DOL110RP20872 0002.rtf

5. PROJECT NO.

CODE

7. ADMINISTERED BY

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

CODE

6. ISSUED BY

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

9B. DATED

PAGE OF PAGES

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED

BPA NO.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

FACILITY CODE

CODE

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:

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers

E. IMPORTANT:

is extended,

(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 AC- KNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY is not extended.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

(REV. 10-83)

is required to sign this document and return ___________ copies to the issuing office.

is not, 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.

15C. DATE SIGNED

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you 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.

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

D. OTHER

BY

Contractor

16C. DATE SIGNED

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

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.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

STANDARD FORM 30

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

PREVIOUS EDITION NOT USABLE

Prescribed by GSA - FAR (48 CFR) 53.243 (Type or print) (Type or print) (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

(No., street, county, State and ZIP Code) (If other than Item 6) (Specify type of modification and authority) (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.)

(If required) (If applicable)

(SEE ITEM 11)

(SEE ITEM 13)

(X) (X)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS,

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

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer) 134-0994-204

TMB

OASAM Office of Procurement Services U. S. Department of Labor

RM S4307

200 Constitution Ave., NW Washington DC 20210 OASAM Office of Procurement Services U. S. Department of Labor

RM S4307

200 Constitution Ave., NW Washington DC 20210 To all Offerors/Bidders

DOL110RP20872

01-19-2010 X x x x The purpose of this amendment is to accomplish the following:

proposals is changed from 02/18/2010, 3:00 p.m., Eastern to 02/22/2010, 10:00 a.m., Eastern.

DOL110RP20872/0002

Government Responses to Questions/Comments for the Presolicitation Notice of Financial Statement and Accounting Services, DOL110RP20872

Should we submit just one candidate for each position?

RESPONSE: Yes. Even though the required number of hours exceeds one full-time-equivalent position, offerors are to submit only one candidate for each position.

We would also like you to shed light on how two project managers work. Will they work independently on different parts of a project or work together and which one of them will have the functional responsibility? Will you leave it to the contractor to decide?

RESPONSE: There are four different agencies that may require services under this contract, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, the Employment and Training Administration, the Employment Standards Administration and the Employment Standards Administration’s Wage and Hour Division. There may be assignments (Task Orders issued) that would require an additional Project Manager or Deputy Project Manager depending on the task order requirements. The Project Managers / Deputy Project Managers would work independently but the Project Manager designated as Key Personnel would have the overall functional responsibility for all employees assigned to this contract.

Are the financial records in compliance and has it reached the AUDITABLE stage as mandated?

RESPONSE: The Audit has just recently started.

Is the incumbent staff still performing these tasks?

RESPONSE: Yes.

Do some of them (the incumbent staff) qualify to join the new contractor and is there any reason why the Government will prevent some of them to join the new contractor?

RESPONSE: With regards to “qualify to join the new contractor”; if the proposed personnel meets the Minimum Education / Experience as required in Section H.3. of the RFP, they would be considered “qualified”.

In no way, will the Government be involved in the hiring or firing process of the contractor personnel.

Please clarify the software environment, Oracle/SAP/PRISM – procurement system.

RESPONSE: Oracle is the financial system.

What is the value of the incumbent award?

RESPONSE: The total maximum estimated ceiling price is $2,420,605.80.

Is the agency handling their own implementation? Is it fully implemented and are you running a parallel system?

RESPONSE: We have a shared service provider. We do not run a parallel system.

Is the Agency CROSS served by another Agency?

RESPONSE: We have a shared service provider.

How long has the system been operational?

RESPONSE: It was implemented in January, 2010.

Are most of the Financial operations at DOL headquarters or some in other States?

RESPONSE: Yes. Most of the financial operations are at HQ in DC.

Section L.5 provides requirements as to the content and format of the offeror’s proposal. The content requirements described in that section do not specify that the offeror submit a technical approach or any other written understanding of the tasks described in the RFP. Is it correct to conclude that a technical approach or written understanding of the tasks described in the Statement of Work (a) will not be used to evaluate potential offerors, and (b) for that reason, should not be included in the proposals?

RESPONSE: The Government is not asking offeror’s to submit, nor will the Government evaluate a technical approach or any other written understanding of the tasks described in the RFP.

