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 7 ED-OSE-12-R-0054/0001

Questions Submitted in Response to Solicitation ED-OSE-12-R-0054 – “Profile Creation Support for Cloud-Based Accessibility”

1. Although the intent of this project is to deliver a solution for gathering user preferences, it is equally important that this work influence digital resource meta data in: ISO24751, AfA, and APIP?

Department Response: The emphasis in the feasibility study is on means of assisting users in creating their profiles.

2. Are we expected to support mobile?

Department Response: The feasibility study should address requirements as identified in the review of projects that use or plan to use user profiles for accessibility.

3. Are we expected to support environment (situational limitations)?

Department Response: The feasibility study should address requirements as identified in the review of projects that use or plan to use user profiles for accessibility.

4. Is the software to be open sourced?

Department Response: Yes.

5. May we use open source tools?

Department Response: Yes.

6. Please confirm that the start date of the contract is still September 24, 2012.

Department Response: Yes, it is still the Department’s intent for performance of this contract to begin on or before September 24, 2012.

7. In the last sentence of paragraph A on page 16, please remove the words, “Authors of” to clarify that each section will appear in the TOC.

Department Response: The Department is unable to comply with this request. It is in the Department’s best interest to verify that the personnel charged with writing the proposal are the same as the personnel that will perform the work.

8. Please make clear that bullet 2 in paragraph 6 on page 18 applies only to Task Order #1.

Because future Task Orders are undefined, we cannot know what skills or staff will be needed to complete those tasks.

Department Response: Yes

PAGE 3 OF 7 ED-OSE-12-R-0054/0001

9. On page 19. C Organization of the Business Proposal; second paragraph states the following: "Offerors shall submit a complete cost build-up to include the identification of proposed labor categories by named individuals, level of effort, other direct costs, indirect costs and profit/fee for Task Order 0001." The RFP establishes Commercial Items as the basis for award under FAR Part 12; which exempts Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) for competitively awarded contracts; of which identification of such 'cost build up' data does not apply. Recommend modification of the statement that the 'price' should be inclusive of such costs, rather than to separately identify them in this competitive solicitation."

Department Response: Given the fact that a time-and-materials type contract is planned for Task Order 0001, the Government anticipates the need for other supporting data regarding the basis for the proposed price in order to make a price reasonableness determination (See FAR 15.403-1

(c) (3) (ii) (c).

10. On page 16, under proposal instruction, the RFP states that it is important for offeror to completely address all performance objectives described in both SOOs. The RFP has only specified one task order. So when referring to “both” SOOs, is the government referring to the SOO specified for the overall contract on page 38 through 39 and the second SOO for Task Order 1, starting on page 40?

Department Response: Yes, offerors must address all performance objectives found in the SOO for the overall contract and the SOO for Task Order 0001.

11. Are there any additional requirements not stated regarding requirements around conducting an evaluation of software or function specific to the cloud functionality?

Department Response: No.

12. On Page 16: Asks for authors ID'd by per section. What is a section? What level of ID do you want? Company? Name? Do you want the author's qualifications?

Department Response: Sections include the individual sections of the Technical Proposal (1-8 on pages 17-19) and the Business Proposal. Authors should be identified by their name, company, and title.

13. On Page 16 - Is Schedule of Deliverables applicable only to TO 0001?

Department Response: Yes.

14. On Page 16 - If TO for the vendor to specify either "deliverables" or “schedule”. Please clarify what is being asked.

Department Response: Offerors must specify the actual deliverables to be submitted and the schedule/dates they will be provided.

PAGE 4 OF 7 ED-OSE-12-R-0054/0001

15. On page 17 under 5. Experience and Past Performance, how many references with contract information is the government seeking from the vendors?

Department Response: A minimum of three (3) relevant past performance references.

16. On Page 18 – “The offeror should outline all existing obligations over the period of the contract for staff proposed for the contract, including the percentage of time allotted to existing projects.” Please clarify that this request relates to TO 0001.

Department Response: Yes, this request relates to TO 0001.ऀ

17. On Page 18 – “The chart shall include a total for each tasks and for the entire contract;”

The only task specified is Task #1. However, this requirement refers to a plural number of tasks. Please clarify what is being asked.

Department Response: There are actually two tasks in Task Order 0001; please see Attachment B.

18. On Page 18 – “The chart shall include a total for each tasks and for the entire contract;”

Since tasks for the entire contract are yet to be let, please clarify what is being asked.

Department Response: The two tasks detailed in Task Order 0001 as Attachment B.

19. On Page 18 - Table has a column for Task #, but there is only TO#1 in this order. So do you want #1 in that column for all entries? Will this table be used for all Task Orders?

Department Response: Two tasks included in Task Order 0001.

20. On Page 18 – This includes a requirement for "A schedule of task activities and the delivery of products”. Is this only the activities for Task Order #1?

Department Response: Yes.

