BSM_RFP_Q A1.docx

USDA Business Services Management Q & A

1. QUESTION: Is this a new requirement or can you provide the contract # for any incumbent contract currently providing a BSM Solution for NFC?

GOVERNEMENT RESPONSE: The only contractor supporting NFC in this regard is Lockheed Martin from the Systems Engineering and Technical Assistance contract AG-3142-12-D-0128. They provide operation and maintenance support for NFC’s current Remedy implementation.

2. QUESTION: The current version does not mention any page limits, but the previous version limits the technical response to a total of 35 pages. Is there a total page limit on the past performances? Please provide some guidance on page limits?

GOVERNEMENT RESPONSE: The restrictions were removed from the final RFP. The potential Offeror should review Section 12.3 on past performance, as well as, the evaluation standards. Proposals should be straightforward and succinct. Proposals should not describe a product’s features or salient characteristics unless that specific product is proposed and will provide the features and salient characteristics described. It is recommended that marketing type information not be included. An Offeror can develop a proposal where it is so lengthy and contains so much hype that the Government cannot discern what is really being proposed and what is not. It is recommended that the Offerors stay on point, be succinct and address how the requirements are met or exceeded.

The actual evaluation standards extracted from the Source Selection Plan have been provided. The Source Selection Authority gave permission to provide this information even though it is usually considered source selection sensitive.

3. QUESTION: The previous version requires three hard copies, but current version does not mention anything about hard copies. Do you need hard copies as part our submission? If yes, where should we send them and by when?

GOVERNEMENT RESPONSE: The Offeror should submit one original proposal with original signatures to Contracting Officer (see block 6 of SF 1449). Additionally, email proposal to philip.rasmussen@usda.gov and a courtesy copy to nikki.terrranova@usda.gov. If proposal is received by e-mail prior to due date/time, the original proposal can be received within 24 hours of due date/time.

4. QUESTION: We respectfully request the Government post “soft copy” Microsoft Word files for RFP Part 1, RFP Part 2, and RFP Part 3, to the FedBizOpps RFP website. The original RFP files now on FedBizOpps are scanned images of hard copy print-outs of these three files?

GOVERNEMENT RESPONSE: It is unclear which three parts. The RFP, Case Study and TRB packages are provided.

5. QUESTION: On the NFC BSM RFP response, where exactly do I mention the additional resources/labor categories I will need to provide subject matter expertise and implement the software? The RFP on page 15 says, I should use CLIN 5001-6000. However, the BSM Pricing model spreadsheet does not provide any room for those labor categories? Please provide some guidance?

GOVERNEMENT RESPONSE: Section 3.1.6 states, “All other items and labor categories not already separately priced under 3.1.1 – 3.1.4, but are required to provide a responsive proposal to the Cast Study identified in Attachment 2.” The pricing model spread sheet will allow you to insert rows; one needs to follow the methodology & pattern used in the rest of the model.

Section 5.2 Professional Services, states, “Professional Services priced by lot shall be completed at the firm fixed priced item as specified in this contract and the Delivery Order regardless of the length of time to complete. Professional Services acquired by the fixed price hourly rate, shall have deliverables and an associated schedule. The specific deliverables and tasks shall be identified in the Delivery Order and the quote provided by the contractor.”

The pricing instructions state, “If the technical and price proposals do not correlate, the government may consider your proposal to be non-responsive. If the offeror changes the quantities, changes the formulas, or fails to apply the correct quantity and formula for all the line items, the government may consider your proposal to be nonresponsive. This model will be used for price evaluation of you proposal. Everything proposed in the technical proposal shall be represented in the price proposal/this model. For price evaluation purposes, the offeror shall follow the below assumptions.

1. The probability that the Product-Based Solution and the SaaS-Based solution is ordered is 50/50. 2. The probability that the three different Product-Based Solution' Extended Warranties have an equal probability and is only apropos for the Product-Based CLINs. 3. The SaaS-Based solution priced per GB has a ration of 1 GB to 5 named users -- 1:5.”

Therefore, for example, if one needs a database engineer to complete the Case Study, one would insert a row, assign the labor category a CLIN choosing numbers that are between 5001 and 6000, determine the quantity based on the quantities shown for related items in that year. This database engineer is needed for the case study regardless of which solution is selected (i.e., Product-Based or SaaS-Based). Therefore, for this labor item the assumption of 50/50, an equal probability, that the Product-Based and the SaaS-Based solution may be selected provides the Offeror two ways to complete the pricing model which the Government would accept. Let’s assume that the number of hours estimated to complete the Case Study is 1502 hours and the price per hour is $62.00. The following would be correct for the first year.

