Final Amendment A0003.pdf

(x)

DTRT57-10-R-20008

x x 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 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT

THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment 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.

x

RVP-32

Cambridge MA 02142-1001 55 Broadway RVP-32 USDOT/ RITA /Volpe Center

RVP-32

Cambridge MA 02142-1001 55 Broadway RVP-32 Contracts & Tech Support Services USDOT/RITA/Volpe Center

03/18/2010A0003

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS. IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) is not extended.is extended, Items 8 and 15, and returning

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

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

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

FACILITY CODE CODE

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

CODE

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

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

PAGE OF PAGES

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.3. EFFECTIVE DATE2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

02/12/2010

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

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority) appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

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

ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

See the attached continuation sheet for details.

Recovery:: NON-RECOVERY

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 16C. DATE SIGNED

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

Robert P. Robinson

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

Previous edition unusable

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.

Solicitation No. DTRT57-10-R-20008 Amendment No. A0003

The purpose of this amendment is to make the following changes to Solicitation DTRT57-10-R- 20008:

1. Delete Section F.4 entitled, “DOCUMENTATION OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS (SEP 2009)” in its entirety and replace with the following F.4, “DOCUMENTATION OF

COMPUTER PROGRAMS (MAR 2010)”:

F.4 DOCUMENTATION OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS (MAR 2010)

Unless otherwise specified in individual task orders, the Contractor shall fully document all computer programs under its purview and in so doing comply with IEEE/EIA 12207 documentation standards.

2. Delete the following sentence from Section F.9, CONTRACT PROGRESS REPORT (JAN 2010) in its entirety: “(This clause applies only as specified in task orders.)”.

3. In Section L.3.B.3, entitled, “Resumes Requirements”, amend the second sentence of the second paragraph to read as follows: “Resumes must be verifiable in that relevant dates, names, and addresses of educational institutions (city and state) and employers must be provided for all experience, education, and specialized training claimed.”

4. Delete Section L.3.B.3, paragraph and table entitled “Summary of Required Resumes” in its entirety and replace with the following Summary of Required Resumes paragraph and table:

Summary of Required Resumes

The Offeror shall submit the number of resumes noted below for the specified sections of the Technical Proposal, Volume I:

Volume I Section

Title Number of Required Resumes

Description

2 Contract Management 1 Program Manager to be regarded as key personnel (Section L.3.B.2)

3 Information Technology Support 12 As specified in Section L.3.B.3

5. Amend L.3.C.1 entitled “Technical Understanding”, second sentence, to read as follows:

In particular, the Offeror should describe its understanding of existing technologies/methodologies that address relevant transportation systems issues; relevant state-of-the-art and key transportation issues, and future directions for IT and its understanding of, and approach to, managing the portfolio of IT tasks currently performed at the Volpe Center

6. Amend Section L.4.D.a, entitled “Direct Labor”, second paragraph, third sentence to read as follows: If any individual’s labor rate (excluding the Program Manager) is 5 percent more or less than the proposed labor rate for that category, show calculations and provide a narrative addressing cost realism for the proposed labor cost.

7. In Section L.4.E entitled “SECTION III - BUSINESS PROPOSAL”, the subsection entitled Subcontracting Plan, add the following sentence to the last paragraph:

“Offerors are advised that Subcontracting Plans for the successful Offerors will be posted on the DOT’s Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization website and that performance will be evaluated as part of subcontracting program reviews.”

8. Delete the following sentence from Section M.2.B, entitled “FACTORS FOR EVALUATION”, the technical evaluation factor entitled “Past Performance (Written)”:

“Contracts on which proposed key personnel played a significant role will be considered relevant.”

The remainder of the language for this technical factor remains unchanged.

9. In ATTACHMENT J.1 entitled “LABOR CATEGORY DEFINITIONS AND PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS”, delete the labor category section VII entitled “Administrative Specialist”, in its entirety.

10. In ATTACHMENT J.1 entitled “LABOR CATEGORY DEFINITIONS AND PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS” delete the Equivalency Table Qualifications in its entirety and replace with the following Equivalency Table Qualifications:

* Equivalency Table Qualifications

Labor Category Qualifications Degree Only

Qualifications Degree + Experience

Qualifications Experience Only

Project Manager Subject Matter Expert

N/A BA/BS plus 12 years MA/MS plus 10 years

15 years ♦

IT Senior Engineer Senior Programmer Senior System Administrator Senior Analyst

N/A BA/BS plus 8 years MA/MS plus 6 years

11 years ♦

IT Mid-Level Engineer Mid-Level Programmer Mid Level System Administrator Mid-Level Analyst

N/A BA/BS plus 5 years MA/MS plus 3 years

8 years ♦

IT Junior Engineer Junior Programmer

BA/BS BA/BS plus 2 years 3 years ♦

Labor Category Qualifications Degree Only

Qualifications Degree + Experience

Qualifications Experience Only

Junior System Administrator Junior Analyst ♦ When experience only is substituted, approval of the CO or designee is required. In addition, the Contractor may, on a case-by-case basis, offer to the CO a candidate with special or market-scarce skills/qualifications for consideration in any of the labor categories cited above.

