Govt._Response_to_questions.091415.pdf

Business Transformation- DJJX-15-RFP-0936

September 14, 2015

Government Response to Contractor Questions

1. Contractor Question: Can you confirm whether the above mentioned solicitation is any kind of small business set aside or full and open competition?

Government Response: This requirement is a Hubzone set aside as stated in the RFP

Cover Letter and the original FBO announcement of September 1, 2015

2. Contractor Question: Does the Combined Synopsis/Solicitation under solicitation number

DJJX15RFP0936 contain requirements similar to a current contract?

If possible, please provide the current contract number.

Or, is this a new requirement for the government?

Government Response: There is no current contract because this is a new requirement.

3. Contractor Question: Reference: None - Is there an incumbent for this effort? If so, whom?

Government Response: No there is no incumbent for this effort.

4. Contractor Question: Reference: RFQ Section 8, Page(s) 7, and Paragraph(s) 1; RFQ

Section 14, Page(s) 14, and Paragraph(s) 1 - In Section 8 the RFP states that the "start date for the base period will be 365 days after the date of award.” In Section 14 the RFP states that the “base period of performance starts on the award date.” What is the expected start date for this effort?

Government Response: The date of award - (See RFP Amendment #003)

5. Contractor Question: Reference: RFQ Section 18.3, Page(s) 46, and Paragraph(s) (c) and (d) - Given potential mail security screening requirements, which could delay delivery, can the proposal be hand delivered to DOJ?

Government Response: Proposals must be “hand delivered” to the address referenced in Section 18.3(c). – (See RFP Amendment # 3)

6. Contractor Question: Reference: RFQ Section 5.4, Page(s) 4, and Paragraph(s) 1 -

There are two SOW 5.4 sections - can those be renumbered to reflect the SOW Sections 5.1 through 5.8, respectively?

Government Response: See RFP Amendment # 3

7. Contractor Question: Reference: RFQ Section 19.1.2 Page(s) 48, and Paragraph(s) 5 - Is completion of CostControl USA training a requirement for both the Business Transformation

SME and the Business/Financial Cost Estimating SME or does it apply only apply to the

Business/Financial Cost Estimating SME?

Government Response: No (See RFP Amendment #3)

8. Contractor Question: Reference: RFQ Section 11, Page(s) 12, and Paragraph(s) 2 - It is unclear why DOJ lists Fortune 50 experience as a requirement vice Fortune 500 or 1000.

Will DOJ consider removing the requirement for "business transformation efforts at private sector Fortune 50 companies" from the Business Transformation SME requirements? If not, will DOJ consider major business transformation efforts at Federal Agencies as equivalent experience?

Government Response: Yes (See RFP Amendment #3)

9. Contractor Question: Reference: RFQ Section 19.1.5, Page(s) 49, and Paragraph(s) 1-

3 - Given the unique CostPerform past performance experience requirements would DOJ consider placing more evaluation emphasis on the Past Performance technical factor?

Government Response: No

10. Contractor Question: Reference: RFQ Section 9.1, Page(s) 8, and Paragraph(s) 3 - Will

DOJ add Other Direct Costs (ODCs) through a modification after award?

Government Response: No

11. Contractor Question: Reference: RFQ Section 18.3.2, Page(s) 46 - 47, and Paragraph(s)

1-2 - Does "Volume II – Price Proposal" have a page limit?

Government Response: No.

12. Contractor Question: Reference: RFQ Section 5.2, Page(s) 3, and Paragraph(s) (a)-(h) -

Will DOJ provide CostPerform licenses to Contractors?

Government Response: Yes. DOJ licenses for CostPerform will be available for

Contractor use on Government furnished equipment only.

13. Contractor Question: Would the government consider strong quals and resumes in activity based costing that are not Cost Perform (Cost Control USA) specific. I have been working with dozens of people in recruiting and have even contacted Cost Control for a list of trained personnel. These resumes are very limited. Basically there are none in various search tools and recruiters. This requirement is severely limiting the ability to compete on this RFP.

Government Response: Yes – (See RFP Amendment #3)

14. Contractor Question: Reference: RFQ Section 18.3.7, Page 48, Paragraph 1

The solicitation states: "The offeror shall provide a list of 3 contracts performed within the last 3 years of similar size, scope and complexity to the requirements of this RFP."

"The past performance of any proposed subcontractors will also be evaluated."

