Questions_and_Answers_for__DOL-15-R-00033___EMI_II.pdf

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

to

RFP DOL-OPS-15-R-00033

# Questions DOL Responses

1 In Relevant RFP Attachment Reference: Section B -

SUPPLIES OR SERVICES/PRICES, Page 34/259, Pricing

Table - LITIGATION SUPPORT PRODUCTS AND

SERVICES, the RFP requests that the contractor price specific tasks under CLIN 0015 Trials, Hearings, and Other Proceedings on a per hour basis. In order for Government to be able to have a direct comparison across all offerors, please provide a minimum benchmark labor category that Government requires for each service offering, such as Law Clerk, Task Supervisor, or Clerical. If such information is not available, please provide a detailed scope description for each of the tasks in CLIN 0015 to ensure direct comparison across all offerors.

The Government envisions several potential classes of labor that could be requested under CLIN 0015, 1015, 2015, 3015, and 4015, though it describes these classes in terms of scope of work descriptions rather than specific titles or categories. It is possible, even probable, that Offerors may have single individuals simultaneously skilled in all of these categories.

1. Clerical, where the person would be expected to assist with creating and tracking hardcopy materials, such as binders, individual hardcopy exhibits, and foam-core exhibit boards.

2. Technical, where the person would be expected to assist with running previously prepared electronic trial presentations at a hearing or trial (using, almost exclusively, inData Trial Director or Microsoft PowerPoint), and where specific sub-tasks might include displaying electronic exhibits (including jumping between non-linear exhibits), playing previously prepared video clips, printing existing exhibits or presentation images on demand using an in-courtroom printer, and correctly launching and exiting all needed presentation software programs.

3. Advanced Technical, where the person would have skills creating electronic trial presentations and where specific sub-tasks might include incorporating digital images or documents into a trial presentation system, creating static (e.g., created in advance) blow-ups and call-outs of portions of exhibits, scanning hardcopy materials to create digital images that can be incorporated into a trial presentation system, and preparing video clips from digital video (such as, but not limited to QuickTime or .MOV video format files) for inclusion into a trial presentation system.

2 In Relevant RFP Attachment Reference: Section B -

SUPPLIES OR SERVICES/PRICES, Page 34/259, Pricing

Table - LITIGATION SUPPORT PRODUCTS AND

SERVICES, please confirm that “Team pricing” (a team of resources rather than a single person basis) is permissible under

CLINS 0015, 1015, 2015, 3015 and 4015. If not, please elaborate on permissible pricing options under these CLINS

With reservations as noted in this response, the Government would accept a “blended rate” for services provided under CLINs 0015, 1015, 2015, 3015, and 4015 (“Trials, Hearings, and Other Proceedings”), where relevant hourly services, regardless of the specific task and which individual is providing it, are billed at one consistent rate. That said, the Government also wishes to have ability to request assistance in connection with a Trial, Hearing, or Other Proceeding involving a sole labor category (such as, but not limited to, Clerical) when the Government’s needs clearly fall solely within the scope of that labor category or one even less expensive and the general categories of required tasks can clearly be defined in advance. Such sole labor category requests could conceivably be made via an alternate CLIN.

3 In Relevant RFP Attachment Reference: Section 4.0., Page

40/259, SCOPE, the Offeror must meet the requirements at the time of contract award that include a current or in process

FedRAMP authorization or a current federal Authorization to

Operate (ATO) for its proposed EM solution. The following sentence allows for a 6 month implementation during which the contractor can obtain the FedRAMP authorization. Please confirm that Offerors must have one of the following at time of award (1) a current federal Authorization to Operate (ATO); (2) a current FedRAMP authorization; or (3) an “in-process”

FedRAMP authorization at time of award which must be finalized within 6 months of award.