1. Method – Preferred CLIN Line Item Description Unit Total Qty Price per Unit Extended Price

The unit is per hour. The price per unit is $62.00 per hour. In year one, there are 56 case studies. So the quantity to be evaluated is 1502 times the number of case studies: 1502*56 = 84,112 total quantity of hours. The Offeror should copy the formula or insert the formula such that the extended price is the total quantity (84,112) times the labor rate of $62.00 which equals $5,214,944.00.

2. Alternate Method CLIN Line Item Description Unit Total Qty Price per Unit Extended Price

This method provides for the probability that the Product-Based and the SaaS-Based are equal. Therefore, the extended price is 50% of that of the first method for both solutions. Both methods add $5,214,944 to the evaluated price. But the Alternate Method is more work and introduces a higher risk of making a mistake having two CLINs for the same thing. For example, if the quantities or price per Unit accidently gets changed and the two CLINs don’t match exactly, the Government will not know which you meant to propose.

6. QUESTION: RFP Reference: Price Model Unit. Please define the “100 Named Users” in Column C of the Price Model. How does this number of 100 relate to the quantity of 249 total users that is the basis for the pricing calculations in the individual Product-Based and SaaS-Based CLINs in the Price Model?

GOVERNEMENT RESPONSE: One hundred named users is per qty of one unit. A named user license is an exclusive licensure of rights assigned to a single named software user. A user may attrite; therefore that person’s login in would be removed and a different user with a different login may be added. The number of concurrent users is irrelevant, as long as the number of concurrent users stays at 100 or less. Software that may use technology such as Service Oriented Architecture to log into the application is also irrelevant. There is a multitude of ways to license software and the Government cannot develop a simplistic math model that would ensure all Offerors are proposing against the same requirements. Therefore, for the purpose of price evaluation, keeping all Offerors on a level field, a unit of one for the BSM Product Based Solution and the SaaS-Based Solution is for 100 named users. The total number of 249 is total number in the pricing model for a BSM solution. Since the probability of procuring product and SaaS is equal, the equation for each in the model multiplies the unit price times the quantity, divided by two.

7. QUESTION: Is RFP Reference: Price Model CLINs 0001 – 1000 BSM Product-Based Solution.

Are Contractors required to price a perpetual license for each Item in their proposed BSM Product-Based Solution CLINs, or will the Government accept a one-year renewable term price for each Item in their proposed BSM Product-Based Solution?

GOVERNEMENT RESPONSE: No, there has been no requirement identified to-date to lease software vice procure a perpetual license. If the Government does not want to own the licenses, they should consider the SaaS-Based solution..

8. QUESTION: RFP Reference: Price Model Unit = 100 Named Users. Please confirm Contractors can replace the “100 Named Users” in the Price Model Unit description field with the correct word to match the definitions in the Vendors’ License Agreements and Subscription Agreements. The Unit of Measure for some Product-Based licenses and SaaS subscriptions is per enterprise, or per instance, or per site, or per server; that is, something other than “User”.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Offeror may not replace the Unit from 100 named users to any other unit of measure. Refer to Q&A 6 above. The Contractor, after award, can propose different units of measure and the Government will consider modifying the contract.

9. QUESTION:RFP References: Price Model CLINs 1001 – 2000 Extended Warranty/Maintenance and RFQ Section 3.4 Maintenance and Extended Warranty Is the pricing in CLINs 1001 – 2000 for 7x24x365 coverage with 4-hour response, or is the pricing in these CLINs for weekdays 8 AM – 5 PM coverage with next day response? Section 3.4 requires the Contractor to offer both levels but the Price Model only has one set of Maintenance CLINs. this be a single award or multiple awards?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The potential Offeror has a point. For each product six different options should be provided in the pricing model. The Offeror may insert the other three options per product and change the formulas accordingly. That is, assume an equal probability that any six would be procured; as well as, the equal probability of procuring product-based and SaaS-Based solutions. The description may be changed to add “8x5” for three and “7x24/365” to the other three. The math formula follows.

Multiplier Qty * Multiplicand Unit price = Product; (straight multiplication without applying probabilities)

Multiplier Product * Multiplicand 16.66% = Product 2 (Assume an equal probability that any of the six options will be procured.

