95332420Q0004 0001 - Signed.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended, is not extended.

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a)By completing items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE

DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment your desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER

NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15C. DATE SIGNED

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X)

CODE

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

Previous edition unusable

Jacqueline H. Naranjo Contracting Officer naranjoj Typewritten Text 12/23/2019

RFQ #95332420Q0004 – DATA AND DOCUMENTATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES

# REFERENCE QUESTION ANSWER

Is there an incumbent contractor currently providing these services? If yes, please provide us with the contract details.

No. The existing Catalog was developed using open source software and MCC staff time.

2 How long this contract is for? Five years – one base period with four one-year options. Options may be exercised at the sole discretion of MCC.

3 Section B.3

The solicitation says that the budget is $1.9M for the base and all option years. Can you provide more details on how that number was determined, because we are having difficulty determining how to do the work for that amount, so we must be misunderstanding a scope area? Also, is it intended that any costs for the hosting environment itself are included in that amount?

MCC built its budget estimate around the anticipated costs of customizing an existing platform to fit our needs. The estimate was based on market research conducted before RFI #95332419K0003 was issued; although the RFI requested information on cost, MCC received no further input during the RFI process to inform its original estimates. Costs for hosting are included in the $1.9M estimate. See Question 4 for additional information.

4 Section B.3

The solicitation says that the budget is $1.9M for the base and all option years. To ensure we properly understand the scope intended for the last 3 option years, can you provide more details as to how you see that broken out (roughly) between the various years?

As discussed during the pre-submission webinar, this requirement will have two distinct sources of MCC funding – administrative (admin) and due diligence.

Tasks 1.1 and 2.1 (Admin funding) are estimated at $528k over the five-year life of the contract, front-loaded to the first two years of service (Base and Option 1). The relevant CLINs for Tasks 1.1 and 2.1 are 0001, 0002, 1001, 1002, 2001, 3001, and 4001. Reallocation between these admin-funded CLINs is possible, but cannot exceed the total of $528k (this is a firm budget).

Tasks 2.2, 2.3, and 3.1 (Due Diligence funding) are estimated at $1.397M over the life of the contract; these costs are expected to be evenly distributed across the 5 year performance period. The relevant CLINs for Tasks 2.2, 2.3, and 3.1 are 0003, 0004, 1003, 1004, 2002, 2003, 3002, 3003, 4002, and 4003. Reallocation between these due diligence-funded CLINs is possible, and there is room for +15% on this part of the budget.

During contract performance, reallocation between these two categories (Admin funding and Due Diligence funding) is not possible.

https://beta.sam.gov/opp/e4914d3c832840a75384dcb777741bc6/view?index=opp&page=1&is_active=false&sort=-relevance&keywords=data%20management&date_filter_index=0&inactive_filter_values=false&organization_id=100076294,100076293

# REFERENCE QUESTION ANSWER

5 Sections L.6.4 and L.6.5

Font requirements state “Times New Roman font, in no smaller than 12- point for text” and “Times New Roman font, 10-point for spreadsheets and any font size for graphics as long as they are legible.” Within these requirements, should text tables be considered spreadsheet?

Yes. Text tables may be considered “spreadsheets” for quotation purposes and therefore must adhere to the 10-point font size limitation.

6 Section L.6.7 Does the requirement that “All quotation pages must be numbered” apply to Excel spreadsheets?

No. This only applies to the parts of the quotation submitted in PDF and Microsoft Word format.

7 Section L.8.6. - L.8.7

Offerors are instructed to use the table formats included within the RFQ. Please confirm offerors can recreate these tables as long as the content and organization is correct. If this is an incorrect assumption, please confirm which font vendors should use, as the font is not Times New Roman, as required for proposal text.

Offerors may recreate the tables as long as the content and organization is correct.

8 Section L.8.6 Are the requirements for staffing, including the required tables, counted within the 20-page technical limit?

