Amendment 0001 to ED-OSE-12-R-0035 SF30.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 ORDER ID 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

PAGE 2 OF 9 ED-OSE-12-R-0035/0001

Amendment 0001 June 18, 2012

ED-OSE-12-R-0035

The purpose of this amendment is to address the clarification questions that were submitted in response to the solicitation ED-OSE-12-R-0035.

Set forth below are the clarifications questions received and the Department’s response:

1. Is a co-project director relationship between the prime and a staff from a subcontractor acceptable for the management structure?

Response: No. A subcontractor may have significant responsibilities, but the prime Project Director must be accountable for all aspects of the project.

2. Offerors are required to include a TOC and several charts as well as the introduction, technical, key personnel, management, and past performance sections. Would OSEP consider extending the page count to 50 considering that offerors need to respond to 18 tasks and an optional task with 13 subtasks?

Response: Yes, the page count is raised to 50 pages. In the solicitation, “52.212- 1 -- Instructions to Offerors” paragraph B is hereby changed to the following:

The technical proposal should be limited to a maximum of 50 double-spaced pages using font size no smaller than 12 points. The page limit includes the narrative, and corresponding tables and graphics. Specifications pertaining to font and spacing do not apply to tables, figures, or exhibits. Any pages over 50 shall not be considered.

The page limit excludes resumes and letters agreements from subcontractor or partners if any. Offerors shall follow the format and content requirements detailed below in preparing their technical proposals.

3. When does the SOTS have to be up and running?

Response: As stated in 4.1.6, the SOTS should be up and running 22 weeks after the date of the award.

4. Do we need to provide indirect rate information if we are using approved

GSA rates?

Response: The contractor does not need to provide indirect rate information if they are using approved GSA rates.

5. Regarding Tasks 3 & 4 – Is there a preferred platform, language, and database that OSEP would like the contractor to use for the consolidate system? Or is this up to the contractor to decide, with COR and OSEP approval?

Response: It is up to the contractor to decide with the COR, OSEP and OCIO approval.

PAGE 3 OF 9 ED-OSE-12-R-0035/0001

6. Will the consolidated website manage or administer the financial transactions when obliges/scholars are required to repay?

Response: No, scholars/obligees are referred by the contractor to ED’s Accounts Receivable Group for repayment of scholarships.

7. Optional Task 19 – Since many requirements are similar or the same from

OSEP to IEPD, should the consolidated website be designed to meet the requirements of both programs from the outset? The most cost effective approach is to design the system from the outset to handle both OSEP and IEPD under one system. If the system is designed specifically for OSEP, without regard to IEPD, the design and development time required to implement IEPD later will be much higher.

Response: Yes, the consolidated Web site should be designed in collaboration with OSEP and OIE to meet the requirements of the programs from the outset so that it is user friendly for grantees, scholars/obligees, and employers. OSEP and IEPD will each have its own web portal through which grantees, participants, and employers would access the data collection and tracking systems. However, the underlying systems and processes would be used by both programs.

8. Regarding Task 4 - Consolidate Two Websites and Two Web-Based Data

Collection Systems and Modify the System for the Consortium Service Obligation Data; How many years of back data is expected to be consolidated into the active web-based system, as opposed to archived solely for analysis purposes? That is, how many years of previous data are useful to current data collection efforts?

Response: OSEP service obligation scholar data must be maintained beginning with FY2005.

For performance measure data, SDR data must be continuously maintained beginning with FY 2001, and all data must be archived for analysis purposes, as the inquiry suggests. Current data collection efforts for both the SDR and the Consortia represent enrolled scholars. These data are collected cross-sectionally, and on an annual basis. Each year's data collection is for one fiscal year, for example, the SDR data collection was just completed for FY 2010. This new contract will collect data for FY 2011.

