prices proposed under attachment 5.

QUESTION 21:

Does HUD expect the submissions to come in the format provided in the Performance

Requirement Summary (PRS)? In other words, the PWS includes a Performance Requirements

Summary(PRS) on pages 18-24 that outlines the contract’s primary requirements. The PRS is in a table like format comprising multiple pages. Under the Instructions to Offerors (Attachment

3), the Technical Approach is expected to address the requirements described in the PWS and has a 6 page limit. Does HUD expect submissions to follow the same table like format contained in the PRS or are other formats acceptable to better meet the 6 page requirement for the Technical Approach?

ANSWER 21:

HUD does not expect a table like format in responding to the factor. Other formats are acceptable to meet the page limitation requirement.

Please see the page limitation increase for the Management Plan factor.

QUESTION 22:

In the Proposal Matrix what does “Section L” and “Section M” refer to?

ANSWER 22:

For this solicitation, we do not have a “Section L”, however, we have “Instructions to Offerors”.

We also do not have “Section M”, we have “Evaluation Factors”. In other words, Section L refer to the Instructions to Offerors and Section M refer to Evaluation Factors.