Yes, the requirements for staffing, including the required tables, count toward the 20-page technical quotation limit. CVs, however, may be included in an appendix to the technical quotation without a page limit.

9 Section L.8.3 and M.2.2

The instructions and evaluation criteria address Tasks 2 and 3 but not Task 1. Please confirm if offerors should address their approach to Task 1, or if this will not be evaluated.

The offeror’s technical input/contribution through Task 1.1 overlaps with the technical requirements for Task 2.2 regarding restricted-data management. Therefore the evaluation criteria described for “The offeror's protocols for preparing, managing, and monitoring restricted-access data and protocols for breach/disclosure risk management and reporting will be evaluated for the extent to which they protect the security and integrity of MCC's data” applies for the evaluation of Task 1.1 as well.

Offerors shall state in their “significant cost/price assumptions” (part of Volume II submission requirements) whether the annual training sessions under Task 1.1 are proposed to be in-person at MCC headquarters or via webinars.

# REFERENCE QUESTION ANSWER

Are the costs for hosting infrastructure for the data platform and data enclaves included in the estimated budget cited by MCC?

Yes, the hosting costs are included in the estimated budget for the five year period of performance. See amendment below for changes to Section C.4 (Task 2.1), Section F.3.3 (Deliverable Acceptance Criteria), Section L.8.3, and Section M.2.2 in response to Questions 10, 11, and 56.

If a commercial solution is used for the public data platform or the data enclaves, are the licensing costs included in the budget?

All relevant/applicable licensing costs must be included in the Offeror’s proposed budget and are subject to the budget limitations discussed in Questions 3 and 4 above. See amendment below for changes to Section C.4 (Task 2.1), Section F.3.3 (Deliverable Acceptance Criteria), Section L.8.3, and Section M.2.2 in response to Questions 10, 11, and 56.

12 How many data enclaves are expected to be in use concurrently?

Offeror should assume that enclaves may be used concurrently and discuss in their offer any expected limitations for concurrent use of the Offeror’s proposed enclave solution.

How many existing data packages would have to be migrated to the new data platform?

All data and documentation for the 171 studies currently posted in the MCC Evaluation Catalog can be accessed here

– https://data.mcc.gov/evaluations/index.php/catalog. The specific number of files will be issued in a later amendment.

14 What are the underlying technologies used to support the existing data platform?

The current platform uses open source software used by the World Bank’s Microdata Catalog and the International Household Data Network.

15 Does MCC have a preference towards a COTS solution vs. open source software? MCC does not have a preference.

What is MCC’s current data management architecture and infrastructure? Could some of that be of use to support the future state data platform?

While MCC maintains a few servers located onsite at its D.C. headquarters location, the majority of the agency’s infrastructure is hosted by Amazon Web Services (AWS). There are also a select number of servers located in an Equinix Data Center facility.

MCC is currently standardized on Microsoft solutions wherever applicable, and the agency is 95% Cloud based. The majority of MCC’s custom-built applications are backed by SQL databases. MCC is open to solutions that may leverage the existing data and/or infrastructure.

To help bidders get better alignment with MCC’s expectations, can MCC share any additional breakdown of the estimated budget by base period and option periods.

See answers to Questions 3 and 4.

https://data.mcc.gov/evaluations/index.php/catalog

# REFERENCE QUESTION ANSWER

Can MCC share any additional assumptions that resulted in the estimated level of effort for platform build and year 1 activities, and ongoing maintenance and sustainment activities?

Page 20 of 68, Task 1.1: Develop Tools and Training

Should trainings be held at MCC headquarters in Washington, D.C.?

Trainings should be held at MCC headquarters in Washington, DC, or provided remotely via webinar.

All trainings should be developed with an eye to recurrent use for new and field-based staff, so in-person trainings or webinars will be recorded.

Page 20 of 68, Task 1.1: Develop Tools and Training

Does MCC expect Contractors to manage and coordinate travel of stakeholders and partners? If so, how many stakeholders and partners would Contractors be expected to attend and be included in the budget?