Dividend Product 2 ÷ Divisor 2 = Quotient Evaluated Extended Price.

For example, for the first year, CLIN 1001.1, assume a unit price of $28.05.:

((56*$28.05)*16.66%)/2 = ($1570.80 * 16.66%)/2 = $261.70/2 = $130.85

10. QUESTION: RFP References: Price Model SaaS-Based Solution CLINs 4001-5000 and CLINs 5051.1-6000.1 The Price Model Quantities in all Option Years appear incorrect for all the SaaS-Based CLINs. This error causes the SaaS-Based prices to be significantly understated in the Total Evaluation Price in cell I84 of the Excel spreadsheet.

The Price Model correctly reflects the cumulative total Quantity for Product-Based Maintenance. A similar cumulative total calculation is required for the SaaS-Based Items.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The potential Offeror has a point. The quantities in the pricing model have been corrected. Note, the pricing model is used to evaluate the offered price and the assumptions made are for purposes of evaluating the price proposal. The Government shall have the ability to choose either solution regardless of contract year or prior purchase decisions.

11. QUESTION: RFP Reference: Price Model, Case Study, Option Year 4. Is “10” the correct Quantity value for the Case Study CLINs in Option Year 4? Shouldn’t the Quantity be changed to “30” to follow the pattern used for the Case Study Quantities in the Base Period and all other Option Years?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Yes, the pricing model has been corrected.

12. QUESTION: RFP References: Section 3.1.4 and 3.1.5. Please correct the duplicate Section numbering on pages 14 and 16 of the RFP for Section 3.1.4 and Section 3.1.5.:

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Government correct said Sections, but they are not on pages 14 and 16.

13. QUESTION: RFP Reference: Section 3.1.5, CLIN 4001-5000 BSM SaaS-based Solution, page 14 What is the Government’s rationale for limiting pricing for product-based licenses and SaaS subscriptions to 100-user bundles? Limiting CLINs to bundles of 100 named users add unnecessary cost to USDA agencies buying off the BSM contract.

6a) If an agency requires 75 user subscriptions for their Tier 1, 2, and 3 Service Desk staff, is the agency required to “over-buy” by 33% and procure a 100-user bundle?

6b) If an agency needs 10 additional user licenses beyond the 500 user licenses they previously purchased, does the agency have to “over-buy” by 90% and procure a 100-user license bundle? .

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Please refer to Q&As 6 and 8.

14. QUESTION: RFP Reference: Section 3.1.5 Please clarify the reference to “small business” in this sentence in Section 3.1.4 on page 16 of the RFP …. “Using this strategy the small business…..”

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The RFP has been corrected.

15. QUESTION: RFP References: Section Introduction Training and Section 5.5 Acceptance and Reimbursement for Contractor Travel. Please confirm that the per class for Training CLINs #00#.2 do not include Instructor (Contractor) travel and that Instructor’s travel expenses will be separately billable in accordance with Section 5.5.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Confirmed.

16. QUESTION: RFP Reference: Section 3.1.3 CLIN 2001-3000 ITIL Training. Please expand the Training CLINs to include self-paced and instructor-led on-line and web-based training (WBT) of various durations. The current requirement for 5-day, classroom-based training is prohibitively and unnecessarily expensive. It is contrary to widely-accepted best practice to deliver training in discrete units of 12 to 24 hours, and requires the USDA students to be away from their work site for a full week. Introduction Training is almost commonly delivered via WBT or on-line classes, and these training modes are more effective than classroom-based courses for most adult learners. Without the requested changes, USDA will get minimum benefit from a maximum dollar investment in BSM product training.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: No. Please refer to Q&A 6, 8 and 10.

17. QUESTION: RFP References: Section 5.2 Professional Services, page 21 and Price Model CLIN 3001 SME ITIL Certified Master. What CLIN will the Contractor for “Professional Services priced by lot…” as stated in Section 5.2? The only Professional Services CLIN in the Price Model appears to be a T&M per hour labor rate GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: There are no materials identified in the RFP. The fixed priced hourly rate will be in the contract. Whether per delivery order and/or the quote is negotiated as firm-fixed price by lot or an estimated number of hours will be up to the contractor and the delivery order contracting officer.