Question: Please confirm subcontractor past performance references are in addition to the 3 required offeror references.

Government Response: See RFP Amendment #3.

15. Contractor Question: I am sending this correspondence to express my interest in the

Department of Justice Business Transformation cost- modeling group solicitation. I received the solicitation from My SETASIDE site and would like to know what you require to be submitted for a formal response.

Government Response: See Request for Proposal Section 18.3 for proposal instructions.

16. Contractor Question: Page 1, paragraph 2, second subparagraph: What is the status of the

JMD Services Review described in this section? What phases have been initiated or completed? Did a contractor support this effort? If so, what contractor and what was the level of effort? Finally, is the contractor eligible to bid on this effort?

Government Response: The JMD Services Review as described, specifically Phases 1-4 is complete. Phases 1-4 were supported by the Mason Harriman Group. Proposals submitted in response to this requirement must be in accordance with the level of effort defined in the Pricing Tables of Attachment 1. This is an open market procurement, set-aside for Hubzone small businesses and therefore open to any contractor that meets this small business qualification.

17. Contractor Question: Page 3, paragraph 5.1: The title of the paragraph is “CostPerform

Information Technology (IT) Implementation”, leaving the reader with the impression that the CostPerform software has yet to be deployed. The two sub paragraphs give the impression that the CostPerform software has been deployed, but data has not been fully migrated from laptops and other platforms. Is the contractor required to simply make an assessment and recommendations concerning data migration strategies, or will the contractor be involved in planning and implementing the migration? Please clarify.

Government Response: Cost Perform software is currently deployed and in use on standalone desktops and laptops. (See RFP Amendment #3).

18. Contractor Question: Page 3, paragraph 5.1: Do we need to include any software in our proposal, to include Cost Perform licenses or file sharing capability? Does the government have software for the contractors that will be provided as Government Furnished Equipment

(GFE)? If not please identify the required software and the required version of each.

Government Response: There is no requirement for software to be included in the proposal. The government will furnish the software needed and it will be available on government owned equipment for the contractor’s use.

19. Contractor Question: Page 4, paragraph 5.3.a: The paragraph indicates Phase I is underway (or complete). Please provide status of each phase and whether the work has been performed by the government or a contractor. If performed by a contractor, whom and are they eligible to bid on this requirement?

Government Response: See question/answer 16.

20. Contractor Question: Page 4, paragraph 5.4: There is a numbering problem beginning with paragraph 5.4. The number is used twice, resulting in incorrect paragraph numbers for the remainder of this section. Recommend the Government correct the numbering error to preclude any confusion that might result in addressing task requirements.

Government Response: The numbering has been corrected. See Amendment #3.

21. Contractor Question: Page 6, paragraph 6: The due date for several deliverables are given in days after contract award. Are these calendar days or working ways?[Sic]

Government Response: The due dates are calendar days.

22. Contractor Question: Page 6, paragraph 6: The Deliverables Table identifies only five deliverables. The subtasks described in paragraph 5 require the contractor to prepare a number of specific work products. For example, in paragraph 5.2.c, the contractor is required to “…construct a process map, determine financial and operational data requirements, determine business rules for financial and operational data, identify cost drivers, and build a performance based model.” None of these work products are included in the deliverables table and no due date is given. Please clarify.

Government Response - See RFP Amendment # 3.

23. Contractor Question: Page 7, paragraph 7: The paragraph is titled “Progress Reports and

Briefings”, but there is no mention of briefing requirements in either of the two sub-paragraphs. We assume that ad hoc briefings will be required from time to time to support meetings with the DAOG or COR. Are any periodic or formal briefings required beyond these ad hoc requirements that would require significant preparation and approvals before presentation?

Government Response: See RFP Amendment #3

24. Contractor Question: Page 12, paragraph 11: We do not understand the requirement for experience with both federal and private sector business transformation experience.

Moreover, by further constraining private sector experience to Fortune 50 companies, the government is significantly limiting the candidate pool available to fill the key position of

Business Transformation SME. Recommend the government reconsider this requirement

Government Response: See response #8.

25. Contractor Question: Page 45, paragraph 18.3: Although not specified, it appears that proposals are to be submitted in hardcopy. In addition, although zip and pdf files are not allowed, it does not seem that an electronic version (i.e., CD) is required with the hard copy submittal. Please confirm.