The Evaluation Factors, Section M.2, states that the four evaluation factors are listed in “descending order of importance: Factor 1 Experience, Factor II Staff Resumes and Staffing Plan, Factor III Past Performance, Factor IV Price”. Based on this statement, Factor I Experience would be more important than Factor IV Price. However, Section M.5 states, “The non-price factors when combined, are approximately equal to Factor IV Price”. This statement seems to conflict with Section M.2. How can price be the lowest in order of importance, but carry the same weight as the other three factors combined? Is price the most important or least important factor in the evaluation of the proposal

RESPONSE: Please see revised Section M.

The following non-price Evaluation Factors are listed in descending order of importance:

The non-price factors (Experience, Staff Resumes and Staffing Plan, and Past Performance) when combined are approximately equal to Evaluation Factor IV, Price.

14. Section M.3 describes Factor III, Past Performance, as an evaluation of the offeror’s present and past work in order to assess the offeror’s “probability of successfully performing as proposed”. However, the same section states, “Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance, and, as a result, will receive a “Unknown Confidence” rating for the Past Performance factor.” What does this statement actually mean? Will the proposal of an offeror with no record of relevant past performance be given equal weight as the proposal of an offeror with a substantial record of relevant past performance? What is the significance of this evaluation factor?

RESPONSE: The commonsense meaning of this wording is that you cannot evaluate something that does not exist. Thus, if an offeror has not done relevant work in the past, then you cannot say anything about its past performance, good or bad; so the appropriate thing to do is to evaluate as “no record,” “not applicable,” “none,” or “Unknown Confidence.”

This does not mean that, when comparing offerors to each other, agencies have to consider “none” to be as good as “good.” GAO has ruled on several occasions that an agency may consider an offeror with a record of good past performance and a higher price to be a better value than an offeror with no record and a lower price.

FAR 15.304(c)(3) requires agencies to evaluate Past Performance during source selection.

What is the estimated date of award?

RESPONSE: 03/01/2010.

What is the total hours by labor category for the current 17 month contract?

RESPONSE: The requested information is protected by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Information on submitting a FOIA request can be found here: http://www.dol.gov/dol/foia/

Does the Conflict of Interest provision apply to proposed subcontractors?

RESPONSE: Yes.

Will the Government consider the cover page, transmittal letter and table of content part of the page limitation for Volume I?

RESPONSE: No.

Will the Government provide an extension for the submission of DOL110RP20872, due to power outages and inclement weather across the country?

RESPONSE: Yes. The date / time for submission of proposals is being extended.

What is the current Financial Management system used? Please let us know the system, database and platform used (General Ledger, cash disbursement and collections, accounts payable, accounts receivable, billing, etc. as applicable.

RESPONSE: Oracle Financial System, implemented in January, 2010.

What is the future/new financial system to be used?

RESPONSE: N/A. See question #19.

What is the volume of transactions in the system based on the following: cash disbursements, collections, accounts receivables, accounts payable?

RESPONSE: It is a cabinet level agency. It will be very difficult to estimate the volume of these transactions.

How many funds are reconciled to Treasury for Fund Balance with treasury?

RESPONSE: It is approximately 250 funds reconciled with Treasury for Fund Balance with Treasury.

What are the performance requirements for this IDIQ?

RESPONSE: Task orders issued as a result of the ID/IQ contract will contain the performance requirements.

The 3,675 hours allocated to the Project Manager is very high and appear not to be consistent with functional responsibilities outlined in Section H.3.1. of the solicitation. What is the DOL rationale for allocating this much time to the Project Manager?

RESPONSE: See response to question #2.

How do you anticipate that the Project Manager will use 3,675 hours in one year? The same applies to Deputy Project Manager.

RESPONSE: See response to question #2.

Will the government provide an extension for the submission of DOL110RP20872, due to power outages and weather related issues across the country?

RESPONSE: See response to question #18.

Confirm that the resumes in the redacted Volume I copy should not include the names of proposed personnel.

RESPONSE: Correct. Resumes contained in the redacted Volume I copy should not include the names of the proposed personnel.

Since the Past Performance Survey will be submitted directly by the evaluators to the Government, are we also required to include the uncompleted Past Performance Survey in Volume I?

RESPONSE: No.