18. QUESTION: RFP Reference: Price Model CLIN 3001 SME ITIL Certified Master. Do Contractors propose their on-site hourly T&M labor rate, or their off-site hourly T&M labor rate, in CLIN 3001?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: It is a fixed hourly rate and it should be assumed that the work will be done on a Government site..

19. QUESTION: RFP Reference: Price Model CLIN 3001 SME ITIL Certified Master Question: What is the Government’s intention with regard to procuring contractor labor services through the BSM contract? The SME ITIL Certified Master CLIN in the Pricing Model represents just a tiny fraction of the total labor required to implement BSM. Does the Government plan to use federal staff and/or acquire contractor services through other vehicles, to perform the majority of the BSM work?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Both are possible. Please note, that the labor categories used to provide a solution to the case study does not all have to be CLIN 3001. Please see Q&A 5.

20. QUESTION: RFP References: SF 1449 and Section 6.1 Period of Performance What is the Base Contract Period? Section 6.1 indicates a 09/23/2013 contract start. A 09/23/2013 appears impossible given Contractors submit proposals on 09/23/2013. A 09/23/2013 start date is also different than the 09/30/2013 Base Period start date on the 1449.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The contract will be corrected at award. The base period was selected to move the contract off of the fiscal year. Since award will now occur after Oct 1, that is no longer an issue.

21. QUESTION: RFP Reference: Price Model CLIN 3001 CLINs 2001 – 3000 Training Per Product. Are the training services in CLINs 2001-3000 limited to Product-Based Solutions as implied in the section heading on row 22 of the Price Model? Will the Government consider adding another set of CLINs for training services for the BSM SaaS-Based Solution?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: No, the Government does not see the necessity since the SaaS-Based solution, per Section 3.1, shall be based on the same products as the Product-Based solution. On the other hand, if after award the Government identifies a requirement for training that the contract does not satisfy, then the Government can request and evaluate a proposal to add additional training; please see Section 3.1.9 Technical Insertion..

22. QUESTION: RFP References: Price Model CLIN 3001 CLINs 2001 – 3000 Case Study and Attachment 2 Case Study for BSM. What is the Government’s rationale for not including any Training CLINs, or the SME ITIL Certified Master CLIN, in the Case Study section (rows 47 through 76) of the Price Model? The Technical and Management Plans, and preliminary design to convert data, and preparation of the TRB Package required in Phase I of the Case Study, are all labor-intensive activities requiring a variety of labor categories and skill sets.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Because the Government does not know what labor categories an Offeror may choose, how many hours necessary or the technical or management approach. Please refer to Q&As 5 and 19, as well as, Factor (1) Standard (2) and Section 12.2.

23. QUESTION: RFP Reference: Attachment 2 Case Study for BSM, Section 1.2, page 3. Please provide the name and quantities of all Remedy 7.1 licenses currently used at NFC so Contractors can “map their proposed solution to the portions of Remedy 7.1 that is currently used”.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The following assumption may be made.

0. Number of records in production: 1 million – Service Desk; 52,000 - Change; 2,000 - Asset Management and 5,000 Knowledge Management.

0. Customizations - Ratios of out-of-the-box vs. customized:

1. Service Desk - 80:20

1. Change Management- 90:10

1. Asset Management - - 95:5

1. Task Management - 95:5

1. Knowledge Management – 90:10

1. Foundation Data – 90:10

24. QUESTION: Reference RFP Section 3.1.5: What does the USDA consider as "items not required to be leased"?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Different appropriations and other funding such as a Working Capital Fund have different fiscal restrictions, length of time of the funding (e.g., one year money, 3 year funds). As explained in RFP in 3.1.5, unless NFC has Capital funding, then hardware items that are $25K and higher have to be leased and software items that are $100K and higher have to be leased. Those limits are per a single unit. For example, if NFC issues a Delivery Order using Operations and Maintenance (O&M) one year funding, and the Deliver Order contains 10 hardware items; if only one of those items is priced at $25K or higher, then NFC can buy out right nine of those items and only has to lease one. If NFC has Capital Funding, which is very limited, then NFC can use O&M funds for the nine and Capital Funds for the other item priced $25K or higher.