Offerors must be capable of providing services to the Government, where such services can, very broadly, be divided into two (2) categories: (1) providing processing services for transient data and hardcopy documents; and (2) providing a hosted EMS that serves as a longer-term repository of Government data. With respect to the EMS component of the Offeror’s services, Offeror’s EMS must meet the criteria specified in the RFP: if Cloud-based, the Offeror must provide evidence of a current or in process FedRAMP authorization (JAB Authorization, Agency Authorization or CSP Supplied Authorization). If non- Cloud-based, the Offeror must provide a current federal Authorization to Operate (ATO) for its proposed EMS. If a Cloud-based solution does not have a FedRAMP authorization, the Contractor must take action prior to system implementation (and within 6 months of award) to timely obtain a FedRAMP authorization all at the Contractor’s expense. Cloud solutions must meet the NIST Definition of Cloud Computing. An existing FedRAMP authorization is preferred.

4 In Relevant RFP Attachment Reference: Section 3.4., Page

39/259, Data Migration from EMI I to EMI II, Does the incumbent have a Data Migration requirement under the EMI I contract?

Under the EMI I contract, the incumbent has a contractual obligation to exercise its best efforts and cooperation to effect an orderly and efficient transition to a successor contractor, including, upon receiving written notice from the Contracting Officer: (1) furnishing phase-in, phase-out services for up to 90 days after the contract expires; and (2) negotiating in good faith a plan with a successor to determine the nature and extent of the phase-in, phase-out services required.

These obligations cover all transition-related tasks, which the Government interprets to include facilitating any necessary data migration.

5 In Relevant RFP Attachment Reference: Section 8.6., Page

48/259, Quality Assurance, Can the government reconcile the obligation to conduct rework at the contractor’s expense under section 8.6, p. 48 with the FAR T&M inspection clause

In the event that the Government rejects work performed under this contract, costs associated with rework performed by the contractor shall be determined in accordance with FAR 52.246-6. Section 8.6 of the RFP should be interpreted to be consistent with FAR 52.246-6, and the language of Section 8.6 will be incorporated into the solicitation which confirms rework is conducted at the government’s expense, less the amount attributable to profit in certain instances?

revised to clarify this point.

6 In Relevant RFP Attachment Reference: Section 10.1, Page 55-

56/259, Key Personnel and Minimum Requirements, Please clarify the duties of the PD and confirm that the escalation point from PD will be to the PM.

The Program Manager is expected to manage the team providing services to the Government, where it is expected that the team includes additional internal reporting and supervisory structures, such as project managers, assistant project managers, analysts, clerical assistance, etc. It is expected that lower-level project managers would provide end-to-end oversight over routine litigation support requests received from the Government, with those project managers escalating issues to the Program Manager (or other internal management ultimately reporting to the Program Manager) when they are unable to resolve them. The Government expects the Program Manager to be active in prioritizing competing tasks when resource shortages occur, in providing high-level subject matter expertise in particularly complex service requests, in reviewing and approving invoices before they are sent to the Government, in serving as an internal advocate for the Government, and generally overseeing contract performance.

The Program Manager would escalate questions and performance issues to the Program Director when they cannot be adequately resolved by the Program Manager. In addition, the Program Director is the appropriate point of contact for the Government for questions regarding the performance of the Program Manager.

7 In relevant RFP Attachment Reference: Section H.1.2., Page

61/259, Data Rights in Contract Deliverables, given the permission to submit, and make applicable, a commercial software license, did the Government mean for the following to apply to computer software not exclusively developed at private expense? ‘For computer software, the Government, and others acting on its behalf, reserves a paid-up, nonexclusive, irrevocable, worldwide license in such software to reproduce, prepare derivative works, and perform publicly and display publicly (but not to distribute copies to the public) by or on behalf of the Government.’”