For any in-person training, the Contractor would be responsible for coordinating the travel for the presenters/trainers and MCC would be responsible for any travel for MCC and/or field-based staff.

For this reason, MCC may look for opportunities to coordinate in-person DC training when MCC is coordinating other learning events, such as the M&E/Econ Forum.

Page 21 of 68, Task 2.1: External Facing Platform – Development, Testing and Maintenance

Does MCC plan to supply Contractors with the specifications and formats required for the data and knowledge products inclusive of Design Reports, Baseline Reports, Questionnaires, Interim and Final Reports, and Evaluation Briefs?

MCC can provide specifications and formats for knowledge products, but MCC will also retain management of these products.

Data formats have been provided in the solicitation. Other reports such as Design Reports will be in Word or PDF format and will already be made 508-compliant by the independent evaluators/contractors who author the reports.

Page 21 of 68, Task 2.1: External Facing Platform – Development, Testing and Maintenance; 2.

Integration and Connectivity to other MSS and US Government

Will MCC provide the necessary design elements to facilitate conformity with the mcc.gov website – including items such as templates, logos, images, and stylesheets?

Yes, MCC Congressional and Public Affairs (CPA) staff will provide the necessary support/coordination to make the platform conform with mcc.gov.

# REFERENCE QUESTION ANSWER

systems – section a.)

22 Same as 21 For budgeting purposes, how often will the contractor be expected to update the look of the platform to align with mcc.gov updates?

Annually – This could align with the IT Security Plan.

However, in the event of an urgent request/change to mcc.gov, the Contractor will be expected to be responsive to the extent feasible.

Page 22-23 of 68, Task 2.1: External Facing Platform – Development, Testing and Maintenance; 3.

Security Requirements

Will Contractors be required to provide a draft security plan in response to this solicitation? A draft security plan is not required in response to this solicitation.

Page 23 of 68, Task 2.1: External Facing Platform – Development, Testing and Maintenance; 5.

Language Requirements

The solicitation states “the platform will primarily be English, however it should have the ability to present any language.” Please confirm that the contractor is not responsible for translating static documents to other languages made available on the site – e.g., reports, etc.

Correct – the Contractor is not responsible for translating static documents to other languages.

As discussed during the webinar, some file names may remain in the original language, so the platform requires the capability to display any language (for example, Mongolian:

https://data.mcc.gov/evaluations/index.php/catalog/133).

Page 23 of 68, Task 2.2: Restricted- Access Data Management and Access for Country-specific Data Packages

Are Contractors at a minimum required to provide native applications producing Esri, R, SAS, SPSS and STATA data?

Yes.

26 Same as 25 In addition to providing these tools within the restricted data environment, are Contractors required to support these applications?

It’s unclear what is meant here. The VDE should support these applications.

https://data.mcc.gov/evaluations/index.php/catalog/133

# REFERENCE QUESTION ANSWER

27 Same as 25 What other packages should Contractors provide?

This is the known set of applications, although MCC anticipates future need for storage of remote-sensing data that may be stored in other applications.

28 Same as 25 Is MCC able to provide guidance on supporting users within the restricted data environment?

We expect data enclave users to be familiar with the datasets and experienced at managing and analyzing data outside of a secure data enclave. Their primary requirement for support will involve understanding what they can and cannot do in a secure enclave.

29 Same as 25

What is the anticipated number of support requests (including both phone and email) and type of support requested – i.e., software support vs statistical support?

To date, MCC has received limited requests from outside researchers for restricted-access data. At this time, Contractors should expect no more than 10 total requests per year. However, MCC’s objective for the revised platform is to improve the visibility of MCC funded data available on the platform, with the goal of increasing interest and requests over the course of the period of performance.

Page 24 of 68, Task

2.3 Data Transfer

and Launch for Country-specific Research Knowledge products on new Platform

Is MCC able to provide additional technical details about the existing MCC Evaluation Catalog?

Such information could include size of datasets, operating system, and database environment.

