Amendment_0001.pdf

NSN 7540-01-152-8070 STANDARD FORM 30. (Rev. 10-83) Previous Edition unusable Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Page of Pages AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. Contract ID Code

2. AMENDMENT MODIFICATION NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (if applicable)

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

(x) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (NO., Street, Country, State and ZIP Code)

CODE FACILITY CODE

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of offers is extended, is not extended.

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 items 8 and 15, and returning ______ copies of 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 ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OR OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment your 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.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

Check One

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.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

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 (Type or print)

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

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

15C. DATE SIGNED

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

16C. DATE SIGNED

Attachment Page

PAGE 2 OF 10 ED-OII-15-R-0009/0001

U.S. Department of Education Solicitation ED-ESE-15-R-0009 Response to Vendor Questions

May 6, 2015

Business and Evaluation Questions

1. Will the Department consider extended the proposal deadline based on submitted questions?

Response: The proposal due date remains as no later than 11:00 AM Eastern Time, Friday, May 22, 2015.

2. Will the Government please identify what labor categories it believes will be “key” for the overall BPA as well as for each of the known task orders?

Response: Key personnel shall only be assigned at the task order level. It is up to each offeror to propose which labor categories will be key personnel. The Department will ultimately determine which positions and staff members proposed by the winning offerors are considered key personnel.

It is expected that, at a minimum, a Task Order Manager will be assigned to each task order.

3. Is this an 8(a) set aside contract vehicle solely?

Response: Yes, this procurement is solely an 8(a) set-aside. Vendors must be current members of the 8(a) program to be considered for award.

4. Who is/are the contract incumbent(s)? Is the incumbent contractor eligible to bid? What is the existing contract value?

Response: The incumbent for the Office of Innovation of Improvement is Longevity Consulting, under contract ED-OII-13-C-0029. The current contract value is $4,211,341. Longevity is eligible to compete for award of a BPA.

Other current contracts for peer review support are listed below. Please note that these contracts are not due to expire in 2015 and may be continued to be used until they do expire.

Office of Postsecondary Education: Command Decisions Systems & Solutions, ED-OPE-12-A-0022

Office of Elementary & Secondary Education: Leed Management Consulting, ED-ESE-14-D-0004

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services: Lux Consulting Group, ED-OSE-12-C-0015

5. How many total BPA awards does the Department anticipate making?

Response: The ideal number of awards is 3 -5 awards; however, the number of awards will depend on the quality of proposals received. There is no minimum or maximum number of awards.

6. Will the BPA awardees be required to compete for each task order as it is issued?

Response: BPA awardees will not be required to compete for every future task order, in accordance with Item 31(c) “Task Order Procedures.” Offerors are required to submit a technical approach for both Task Orders 0001 and 0002 in response to this solicitation.

PAGE 3 OF 10 ED-OII-15-R-0009/0001

7. How many total Task Orders are anticipated under the BPA each year?

Response: Please see the chart displayed in Item 35 “Addendum to 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors.”

8. Does the Department have an updated list of minimum amount of task orders to be issued under the BPAs expected competitions?

Response: There is no minimum amount of tasks orders to be issued under the BPAs. The Department anticipates awarding the two task orders contained in this solicitation. Each BPA awardee will not be guaranteed an actual task order award. There is no minimum ordering amount for each BPA.

The chart in the Instructions to Offerors does not reflect the minimum number of task orders to be issued. As stated in the clause, “The estimated numbers of potential grant competition peer reviews to be supported by task orders competed under the multiple BPAs per year are listed in the chart below. Please note that these figures are merely estimates and do not guarantee that these numbers or any number of task orders will be issued in support of these expected competitions.”

9. Based on paragraph two of page 35, is it possible for an offeror to be awarded the master BPA and both Task Order 0001 and 0002?

Response: Yes, it is possible for one offeror to be awarded a master BPA and both task orders. This would not preclude the Department from awarding other master BPAs without any task order awards.

10. Please confirm that paragraph two requests offerors to provide a single technical proposal addressing the BPA SOW and Task Orders 1 and 2 within the 35 pages. Hence, not 35 pages for each task order, correct?

Response: That is correct. The total technical proposal should not exceed 35 pages.

11. The instructions seem to require three technical approaches. Is that correct?

Response: That is correct, but offerors need not repeat language three times if the same part of the technical approach applies to the overall BPA and each task order. Offerors may reference their overall technical approach when demonstrating their technical approaches to Task Order 0001 and Task Order 0002. Offerors may use the Task Order 0001 and Task Order 0002 technical approach sections to describe how they would tailor their overall technical approach for the specific requirements of that task order.