This question appears to ask for clarification of bullet #3 of section H.1.2, which is excerpted in the body of the question. The language in bullet #3 identifies the license rights that DOL reserves in computer software (as defined in the FAR) first developed by the contractor in performance of the contract. Those license rights derive from FAR clause 52.227-14 (Rights in Data - General). As a result, a commercial software license would not govern such software. Commercial computer software deliverables are addressed in the last paragraph of section H.1.2, and commercial computer software that are not deliverables but used in performance of the contract is addressed in section H.1.3 (Contractor-Acquired Commercial Computer Software Licenses).

8 In relevant RFP Attachment Reference: Volume I – Technical

Approach General Requirements; Subfactor 6: Sample Tasks,

p. 250, “Question 1: “In its hardcopy response or in electronic files separate from its Technical Evaluation, Offerors shall provide a detailed estimate of the full costs of completing each of the tasks described in each scenario,” is the Offeror required to submit the estimated costs associated to each of the sample

Service Requests in the Pricing Volume of the proposal?

Yes. As stated in the RFP at page 250, Offerors should prepare two separate responses to the sample tasks. For use in the Technical Evaluation process, “Offerors shall prepare a response plan for each sample task, showing the steps it would take to complete each task, including staffing (by category, class, or position, not by individual name), technological steps taken to transform source materials into the requested final work product, and the time it would take Offeror to (1) complete its conflicts check; (2) position itself to start work on the service request; and (3) complete the service request and deliver the requested work product.”

Separately, for use in the financial / value analysis, “In its hardcopy response or in electronic files separate from its Technical Evaluation, Offerors shall provide a detailed estimate of the full costs of completing each of the tasks described in each scenario. Offeror’s response will include all unit pricing (e.g., CLIN) that it would use to charge for services under this contract (e.g., black & white scanning, searching and processing ESI, etc.). To the extent required, Offeror will also include all hourly charges above and beyond unit/CLIN pricing. Offeror’s cost estimate for each sample task should be the full charge that Offeror would invoice the Government for the requested services.” (RFP at page 250)

9 Relevant RFP Attachment Reference: Section I, Page 64-

65/259, CONTRACT CLAUSES

a). Please reconcile order limitation under FAR 52.216-19 with respect to Task Order versus Service Requests?

RESPONSE: Will remain as IS. No Changes

(a) Minimum order. When the Government requires supplies or services covered by this contract in an amount of less than $900.00, the Government is not obligated to purchase, nor is the Contractor obligated to furnish, those supplies or services under the contract b). Please confirm that offerors will be allowed to bill for and recoup overtime premiums paid to applicable employees subject to Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Service Contract Act

(SCA) requirements. If so, please provide a CLIN for OT or clarify how an Offeror shall submit in the Price volume?

RESPONSE : OVERTIME CLINS WERE NOT INCLUDED AS PART OF THE RFPs CLIN

STRUCTURE THEREFORE OVERTIME WILL NOT BE AUTHORIZED UNDER THIS

CONTRACT.

10 Relevant RFQ Attachment Reference: Section L-d.(iii), Page

253/259, “VOLUME III – PRICE”

a). Please confirm that no further pricing details are required other than the properly completed SF 1449 Continuation Sheet and Section B – Supplies or Services/Prices as indicated in

Section L-d.(iii) VOLUME III – PRICE

CONFIRMED – NO FURTHER PRICING DETAILS ARE REQUIRED OTHER THAN THE

SF1449’S SCHEDULE OF SUPPLIES/SERVICES, AND A COMPLETED PRICING TABLE.

11 Relevant RFP Attachment Reference: Section I, Page 65/259, Section CONTRACT CLAUSES a). Please confirm that preliminary written notice will be provided to the Contractor at least 60 days prior to Government extending the contract under FAR 52.217-9 CLAUSE instead of

10 days as stated in the RFP.

RESPONSE: CLAUSE 52.219-9 IS CORRECTED AS FOLLOWS –

52.217-9 OPTION TO EXTEND THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT (MAR 2000)

(a) The Government may extend the term of this contract by written notice to the

Contractor within 30 days; provided that the Government gives the Contractor a preliminary written notice of its intent to extend at least 30 days before the contract expires. The preliminary notice does not commit the Government to an extension.