The total size of the current catalog is under 20GB of datasets. The specific number of files will be issued in a later amendment.

M.6. Evaluation Methodology;

Phase 2

Is MCC able to provide details on what a “demonstration of the Quotation” requires for the oral presentations?

This phrase refers broadly to a presentation of the Vendor’s proposed solution for the platform and the restricted use data enclaves.

What technology is built around the Evaluation Catalog? What major process or processes does it support (e.g. IATI compliance, etc.)? What technology does MCC leverage around data management?

The Evaluation Catalog is a PHP application that is hosted on a Linux server. It is backed by a MySQL database.

Most custom-built applications at MCC use SQL as the database backend.

Details of the current catalog software are documented on the NADA website. See in particular, the User Manual for details on NADA configuration. However, due to this catalog’s limitations, we do not require adherence to the same technology. MCC’s current catalog is publicly http://nada.ihsn.org/ http://nada.ihsn.org/ https://nada-4.readthedocs.io/en/latest/user-manual.html

# REFERENCE QUESTION ANSWER

accessible at data.mcc.gov, and a more user-friendly front-end is visible here.

The required capabilities for the new platform are listed under Task 2.1 of the SOW.

What is the size of that data provided in a typical or average data package? Over the next 5 years, does MCC expect any significant change in the size or format of data packages going forward (e.g. Storing of large-scale video or IoT data)?

In MCC’s experience, it is not just the “size” of the data file that informs the LOE required to prepare a data package. For this reason, the SOW offers specific examples of small, medium, and large data packages based on the LOE that was required to prepare the data for publication: Small – Lesotho Health; Medium – Mali Alatona; Large – Senegal Roads; Morocco Irrigation.

MCC may start to feature more remote sensing data and geospatial data in future years, but it is difficult to discern to what extent that will be true over the next five years.

34 What is the approximate volume of the historical data volume received/stored to date? See the answer to Question 30.

The RFQ indicates that the contract will be structured as Firm Fixed Price and Time & Materials for different activities in the base period and options years. Can MCC elaborate on the rationale for employing two different contracting mechanisms?

Through market research, MCC identified a number of tasks that were more clearly priced by a set cost per unit. In those cases, we determined that a Firm Fixed Price CLIN type was most appropriate since we had a better understanding of costs (or believed that offerors have sufficient information to estimate costs for completing those tasks). In cases where level of effort could be more variable, MCC opted for Time and Materials.

http://intranet.mcc.gov/department/DPE/Team/ME/ME%20Working%20Folder/Jen/DRB/Data%20Management%20Procurement%202019/2_PRE-PROPOSAL%20CONFERENCE/data.mcc.gov https://www.mcc.gov/our-impact/independent-evaluations https://data.mcc.gov/evaluations/index.php/catalog/179/get_microdata https://data.mcc.gov/evaluations/index.php/catalog/179/get_microdata https://data.mcc.gov/evaluations/index.php/catalog/126 https://data.mcc.gov/evaluations/index.php/catalog/130 https://data.mcc.gov/evaluations/index.php/catalog/202 https://data.mcc.gov/evaluations/index.php/catalog/202

What are the user profiles? Other than public access to the Evaluation Catalog, do users have non-public access? If so, how many users have non-public access?

Only a small handful of MCC personnel tasked with managing the Evaluation Catalog have access to the back-end of the application. No public users have non-public access to the data, nor the application.

However, as described in Task 2.2, the Contractor must work with MCC to establish protocols to allow restricted access to qualifying users, and to monitor their access and use of the restricted files.

Outside of what is currently public in the Evaluation Catalog, what data (if any) does the catalog store?

The Catalog currently stores no other information of consequence privately that is not posted publicly.

38 Is it possible to leverage the existing MCC Microsoft licenses? Yes.

39 How does MCC manage user access regarding data management?

For data users, they are able to directly download the data from the Catalog.

MCC does not manage users of public access data.