In Section H.5, 2nd paragraph: “No work involving information furnished under this Agreement will be subcontracted without specific advance written approval of the COTR or their appointed designee”. Confirm that this does not preclude offeror from submitting a proposal with a subcontractor/teaming firm.

RESPONSE: Offerors may submit a proposal with a subcontractor/teaming firm.

In Section M.2, 3rd paragraph: “To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for each evaluation factor”. How is “Acceptable” defined for this solicitation?

RESPONSE: For the evaluation of this RFP, Acceptable is defined as: The proposal is minimally responsive and contains a number of weaknesses and risks. These weaknesses may diminish the quality of services in some areas of performance. No significant features or innovative approach is offered. A rating of ACCEPTABLE indicates few strengths, a number of weaknesses and risks.

The Statement of Work, Section C.3., item 1.k., pertains to support for the “maintenance” of the Unemployment Trust Fund accounting system and “completeness and accuracy of postings through system interfaces”. It is difficult to ascertain the specific services to be performed for this item. Do these services involve post-recording reviews and reconciliations or preparation and recording of initial UTF accounting entries, or both? What is the expected level of effort (i.e. estimated hours) for these tasks, or what was the actual level of effort required to perform these services in prior periods (month, quarter, etc.)?

RESPONSE: The Unemployment Trust Fund program (managed by ETA) is one of the major programs of the Department of Labor. This involves preparation and recording of UTF accounting entries, post recording reviews and reconciliations. It requires posting of accounts receivables schedules on a DOL website for other federal agencies. The estimated hours can be found in Section B of the RFP.

The Statement of Work, Section C.3., item 1.l., pertains to support for the “maintenance” of the FECA receivables, collections, and future liabilities. It is difficult to ascertain the specific services to be performed for this item. Do these services involve post-recording reviews and reconciliations or preparation and recording of initial FECA accounting entries, or both? What is the expected level of effort (i.e. estimated hours) for these tasks, or what was the actual level of effort required to perform these services in prior periods (month, quarter, etc.)?

RESPONSE: The FECA (managed by OWCP – earlier part of ESA) program is one of the major programs of the Department of labor. FECA involves preparation and recording of Charge Back on a quarterly basis. It requires accounting entries, post recording reviews and reconciliations. It requires posting of accounts receivables schedules on a DOL website for other federal agencies. The estimated hours can be found in Section B of the RFP.

The Statement of Work, Section C.3., items 1.k.(4) and 1.l., both refer to FECA receivables and collections. How are the tasks described in these two sections unique? Are there different activities and/or subsidiary systems for these tasks? We believe that one reference is for FECA and the other for FEC which are different subsidiary systems.

RESPONSE: See also response to question #32. It has collections from other federal agencies and after recording these collections, quarterly accounts receivables reported is generated and posted on the DOL website. FEC is the program under FECA (Federal Employees Compensation Act).

The Statement of Work, Section C.3., item 8., pertains to preparation of financial ad-hoc reports. What is the anticipated level of effort for this task (i.e., quantity/volume of reports)? What types of reports have been produced in prior periods?

RESPONSE: This might require any report to be generated for auditors. The new system, NCFMS, has a report writer that has a capability to create new ad-hoc reports. It will not be a major function considering the capabilities of the new system.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1. Notice Listing Solicitation Provisions Incorporated by Reference

The following solicitation provisions pertinent to this section are hereby incorporated by reference (by Citation Number, Title, and Date) in accordance with the FAR provision at FAR "52.252-1 SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE" in Section L of this solicitation. See FAR 52.252-1 for an internet address (if specified) for electronic access to the full text of a provision.

52.217-5 EVALUATION OF OPTIONS JUL 1990

M.2. Method of Award

The Government will award a single Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity contract from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation is most advantageous to the Government based on the best overall proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the four evaluation factors: {Factor I: Experience, Factor II: Staff Resumes and Staffing Plan, Factor III: Past Performance, and Factor IV: Price}.

The following non-price Evaluation Factors are listed in descending order of importance:

The non-price factors (Experience, Staff Resumes and Staffing Plan, and Past Performance) when combined are approximately equal to Evaluation Factor IV, Price.

To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for each evaluation factor.