Government Response: This section has been revised. An electronic version (i.e., CD) is now required with the hard copy. (See RFP Amendment #3)

26. Contractor Question: Page 46, paragraph 18.3 (e): The timeline for submitting proposals is problematical. The late date for submission of questions will leave only a few days for contractors to receive and evaluate the government’s responses and then incorporate any changes into proposal in time to meet the September 17th delivery date. Will the government consider moving the delivery date by 5-7 days to allow sufficient time for the government to prepare a responses to questions and for contractors to update their proposals

27. Government Response: The due date for responses has been changed to “not later than

3:00 pm local (Washington, D.C) on September 18, 2015”. (See RFP Amendment #3)

28. Contractor Question: Page 48, paragraph 18.3.7: As written, we do not believe there is a page limit for the Past Performance section of the Technical volume. Please verify.

Government Response: This is incorrect. Paragraph 18.3.7 does in fact stipulate a one page per reference limit in the paragraph header. In addition, the last sentence in this section states that the past performance references are excluded from the page count.

Section 18.3.3 however, has been revised to reflect that past performance references are excluded from the page count of the Technical Proposal. (See RFP Amendment

#3).

29. Contractor Question: Page 48, paragraph 19.1.2: What specific “evidence” is the

Government looking for to validate staff compliance with the requirements in section 11 and this section? For example, in section 11, the Business Transformation SME must have 10 years’ experience leading projects that required a high-degree of interaction with SES leadership. How does the government define “a high degree of interaction”, and what evidence would be needed to verify that an individual meets the requirement? Moreover, the first bullet under 19.1.2 requires training by CostControl USA in the Cost Perform Activity

Tool. What evidence must contractors provide to verify that the individual named has attended this training, and why is a specific source for the training required? Finally, we anticipate that finding personnel with the combination of years of experience and the specific training required in the RFP will be difficult at best. Recommend the Government reconsider the combination of multiple requirements.

Government Response: See Amendment #3

30. Contractor Question: Many relatively new small business primes and teammates may be challenged to provide three past performance references, impacting their ability to be competitive. To mitigate this potential problem and to foster competition, we suggest the requirement be changed to a minimum of three past performance references including the prime and any teammates.

Government Response: Past performances of both the prime and subcontractors

(teammates) will be considered. However, only three (3) references shall be submitted.

It is up to the offeror to decide which three references to submit (See RFP Amendment

#3)

31. Contractor Question: Page 48, paragraph 19: In paragraph 18.3.3, the Government requires submission of a three page Executive Summary and establishes specific content requirements. However, the Executive Summary is not addressed as an evaluation factor in paragraph 19. Does its exclusion indicate that the Executive Summary will not be considered or evaluated? If so, should we assume it has no relative importance in the evaluation process? Yet, two of the Government’s desired topics (corporate expertise and subcontractors) included in the Executive Summary are not addressed elsewhere in the

Technical volume. If the Executive Summary is a necessary part of the proposal, we suggest it be included as part of the evaluation approach.

Government Response: The evaluation criteria will remain as written.

32. Contractor Question: Page 49, paragraph 19.1.5): In paragraph 18.3.7 each past performance reference is limited to one page. Providing the required information will be a challenge with a one page limit. In paragraph 191.5, the Government identifies additional criteria that must be addressed, further exacerbating the problem. Since this section of the proposal is not page limited, we request the government consider allowing two pages for each past performance reference so contractors can adequately address the requirements in paragraph 18.3.7 and the evaluation criteria in 19.1.5.

Government Response: The one page per reference limit remains unchanged. Note that the Government plans to contact the references provided by the offeror in order to evaluate

1) the quality and timeliness of the offeror’s work, 2) the offeror’s ability to estimate costs accurately and to stay within budget, 3) the offeror’s business behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction, and 4) the offeror’s technical and management capabilities on projects similar in size, scope and complexity to the RFP requirements as specified in

Section 19.1.5.

33. Contractor Question: Would the DOJ consider a GSA IT-70 or MOBIS Schedule Buy for the RFP “U.S. Department of Justice Business Transformation DJJX-15-RFP-0936” or consider an alternative NAICS such as 541519 – Other Computer Related Services, due to

IT-related requirements in the RFP?

Government Response: No, this is an open market procurement set-aside for Hubzone small businesses and is therefore open to any contractor that meets this small business qualification. The NAICS code was changed via FBO RFP amendment # 2 on date

September 2, 2015.