OLAS_Q A.docx

OLAS – Solicitation Questions

1. My question for you is if you have settled in accomplishing the On-line application Processing on commercial off-shelf software or are you also willing to consider proposal that clients can built in-house?

A: Per the OLAS ConOps, "The preliminary analysis included the following COTS products: FluidWare FluidReview, Wizehive Select, Skild, omniSG omniCONTEST and SmarterSelect. Based on that analysis, the program determined that a turnkey COTS solution could be a feasible option to satisfy the needs of the program." Alternate solutions that meet the requirements as well as cost and schedule objectives will be considered.

2. Does the Presolicitation under solicitation number EDEOPO16R0001 contain requirements similar to a current contract? If possible, please provide the current contract number. Or, is this a new requirement for the government?

A: This is a new requirement. The existing PSAonline system will be retired.

In addition to our request to excluding the Requirements Works sheet and screenshots from the 25 page count requirement, will the government consider utilizing a third volume for the Past Performance requirement?

A: No. See Question 5. The page limit is increased to 30 pages.

3. Will the government consider allowing resumes for the proposed personnel in an appendix?

A: Yes

4. The On-Line Application Processing System’s FBO site indicates the response due date is Feb 10, 2016 2pm, but the solicitation document indicates Feb 16, 2016 2pm. Is Feb 16, 2016 2pm the correct due date for the On-Line Application Processing System response?

5. The government has specified a 25 page count limit for the response, which is to include the screen shots and the 15 page requirements worksheet. This leave less than 10 pages to meet the governments’ evaluation criteria. Will the government consider removing the requirements worksheet and screen shots from the 25 page limit?

A: No. However, the page limit is increased to 30 pages. The requirements worksheet and minimum specified screenshots are the primary basis for the technical evaluation and will not be excluded from the page count. Since this is a COTS product acquisition with relatively simple configuration, the remaining page count should be sufficient to address the other evaluation criteria. Additional screenshots, product and company literature, and similar material may be provided as attachments not subject to the page limit.

6. Will the government provide clarification on the difference between this current solicitation and the previous solicitation issued in July, 2015? Was the government, although unfunded, unable to identify a platform to fulfill all the existing requirements? In other words, why is this solicitation (although funded) being reissued?

A: The initial responses did not meet the government's requirements or cost objectives.

7. Will the government provide the names of the vendors who demonstrated their solutions during the previous RFP process?

A: No.

8. Will the government provide the number of responses from the previous solicitation?

A: No.

9. Are the delivery timeframes in Section 3 of the PWS preliminary or expected?

A: Expected. Small deviations may be proposed.

10. The On-Line Application Processing System’s FBO site indicates the response due date is Feb 10, 2016 2pm, but the solicitation document indicates Feb 16, 2016 2pm. Is Feb 16, 2016 2pm the correct due date for the On-Line Application Processing System response?

11. How many Administrators are expected to utilize the software system?

A: System Administrators: A minimum of two, plus one for each optional program. Program Administrators: A minimum of two, plus one for each optional program.

12. How many school officials and recommenders are expected to use the software system or should the system be set up to allow anyone to submit a recommendation through a method that is open to the public?

A: Per the requirements (2.1.1) , there are "...roughly four users per application (applicant, parent, recommender, principal)" for PSP. Because multiple nominees may attend the same school, the ratio of nominees to school officials and recommenders may be greater than 1:1. Submissions from parents, recommenders, and school officials must be identified through some means such as a login associated with a verified mail or email address.

13. Is it acceptable for our staff to perform the rejection notification process if participants fail to submit applications by the established time? Or may we train the Administrators to perform the rejection function if we are ultimately unable to effectively customize a code to perform automatic rejection upon failure to submit by the deadline we set up?

A: The system must automatically enforce submission deadlines. This is critical functionality.

14. On the requirements worksheet, item 1.3.1 describes loading a list from a text file. Is it acceptable for the list to be loaded using an Excel file format or .csv format?

A: Yes. The nominee lists are received as text/csv files. Conversion to an alternate format for loading that can be accomplished with typical office software is acceptable.

15. How many separate locations are there for Administrators who will use the system?

A: All administrators will be on the ED intranet.

16. How many separate attachments typically accompany a complete participant application? How many total pages? This is to help determine the file size and storage requirements for our system.

A: See Question 31. A: Each application is typically accompanied by one resume, one photo, and one transcript (as a document or scanned document).

17. Does the government anticipate the number of annual applications and peak applications to remain consistent over the course of the entire contract period or is there anticipation for the number to grow?

A: There may be some modest growth (10% per year). There may be 20% more nominees than applications. Vendors should use the stated capacity requirements for pricing purposes. Capacity-based pricing is acceptable, but should be clearly identified and quantified.

18. The solicitation mentions the current PSAOnline system is expensive to maintain. Can the government share an estimated annual expense for the current system?

A: The current system for PSP costs more than $100K/year to operate, maintain, and enhance.