11. Delete the following pricing tables in their entirety and replace with the attached pricing tables as follows:

Schedule P-2: Summary of Proposed Costs and Base/Award Fee - Government site Schedule P-5: Establishment of Maximum Factors and Calculation of Proposed Amounts for Award Fee, Fixed Fee, and Profit Schedule P-6: Summary of Proposed Labor Cost for Government site and Contractor site and Distribution of Contractor-Site Labor Cost Between Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee and Firm- Fixed-Price

Schedule P-7: Labor Cost Realism Information Schedule S-4: Summary of Proposed Labor Cost for Government site and Contractor site Schedule S-6: Indirect Rates and Factors

12. Delete the “Subcontractor’s Checklist for Schedules” and replace with the following Subcontractor’s Checklist for Schedules:

SUBCONTRACTOR'S CHECKLIST FOR SCHEDULES

Proposal

Page Number

Solicitation Documents Schedule S-1: Proposal Cover Sheet Schedule S-2: Summary of Proposed Costs and Fixed Fee - Government site

Schedule S-3: Summary of Proposed Costs and Fixed Fee - Contractor site

Schedule S-4: Summary of Proposed Labor Cost for Government site and Contractor site

Schedule S-5: Labor Cost Realism Information Schedule S-6: Indirect Rates and Factors Supporting documentation for labor rates, including current salary information, escalation to performance period, and road mapping to Offeror categories, including compliance with education and experience requirements in Attachment J.1 – Labor Category Definitions and Personnel Qualifications

Administrative staff labor hours, including types of labor activities and rationale for the hours included (Contractor site only)

Statement concerning uncompensated overtime and additional information if proposed.

Estimate and rationale for Offeror-estimated Other Direct Costs All supporting documentation for indirect rates including Government-site overhead rate

Information on accounting system and evidence of approval

NOTE: Offerors may modify the Schedules (font size, portrait or landscape orientation, etc.) provided all of the requested information is included and furnished in similar format.

13. The slides from the March 17, 2010 Pre-Proposal Conference are attached to this amendment.

14. The list of attendees from the March 17, 2010 Pre-Proposal Conference are attached to this amendment.

15. The Government has received a total of 117 questions regarding the solicitation. The submitted questions and the Government responses are attached.

16. The due date and time for the submission of proposals remains unchanged.

17. Please acknowledge receipt of this amendment with the submission of your proposal.

18. All other terms and conditions of this solicitation remain unchanged.

Revised Schedule P-2 - SUMMARY OF PROPOSED COSTS AND BASE/AWARD FEE:

GOVERNMENT SITE

Offeror Name:

COST ELEMENT RATE % AMOUNT

Direct Labor (from Schedule P-6) $ Fringe Benefits (if separate from overhead) % $ Field Overhead % $

Subcontracts:

1. $

2. $

3. $

4. $ Total $

Subcontract Burden (if separate) % $

Other Direct Costs (ODC):

RFP-Stipulated Amount $ 350,000

Offeror-Estimated ODC

ODC Burden (if separate) % $

SUBTOTAL

G & A % $ Cost of Money (COM) $ Total Costs and COM $

Base and Award Fee (from Schedule P-5) $

TOTAL PROPOSED COST AND BASE AND AWARD FEE $

Revised Schedule P-5 - ESTABLISHMENT OF MAXIMUM FACTORS AND

CALCULATION OF PROPOSED AMOUNTS FOR AWARD FEE, FIXED FEE, AND

PROFIT

Award Fee

Estimated Cost Percentage (3) Award Fee Dollars Subcontracts, Government-stipulated ODC, Offeror-estimated ODC, and Travel Cost (1)

All Other Costs from Schedule P-2 (2) $ % $

TOTAL $

TOTAL BASE AND AWARD FEE

DOLLARS (4)

Fixed Fee Estimated Cost Percentage (3) Fixed Fee Dollars

Subcontracts, Government-stipulated ODC, Offeror-estimated ODC, and Travel Cost (1)

All Other Costs from Schedule P-3 (2) $ % $

TOTAL $

TOTAL FIXED FEE DOLLARS (4) $

Profit Estimated Cost Percentage (3) Profit Dollars

Subcontracts, Government-stipulated ODC, Offeror-estimated ODC, and Travel Cost (1)

All Other Costs from Schedule P-4 (2) $ % $

TOTAL $

TOTAL PROFIT DOLLARS (4) $

(1) " Subcontracts, Government-stipulated ODC, Offeror-estimated ODC, and Travel Cost” should not include any Prime indirect burden.

(2) “All Other Costs” should include all remaining costs from Schedule P-2, P-3, or P-4 except cost of money, if proposed.

(3) “Percentage” is the fee or profit percentage the Offeror uses to develop fixed fee, award fee, and profit. The percentages will be incorporated into Section H.19 of a resultant contract and will be used to calculate maximum award fee, fixed fee, or profit that an Offeror may propose at the task order level.

Offerors may always bid less than the calculated maximum.

(4) Fixed fee, award fee, and profit on Schedules P-2, P-3, and P-4 should be calculated on the tables above.

Revised Schedule P-6 CONTINUED

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED LABOR COST FOR GOVERNMENT SITE AND

CONTRACTOR SITE

Contractor-site

Labor Category Hours Unburdened Rate Labor Cost Project Manager $ $ Subject Matter Expert $ $ IT Senior Engineer $ $ Senior Programmer $ $ Senior System Administrator $ $ Senior Analyst $ $ IT Mid-Level Engineer $ $ Mid-Level Programmer $ $ Mid-Level System Administrator $ $ Mid-Level Analyst $ $ IT Junior Engineer $ $ Junior Programmer $ $ Junior System Administrator $ $ Junior Analyst $ $ Total Level of Effort $ $ Administrative Support * $ $ Administrative Support * $ $