12. From page 28 under “Technical Proposal” it states: “To the extent that Sections 4, 5, and 6 below have commonalities, to avoid duplicative narrative, the offeror may reference a prior section addressing the commonalities.” How will independent scores be allotted in these sections or be reviewed if content is referenced in other areas outside of these sections?

Response: If an offeror references a prior section when demonstrating the technical approach for either task order, evaluators will consider the referenced section as if it were written in response to the task order or BPA requirements.

PAGE 4 OF 10 ED-OII-15-R-0009/0001

13. “The extent to which the offeror provides a well-developed solution for approving appropriate administrative support services . . ." Should this be “a well-developed solution for providing appropriate administrative support services . . .

Response: Yes, this has been revised. Please see the revised RFP.

14. “The quality of the proposed project personnel, and the extent to which the personnel have the appropriate qualifications, competencies, and experience in the areas mentioned above. . .” Is the reference to “areas mentioned above” meant to refer back to Section I of the evaluation criteria?

Response: This reference has been deleted. Please see the revised RFP.

15. The solicitation states “the proposal should address the requirements in the PWSs and state how the offeror will meet those requirements and shall not simply repeat the language in the PWSs.” On the other hand, another page states “the technical proposal must be clear, coherent, and prepared in sufficient detail for effective evaluation of the offeror's proposal against the technical evaluation criteria.” To which requirements are contractors expected to write a proposal?

Response: Proposals will be evaluated against the Evaluation Criteria stated in Item 37 “Addendum to 52.212-2 Evaluation.” The Evaluation Criteria were created based on the requirements of the PWSs. The two statements are not in conflict. The Evaluation Criteria will be used as the Rubric by which the Department evaluates how an offeror addresses the requirements in the PWS and provides sufficient information to demonstrate their ability to fulfil those requirements.

16. As 20 points have been allotted to the section of “Experience and Past Performance”, how will the scoring and evaluation process be implemented considering the number of past performance examples may vary on submitted proposals?

Response: The evaluation will be in accordance with the stated criteria. Offerors will not receive higher scores solely because they have a higher volume of examples of performance. Offerors may receive a high score in this area if the demonstrated experience, while not extensive, is excellent and highly relevant to the requirements of this solicitation. If offerors do not have past performance, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

17. Does the Department require any separate price proposal information (Price build-up, Payment schedule) for the overall BPA SOW or will the loaded labor category rates for Year 1- Year 5 suffice?

Response: No, the Department does not require any separate price proposal information for the overall BPA other than the proposed Pricing Schedule that contains loaded labor rates.

18. The evaluation criteria outlined in the RFP explain how the technical proposal will be evaluated, but do not address the evaluation of the price proposal. Please clarify how the price volume will be evaluated.

Response: The business proposal will be evaluated to determine if the offeror’s proposed price for each task order is fair and reasonable and if the business proposal is commensurate with their proposed technical approach. Specifically, the business proposal shall contain complete information in sufficient detail for the Government to make a price reasonableness determination. The

PAGE 5 OF 10 ED-OII-15-R-0009/0001

Contracting Officer may reject a proposal if proposed prices are found not to be reasonable. The proposed Pricing Schedule’s loaded labor rates will also be evaluated for reasonableness. Please see the revised RFP.

Technical Questions

Overall BPA/Both Task Orders

1. For Task Order 0001 and 0002 are any federal reviewers projected to be paneled? If so, what is the projected percentage or the historical average?

Response: Neither task order will have federal employees as reviewers.

2. Is the contractor expected to “recruit” and “select” reviewers other than those provided by the government from the G5 system? Is there a G5 training platform or training modules accessible to non-federal personnel?

Response: The contractor is expected to recruit and select reviewers from the database of former reviewers provided by the program and or the G5 system only. There are G5 guidelines and a hotline accessible for technical support and may be provided to non-federal personnel.

3. Please confirm that the G5 platform supports the electronic capture of reviewer comments and scores.

Response: The G5 platform supports the electronic capture of reviewer comments and scores. Any issues found in the G5 system while trying to view or obtain comments and scores may be directed to a G5 technician.

4. There are references to a “competition database” in Attachment A. Please provide clarification on the use of this database and the degree to which information can be exported from Grants.gov and/or G5 to populate the same.

Response: This database will be used to export grant applications that will be assigned to each panel.