(b) If the Government exercises this option, the extended contract shall be considered to include this option clause.

(c) The total duration of this contract, including the exercise of any options under this clause, shall not exceed five (5) years, 6 months.

12 Relevant RFP Attachment Reference: Section L, Page 248/259, INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO

BIDDERS

a). In Section L PROPOSAL SUBMISSION It states “The offeror’s proposal shall be submitted as set forth below. The offeror’s proposal shall consist of four separate volumes with three (3) redacted (sanitized) copies of each volume. The offeror’s proposal shall also consist of one (1) original copy of

Volume I, Technical, one (1) original copy of Volume II-Past

Performance, one (1) original copy of Volume III - Price, and one (1) original copy of Volume IV- Solicitation, Offer and

Award Documents and Certifications /Representations and in

Section L.c. Page Count: it states otherwise (one original plus one copy or one original and two copies. Please clarify that each offeror must submit a total of 16 copies; 4- 1 original copy of each of the 4 volumes and 3 redacted copies of each of the 4 volumes.

RESPONSE: Section L PROPOSAL SUBMISSION IS CORRECTED AS

FOLLOWS:

“The offeror’s proposal shall be submitted as set forth below. The offeror’s proposal shall consist of four separate volumes with three (3) redacted (sanitized) copies of VOLUME I - TECHNICAL. The offeror’s proposal shall also consist of one (1) original copy of Volume I, Technical, one (1) original copy of Volume

II-Past Performance, one (1) original copy of Volume III - Price, and one (1) original copy of Volume IV- Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents and

Certifications /Representations.

c. Page Count IS CORRECTED AS FOLLOWS:

Provide one original and three redacted (sanitized) copies of Volume I – Technical.

Provide one original copy of Volume II - Past Performance.

Provide one original copy of Volume III – Price.

Provide one original copy of Volume IV- Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents and Certifications /Representations.

b). Please confirm that the 5-page Past Performance questionnaire is not included in the NTE 8 page count for the

Volume II-Past Performance since the Offeror is allowed up to

5 questionnaires.

RESPONSE: The Past Performance Questionnaire is not included in Volume II-Past

Performance c). We are assuming that the original for each volume is “not” to be redacted (sanitized) and the 3 copies of each volume will be redacted showing just the Offeror code provided by

DOL. Please confirm

RESPONSE: ORIGINAL COPIES OF EACH VOLUME SHALL NOT BE REDACTED

(SANITIZED). Three redacted (sanitized) copies of Volume I – Technical (ONLY)

SHALL BE REDACTED (SANITIZED).

The redacted TECHNICAL proposal shall not contain ANY identifiable information which would allow the technical evaluation team to deduce the offeror’s identity. For example, the redacted (sanitized) copies of the proposal must be free of identifiers such as: the offeror’s name, any logo or marking associated with the offeror, the company’s location and/or address, the company’s DUNS number, the company’s Cage code, the names of any individuals that the offeror intends to propose as well as the names of officers or employees that the offeror employs, has employed, or intends to d). Is the Past Performance Information Sheet (PPIS), discussed in Section L.C, the same as the Past Performance

Questionnaire found on page 230 of the RFP? If not, please advise as to what the PPIS specifically is.

employ. Failure to submit redacted copies of the proposal may result in a finding that the proposal is not acceptable.

CONFIRMED: The redacted TECHNICAL proposal must show the Offeror code provided by DOL.

RESPONSE: The Past Performance Information Sheet (PPIS) AND the Past

Performance Questionnaire found on page 230 of the RFP is the SAME document e). In accordance with Section L.ii.4 – page 253, the offeror is to email the questionnaire to the Government and our client for completion. Offeror’s technical representative is to submit their comments directly to the government. Please confirm that offeror’s are not required to provide copies of Part I of the questionnaire with their proposal submittals.