Cost Plus Fixed Fee Labor To Schedule P-3 50% of Contractor site Labor $

Firm Fixed Price Labor To Schedule P-4 50% of Contractor site Labor $

*Estimated by Offeror

Revised Schedule P-7

LABOR COST REALISM INFORMATION

Labor Category: Project Manager

Resumed Person's Name Actual Current Rate from

Payroll Records Escalated to

Performance Period Labor Rate from

Schedule P-6

Labor Category: Subject Matter Expert

Actual Current Rate from

Payroll Records Escalated to

Performance Period

Labor Category: IT Senior Engineer

Actual Current Rate from

Payroll Records Escalated to

Performance Period

Labor Category: Senior Programmer

Actual Current Rate from

Payroll Records Escalated to

Performance Period

Labor Category: Senior System Administrator

Actual Current Rate from

Payroll Records Escalated to

Performance Period

Labor Category: Senior Analyst

Actual Current Rate from

Payroll Records Escalated to

Performance Period

If the labor rate for the person whose resume is submitted is more than 5 percent higher than the Schedule P-6 labor rate for that labor category, explain why the proposed rate for the labor category is still realistic.

Revised Schedule S-4

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED LABOR COST FOR GOVERNMENT SITE AND

CONTRACTOR SITE (CONTINUED)

Contractor-site

Labor Category Hours Unburdened Rate Labor Cost Project Manager $ $ Subject Matter Expert $ $ IT Senior Engineer $ $ Senior Programmer $ $ Senior System Administrator $ $ Senior Analyst $ $ IT Mid-Level Engineer $ $ Mid-Level Programmer $ $ Mid-Level System Administrator $ $ Mid-Level Analyst $ $ IT Junior Engineer $ $ Junior Programmer $ $ Junior System Administrator $ $ Junior Analyst $ $ Administrative Support

Total To Schedule S-3 $

Revised Schedule S-6 - INDIRECT RATES AND FACTORS

Subcontractor Name: ______________________________________________

Cost Element Proposed Rate/Factor Allocation Base

Labor Escalation Not applicable

Fringe Benefits (if separate from Overhead)

Government Site Overhead

Contractor Site Overhead

ODC Burden (if separate)

Other (specify)

G & A

Cost of Money

Subcontractor Fiscal Year Ends: __________________________

Pre-Proposal Conference

Volpe - Transportation Information Project Support (V-TRIPS) Procurement

Solicitation DTRT57-10-R-20008

March 17, 2010

Today’s Agenda

• Ground Rules and Logistics

• Nature of the Procurement

• Overview of the Volpe Center

• Technical Portfolio Highlights

• Proposal Requirements – Technical and Cost

• Proposal Submission Reminders

• Amendment Highlights

Today’s Presenters

• Robert Robinson, Contracting Officer

• Michael Dinning, Director, Freight Logistics and Transportation Systems

• Marc Mandler, Director, Center for Safety Management Systems

• Kerri-Lee DeRusha, Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative

• Gerald Luke, Price Analyst

Ground Rules and Logistics

• No video or voice recording of this conference is permitted

• Please silence or turn off all cell phones and PDAs

• A copy of today’s presentation will be available at the Federal Business Opportunities website: www.fbo.gov

• There is no scheduled site visit; today’s attendees will be required to leave at the conclusion of the conference http://www.fbo.gov/�

Ground Rules and Logistics - continued

• Any statements, remarks or explanations made during this pre-proposal conference shall not qualify the terms of the solicitation.

• Terms and conditions of the solicitation remain unchanged unless an amendment is issued.

• Amendment answering questions submitted by March 11 will be issued this week; highlights of the amendment will be presented today.

• No questions will be taken today; questions received after March 11th will be answered by amendment only if determined by the CO to be in the best interest of the Government.

Nature of the Procurement

• Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) task order contract

• Government intends to make 3 - 5 master contract awards but reserves the right to make more or less if in the best interest of the Government

• Work will be ordered through the issuance of competitive task orders

• Task orders will provide Information Technology (IT) services similar in scope to TRIPS Contract with Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) DTRT57-06-D-30004 available at www.volpe.dot.gov/foia/onsite.html

• Encouraged to review Attachment J.3 of RFP, Technical Reference Library, includes summaries of projects supported under TRIPS contract http://www.volpe.dot.gov/foia/onsite.html�

Contract Objectives

• Provide high technology capabilities and flexible skill sets targeted at

Volpe Center’s IT programmatic requirements

• Easily accessible technical staff that is responsive to changing programmatic requirements and shifting priorities

• Workforce that can quickly respond to technical requirements and take advantage of new work opportunities

• At least one competitive task order will include an important requirement for on-site Management and Administration function in addition to IT support

Amendments to Solicitation

• Amendment A0001 – issued February 12, 2010

- Replaced Attachment J.1 “Labor Category Definitions and Personnel Qualifications” in its entirety

• Amendment A0002 – issued March 5, 2010

- Added H.21 Exclusion Provision

The first Task Order Request for Proposal (TORFP) issued under this multiple award contract vehicle will provide services in a manner and scope similar to those currently being provided under Contract No. DTRT57-06-D-30004, including an on-site management and administration function. The initial task order will have a multi-year performance period. The successful Offeror from this initial task order will be excluded from competing on all subsequent TORFPs.