9. Regarding Subtask 4.1.1 - Within eight weeks after the award date, the

Contractor shall provide a draft design document, with accompanying Web site on a test server showing a consolidated and modified user friendly Web site and web-based data collection system that includes SOTS, SDR and Consortium data collections and includes the option for IHEs to download and upload documents; For delivering a draft design document in parallel to

PAGE 4 OF 9 ED-OSE-12-R-0035/0001

a test website based upon that draft could lead to wasted effort as the design specifications are refined, is the purpose of the test site at this stage to provide clickable mockups, or to truly test functionality?

Response: This is not to truly test functionality, but to ensure that all service obligation and performance measure needs are met.

10. Is the timeline firm for 4.1.1 and 7.1? It seems this conflicts with Task 7.1 which states "Within eight weeks of award, submit to the COR a draft forms and clearance package for the consolidated data collection system (initial submission)."

Response: The current collection package may need some revision; however, it is very unlikely to conflict in timing with the design of the web-based data collection system and Web site.

11. Deliverable 5.4 indicates that a C&A process should be "complete" within ten weeks, however the system is not scheduled to be fully operational until 22 weeks after the effective date. Does OSEP assume the C&A process should BEGIN within 10 weeks of contract award date? Otherwise there seems to be a conflict between the development phase (4.1.1 and 4.1.2) and the security process.

Response: We have changed 5.4 to read:

Within ten weeks after award date, the Contractor shall begin to work with the Department to schedule, cooperate with, and successfully complete a C&A of its system. The Contractor shall provide written assurance that the Web site address conforms to the Department’s requirements. Coordinate with the Department on quality control requirements.

Securities primary concern is that all of the C&A related work has been completed and the ATO has been signed prior to the system going live.

So this means that the contractor needs to be able to support the required C&A activities early enough to ensure that if any security related issues are found they can be remediated prior to the system going live.

12. Did the NLCSD grants replace the NCLIV grants?

a) How is the service obligation data currently being collected/monitored for these grants?

b) What data variables are available?

c) In what format will information be provided?

d) Are the regulations for the NCLIV consortium grants (H325U) in the

Federal Register?

e) Do the H325U scholars have a 2 year or 1 year service obligation?

PAGE 5 OF 9 ED-OSE-12-R-0035/0001

f) Will NLCSD grants (H325V) continue to be awarded in future years?

Response: H325U was a five year cooperative agreement, and H325V was awarded after the original end date of the H325U.

a) The data is currently collected/monitored manually by the IHEs.

b) The variables are the same or similar to the variables for the OSEP service obligation and performance measures.

c) The data will be submitted in the web-based data collection system in the same way as the other OSEP data is entered. Requirements differ somewhat; therefore that will need to be taken into account.

d) No, the regulations for H325U040001 are not in the Federal Register.

The service obligation requirement is two years for each year of funding scholars receive.

e) In FY 2009, OSEP issued an application notice, H325V090001which requires two years of service for each year of funding; however, only one year of service is required for graduates that work in the area of personnel preparation (See http://www2.ed.gov/programs/osepprep/2009-325v.pdf).

f) OSEP doesn’t know at this time.

13. In regards to Task 3 (Systems Transition) can the contractor assume that content includes all programming code files, copy of existing database with all data collected, system design and configuration documentation, business process documentation, systems security plan, and configuration management plan? Within 10 days the contractor will be provided information for transition of current systems and websites. How much time will the contractor have to get the existing systems up and running from the 10 days?

a) How will technical inquiries and requests be handled for the first 8 weeks of the contract, prior to the deliverable due date of a call center?

b) Will the current contractors provide technical assistance records?

Response: The Department assumes that the contractor will receive everything that it needs for the transition. The contractor will have 22 weeks from the time of award. (a) As stated in Subtask 4.2, the contractor shall host the existing Web sites and web-based data collection systems independently until the consolidated system is operational (b) Yes.

14. Is the goal to have an integrated live system prior to the Performance

Measure reporting period of Feb 3-April 4 2013?

a) The deliverable schedule for Task 4 (the system) seems too compressed and does not follow ED’s Life Cycle Management Framework that includes, a vision stage, a definition or design stage, a construction and validation stage, and an implementation stage.