The Government intends to evaluate offers and award a contract without discussions with offerors. Therefore, the offeror’s initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and non-price factor standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary. The Government may reject any or all offers if such action is in the public interest; accept other than the lowest offer; and waive informalities and minor irregularities in offers received.

Rejection of Unrealistic Offers: The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically high or low in price when compared to Government estimates, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

M.3. Evaluation of Volume I Proposal Factor I: Experience

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s experience with government accounting work of a similar nature, scope, complexity, and difficulty to determine whether it demonstrates proficiency within the type of problems that could be encountered under this award.

Factor II: Staff Resumes and Staffing Plan The Government will evaluate the experience and qualifications of all the personnel proposed to determine if they meet or exceed the position qualifications.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s staffing plan to determine the quality of how the proposed team is integrated into the offeror’s organization.

Factor III: Past Performance

The Government will evaluate past performance on three references. The references must be for current or previous contracts for relevancy (three years) based on how well the contractor performed on projects of similar dollar value, scope, and complexity. Offerors are advised that the Government may use past performance information obtained from centralized past performance databases and sources other than those identified by the offeror and the information obtained may be used for both the responsibility determination and the best value decision. The absence of past performance data will be rated neither favorably nor unfavorably. Contracts listed may include those entered into with Government agencies or private sectors. For contractors with no relevant corporate past performance, the Government may take into account information regarding the past performance of predecessor companies, key personnel with relevant past performance, or subcontractors that will perform key aspects of the requirement. The Government will evaluate the Past Performance Elements specified in the Past Performance Questionnaire.

The past performance evaluation will be accomplished through assignment of a confidence assessment rating on a combination of recency, relevancy, reliability and quality of performance. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to Technical Ability/Approach, the resulting Performance Confidence Assessment represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance.

Under the Past Performance factor, the Performance Confidence Assessment represents the evaluation of an Offeror’s present and past work record to assess the Government's confidence in the Offeror’s probability of successfully performing as proposed. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying services that meet the user's needs, including but not limited to, controlling costs, adhering to schedules (including the administrative aspects of performance), and performance (reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction, and generally, the contractor’s business-like concern for the interest of the customer).

Past performance information to be evaluated will include the Offerors’ records of providing high-quality services; standards of good technical and analytic workmanship; adherence to contract schedules; administrative aspects of contract performance; quality, availability and stability of personnel and commitment to customer’s mission/goals. The evaluation will be constrained to the most recent and relevant contracts for a comprehensive review.

Recent: In order to be considered recent, the services must have been provided within the last three years from the date of solicitation release.

If an Offeror has no single project that encompasses all types of the required experience, the Offeror may: (i) Show relevant experience through a combination of projects that together show that work has been accomplished that is consistent in scope and complexity with the SOW; (ii) Show relevant experience through personnel who are proposed to work on the contract that have had the required experience with another company.

Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a "Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor. For Offerors with no relevant performance record, the Government may consider relevant performance information regarding key personnel.

Adverse past performance is considered any rating below Satisfactory on any questionnaire, survey or Government evaluation. Offerors with adverse past performance will be afforded an opportunity to address alleged deficiencies, if the Offeror has not already been provided an opportunity to comment on the deficiencies in accordance with FAR 15.306(a)(2) and FAR 15.306(b)(4). Where relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any implemented corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness.

Quality of Performance: Assesses how well the Offeror performed. This will be assessed based on the ratings received in the Past Performance Questionnaires and other sources.

M.4. Evaluation of Volume II - Price Proposal

Factor IV: Price The Government will evaluate price for this procurement will be pursuant to determining best value. However, as the other assessments of the Offerors become more equal cost may become a determining factor in award selection.

The Offeror’s submission for Volume II, Price, will be evaluated as follows:

The Government will review the Pricing submissions for completeness and accuracy.

A price reasonableness review will be conducted for all Offerors. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to prices in the market. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404.

The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total of all CLIN prices, including all options to ensure that pricing is not unbalanced. Price will be evaluated for completeness and reasonableness using the techniques in FAR 15.404-1(b) (2).

M.5. Evaluation Factors and their Relative Importance

Non-Price Factors: The importance of the Non-Price Evaluation Factors is in the following descending order with the most important factor listed first:

The non-price factors when combined, are approximately equal to Factor IV “Price”.

(a) Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(b) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.