25. QUESTION: RFP References: Price Model Case Study CLINs. We recommend NFC revise the Quantity for each of the Case Study CLINs to equal the actual number of NFC IT support staff who will use the BSM solution, and the total number of NFC end user employees who will use the self-service capabilities of the proposed BSM solution. The Case Study CLINs in the Price Model currently require Contractors to price a quantity of 56 100-user bundles of each proposed user license/subscription, or a total of 5,600 licenses/subscriptions per CLIN. This Quantity appears to be far in excess of NFC’s actual requirement, and substantially greater than the number of Remedy 7.1 licenses NFC currently owns.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: RFP remains unchanged. The Case Study may be modeled after NFC, but the contract is open to all of USDA..

26. QUESTION: RFP Reference: Price Model CLINs 6001 and 7001 Technical Insertion and Technical Refresh . We assume CLINs 6001 and 7001 are placeholders for post-award product updates and Contractors do not change the $250,000.00 value when completing the Price Model. Please confirm this assumption is correct.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Offerors are cautioned not to make assumptions. This assumption is not correct.

The technical insertion provision can be used to add newer technology when that technology under contract. This provision can also be used modify the contract to include items that were not part of the original contract. The contact has to have the flexibility to evolve as technology evolves; the technical insertion provision provides the ability to do this over the life of the contract.

Technical Refresh is different. For example, if the OEM of an item proposed, has a new widget, but the previous generation of that widget has not yet met end of life, the new widget can be added via this provision, a technical refresh. Later, when the original widget has met end of life, then the newer widget under the Tech Refresh is modified as applicable with the Technical Substitution provision. Therefore, the price for the newer widget may change downward.

Both require the Government to agree to a bilateral modification. The Government’s assessment would include ensuring the proposed price is consistent with the pricing originally provided to the Government minus the minimum percentage discount. The contractor can propose a higher discount, but not a lower discount.

Regarding the pricing model, when the Offeror changes the minimum percentage discount, the formula will reduce the $250,000 accordingly. So, the Offeror enters the minimum discount proposed, but does not change the formula.

27. QUESTION: RFP Reference: Price Model CLINs 0001-1000 and 4001-5000. We assume all Items listed in CLINs 0001-1000 and 4001-5000 of the Price Model must be commercially available, and on the OEM’s market price list or GSA Schedule, as of the date of proposal submission. Please confirm this assumption is correct.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: This assumption is incorrect. GSA, GSA’s Federal Supply Schedule nor the OEM’s market price list have anything to do with this Solicitation. This is a Federal Acquisition being conducted under Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 12. We are not going to attempt to interpret the FAR. The FAR continues to evolve regarding the definition of commercial end item/non-developmental items and commercial-off-the-shelve. The current position is that they are not one and the same.

28. QUESTION: RFP Reference: Section 3.1.5 CLIN 4001-5000 BSM SaaS-based Solution. Please confirm the Government’s requirement that the BSM SaaS-based Solution shall “mirror” the Product-based Solution for the BSM products provided for 3.1.1 means that the SaaS-Based Items and the Product-Based Items should be the from the same OEM GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: They shall be the same products. The Government shall have the flexibility to go either way and back and forth. Therefore, the Government is not looking for another set of products to learn or impede this ability.

29. QUESTION: Section 3.1.11. Please explain the reference to the 5th contract year in the sentence…”That is, the Government may choose to lease on the fifth contract year”?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The RFP has been corrected.

30. QUESTION: RFP Reference: Section 3.1.5 CLIN 4001-5000 BSM SaaS-based Solution. What is the context and rationale for the requirement that “The annual charge per Gigabyte shall include all other SaaS pricing”?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The context is it is a requirement of the solicitation; it can be “not separately priced” if the price is already covered with the 100 named users.

31. QUESTION: RFP Reference: Section 11.5 Price Proposal. What is meant by the instruction to fill in the percentage of discount in the sentence …”Prices shall be submitted by filling in the percentage of discount for each line item contained in the Excel Spreadsheet provided”? The Price Model does not include discounts.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The potential Offeror should refer to the end of the spreadsheet, Sections 3.1.8 – 3.1.9, and Q&A 26.

32. QUESTION: RFP Reference: Section 12.1 Basis of Award, page 60. What is the difference between the security requirements in Factor (1) Standard (2) and Factor (1) Standard (3)? Standard (3) is a duplicate of the final part of Standard (2).

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The RFP has been corrected. The Source Selection Standards that are part of the Source Selection Plan have been provided.

33. QUESTION: Is the USDA requesting payments over a three (3) year period for the initial order?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Please refer to Question number 32. It is recommended that the potential offeror search the WWW for a better understanding of Federal financial statutes, regulations, directives and policies, as well as, the Federal Acquisition Regulations.