Deliverable 4.1.1 collapses the definition and construction phases.

PAGE 6 OF 9 ED-OSE-12-R-0035/0001

Additionally, eight weeks is not sufficient time for all three stages, particularly construction and validation, especially if the contractor must also launch and learn the existing systems for design purposes.

b) Would OSEP consider a slightly revised timeline that allows appropriate time for each stage assuming it met the necessary goal?

c) If there are delays should the contractor be prepared to utilize the legacy systems for the performance data collection system?

d) Does deliverable 4.1.7 assume approval to operate from OCIO?

Response: The goal is to have an integrated live system 22 weeks after award (See 4.1.6 of the PWS). (a) No question to answer. b) Yes, a revised timeline is acceptable assuming the goal is met, i.e., up and running 22 weeks after award. If the contractor is proposing something different than what is called for in the PWS, the contractor’s proposal must clearly state how the proposal is different than the PWS and why the change is being proposed. c) Since in order to run the legacy system, we would also need to get an IATO to run it in the new hosting environment. OCIO would need to make sure that the basic security controls were in place and a scan of the hosting servers would need to be done to check for vulnerabilities. Therefore, we don’t believe that using the legacy system in the new hosting environment for a short time would be cost effective. d) There is no 4.1.7, however, yes, the 22 weeks includes approval from OCIO to operate. (See Subtask 4.1.6 in the PWS).

15. Please confirm that per FISMA and NIST requirements, the 2 systems (SDR and SOTS) can be housed on the same hosting environment as they contain related data for the same program while the new system is being developed?

Response: As long as the security documentation spells out the relationship of these 2 systems and the system boundary shows how these systems interact with each other there is no issue with them being hosted in the same facility. The SSP will need to make sure that all of the applicable security controls are addressed for each of the systems.

16. Regarding Task 7, OMB Clearance, please clarify what deliverables 7.3 and

7.4 refer to. If the consolidated forms replace the existing forms, won’t the new consolidated forms be provided a revised expiration date?

a) Based on the schedule of deliverables, OSEP expects the consolidated data collection instruments to be drafted and programmed into the draft system prior to the submission of OMB clearance (deliverable 7.1 within 8 weeks of contract award). If OMB requires edits to the forms, revisions will have to be made to the system. If OMB clearance takes approximately 3-4 months, these changes would be outside the development window of 22 weeks for a finalized system. Is expedited OMB assumed?

PAGE 7 OF 9 ED-OSE-12-R-0035/0001

Response: Yes, there will be a new expiration date. 7.3 refers to the clearance that will occur immediately after the award is made. 7.4 refers to the clearance that will occur 3 years later prior to the end of the contract (assuming the Option years are exercised). (a) We assume an expedited clearance, because we do not anticipate many changes to the data collection (although the two current collections will be consolidated) at the time of the award.

17. Regarding Task 12, why is the performance measure reporting lagged 2 fiscal years?

Response: Grantees performance periods are staggered over a fiscal year. It is actually less than two years in order to capture all of the previous years’ data for analysis and reporting.

18. Does ED prefer the technical assistance email to be an ed.gov address?

Response: Yes, the contractor will use an ed.gov email address for all technical assistance.

19. In support of task 10, will the contractor be expected to mail materials/notifications to relevant NCSO stakeholders?

Response: The contractor will be responsible for developing materials/notifications related to repayment, but not for printing or mailing to scholars/obligees. Most materials and notifications will be made electronically (encrypted if PII is included with a separate e-mail with the password) or by telephone.

20. Page 46 of the SOW indicates that reports will be submitted electronically and in hard copy. Please confirm that this refers to deliverables for tasks 14 and 17 only.

Response: OSEP confirms that this refers only to Tasks 14 and 17.