RESPONSE: CONFIRMED – Offerors are not required to provide copies of Part I of the questionnaire with their proposal submittals.

13 Relevant RFP Attachment Reference: Section L, Page

253/259, INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES

TO BIDDERS.

a). Please confirm this RFP will result in a Time & Material

IDIQ.

RESPONSE: CONFIRMED

See Page 255 Section M para (b).

14 Relevant RFP Attachment Reference: Section L.b., Page

248/249, File Packaging a). Section L.b states contractors must submit their proposals in

CD as PDF files or Excel Spreadsheets. Please advise as to how many CD’s the government requires. Is it acceptable to place all of the volumes on one (1) CD? Are the files on the

CD to be redacted?

RESPONSE: IT IS ACCEPTABLE TO PLACE ALL VOLUMES ON ONE CD. REDACTED

(SANITIZED) COPIES OF VOLUME I – TECHNICAL MAY BE SENT ON A SEPARATE

CD.

15 Relevant RFP Attachment Reference: Section M., Page

258/259, FACTOR III - PRICE

a). Will Factor III-Price be rated comparatively and how; or whether it will be given a pass/fail consideration on reasonableness and “completeness”? Please clarify how the government will be conducting price reasonableness on all proposals.

RESPONSE: AS STATED ON PAGE 258 OF THE RFP - FACTOR III - PRICE: Price will be evaluated in terms of completeness, balanced pricing and reasonableness.

Price reasonableness reviews 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 market prices. 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 may evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total of all CLIN prices, including all options to ensure that pricing is not unbalanced.

b). Please define “completeness” as this is not a term clearly defined in the FAR.

RESPONSE: COMPLETENESS is defined as: having every necessary part or everything completed, or having all necessary requirement(s) met.

c). Please confirm that the Government will (as opposed to

“may”) evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total of all CLIN prices, including all options to insure that pricing is not unbalanced.

Response: VERIABGE remains the same

FAR 15.404. The Government may evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total of all CLIN prices, including all options to ensure that pricing is not unbalanced.

d). Please clarify the distinction between “balanced” and

“unbalanced” pricing.

Reponse:

Unbalanced pricing exists where the price of one or more CLINs is significantly overstated, despite an acceptable total evaluated price (typically achieved through underpricing of one or more other line items).

Reference: You should look up FAR 15.404-1(g). This gives a good definition of Unbalanced Pricing.

Relevant RFP Attachment Reference: Section M., Page

255/259, EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

a). The RFP states non-price factors are significantly more important than price when combined – which would be a best value IAW FAR; However, the RFP further states Past performance is slightly more important than price, price being an evaluation factor on a continuum rather than used in a best value context. Finally, it says price will become significantly more important as non-price factors approach equality. Therefore price is 1] not as significantly important, 2] is on a continuum with the other factors, and 3] potentially significantly more important. Please clarify the approach of the evaluation of this RFP?

Response: the Approach will be as follows:

(1) Technical

(2) Past Performance

(3) Price

Technical is slightly more important than Past Performance and, Past Performance is slightly more important than Price. However, price will become significantly more important as non-price factors approach equality. The Government will not make an award at a significantly higher overall price to achieve slightly superior technical features.

17 Relevant RFP Attachment Reference: Section L – Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Bidders a). In regards to the format requirement on p. 248 regarding the cover letter for redacted proposals; please confirm that the

Offeror is required to submit a cover letter addressed to “Lesa

Llewellyn” with contact information printed and in the front of every binder for the redacted proposal requirement. If so, please provide “Lesa Llewellyn” contact information.

RESPONSE : Should Read Submit cover letter to Valerie Pickard at pickard.valerie.s@dol.gov (see Page 253 section I “ Delivery of Offers”) mailto:pickard.valerie.s@dol.gov b). File packaging on p. 248 regarding (zipped) file submission: Please clarify if the compressed (zipped) proposal file titled “EM II_Solicitation JUL 15” is required to be submitted via CD with the printed versions of the proposal. Also, does the government require all files including the Pricing Volume to be submitted together in 1 zipped file?