34. QUESTION RFP Reference: Section 12.1 Basis of Award. Factor (2) Price Proposal indicates the Government will only consider the proposed hourly rate for CLIN 3001, the SME ITIL Certified Master, when evaluating the Contractor’s Price proposal. Is this a correct interpretation of the statement in the RFP?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The question is unclear. The extended price is added to the total evaluated price. The hourly rate multiplied by the quantity of hours provided.

35. QUESTION: RFP Reference: Section 12.2 Self Technical Evaluation. This RFP is this Vendor’s first experience with a Self Technical Evaluation.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The information is not normally provided and is considered Source Selection Sensitive in accordance with FAR Part 3.104.

36. QUESTION: The RFP states the Contractor may complete a self-evaluation and provide that with the proposal. Are we correct in assuming the Self Technical Evaluation is optional and is not required to be submitted with the proposal?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: This assumption is correct.

37. QUESTION: (A) Considerable time and expense is required to build and complete the Validator’s templates and the Evaluator’s templates. Won’t the Government consider a proposal in a more favorable (or at least less exhausted!) light, if the Contractor absorbs this time and expense and prepares a Self Evaluation package? (B) Conversely, if a Contractor does not prepare a Self Evaluation package, and the Government must absorb this time and expense, isn’t there a real risk that this will negatively impact the proposal evaluation and scoring?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: (A) The Offeror is not the Government; therefore, the Offeror does not have to use the Government’s processes or checklists. They are only provided, so that any potential Offeror will understand the evaluation standards, the rating and risk definitions and more about the Government’s internal processes. The potential Offeror should have a good understanding of what it will take to make an ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ or ‘F’. Regardless of format, the Offerors may provide a self-evaluation and submit it with their proposal. The Government may not agree with the self-evaluation, but it does give Offerors a chance to identify what they think their strengths and weaknesses are.

(B) This question is unclear. Regardless of whether an Offeror provides a self-evaluation or not, the Government will conduct an independent evaluation in accordance with the Source Selection Plan.

38. QUESTION . Will all Government Validators and Evaluators complete their own independent assessment of every proposal received by the Government prior to having access to any Contractor’s Self Evaluation?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: No. However, that doesn’t mean that the Government will agree with any part of the self-evaluation.

39. QUESTION: Will the Government revise the Proposal Preparation Requirements in Section 11 on page 56 to instruct Contractors to submit the Self Evaluation forms in a separate file from the Technical Proposal file and the Pricing Proposal file? This is critical to maintaining a minimum level of independence and lack of bias, in the Government’s own evaluation and scoring.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: No. This strategy has been used on source selections for ID/IQ contracts worth $550,000,000 to $2,900,000,000. It provides private industry with insight as to the Government’s processes and ensures that Offerors cannot say that they did not know how they would be evaluated. If the potential Offeror is concerned that the members of the Source Selection Evaluation Board lack integrity, ethics, morals, professionalism, knowledge, etc. then they should consider not providing a self-evaluation.

40. QUESTION: Will all Government Validators and Evaluators complete their own independent assessment of every proposal received by the Government prior to having access to any Contractor’s Self Evaluation?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: No. However, that doesn’t mean that the Government will agree with any part of the self-evaluation.

41. QUESTION: (A) Is it the Government’s intent to leverage Contractors’ Self Evaluation to minimize the Government time required to read and score the Technical Proposal? (B) That is, for those Contractors who elect to complete and submit a Self Evaluation, will the Government Validators and Evaluators read and score the Self Evaluation sheets and not the Technical Proposal itself?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: (A) No. (B) Firstly, the process does not result in scoring. Proposals are rated. Numbers are not used. Secondly, each standard is independently evaluated by two different individuals; after all proposals are evaluated for a standard, the two evaluators go through a reconciliation process. Thirdly, the Technical Evaluation Team lead has to agree to the reconciled rating and risk assessed, as does the Source Selection Evaluation Board Chair and the Source Selection Authority. If there is a difference of opinions, that cannot be reconciled, then that member writes a Minority Report that is provided to the Source Selection Authority. Fourthly, it is the Government’s experience that Offerors’ self-evaluations are inflated, but it provided them the opportunity to ensure that what they think is strength is brought to the Government’s attention. .

End of Questions/Responses

AG-3142-S-13-0039 Page 1 image1.emf image2.emf image3.wmf