It may also house peer reviewer contact information, as well as scoring for each application. Most information can be downloaded from G5 but some information would have to be entered and updated manually.

5. Is there a Federal conferencing and/or webinar platform expected to be used in support of the webinar and panel discussions or is the Contractor responsible for the provision of the same?

Response: A federal conferencing and webinar platform may be available for use on some task orders, but potentially not all task orders. The Contractor is only responsible for providing the webinar platform and for the provision of a platform if the task order requires. Task Order 0001 does not require any webinar support. Task Order 0002 requires webinar support for Task 3.2 “Arrange Peer Reviewer Orientation,” but the contractor will not provide the webinar platform for this task order. The Department will host the Task Order 0002 webinars on its own WebEx platform.

6. Will the awarded tasks require the contractor to develop the evaluation criteria for the grants?

PAGE 6 OF 10 ED-OII-15-R-0009/0001

Response: No, contractors will not develop the evaluation criteria for the grants. The criteria will be developed by the Department.

7. Will the awarded tasks require the contractor to host meetings of the evaluators to facilitate their grant evaluation process? This includes logistics support, food and lodging, developing the forms used to gather information.

Response: Task orders that require Task Area 5: On-Site Reviews will require the contractor to host meetings of the evaluators to facilitate the grant evaluation process. The current task orders do not require this support. Food will not be provided under this BPA.

8. Will the awarded tasks require the contractor to develop written reports summarizing the process and outcomes for grant evaluation?

Response: Task orders that require Task Area 1.2: Status Reporting will require the contractor to develop written reports summarizing the process and outcomes for grant evaluation.

Task Order 0001

1. The i3 PWS is silent on the need for conferencing support for panel discussions; please confirm if there is a requirement.

Response: The Department will provide conference call lines for panel monitors to use for their panel calls. The contractor will not have to provide the conference lines.

2. The i3 PWS references reviewer applications and resumes residing in G5. Does G5 provide for the export of reviewer information and resumes (versus the requirement to print the documents) and secondly – is there an expectation that recruitment results and reviewers used to support the review be uploaded into G5 at the conclusion of the review?

Response: Reviewer resumes are stored in G5. Recruitment results and reviewer information will not be uploaded into G5 after the review, but all information will be stored in a database that will be provided to the i3 Team once the competition concludes.

3. Should the contractor prepare three or five copies of applications to send to reviewers?

Response: The contractor shall prepare five copies of applications to send to reviewers. Each panel consists of three content reviewers and two evaluation reviewers.

4. Please confirm the Panel Structure for the i3 review. Page 3 (2.1) references the need for 3 copies of the applications for the reviewers, however Page 5 (3.2a) references five (5) reviewers.

Page 7 (3.2.d) – references 3 “content” reviewers and 2 “evaluation” reviewers; please confirm if there are any differences in the compensation structure for the two types of reviewers and/or clarify the roles.

Response: All reviewers, regardless of whether they are a content reviewer or an evaluation reviewer, are paid $200 for each application they successfully submit TRFs for via G5 upon the panel monitors approval.

PAGE 7 OF 10 ED-OII-15-R-0009/0001

5. Is there a requirement to provide hardcopy/ signed Technical Review Forms (TRFs) at the close of the review?

Response: No.

6. Please confirm the average number of pages associated with applications submitted in response to this competition.

Response: The average number of pages per applications for each competition are as follows:

Development - 100-250 pages; Validation - 150-300 pages; Scale-up - 150-300 pages.

7. Will alternate reviewers receive an honorarium if they are not selected to fill in for a panelist? If so, in what amount?

Response: No. Reviewers only receive compensation if they successfully submit TRFs for via G5.

They must participate in panel calls and then with the panel monitor’s approval submit TRFs in G5.

8. How many total pages are estimated for each completed Technical Review Form?

Response: 5-10 pages are estimated for each completed TRF.

9. How many total pages are estimated for each set of reviewer materials?

Response: In addition to the applications, the contractor can expect to send approximately 10-15 pages of additional materials to each reviewers.

Task Order 0002

1. Please confirm the average number of pages associated with applications submitted in response to this competition.

Response: Each application is expected to average approximately 50 pages.

2. Is there a requirement to provide hardcopy/ signed Technical Review Forms (TRFs) at the close of the review?

Response: Hardcopy TRFs shall be provided to the applicants at the close of the review. The hardcopy TRFs will not contain signatures.

3. How many total pages are estimated for each completed Technical Review Form?

Response: Each technical review form will consist of approximately 15 pages.