21. On Page 18 – “Charts (e.g., GANTT charts) showing the interrelationships of tasks plotted on a time scale.” If the task is issued as T&M, then it is inappropriate for the contractor to specify the schedule. Please clarify what is being asked.

Department Response: The requested charts shall provide additional assurance that the work performed under this contract shall be of high quality and on schedule. This information could include how completion of Task 1 could affect Task 2 or how both Tasks could be performed concurrently.

22. On page 19, under 8. Performance Work Statement/Schedule of Deliverables, is the response to this section part of the page count?

PAGE 5 OF 7 ED-OSE-12-R-0054/0001

Department Response: No, the Performance Work Statement/Schedule of Deliverables created in response to Task Order 0001’s Statement of Objectives does not count against the page count.

23. On Page 21: “Web-based computer applications”. - This seems to pre-suppose a solution using web based solution – if the solution is SOA, then it would not be compliant

Department Response: The Department is searching for firms with experience developing Web based applications, please speak to your staff’s experience with Web based applications

24. On Page 22 – “Web based software” – Could you define want this means?

Department Response: Web based software is software operable via a Web browser

25. On Page 20 – Does OCI plan count against page limit?

Department Response: No, it is part of the business proposal.

26. On Page 20 – Does Subcontracting plan count against page limit?

Department Response: No, it is part of the business proposal.

27. On page 43, under Deliverables, Liaison, and Reporting, 2 deliverables are listed for delivery on June 23, 2013 and 2 additional deliverables listed for delivery on September 23, 2013. Is there a reason that the first 2 deliverables are finalized 9 months after the start of the contract? Could an offeror propose an earlier delivery date for any one of these deliverables?

Department Response: The deliverables under the first task are instrumental to completion of second task. Earlier dates can be proposed for any deliverables in the PWS/Schedule of Deliverables.

28. What are the minimum browser platforms that this RFP must support?

Department Response: The feasibility study should consider relevant browser dependencies for leading current browsers.

29. Does this RFP wish us to support HTML5? If yes, to what extent?

Department Response: The feasibility study should consider the value of HTML5 for the tools that are the subject of the study.

30. What operating systems and versions must we support?

Department Response: The feasibility study should consider relevant platform and browser dependencies for leading current platforms and browsers.

PAGE 6 OF 7 ED-OSE-12-R-0054/0001

31. Must Flash be supported as a rendering model for any learning applications?

Department Response: No.

32. Is coordination with W3C Indie UI work an acceptable model moving forward in addition to coordinating with AfA, APIP, and GPII acceptable?

Department Response: Yes.

33. Is the use of the Indie UI work an acceptable model going forward for establishing a common vocabulary?

Department Response: The acceptability of this must be determined as part of the feasibility study.

34. Is there a minimum set of cognitive limitations to be considered? Are there specific cognitive limitations you would like us to focus on (e.g. dyslexia).

Department Response: No, beyond the requirement that the feasibility study should address requirements as identified in the review of projects that use or plan to use user profiles for accessibility.

35. The scope seems limited in that it does NOT include “end user testing and evaluations” – is that the intent? Including ‘end user testing and evaluations” could significantly change the scope and costs of the response.

Department Response: This is a feasibility study. Development of prototypes and user testing would be considered for future task orders.

36. Does the scope explicitly include both traditional desktops and kiosks, as well as emerging tablet and mobile smartphone platforms?

Department Response: The feasibility study should address requirements as identified in the review of projects that use or plan to use user profiles for accessibility.

37. The scope does not explicitly specify the COMBINATIONS of disabilities. Which COMBINATIONS should be, at a minimum, be included? For example, deaf-blind, low visions and hard of hearing, limited reach and hard of hearing. So as to not exhaustively include too many nor too few combinations, the minimum combinations should be listed in addition to the ranges A thru J listed.

Department Response: How best to address combinations of disabilities should be considered in the feasibility study.

38. Does the scope of ‘available means’ explicitly include traditional desktop, public kiosks (e.g. transaction machines, ATMs, and information kiosks), as well as tablet and mobile

PAGE 7 OF 7 ED-OSE-12-R-0054/0001

smartphone platforms?

Department Response: The feasibility study should address requirements as identified in the review of projects that use or plan to use user profiles for accessibility.

39. Does the scope of ‘different Web browsers’ explicitly include a limit to the number of browsers to include in the study? Which “older browsers” can be excluded? Should the limit be determined by the responder’s approach, but limited by a number – such as “at a minimum the top 5 browsers” should be studied?

Department Response: The feasibility study should consider relevant platform and browser dependencies for leading current browsers.

40. Are you anticipating to have oral presentations as part of the procurement process?

Department Response: Oral presentations are not anticipated to be used as part of the source selection process. Proposals shall be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria found on pages 21-22 of the solicitation.

41. Will you only accept responses via email?

Department Response: Yes, all responses should be sent electronically to jake.vonreyn@ed.gov and cynthia.duncan@ed.gov by 12:00 pm noon EST, August 23, 2012.

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