- Revised language within Section I.1.I, Section L.1.I and Section L.2.B

Photos: C orel, Photodisk; Photodisk; Photodisk; C om stock; D

O T

Michael Dinning, Director, Freight Logistics and Transportation Systems

Today’s pressing transportation priorities

• Safety

• Livable Communities

• Economic Competitiveness

• Environmental Sustainability

• State of Good Repair

Photo courtesy of the Volpe C enter

Volpe Center mission

• Advance technical, operational, institutional, and managerial innovations to improve the nation’s transportation system

• Anticipate emerging transportation issues

• Be a Federal center of excellence for informed decision-making

Volpe Center vision

• To be a world-recognized Federal center of excellence and leader in transportation innovation

• Trusted enabler of critical improvements to transportation and logistics systems

• Leader in government, industry, and academic cooperation

Role of the Volpe Center in the innovation process

The Volpe Center provides a unique capability

• Transportation Expertise Institutional knowledge of the global transportation system and its stakeholder perspectives

• Federal Perspective Awareness of Federal responsibilities, objectives, and activities in the public interest

• Technical & Non-Technical Disciplines Experience with the full spectrum of technologies and disciplines relevant to transportation system improvements

The Volpe Center Organization

Our most important asset:

dedicated transportation professionals

• 500 Federal Employees representing a full spectrum of disciplines from engineering to physical and social sciences

• 250 Advanced Degrees (66 PhDs and 185 Masters)

• 40 Co-op Students and 20 Federal Career Interns

• More than 1,000 contractors

Photo courtesy of the Volpe C enter

The Volpe Center is the recent recipient of the Harvard Kennedy School’s Innovations in American Government Award.

A multidisciplinary set of skills and expertise

Funding approach promotes agility and innovation

• Rapid and flexible response to national needs

• Sponsor-funded

Volpe Center operates under a working capital fund statute

Budget-neutral, non-line-item operation, under a working capital fund (49 U.S.C. 328)

“The U.S. DOT has a Transportation Systems Center working capital fund. Amounts in the fund are available for financing the activities of the Center, including research, development, testing, evaluation, analysis, and related activities the Secretary of Transportation approves, for the Department, other agencies, State and local governments, other public authorities, private organizations, and foreign countries.”

Volpe Center Fiscal Year 2009 obligations $264 million

Centers of Innovation at the Volpe Center

• Multimodal Systems Research and Analysis

• Safety Management Systems

• Environmental and Energy Systems

• Freight Logistics and Transportation Systems

• Physical Infrastructure Systems

• Communication, Navigation, Surveillance and Traffic Management Systems

• Human Factors Research and System Applications

• Advanced Vehicle and Information Network Systems

Multimodal Systems Research and Analysis Focus

• Undertake transportation policy analysis and research that contributes to a compelling vision of the 21st Century transportation enterprise

• Support decision making in an integrated multi modal national transportation system that meets today's and tomorrow's mobility needs for goods and people

Safety Management Systems

• Enable a safer transportation system through application of safety management principles to the transportation enterprise

• Acquire, maintain, distribute, and analyze transportation safety performance data

• Develop operational business processes to enable effective actions to reduce the number and severity of transportation-related deaths, injuries, and property damage

Photo courtesy of W ikim edia com m ons

Environmental and Energy Systems

• Provide technical and analytical support on transportation-related environmental issues and on transportation’s role in achieving energy independence, both as a consumer of energy and as a critical element in the energy supply chain

G raphic courtesy of the Volpe C

Freight Logistics and Transportation Systems

• Identify and develop innovative systems to enhance global logistics and transportation operations, security and resilience

Physical Infrastructure Systems

• Maintain and enhance knowledge of key transportation infrastructure challenges

• Apply technical expertise to national/regional infrastructure performance and safety priorities

• Support significant design, construction, manufacturing, inspection, maintenance, rehabilitation, and regulatory requirements of transportation systems and components

Communication, Navigation, Surveillance and Traffic Management Systems

Focus

• Maintain and apply internationally recognized capabilities in communications, navigation, surveillance, operations management, and associated information technology disciplines to enhance the capacity, safety, and security of next-generation transportation systems

Illustration courtesy of the Volpe C

Human Factors Research and System Applications Focus

• Provide internationally recognized human factors research and development capabilities supporting all modes of transportation

• Study new relationships between humans and current automation technologies to improve transportation safety, security, and productivity with due concern for unintended consequences

Advanced Vehicle and Information Network Systems Focus

• Provide systems engineering and analysis, operations research and related capabilities to identify, assess, and deploy advanced technologies and new operational strategies to enhance transportation system performance

A leader in Federal acquisition

• A leader in the development and use of multiple award task order contracts

• Competition achieved on 78 percent of contract dollars

• A U.S. DOT leader in Electronic Commerce

• Continuous operational process improvement utilizing performance measures obtained under the U.S. DOT Procurement Performance Management System

• Vigorous and successful small business outreach and preference program

• Implemented noteworthy Acquisition Workforce certification program

• A U.S. DOT leader in use of performance-based acquisition with 63 percent compliance, exceeding the government-wide goal of 50 percent

Overall customer satisfaction, 1995-2008 G raphic courtesy of the Volpe C

The Volpe Center is a good citizen

• One of Cambridge’s 10 largest employers

• Hosts more than 10,000 visitors annually

• Lunch Buddies Reading Program and Science

Olympiad Program

• Since 1992, Volpe volunteers organized as the

Kendall Square Learning Project have offered free English as a Second Language classes

• Since 2000, over $1 million dollars donated to the charities of the Combined Federal Campaign

• Hires 35 students annually from more than 15 local colleges and universities

• Member Cambridge Chamber of Commerce and the Greater Boston Federal Executive Board

• Green building initiatives underway

Photo courtesy of W ikim edia com m on

Technical Portfolio Highlights

Presented by: Marc Mandler Director, Center for Safety Management Systems

Scope of the Procurement Information Technology support to the Volpe Center’s technical programmatic requirements in the functional areas of:

• System Analysis, Development, Operations and Maintenance and Deployment and Field Support