For MCC staff who manage the Catalog, MCC can create user profiles.

40 Are OCR capabilities desired?

Nearly all data submitted is in machine readable format. However, rare documentation may need to be scanned using standard Optical Character Recognition software.

Can MCC please share a copy of the current draft of the Transparent, Reproducible, and Ethical Data and Documentation (TREDD) Guidelines?

The current version of the Guidelines are available here

– https://data.mcc.gov/evaluations/index.php/catalog/155.

As mentioned, these Guidelines are currently under revision, with the updated version expected by January 2020. Task 1.1 will relate to updating/expanding the January 2020 version.

The solicitation does not discuss version control on data sets, or the ability to group variations of a data set connected (for example, raw, de-identified, public release). Is such functionality required by MCC?

Yes. MCC expects the platform to be the archive of all of MCC’s evaluation data, including de-identified, public-access, restricted access and secure-data-enclave versions of MCC’s evaluation, and other similar studies, data.

What type of analytical functionality will be needed for virtual data enclave datasets (i.e.

where users cannot download but can access the dataset via a browser)? What kind of built in data analysis functionality would be required to engage with this data?

A full suite of data management and analytical tools should allow users to replicate the types of statistical analyses commonly documented on MCC’s current evaluation catalog.

https://data.mcc.gov/evaluations/index.php/catalog/155

Has MCC done a full user analysis to determine UX requirements for different core users (US Congress/staffers/public, Country partners, academics)?

MCC has not done a full user analysis for its current Evaluation Catalog.

Is the training on how to use the system? Or is it more generally on how to follow MCC’s data management guidelines/best practices?

Or is it on contractor input into the guidelines?

MCC anticipates the trainings will focus on the unique contributions of the Contractor to the TREDD Guidelines – mainly (1) how to use/work with the new platform, (2) protocols for accessing restricted-access data, and (3) how to work within a VDE.

In addition, as outlined above, there are different types of users and the trainings and materials need to be targeted to their needs.

Training is primarily intended for MCC staff, its contractors responsible for data management, and field-based staff. The training should be developed with all three audiences in mind, but does not require adaptation to each of these three.

What is the estimated number of trainees MCC envisages being engaged by the contractor? Can MCC estimate the location of the trainings? Would MCC be interested in an online training format?

Yes, MCC is interested in an online training format (see SOW request for webinars), although in-person trainings are also acceptable. In-person trainings would take place at MCC headquarters in Washington, DC and would likely include no more than 60 individuals. All trainings should be developed with an eye to recurrent use for new and field-based staff, so in-person trainings will be recorded and webinars/online training options are also appropriate.

Task 2.1 – External Facing Platform – Development, Testing, and Maintenance, 3.

Security Requirements a and b on page 22

Is the requirement for federal agency or FedRAMP (if cloud service) ATO required for the external facing platform or will it be acceptable for only the cloud service provider to required FedRAMP ATO? Would the platform be acceptable if the IaaS is FedRAMP ATO and the platform will be built on IaaS to be FISMA compliance, but will require MCC to provide ATO for the platform?

The requirement for a federal agency ATO or FedRAMP ATO applies to the platform. If the solution is cloud-hosted, MCC will only accept a platform that has an ATO through the FedRAMP process (see FedRAMP's Market Place). MCC will not provide services or funding for a security authorization.

Task 2.1 – External Facing Platform – Development, Testing, and Maintenance, 3.

Security

The link referenced http://www.digitalgov.gov/resources/negotiate d-terms-of-serviceagreements/ gives a 404 page not found error. Please provide the correct link.

The link in question is missing a hyphen between service and agreements.

Correct link is as follows: https://digital.gov/resources/negotiated-terms-of-service-agreements/.

https://digital.gov/resources/negotiated-terms-of-service-agreements/ https://digital.gov/resources/negotiated-terms-of-service-agreements/

Requirements, page

Task 2.1 – External Facing Platform – Development, Testing, and Maintenance, 3.

