Amendment_4_-_Questions_and_Answers.pdf

ISAS FCC13R0006

Amendment #4: Questions and Answers

Q1 – If an Offeror possesses FCC source selection information, such as information about meetings of the Technical Evaluation Panel (or other Source Selection Evaluation Boards) for Solicitation No.

FCC13R0006, or a competitor’s Contractor Bid or Proposal Information (as defined in FAR §3.104-1) relating to Solicitation No. FCC13R0006, is the Offeror required to disclose this fact in the new Section 4 of Volume I? If so, should this disclosure include details about the channel through which the Offeror received this information?

Answer: An offeror that obtained or was exposed to information discussed or addressed in a source evaluation body meeting for this solicitation, and which information was being considered for use by the agency for the purpose of evaluating a bid or proposal to enter into the contract, should be disclosed under Section 4, if that information has not been previously made available to the public or disclosed publicly. This is especially the case if the information was or was related to proposed prices; source selection plans; technical evaluation plans; the technical evaluation of proposals; the price evaluation of proposals; competitive range determinations; information for potential inclusion in reports and evaluations of source selection panels; or any other information the disclosure of which would be likely to jeopardize the integrity or successful completion of the Federal agency procurement to which the information relates. The CBPI information of other offerors that would be relevant to this competition should also be disclosed if obtained or known to the offeror, unless that information has been previously made available to the public or disclosed publicly. Yes to the second question.

Q2 – Amendment 3 revised the pricing instructions for CLIN 5 to state “For evaluation purposes, Offerors shall propose on the basis of the estimated hours and labor mix presented in the table below.”

While no such revision was made to the pricing instructions for CLIN 6 (and the corresponding CLINs for subsequent years), CLIN 6 also includes a table with estimated hours and labor mix. Further, for CLIN 6, the Solicitation states that “The labor distribution and number of hours are estimated and are provided for evaluation purposes only.” Does the FCC also require that, for CLIN 6, Offerors propose solely on the basis of the estimated hours and labor mix presented in the CLIN 6 table? May Offerors propose labor categories different from those set forth in the CLIN 6 table if they anticipate the need or desirability for such labor categories in the performance of the contract?

Answer: Yes, the FCC also requires that, for CLIN 6, Offerors propose solely on the basis of the estimated hours and labor mix presented in the CLIN 6 table. Although we appreciate the value that offerors might bring in suggesting different labor mixes, without firm-fixed-pricing, the Government would bear the risk of error (i.e. lowballing) and allowing same would significantly complicate evaluation. Offerors may not propose labor categories different from those set forth in the CLIN 6 table.

Q3 – It is our understanding that we are required to complete, sign and submit the SF 30 dated

12/5/2013, but that we are not required to print or submit the entire revised SF 1449 to the FCC. Please confirm our understanding. In addition, taking as given that our relevant circumstances have not changed since September 4, 2013, please indicate the exact pages of the revised SF 1449 that we are required to submit. In particular, our understanding is that we would need to complete, sign and submit

pp. 57-58 of the revised SF 1449 to certify the updated version of the Representation by Corporations

Regarding an Unpaid Delinquent Tax Liability or a Felony Conviction under any Federal Law, but we do not see any other new content that would require us to complete, sign or submit other pages. If there are any other pages of the SF 1449 required, please indicate them by page number.

Answer: Please sign and submit the SF 30 dated December 5, 2013. Due to contract writing system limitations, we are delaying making physical changes to the SF-1449 at this time, but conforming changes to the SF-1449 (reflecting SF 30 changes to the form and CLIN date changes) will be made just prior to contract execution. All the changes to be made in the SF 1449 are stated in SF 30 Block 14

Continuation Sheet. A signed SF-1449 is not required in response to the amendment. Please submit relevant proposal change pages, with signatures where relevant or required, for other updated parts of the solicitation.

Q4 – The page numbering of the revised SF 1449 included in Amendment 3 goes out of order and has repetitions in various places. Can you confirm that the document as posted on Federal Business

Opportunities is complete and in its intended sequence?

Answer: All relevant documents are posted on Federal Business Opportunities.