• System Architectures and Frameworks

• Facility and Operations Support

• Information System Security

• Technology Assessments and Modernization

• Other Specialized Areas

Current Technical Portfolio

• Support to IT projects spans the Volpe Center’s 8 Centers of Innovation, 20 technical divisions, and a few administrative areas

• Dominance of utilization is within the Safety Management Systems, RVT-30

• Support is provided across DOT agencies and non-DOT agencies; majority of work for FAA

Portfolio by Centers of Innovation Portfolio by Sponsor

NHTSA

8.76%

DOD

3.1%

FHWA

1.59%

EPA

1.05%

Other 3.09%

PHMSA

2.27%

FAA

58.55%

FMCSA

21.49%

RVT-30

49.54%

RVT-40

4.95%

RVT-60

2.14%

RVT-70

20.67%

RVT-80

0.42%

RVT-50

10.94%

RVT-90

1.11% RVP-30/40

9.74%

RVT-20

0.49%

FAA/ATO Financial Reporting

9%

NHTSA/Artemis

4% PHMSA/SMART

2%

Various/Emissions Modeling

2%

NHTSA/NASS

/CIREN

4% USAF/System Deployment

2%

FAA/Aviation Safety 23%

FAA/TFM

18%

Other 18%

FMCSA Portfolio 18%

Further Insight into Portfolio

• Current TRIPS contract providing 215 labor years of IT support

• Over 75% of the support provided to FAA, FMCSA and NHTSA

• Projects range in size from less than ¼ labor year to about 40 labor years and last less than one day to 5 years

What we do:

- Re-engineer customer business processes in safety management

- Conduct analysis of safety data

- Develop/manage/host IT systems to house safety critical data

- Develop next generation IT systems

- Train field personnel on system use

- Work with field to improve effectiveness

- Explore how to improve resource allocation in the field

Who we do it for:

- FMCSA - NHTSA

- FAA - PHMSA

Safety Management Systems

Partnering with FMCSA Volpe Team Value:

- Existing Systems - development, enhancement, maintenance, operations, field system support

- IT Modernization Efforts - technical support, functional/operational expertise

- Technical Support and Help Desk Services

- Managed Applications Infrastructure Services

- IT Security and Privacy

- Website Development and Deployment

- Technology Assessments

- Business Analysis and Database Management

Partnering with the FAA

• Safety and Surveillance Information Systems

– Acquire and analyze inspection data

– Provide operations and maintenance support of systems supporting safety inspectors

– Integrate new technology to support safety and surveillance systems

• Decision Support Tools and Analysis

– Effective use of resources

– Identification of emerging trends and risk management

– Analyze the safety environment

• Safety Standards, Policy and Directives

– Determine the impact of policy changes

– Develop alternatives to improve safety

– Design and test new and revised safety procedures

– Conduct risk analysis of existing and proposed solutions

• Analysis, Safety Studies and Regulatory Support

Partnering with NHTSA Mission:

- Reduce the number of deaths and the seriousness of injuries suffered in crashes on the nation’s roadways

Support:

- Collect and distribute representative sample of crash cases and key crash data that can be used for analysis

- Manage repository of data on motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment defects to use in early identification of serious safety-related defects, and ultimately the ability to require more timely recalls

- Plan and perform the implementation and integration of business applications and system requirements for centralization of programs such as Cash-for-Clunkers

Environmental and Energy Systems Develop a sustainable transportation system by measuring, modeling and evaluating noise, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions from current and future transportation technologies and alternative fuels

– Modeling of emissions and dispersion from transportation-related sources

– Database and algorithmic development

– IT capabilities (e.g., Net, SQL, C and C++, Fortran, Visual Basic)

– Analysis involving transportation-related air quality models and point of source air quality models

– Computer model validation and calibration

– Air pollutant concentration measurement

– Traffic data management

– Meteorological data measurement

– Project management

Traffic Flow Management Systems Support the mission and operations of FAA in ensuring aviation safety and enhance the capability, safety and security of next generation transportation systems

Traffic Flow Management System

- track, predict and manage the flow of air traffic

- 24 x 7 operations and monitoring of Hub Site and

80+ operational field sites

- system maintenance

- system and concept engineering

Integrated Terminal Weather System – System Wide Information Management (ITWS-SWIM)

- software development, testing and system engineering support

- Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) expertise

Advanced Vehicle and Information Network Systems

Improve the safety of highway vehicles by applying engineering principles, advanced analytical techniques and state-of-the-art data management

• Analysis of vehicle crash causation

• Safety benefits assessment and rulemaking support

• Evaluation of safety technologies

• Analyses of highway vehicle dynamics & occupant protection

• Simulation and analysis of highway vehicle crashes

• Utilization of advanced databases

• Evaluation of Integrated Safety & Intelligent Vehicle Systems

• Design and Conduct of Field Operational Tests

Partnering with Other DOT and Non-DOT

FHWA

• Highway Economic Requirements System

• Traffic Noise Models

USAF Air Mobility Command and UK Royal Air Force

• Flight Following

• Remote Aerial Mobility Portal

Multiple Sponsors

• Project Management

• Technology Assessments

• Information Systems Security, Certifications and Accreditations

Proposal Requirements - Technical

Kerri-Lee DeRusha, Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative

Technical Proposal Requirements Volume I – Written Material

• Section 1 – Technical Understanding

• Section 2 – Contract Management

• Section 3 – Staffing

• Section 4 – Past Performance

Volume II – Structured Oral Presentation

• Hard copies of slides Offeror intends to present during its oral presentation

(Technical Understanding and Contract Management)

• No changes are permitted to slides after submission

No cost or pricing data is to be included in Volume I or II.