19. Who was the vendor awarded the original contract to develop the PSAOnline system? What was the contract award amount? Was the award for system development only or was the award for ongoing support? If ongoing support, what type of support was provided?

A: This is not relevant to the current solicitation. A completely different solution is envisioned.

20. The Performance Work Statement document references the “OLAS ConOps and High-Level Requirements” document for various requirements. While this document was provided in the previous bid information it wasn’t specifically provided in this release. Is the original ConOps still in valid?

A: Yes. The document has been added to this solicitation posting. The only change is an increase to the priority of a custom (xxx.gov) domain.

21. Forms from the different programs were provided in an earlier bid package. Will those be provided as part of the current requirements in the referenced “informational attachments” in the Performance Work Statement document or are the previous forms still valid?

A: Yes, the forms have been posted as an Amendment.

22. Do you anticipate a “down select” process to provide vendors an opportunity to demonstrate their solutions?

A: See the solicitation section "Live Presentations/Demonstrations". We anticipate requesting a number of demonstrations.

23. Solicitation, p. 1 and p. 44 The due date and time is shown as 10 AM on 2/16/2016 in two places in the solicitation. However, the opportunity posting on fbo.gov says “Feb 10, 2016 2:00 pm Eastern”. Please confirm that the correct due date is February 16.

24. Solicitation, p. 42 The Technical Proposal is limited to 25 pages However, this includes the requirements worksheet, which is 15 pages in the format provided by the government, and the minimum specified product screenshots, which will require at least two pages. This leaves very few pages for the offeror to provide the detailed information requested in the introduction, vendor and product overview, project management and proposed personnel, and two past performances. Will the government exclude the requirements worksheet and minimum required screenshots from the page limitation?

A: No. See Question 5. The page limit has been increased to 30 pages.

25. Solicitation, p. 42 If the government does not exclude the requirements worksheet from the page count limitation, will the government allow offerors to delete the descriptions of each requirement and just leave the title (e.g., requirement 1.5 would just say “Manage Applications”, omitting the description that follows)?

A: No. See question 5. The page limit has been increased to 30 pages.

26. Solicitation, p. 44 Part (a) under Proposal Submission Deadline speaks of the proposal being “physically received.” Please confirm that this is an email submission only.

A: Proposal should be submitted through email only.

27. Solicitation, p. 44 “Use of Subcontractors and Consultants” states, “Subcontracting and consulting arrangements including work to be done, responsibilities for tasks, reporting arrangements, and any other terms of the agreement shall be included in the proposal.” We assume that the Technical Proposal should clearly delineate task responsibilities and reporting arrangements. However, we are not clear on what level of detail the government requires for “terms of the agreement.” Can the government please provide clarification? Will the government permit offerors to provide this information as part of the Business Volume?

28. Solicitation, p. 44 For the live presentation/demonstration, will the government provide a fast internet connection for the web-based demonstration? Will the government provide a way to project the presentation to evaluators? How much time will the government permit vendors for set-up prior to beginning the presentation?

A: Details will be provided with the request for demonstration. Internet access will be available, and demonstrations are expected to last about an hour plus time for Q&A.

29. Solicitation, p. 44 We assume that the electronic copy of the presentation slides to be presented at least forty-eight hours prior to the presentation date would not include any screenshots of the content to be part of the live web-based demonstration. Is this assumption correct?

A: Vendors have discretion on what material to include in the slides. The screens covered in the live demonstration are not required to be included in the slides.

30. ConOps and High Level Requirements, 1.3 For software licensing purposes, please specify the anticipated number of Department of Education user.

A: ED users include Administrators and some Reviewers. Administrators are discussed in Question 11. Reviewers are enumerated in the capacity requirements.

31. General -To enable vendors to propose a suitable solution, please specify the number of documents and how many gigabytes of supporting material the programs are anticipated to receive each year.

A: Each application is typically accompanied by one resume, one photo, and one transcript (as a document or scanned document).

32. Is Title V/Veterans Preference Criteria/Stack Ranking a requirement for this opportunity?

A: No.

33. Would a SOW suffice to complete the following section found on page 10 of 46?

A: TBD:Joe please confirm: This section is merely for the contract line items, one for each year.

34. What needs to be filled out or provided by [company]? Is this for Legal to review? If we do need to respond, can this section be included in the Business Proposal (Technical is limited to 25 pages)?

A: This question is referenced to and locate on page 11 through 23; Section C – Contract Clauses.

A: This is a low-priority requirement for automatic posting to external job boards.

A: User ID and password sent by postal mail. We hope for a better solution.

A: Most or all notifications are expected to be handled by e-mail. Any capability to also facilitate notification by postal mail should be highlighted.

A: See Question 5.

A: This is limited to commercial product/service upgrades.

A: N/A. See above.

General

Will the Department favorably consider solutions that are Government of the Shelf (GOTS) as favorably as a COTS solutions?

A: Yes, if the solution has been fully productized similar to a COTS solution.

General

Does the Department have any restrictions on allowable software languages?

A: No. However, see viability and supportability requirements.

A: The compliance decision will incorporate any relevant vendor input.