Security Requirements, page

The RFQ states that “for the public facing platform and public-use files, the Contractor should meet FISMA Low requirements, for the restricted-access data (see Task 2.2), the Contractor should meet FISMA Moderate requirements. MCC data would be ingested into, curated, and stored only in the secure systems to meet FISMA moderate requirements.” Does this mean we will need to provide security documents for two separate environments, one for public facing and public use to meet the FISMA Low requirements, and one for the restricted-access data to meet FISMA Moderate?

Yes. Two security documents for the two environments are required.

Task 2.1 – External Facing Platform – Development, Testing, and Maintenance, 3.

Security Requirements

Does MCC expect the IT Security Plan required for this task to follow the System Security Plan (SSP) template and the controls identified in NIST 800-171 to protect CUI?

(https://csrc.nist.gov/publications/detail/sp/80 0-171/rev-1/final)

No. Following the System Security Plan (SSP) template and the controls identified in NIST 800-171 to protect CUI is not something that MCC has implemented in policy, process or procedures.

Task 2.1 – External Facing Platform – Development, Testing, and Maintenance, 3.

Security Requirements

Does MCC have a preference for the platform to be hosted by a specific cloud provider? No.

Task 3.1 - Data Management – Review and Preparation of Country-specific Data Packages

Does MCC foresee a potential conflict of interest if the contractor is the evaluator submitting a data package, and if so, how will this be handled?

If the Contractor has a contract for any MCC independent evaluations/data activities, the Contractor for Data and Documentation Management Services will not review or prepare any data packages the Contractor prepares as part of their separate evaluation contracts.

Section F.6.

Acceptance Criteria, page 36

Acceptance criteria include “Platform maintains system availability (uptime) at or above the level included in quotation” as a criterion for deliverable acceptance. Does MCC have specific requirements for a Service Level Agreement (SLA) that should be included in the quotation?

MCC does not have specific requirements for a SLA.

Does MCC have expectations about the maximum number of concurrent users that the platform needs to support?

MCC does not have an estimated number of concurrent users. Offerors should provide a discussion in their quotation on any limitations of their proposed solution with regards to concurrent users.

After the period of performance for this contract ends, does MCC expect to assume hosting responsibilities for the platform or continue to have this work performed by a contractor?

See AMENDMENT below for changes to Section C.4 (Task 2.1), Section F.3.3 (Deliverable Acceptance Criteria), Section L.8.3, and Section M.2.2 in response to Questions 10, 11, and 56.

57 (From webinar)

If there is project labor (e.g., FOIA support) that will not get charged directly to the contract, but to overhead, how should we portray that in the budget breakdown? Are in-kind services/cost share permitted under this award?

For time-and-materials (T&M) line items, if a portion of required services are captured in an offeror’s indirect costs (e.g., overhead, G&A, etc.), the offeror should state so in their “significant cost/price assumptions” within Volume II. For instance, if an offeror obtains FOIA support from another division/department within their organization, and this support is covered under the organization’s negotiated indirect cost rates, then the offeror should explain this in their cost assumptions. It would then be understood that those costs are captured within the offeror’s proposed indirect costs (whether it be overhead on labor, G&A on ODCs, etc.). That said, MCC expects to receive fully-loaded labor rates for each proposed labor category (a single rate per category); these rates will remain in effect for each contract period, with the potential for annual escalations. Per Section L.9.5 offerors must submit a copy of their Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA), if applicable.

In-kind services and other forms of cost share are not permitted under this award.

58 (From webinar)

Will the contractor need to register DOIs as part of the requested functionality of the new platform to produce standardized citation elements?

No. MCC did not consider the cost for registering DOIs for this solicitation.

In response, MCC is removing this requirement from the list of functionality requirements under “standardized citation” (Section C.4, Task 2.1).

However, at their discretion, offerors may still include this as part of their proposed solution if it fits within the stated budget envelope.

59 (From webinar) From Task 2.1, does MCC need ALL metadata in schema, or just the required elements?