Volume I – Section 1: Technical Understanding

- Section L.3.B.1

- Written responses to all 5 technical questions

- Maximum 15 pages including all graphs, charts, figures, matrices

- No page limit per question

Volume I – Section 2: Contract Management

– Section L.3.B.2

– Narrative approach to:

• Performing the requirements of Contract Management

• Demonstrating it has the necessary capabilities to achieve technical excellence through high quality, on time, and within budget deliverables;

• Managing and forming teams to satisfy technical requirements as task orders arise

Maximum 10 pages

– Resume for Proposed Program Manager

• Must be from the Prime contractor

• All resumes are limited to 2 pages

• Will be identified as Key Personnel in master contract

Volume I – Section 3: Staffing

- Section L.3.B.3

- Total of 12 required resumes

- Demonstrate qualifications of proposed personnel as defined in Attachment J.1

- Technical expertise, experience, and education relevant to Statement of Work for IT support

- All resumes are limited to 2 pages per individual

Labor Category # of Resumes

Project Manager 2

Subject Matter Expert 2

IT Sr. Engineer 2

Sr. Programmer 2

Sr. System Administrator 2

Sr. Analyst 2

Total Required Resumes

Volume I – Section 4: Past Performance

- Section L.3.B.4

- Descriptions of the Offerors 5 most relevant contracts in the past 3 years; maximum 12 pages

- List of and copies of past performance reports, or explanations on attempts to obtain them; no page limit

- All reasonable efforts to ensure completed evaluation reports are provided for five cited contracts by proposal due date

- If Offeror does not include past performance history or does not affirmatively state that no past performance history exists or can be obtained, the Offeror’s proposal may be rated as Unacceptable

Volume II – Structured Oral Presentation

- Slides Offeror intends to present during its oral presentation

Oral Presentation Schedule

Evaluation Area Topic Time Limit Presenter(s)

Technical Understanding Presentation

Presentation on Technical Understanding

60 minutes Program Management and any personnel for which resumes have been provided under Staffing, L.3.B.3

Technical Understanding Q&As

Structured Q&A on Technical Understanding

Approximately 30 minutes

Short Break

Contract Management Presentation

Presentation on Contract Management

30 minutes Program Manager

Contract Management Q&As Structured Q&A on Contract Management

Approximately 15 minutes

- No limit on number of slides; however time limits will be enforced

- No more than 6 attendees including no more than 2 non-presenting Offeror officials or employees

Proposal Requirements – Cost and Business Proposal

Gerald Luke, Price Analyst

Volume III - Cost and Business Proposal

- Section L.4 – Instructions to Offerors

- Cost and pricing information must be contained only in Volume III;

under no circumstances should financial information be included elsewhere

- Government intends to make awards based on initial offers

- Proposals must contain sufficient information to permit a complete evaluation to be conducted

- Supporting documentation must be clear, complete, and convincing

- Incomplete proposals or those failing to include all required schedules and supporting documentation may be eliminated from further consideration

Cost and Business Proposal

- Section L.4.A and L.4.D

- For evaluation purposes:

- Labor is to be priced out assuming 1 year period of performance from

October 1, 2010 to September 30, 2011

- Level of Effort has been provided in solicitation

- Labor hours apportioned between Government site and Contractor site

- Labor category rates must be consistent with rates of persons whose resumes are submitted in the Technical Proposal (Volume I, Section 3).

- Uncompensated Overtime will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 52.237-10

- Compensation for Professional Employees in accordance with FAR 52.222-46

- Offerors should estimate Administrative Labor in accordance with established company practices

- Section L.4.D

- Offerors must provide current indirect rate recommendations from DCAA, including a field rate if available

- Subcontracts should be Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee for companies with an approved accounting system

- Small dollar value Time and Materials type subcontracts may be appropriate for consultant-type subcontractors

- RFP-stipulated Other Direct Costs (ODCs) have been provided for inclusion in your proposal; Offeror should identify and estimate any additional ODCs anticipated to support the effort (Section L.4.D.g)

Business Evaluation – Subcontracting Plan

- Section L.4.E

The following goals have been established for this procurement:

Subcontract Awards Percent of Dollars Awarded Small Businesses 37%

Small Disadvantaged Businesses (SDB) 13%

Women-Owned Businesses 5%

HUBZone Businesses 3%

Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (VOSB) (to include Service-Disabled VOSB)

3%

- In addition, FAR Subpart 19.12 requires Offerors to address the extent of SDB participation; Offerors shall describe how the SDB targets were derived and provide rationale as to why the percentage is appropriate for the Offeror

Section M.3 - Evaluation Criteria

- Fair and Reasonable

- Cost Realism evaluated and Probable Cost used in selection decision

- Consistency between Cost and Business Proposal and Technical Proposal

- Compensation for Professional Employees

- Uncompensated Overtime

- Competitiveness of Fee and Profit Factors

- Small Business Subcontracting Plan including Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) outreach and participation

- Potential Risk

Proposal Submission Reminders

Robert Robinson, Contracting Officer

Basis for Award

• Government intends to make total of 3 to 5 master contract awards, but reserves the right to make more or less if it is in the Government’s best interest

• Government intends to make awards based upon initial offers without entering into discussions or negotiations; if determined necessary, discussions will be conducted

• Proposals that are incomplete or fail to include the required information, along with convincing and supporting documentation, may be eliminated from further consideration

• Offeror’s responsibility to ensure that its Proposal is sufficiently complete and comprehensive so that the Government can accomplish its evaluation without further dialogue

Order of Importance

• Award to Offerors that provide the greatest overall value to the Government based on Technical and Cost/Business Proposals

• Technical evaluation factors, when combined, are significantly more important than cost in selection of Contractors for award

• However, Offerors cautioned not to minimize the important of the Cost/Business Proposal; when Technical Proposals are evaluated as essentially equal, evaluated cost may become the determining factor

• Each proposal may be assessed as to the level of risk it represents in terms of its probable accomplishment of schedule, cost, and performance objectives

Technical Proposal Evaluation

- Section M.2

- The first factor (Technical Understanding) is of the most weight.

