Questions and Answers.pdf

Question Answer Section 7 [Volume 2 - Technical] (Page 8)—The solicitation provides a page limit of 30 pages for Volume 2 - Technical. The solicitation also indicates that “The written submission shall discuss any resources, proven techniques, unique offerings, or any other technical information that demonstrates the Offeror’s technical understanding, organizational capability, and overall capacity to perform the requirements as set forth in the SOW.” Given the level of detail required by the solicitation (five-page statement of work) and the need for offerors to provide DOE GC with sufficient detail, we respectfully request that the DOE GC consider eliminating this page-limit provision altogether and replacing it with a general requirement that proposals be prepared simply and concisely and that responses be clearly organized and easy to read. Will DOE GC eliminate the page limit?

No, the Government will not eliminate the page limit.

If the agency requires a page limit, would DOE GC please extend the page limit for the Volume 2(a) Written Technical Narrative proposals to 50 pages?

No, the Government will not increase the page limit. A video presentation has been included in the RFQ to allow Offerors to further elaborate on elements of the technical approach as defined in the RFQ under the technical submission instructions for the video.

Statement of Work, Section C.1.2 [Objective] (Page 1)—In conversations with DOE GC prior to the release of the solicitation, DOE GC expressed a strong interest in a generative artificial intelligence (AI) legal research solution. Will the DOE GC please confirm that they are seeking generative AI, as pertains to Section C.1.2 (page 1) of the Statement of Work?

Neither the Request for Quotation (RFQ) nor the Statement of Work (SOW) limit the uses or forms of artificial intelligence (AI) to “generative” AI. Although the RFQ and SOW speak for themselves in this regard, DOE GC is clarifying that Offerors’ technical approaches may include “generative” AI but are not required to.

Statement of Work, Section C.5.2 [Ancillary Databases and Sources] (Page 6)—Section C.5.2 (page

6) of the Statement of Work mentions Contractors shall provide “Ancillary Databases and Sources.”

Can DOE GC please clarify and define the use of the word ancillary with respect to this requirement?

DOE GC is clarifying that Ancillary Databases and Sources are secondary databases and/or sources in relation to the “Core Databases and Sources.” As noted in SOW § 5.2, Ancillary Databases and Sources are not required by all DOE GC users, and should therefore be priced on a per user basis as noted in Question 11 below.

Statement of Work, Appendix B [Ancillary Databases and Sources] (Page 11)—Appendix B lists the requested Ancillary Databases and Sources, including American Law Reports (ALR) and American Jurisprudence (AMJUR). Can the DOE GC please confirm that access to ALR and AMJUR is a mandatory requirement?

Consistent with the response to Question 4, DOE GC is clarifying that access to the Ancillary Databases and Sources is not mandatory. As provided in SOW § 5.2, Offerors should state whether they can provide unlimited access to Ancillary Databases and Sources for a limited number of DOE GC CALR users. As noted in Question 9 below, Offerors may price an alternative and comparable product following the instructions in Question 9.

Attachment 2-Cost Price Schedule includes a “Price for Unlimited Users” column. Please confirm whether this unlimited users population is the 175 users specified in Statement of Work section C.3 System Access & CALR User Profiles

The term "unlimited" applies to unlimited number of users.

Column 1 refers to a per user price with an estimate of up to 175 users. Column 2 refers to the option of having unlimited users at a flat rate for the entire Organization. If Offeror does not have this type of pricing structure, put "N/A" in the cell.

Statement of Work section C.3 System Access & CALR User Profiles states: “DOE GC requires access to a CALR platform for up to 175 users with an option to add or subtract a limited number of new users over the course of a contract if necessary.” Does the Government have an estimate on how many users it would potentially add or subtract over each ordering period?

The Government does not have a firm number with which to project the number of users on and off the award per ordering period. Utilizing 175 users for any given time period is the best estimate.

Would the Government allow offerors to present alternative pricing structures that make it possible to include additional discounts? Examples of alternative pricing structures include additional groups of a specified number of users and/or flexible content packages?

Yes, the Government would allow for additional pricing methologies provided in new, clearly marked columns with annotation of what the methodology is. Offerors are still required to fill out Columns 1 and 2.

For any CLINs that an offeror “does not propose providing DOE GC access to the Database/Source as part of the agreement,” should offerors leave those CLINs blank? Or, would offerors be allowed to price equivalent titles for those database/sources?

If the Offeror does not intend to propose on one or more of the databases, they should annotate "No Price". If the pricing is for an alternative and comparable product, create a new CLIN using the number scheme and identify what the product is, the price, and what CLIN it is suggested to replace.

Would the Government allow offerors to present a pricing narrative in Volume 1 in addition to providing pricing in Attachment 2?

No, pricing shall not be included in Volume 1 as outlined in the RFQ directions.

Statement of Work section C.5.2 Ancillary Databases and Sources states: “While all users will have access to the Core Databases and Sources, not all users will have access to the Ancillary Databases and Sources.” Can the Government clarify how many users will require access to the Ancillary Databases and Sources listed in Appendix B?

There is no way to reasonably estimate the number of users for Ancillary Databases. Please price per user.

Appendix B lists several proprietary titles that are exclusive to a single provider. Will the Government revise this requirement to read “or equivalent” so that offerors can provide comparable titles

The Government will not issue an amendment to add "or equivalent". The directions indicated Offerors were able to add their own CLINs with other databases and describe how they are applicable. Please consider this question/answer as further clarification that Offerors should propose for similiar services and identify what product they are replacing and identify applicable CLINs.

Would the Government consider extending the Volume 2-Technical page limit to 40 pages? The additional pages would ensure that offerors can fully comply with the instruction to “provide a technical discussion written submission detailing their approach to accomplishing the mission and activities identified in the Statement of Work (SOW)."

No, the Government declines to extend the page limit.