4. How many total pages are estimated for each set of reviewer materials?

Response: Reviewer materials will likely be less than 100 pages. However, it is anticipated that the materials will be posted online for download by the reviewers.

Table of Contents

PAGE 8 OF 10 ED-OII-15-R-0009/0001

SECTION

. 1 Revised Addendum to 52.212-2 Evaluation

PAGE 9 OF 10 ED-OII-15-R-0009/0001

SECTION

. 1 Revised Addendum to 52.212-2 Evaluation

A single technical review panel will read all of the technical proposals submitted in response to this RFP.

Each proposal will receive three separate scores (each out of 100 points) and ratings, for the master BPA, Task Order 0001, and Task Order 0002, respectively, based on the offeror’s demonstration of the technical criteria listed below as they relate to the master BPA requirements, Task Order 0001 requirements, and Task Order 0002 requirements. The three scores will not be tallied for one total score.

The panel will make decisions on awards of master BPAs based on the master BPA proposals: an offeror’s score on each task order proposal will not impact the master BPA’s score. For the master BPA, the panel will assign a score for each proposal based on the maximum of 100 points. For each Task Order, the panel will review the relevant sections of the proposal for that Task Order and assign a score based on the maximum of 100 points. The Contracting Officer will determine which offerors will receive a master BPA award and will then determine which of the two initial task orders awards will be awarded to the master BPA awardees, based on the technical scores as well as the proposed prices.

The following elements will be considered when evaluating the technical proposal. Subcriteria are considered of equal importance to other subcriteria in the same evaluation element.

I. Technical Approach – 40 points

The extent to which the offeror provides a comprehensive plan for the selection, recruitment, and training of peer reviewers that have the knowledge, skills, and abilities to successfully read for each grant competition.

The extent to which the offeror provides a well-developed solution for approving providing appropriate administrative support services that ensures quality control throughout the review process and timely and accurate records of the competition.

The extent to which the offeror presents a successful solution for processing and pre-screening grant applications that ensures management quality and efficiency.

The extent to which the offeror describes an effective logistical support plan for conducting on-site peer reviews.

The extent to which the offeror demonstrates a successful solution in conducting virtual peer reviews.

II. Management Approach – 40 points

The quality of the proposed project personnel, and the extent to which the personnel have the appropriate qualifications, competencies, and experience in the areas mentioned above to the extent and breadth needed to effectively address and complete the project’s tasks, as required by the PWS and have conducted prior contracts that are similar in size and scope.

The extent to which the project director for each of the task orders has the correct mix of knowledge, skills, and abilities and alignment to the appropriate task to successfully manage

PAGE 10 OF 10 ED-OII-15-R-0009/0001

peer reviews.

The extent to which the proposed management plan indicates that the work will be performed in a timely, effective, and cost-efficient manner.

The extent to which the proposed quality control processes and methods are logical, effective, and ensure only high quality materials and/or workmanship is accepted.

III. Past Performance Experience – 20 points

The extent to which the offeror has previously worked with a range of federal programs and has demonstrated a clear understanding of logistical peer review support, both in terms of successful on-site peer review and providing virtual solutions.

The extent to which the offeror has developed a web-based data support system as outlined in Task area 7 of the PWS that is compliant with Department of Education Information Technology policies and is familiar with the process to obtain an Authorization to Operate (ATO).

The extent to which the offeror has worked the Department of Education’s grant management system (G-5) or a similar federal electronic system to conduct peer reviews.

The offeror’s reputation for effective management of federal contracts, including quality, problem resolution, cost control, timeliness, business relations and customer service, is also considered.

Please note that the criterion for Technical Approach, “The extent to which the offeror describes an effective logistical support plan for conducting on-site peer reviews,” shall only be evaluated for the master BPA. This criterion will not be evaluated for Task Order 0001 or Task Order 0002 because these task orders do not require support of an on-site peer review.

Price Evaluation

The business proposal will be evaluated to determine if the offeror’s proposed price for each task order is fair and reasonable and if the business proposal is commensurate with their proposed technical approach. Specifically, the business proposal shall contain complete information in sufficient detail for the Government to make a price reasonableness determination. The Contracting Officer may reject a proposal if proposed prices are found not to be reasonable. The proposed Pricing Schedule’s loaded labor rates will also be evaluated for reasonableness.

Contracts & Acq Mgt/Group B, 550 12th St SW - 7th Floor Washington DC 20202-4240