- The second factor (Contract Management) is of lesser weight than the first factor and more weight than either of the third or fourth factors (Staffing and Past Performance).

- The third and fourth factors are of equal weight and lesser weight than the first and second factors.

Important Dates and Reminders

• Proposals are due no later than 3 p.m., Wednesday, April 14, 2010

• Oral Presentations are estimated to begin May 10, 2010

• Master contract awards are projected to be made August 2010

• Terms and conditions of the solicitation remain unchanged unless an amendment is issued

• Highlights of Amendment A0003 will be presented today; amendment will be issued by COB Friday, March 19th

• Any additional questions received will be answered by amendment only if determined by the CO in the best interest of the Government

Highlights of Amendment A0003

• Copy of today’s presentation with List of Attendees

• Responses to 117 Offeror questions received by March 11th

• Revised Pricing Schedules, Section L.4

• Minor changes in solicitation wording (Section F.4 and F.9, Section L.3, Section M.2.B, Attachment J.1 Equivalency Table)

• Pricing of Program Manager

• Security Clearances required at Task Order Level

• H.21 Exclusion Provision remains unchanged

Closing Remarks

• Amendment A0003 will be issued no later than March 19th

• Proposal due date of April 14th remains unchanged

• Thank you for your attendance at today’s conference.

• Please remember to return your badge at the guard desk in the front lobby

V-TRIPS Pre-Proposal Conference Attendees’ Listing

March 17, 2010

NAME COMPANY

Barber, Karen Raytheon Technical Services Company LLC

Bartlett, Kent mZeal Communications

Benjamin, Mike FlightView Inc.

Bottomley, Judith Science Applications International Corp.

Brody, Rick QinetiQ North America Operations LLC

Clark, Steve Computer Sciences Corp.

Clarke, David IBM Global Business Services

Collura, John University of Massachusetts Transportation Center

Condon, Kevin Core Computer Group

Conley, Valerie Booz Allen Hamilton

Cotroneo, Anthony Deep Water Point

Crews, Jack SGIS

Dentice, Brandi KGS

Ehleiter, Jerry SGIS

Eisel, Mark Apex Systems, Inc.

Endal, Andy SGT, Inc.

Falk, Alan Booz Allen Hamilton

Fass, Scott PricewaterhouseCoopers

Francis, Christopher L-3 Services, Inc./STRATIS

Freedman, Bruce SRA International

Garstang, Brian TEKsystems

Grassa, Kevin Whitridge Associates, Inc.

Haas, Jana Tetra Tech AMT

Hampson, Emily SGIS

Hannigan, Steve IPT Associates, LLC

Harrington, Thomas Applied Geographics Inc.

Hogan, Peter Apex Systems, Inc.

Holmes, Tory PricewaterhouseCoopers

Jones, Denise Dnutch Associates

Kamerman, Aaron Raytheon Technical Services Company LLC

Kaprelian, Alan JJJ Microsystems, Inc.

Kim, Sae L-3 Services, Inc./STRATIS

Kinney, Rachel Engility Corp.

Kubiak, Ela FlightView Inc.

Lacey, Marianne TPG Security Consulting LLC

Landew, Barry Wolf Den Associates LLC

Leitner, Jeff Stanley Associates, Inc.

Lindsay, Shawn TEKsystems

Marinzel, Ron SGT, Inc.

McCarthy, Chuck Computer Sciences Corp.

Miller, Rhonda KGS

Mishra, Vijay CNSI

Montella, David Infoscitex Corp.

Moulin, Kristen Stanley Associates, Inc.

Nager, Jack SRA International

Oliver, Lynne Engility Corp.

Olson, Paul Computer Sciences Corp.

Patel Sr., Shailesh CNSI

Patel, Arpan Somat Engineering nc.

Price, Lori L-3 Services, Inc./STRATIS

Robert, Doug Engility Corp.

Roman, Ed JJJ Microsystems, Inc.

Ross, Kim Whitridge Associates, Inc.

Smith, Kirk Southwest Research Institute

Spiridigliozzi, Judy QinetiQ North America Operations LLC

Suskin, Susan Abacus Technology Corp.

Swanhart, June Wolf Den Associates, LLC

Tamez, Belinda P3I, Inc.

Taylor, Andy QinetiQ North America Operations LLC

Tedeschi, Richard Whitridge Associates, Inc.

Thomas-Fuller, Patricia P3I, Inc.

Tornell, Jeffrey Quotient Inc.

Trueman, Tom Hi-Tec Systems, Inc.

Turgeon, Keith Namtek Corp.

Wight, Stephanie KGS

Williams, Bill IPT Associates, LLC

Wright, Mark TEKsystems

Wooster, Tracy Raytheon Technical Services Company LLC

Zimmerman, Robert Independent Contractor

Zoellner, Marc Abacus Technology Corp.

Offeror Submitted Questions and Government Responses

Question 1: For this solicitation is a GSA Schedule required to bid?

Response: No, a GSA Schedule Contract is not a requirement to submit a proposal.

Question 2: If a company wanted to bid for a specific or multiple labor categories would that be acceptable? In other words is this an all or nothing RFP response?