Q5 – We would like to request an extension of the deadline for submitting our responses to Amendment

3 by two days to Thursday, December 19, 2013 at 4 pm ET. Can such an extension be granted?

Answer: The date for receipt of modified proposals is extended to Thursday, December 19, 2013 at

11:00AM ET.

Q6 - The addendum on the Rights In Data is confusing. The addendum omits the FAR clause for

Commercial Computer Software, FAR 52.227-19, Commercial Computer Software License, which we expected to be included because of all the other standard commercial item clauses the FCC added in the solicitation. There is also language in the addendum which seems to indicate that the Government will take unlimited rights to everything used in the performance of the contract, which may include some of our proprietary software/items. Why was the FAR 52.227-19 clause omitted from the RFP? Will the

Government accept standard commercial licenses for our proprietary items?

Answer: The allocation of data rights under the solicitation has not been changed by the amendment.

Changes to paragraphs b., c., and d. of the Rights in Data Addendum were of a strictly editorial nature.

The Government will accept standard commercial licenses for proprietary software subject to the reservations and exceptions which have been in the solicitation from its inception, but also now subject to new subsection e. of the Rights in Data Addendum. The new paragraph clarifies and expresses reservations and exceptions that are required to allow the Government to accept such licenses consistent with Federal law and to make such licenses work harmoniously with the contract.

Q7 - Under Section 6.2 Technical/Management (Volume II) of the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 [Tailored], you added a new Section 0: Contract Management. In our original proposal, we included Contract

Management as Section 1 followed by all other required sections. That is, the sections in our original proposal are as follows:

Table of Contents

Section 1: Contract Management

Section 2: Software and Technical Support

Section 3: Implementation and Integration Plan

Section 4: Software Delivery Method Plan

Section 5: Key Personnel and Staffing

Section 6: Corporate Electronic Auction Experience

In your addendum, you specified the Volume II sections as follows:

Table of Contents

Section 0: Contract Management

Section 1: Software and Technical Support

Section 2: Implementation and Integration Plan

Section 3: Software Delivery Method Plan

Section 4: Key Personnel and Staffing

Section 5: Corporate Electronic Auction Experience

If we change our proposal to use the numbering section you now provide in Amendment 3, we will have a lot of change pages with the only changes being different section header #s. This will also impact much of Appendix A, the matrix to cross-index Volume II sections to the SOW and the FAR 52.212-1

[Tailored] document, again with the only changes being to the section header #s. Is it OK to keep the numbering as is in our original proposal to avoid meaningless change pages?

Answer: You can keep the numbering as in your original proposal where there are no substantive changes to be made.

Q8 - Since submission of the original proposal on September 4, 2013, we have continued to enhance our product in response to customer demand. We assume that it is acceptable to update some of our responses to requirements not modified by Amendment 3 where these updates are material to the evaluation of our proposal and in the interest of the FCC.

Answer: Seasonable updating, correction, and supplementation of information currently in the proposal that is necessary, due to the passage of time, to keep the proposal from being factually inaccurate or dated is permitted.

Q9 - Since submission of the original proposal on September 4, 2013, we have completed another project using our auction software. We assume that it is acceptable to update the Corporate Electronic

Auction Experience section in Volume II and add another past performance to Volume III.

Answer: Yes. All offerors are permitted to do so.

Q10 - Since submission of the original proposal on September 4, 2013, some proposed team members have received highly relevant certifications. We assume that it is acceptable to update the few places where this updated information will be inserted.

Answer: Yes. All offerors are permitted to do so.

Q11 - If applicable, do you also want change pages for the Addendum we submitted on September 17, 2013?

Answer: Yes

Q12 - Please confirm that you are only expecting us to submit change pages and not the entire revised proposal.

Answer: Yes. However, please make the changes very clear.

Q13 - Assuming you only want change pages rather than an entire revised proposal, when/if we add new text to a section, it will affect all subsequent pages within that section. Do you want change pages for all subsequent pages within the section?

Answer: Please note the changes on a separate sheet and clearly state where the changes are made and what sections the changes belong to.