RESPONSE: YES.

RESPONSE: SEE RESPONSE TO QUESTION 10.

c). Volume II – Past Performance Page Count Requirement page 248: Please clarify what information is required to be included in the Past Performance Volume. Is the government expecting a copy of the questionnaires that are sent from the clients to be included as an attachment? What is included in the

8 page maximum for the volume? What is the 3 page maximum requirement for each reference questionnaire?

RESPONSE: REVIEW PAGE 252 FOR DETAILS ON “WHAT INFORMATION IS

REQUIRED TO BE INCLUDED IN THE PAST PERFORMANCE VOLUME”. THE

EIGHT (8) PAGE MAXIMUM COVERS THE OFFEROR’S RESPONSE TO

SECTIONS: (ii) VOLUME II – PAST PERFORMANCE, VOLUME II-FACTOR II:

PAST PERFORMANCE, (1) Section 1 – Contract Descriptions, (2) Section 2 –

Performance, AND (3) Section 3 – New Corporate Entities LOCATED ON PAGE 252.

RESPONSE: NO, the government is NOT expecting a copy of the questionnaires that are sent from the clients to be included as an attachment.

d). Volume IV – Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents, Certifications/Representations: Please allow unlimited page count for Volume IV.

RESPONSE: Volume IV – Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents, Certifications/Representations is hereby changed from NTE 15 pages TO No Page Limitation.

PLEASE NOTE: SIGNED COPIES OF THE FACE PAGES (Page 1, only) for the RFP and Amendments are acceptable for Volume IV – Solicitation, Offer and Award

Documents, Certifications/Representations.

e). 45 lines of text on any page, p. 248: Please confirm that tables and graphics are included in the “45 lines of text requirement.”

RESPONSE: Tables and graphics are NOT included in the “45 lines of text requirement. Please note: Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size not less than 8-point and may be landscaped.

18 Relevant RFP Attachment Reference: I. Delivery of Offerors a). Would the Government be willing to accept the electronic proposal via email on July 17, 2015 and allow Offerors to submit hard copy proposals to the Government NLT July 19 to account for the Government delay of Express mail since the government is not accepting hand delivery proposals and strongly discourage the use of U.S.P.S?

RESPONSE: ALL PROPOSALS MUST BE RECEIVED at ONCE ON OR BEFORE THE

POSTED CLOSING DATE & TIME.

Note: the RFP Closing date will be extended. Check the amendment that will be posted of FBO

19 Relevant RFP Attachment Reference: Section M – Evaluation

Factors for Award a). Please provide the Evaluation Ratings for the Technical and

Past Performance Volumes.

RESPONSE: IAW FAR 15.203(a) the minimum requirements for an RPP are – 1.

The government’s requirement; 2. Anticipated terms & conditions that will apply to the contract (to include CLIN structure); Information required to be in the offeror’s proposal; and 4. Factors and significant subfactors that will be used to evaluate the proposal and their relative importance.

Evaluation Ratings are not required by the FAR, however, as a result of the quick turn-around time needed to solicit this requirement a final determination for evaluation ratings have not been finalized to date. Rest assured all offers will be evaluated against the same criteria.

Relevant RFP Attachment Reference: Volume I – FACTOR

I: Technical, p. 256; “The Offeror’s TECHNICAL Volume V shall include REDACTED resumes for key personnel.”

a). There is currently no Technical Volume V required in this proposal, please clarify if there is a requirement for a Volume V and what is required to be in that volume.

RESPONSE: Technical Volume V was stated in error. The Volumes required are as follows:

Volume I – Technical; Volume II – Past Performance; Volume III – Price; and Volume IV – Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents, Certifications/Representations.