21. Regarding Task 19, page 65 indicates "OIE monitors employment verification and when a lapse of 6 months or greater occurs ...". Please confirm that the contractor is supposed to obtain verification from the employer directly and electronically, in hard copy format, or either?

a) On page 66 is reads"... in LEAs that enroll in five percent or more American Indian and Alaska Native students.." (p. 66). Should the percentage of American Indian and Alaska Native students be reported by the scholar or a reliable secondary data source?

Response: The statement quoted from the PWS Task 19 entitled “Program Specific Program Measures” is the current process to monitor employment verification and would cease once the IEPD system was

PAGE 8 OF 9 ED-OSE-12-R-0035/0001

operational. The contractor would follow the processes described on page 49 in the section entitled “Description of the SOTS web-based data collection system” for employment verification. For IEPD participants, employment is to be verified every 6 months until service obligation is complete.

(a) Response: The employer would report the percentage of AI/AN students at the same time they validated the participant’s employment information. (See the new language added to the PWS in the section titled “Service Obligations” for Optional Task 19).

22. Please affirm that the security standards and hyperlinks to additional security standards as specified in the SOW (pages 51-55) as of the proposal submission date will be the contractually binding security standards that the contractor is held to. If unable to affirm, please specify which security standards are variable at any point during the period of performance?

Response: The referenced security standards should be contractually binding.

23. What is the estimated level of effort assumed for this effort?

Response: The Department is not releasing this information.

24. Since it may not be possible to accurately forecast the cost of unknown and unspecified updates to the security standards (see Task 5, pages 52-53). Is ED open to the contractor stipulating the specific number and types of updates (by level of effort) and seeking a contract modification if the specific and/or types of security updates fall outside of these assumptions? If not acceptable, is ED open to specifying security updates as a cost-plus fixed fee component?

Response: The Department is open to the contractor stipulating the specific number and types of updates and then later seeking a modification if the specific number or types of security updates fall outside of the assumptions.

25. How much legacy data do you have for data entry (man-hour estimate)?

Response: IEPD will have no legacy data entry for grantee and participant data.

Once the IEPD system is operational we will have participants and grantees enter their data into the system for all active grants from FY2009 through FY2012. OIE will be responsible for all program data for FY1999 through FY2008 and there are no plans to migrate this information into the new system. However, OIE will capture prior year GPRA data and provide it to the contractor for analysis. This data entry will be minimal.

PAGE 9 OF 9 ED-OSE-12-R-0035/0001

There are only 28 Consortia scholars. At least some of their data is in a current contractor’s system. Therefore, data entry should be minimal. Grantees or scholars may be able to enter any remaining data into the system.

OSEP service obligation scholar data will be transferred from the current contractors.

26. Can the contractor take it off site for data entry or do you need an onsite person?

Response: Data that needs to be entered (although we don’t expect there to be a lot that will be entered manually) can be taken off-site as long as the site and data are appropriately secured, and the data handled and entered by staff that have received an ED clearance enabling them access to PII.

27. Do you wish to keep the same URLs?

Response: We would expect to have only one URL—probably not the same as any of the current URLs, but we would expect to make that decision at the kick-off meeting with OSEP approval.

28. Can you provide an approximate average number of help-desk calls during an

8 hour day?

Response: IEPD receives approximately 20 calls a week regarding program requirements from grantees and participants. The number of calls do spike in June and December but not by a substantial amount.

From mid-January through mid-April, approximately 10 calls per day can be expected related to the performance measure data collection.

The number of calls by grantees, scholars, and employers related to the NCSO service obligation has varied during the year with most of them being received at the beginning and end of each academic year. The number ranges from 7-20 in an eight hour day. The calls related primarily to SOTS access and functionality. Also, calls are received related to, for example, deferrals, repayment questions, and employment verification.

Except as provided herein, all other terms and conditions of Solicitation ED-OSE-12-R- 0035 remain unchanged. The time and date set forth for solicitation closing, 12:00pm Eastern Time on July 9, 2012 remain unchanged.

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