Per https://project-open-data.cio.gov/v1.1/schema/, items marked as “always” are required elements of metadata that need to be included in all schemas. Items marked as “as-needed” will be required if it is applicable to the dataset being posted.

60 (From webinar) Is the vendor responsible for ensuring all documentation uploaded to the platform is 508 compliant?

No. Evaluation and other study documentation – such as Design Reports, Final Reports – are made 508 compliant by the Contractors responsible for those studies. With regards to this solicitation, the metadata in the platform must be 508 compliant.

END OF QUESTIONS

https://project-open-data.cio.gov/v1.1/schema/

MCC SOLICITATION AMENDMENTS INFORMED BY QUESTIONS 10, 11, 56 & 58:

1) The following task is amended in Section C.4, Task 2.1 (changes shown in red text):

On an annual basis, the Contractor will be required to demonstrate to the COR and MCC CISO that the proposed environment, including the restricted-access VDE (Task 2.2) meets or exceeds the following system and data security requirements: Evidence of a System Certification and Accreditation (C&A) package, including an approved IT Security Plan, Data Protection Plan, and a System Certification Test Plan. The IT Security Plan must be fully compliant with the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA), provisions of mandatory Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS), and meets all of NIST's IT, data, system, and physical security requirements.

By Option Year 3, the annual IT Security Plan should include Contractor recommendations for how to transition hosting and maintenance of the platform and restricted-access VDEs upon the conclusion of the five-year period of performance.

2) The following requirement is revised from Section C.4, Task 2.1 (changes shown in red text)

Standardized Data and Document Citation - Currently documents and data in the Evaluation Catalog are uploaded as attachments and do not have the ability to appropriately and individually cite individual product (reports, dataset, etc.). This requires automatically generating Digital Object Identifier (DOI) and citation that is standard across MCC knowledge products on the platform.

3) The following Deliverable Acceptance Criteria is added to Section F.3.3, Option Years 2-4, Task 2.1, Annual Report on IT System and Security Plan (changes shown in red text):

Must meet requirements described in Task 2.1. By Option Year 3, the annual IT Security Plan should include Contractor recommendations for how to transition hosting and maintenance of the platform and restricted-access VDEs upon the conclusion of the five-year period of performance.

4) The “Platform” bullet point under Section L.8.3 is amended as follows (changes shown in red text):

Platform:

• Methodology for designing external-facing platform and managing user feedback to respond to all requirements of Task 2.

• Approach to Platform Maintenance and Hosting to include proof of FISMA compliance by providing documentation of a federal agency or FedRAMP (if cloud service) Authorization to Operate (ATO). This shall also include the proposed system availability (uptime) of the platform, approach and timelines to satisfying user requests, and approach to patch management to ensure system security.

• Examples of development and successful deployment of similar platforms that meet the requirements listed in Task 2.

• Define any MCC hosted elements and estimated amount of work that MCC will have to do and what skill sets would be required both during the period of performance, and any necessary requirements for continued maintenance and hosting in the post-contract period.

5) The third bullet point under Section M.2.2 is amended as follows (changes shown in red text):

The Platform Hosting and Maintenance approach will be evaluated on the proposed system availability (i.e., uptime); user support (i.e., proposed speed of resolution of user requests); and approach to conformance with patching and other security requirements. All things equal, solutions that require MCC to host portions of the proposed platform will be considered less favorable than those where the offeror hosts the complete solution. All things equal, offerors that propose cost-effective strategies for sustainability of the platform post-period of performance will be considered more favorable than those who do not. Further, quotations that clearly demonstrate existing platforms already deployed for US Federal Government agencies that will meet MCC’s requirements with limited modifications and which have received an Authority to Operate (ATO) will be considered more favorable than Quotations for platforms that need to be developed and have not yet been successfully deployed.

See Attachment - Questions and Answers

Millennium Challenge Corporation Contracts and Grants Management Division 1099 Fourteenth St NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC, 20005-3550, US