Response: Yes, Offerors are required to satisfy all requirements specified in Section L;

failure of Offerors to respond to or follow the instructions regarding content of the proposal may result in the entire offer being eliminated.

Question 3: Under Schedule P-5, the Government states that fee calculation is based on “Subcontracts, Government-stipulated ODC, Offeror-estimated ODC, and Travel Cost”. Should we also include Prime Labor in the “Estimated Cost” section as part of fee calculation?

Response: All costs other than “Subcontracts, Government-estimated Other Direct Costs (ODCs), Offeror-estimated ODC, and Travel Cost” go in the next line entitled “All Other Costs from Schedule P-2” This would include labor, fringe benefits, overhead, subcontract burden, and G&A. Not cost of money, as explained in the footnote. The total of the two lines in the award fee section should total the total estimated cost from Schedule P-2 except cost of money.

Question 4: Under Schedule P-5, the Government states that fee calculation is based on “Subcontracts, Government-stipulated ODC, Offeror-estimated ODC, and Travel Cost”. Please confirm if ODC is fee bearing?

Response: Yes, ODC is fee-bearing, and the column “Percentage” is where the Offeror assigns a weight from weighted guidelines. The reason the costs are broken into two lines is that subcontracts and ODCs typically carry a weight lower than the Offeror’s labor, etc.

Question 5: Under L.4.D Section II h. Indirect Rates, the government states that FFP hours are assumed to be Contractor Site. However per Schedule P-6 (FFP Labor Cell), both Cost Plus Fixed Fee Labor and Firm Fixed Price Labor are referenced as 50% of Government Site Labor.

Please confirm whether Firm Fixed Price Labor should be Government or Contractor Site?

Response: With this amendment (A0003), the fixed price labor Schedule P-6 has been corrected to say 50% Contractor site Labor.

Question 6: Also, in Section L.2.F, it states that “Offerors should propose the following annual level of effort: 464,000 total hours; 346,600 at Government site (on site) and 117,400 hours at Contractor site (off site). Please advise if the clarification from question number 5 impacts this statement.

Response: This information is correct as stated.

Question 7: Under L.4.D Section II g, it is stated that the ODC “amounts should be retained by the Prime and should be burdened in accordance with established practice as shown on the completed Schedule P-9.” This appears to conflict with Schedule P-5 which includes Government-stipulated ODC and Offeror-estimated ODC in the Award Fee, Fixed Fee and Profit tables. Please clarify.

Response: The use of the word “burdened” refers to the application of indirect rates the Offeror maintains: subcontract or material handling burden, and G & A.

Question 8: Section L.4.D.d, p. 82 states that the Administrative Staff hours must be estimated for Contractor Site/Off site work. How should offerors estimated administrative labor for Contractor Site work be shown? Should Schedule P-6 Continued be modified to include hours, unburdened rate, and labor cost for each offeror proposed administrative category such that the labor cost rolls up to Schedules P-3 and P-4? Should the S Schedules be modified along similar lines?

Response: Revised Schedule P-6 and Schedule S-4 are incorporated with this Amendment A0003 permitting Offerors to include labor categories needed to support the effort. The Schedules may be changed to permit as many administrative categories as needed.

Question 9: With the specification “Contracts on which proposed key personnel played a significant role will be considered relevant.”, does the government mean that a contract which may otherwise not be considered relevant would be so if the key personnel played such a role?

A strict interpretation of this specification would suggest that only past performance involving Key Personnel will be considered relevant.

Response: A revision to Section M.2.B is incorporated with this amendment (A0003), that deletes the sentence “Contracts on which proposed key personnel played a significant role will be considered relevant.” from the solicitation.

Question 10: Should the Firm-Fixed Price Labor be “50% of Contractor site Labor” instead of “50% of Government site Labor” given that the referenced Schedule P-4 is at Contractor Site?

Response: The fixed price labor Schedule P-6 has been corrected to say 50% Contractor site Labor .

Question 11: Section G.8.C.(1) provides for a base fee component of the Offeror proposed Award Fee. Should Schedule P-2 be modified to provide for the inclusion of a base fee component?

Response: Revisions to Schedule P-2 and Schedule P-5 are incorporated with this amendment (A0003), changing ”Award Fee” to “Base and Award Fee” on Schedules P-2 and P-5. Discussion of Base and Award Fee will be addressed at the task order level.

Question 12: Schedule P-7 identifies the Program Manager Rate information with a reference to P-6 Labor Category Rate field. There is no Program Manager Labor Category line in Schedule P-6. Should P-6 be modified to include a Program Manager Labor Category line?

Response: A revision to Schedule P-7 is incorporated with this amendment (A0003) deleting the reference to the “Program Manager” labor category.

Question 13: After reading through the solicitation documents, it would appear that Volpe intends on making several awards. Are you able to say whether the intent is to make awards to large primes with small subs, or do you anticipate small primes and large subs?

Response: The award of master contracts will be made based upon the evaluation criteria in Section M of the solicitation. All responsible sources (large and small businesses) are permitted to submit a proposal which will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria.

Question 14: How will past performance be evaluated? (ie-specifically at Volpe, DOT in general, etc.)

Response: Past performance evaluation criteria is contained in Section M.2.B in addition to Offeror instructions related to past performance in Section L.3.B.4.

Question 15: Where is the offsite work being performed?

Response: As stated in Section F.3, Place of Performance, performance required at other locations will be specified within task orders.

Question 16: If a bidder is not DCAA certified, will they be disqualified automatically?

Response: Offerors will not be automatically disqualified due to a lack of audit agency approval.