RFPQuestionsandAnswers4.9.13.pdf

RFP (Responses to Questions)

1. RFP Cover Letter - Format for Technical Proposal (page 2 of Cover Letter)/Section 2.1 Offeror Preparation Instructions (page 45) - The Cover Letter to the RFP provides that the Technical Proposal should be submitted separately from the Price Proposal (page 2). The Cover Letter also states that the Technical Proposal and Price Proposal should be "submitted at the same time" (see page 3). Section 2.1 states that offerors should submit a separate technical and price proposal via e-mail (see page 45). Is it sufficient that the Technical Proposal and Price Proposal be submitted as separate attachments to the same e-mail, or does GSA wish that two (2) separate e-mails be submitted (one e-mail for the Technical Proposal and one for e-mail for the price proposal). Please clarify.

Answer: The Technical Proposal and Price Proposal may be submitted as separate attachments to the same email.

2. RFP Cover Letter - Format for Price Proposal (page 3 of Cover Letter) - The Cover Letter to the RFP describes Task I and Task 2. These defined tasks appear to be different from the tasks defined in Section 2.0 Schedule of Supplies and Services which lists Tasks 1-3 (pages 22-23). Would it be a correct understanding that, notwithstanding the reference in the Cover Letter, the correct identification of Tasks are those listed in Section 2.0 (pages 22-23). Please clarify.

Answer: The correct identification of Tasks are those listed in Section 2.0 (pages 22- 23).

3. RFP Cover Letter - Contract Award (page 5 of Cover Letter) - The Cover Letter to the REP provides that "Contract Award is anticipated on or about April 30, 2013."

Recognizing that, upon notice of centraet award, it may take a vendOF several h , is ness days to properly set up the accounts for service to begin, would GSA consider modifying the language to reflect a contract award date of April 25? In the alternative, if the award is made on April 30, does GSA understand that it may take a vendor several days to

I properly set up the accounts for the new task order(s)? Please clarify.

Answer: GSA understands that it may take an offeror several days to properly set up accounts.

4. RFP Cover Letter - Attachments (page 6 of Cover Letter) - The Cover Letter indicates that Attachment 1 is the RFP with Proposal Instructions and Evaluation Criteria, and Attachment 2 is the Statement of Work. These appear to be incorrect references as the RFP posted to FedBizOpps did not include any such attachments.

Would it be a correct interpretation that the Cover Letter should simply reference the RFP, which includes Proposal Instructions, Evaluation Criteria, as well as the Performance Work Statement? Please clarify as vendors need to confirm that they have all the required attachments to the REP.

Answer: The Cover Letter should have referenced the RFP, which included the Performance Work Statement, Proposal Instructions, and the Evaluation Criteria.

5. 1.3.1 Task I - Provide OGC Research and Technical Support (pages 9-12) - Section 1.3.1 provides that the "Contractor shall [emphasis added] provide OGC access to the following materials" and then lists 29 separate line items.

a) This vendor notes that the described content set (line items 1-29) is actually for more content than what the OGC is receiving under its current online legal research content. Is it the intent of GSA to increase the content that OGC end users are receiving, recognizing that an increase in content may result in an increase in price?

Please clarify.

Answer: OGC is requiring minimal additional content (e.g. general statutes of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands). However, OGC currently receives some content for which it no longer requires access and is not listed under Section 1.3.1 (e.g. e-Forms), constituting a decrease in content.

b) Are all 29 line items considered "mandatory" requirements, or are some of these line items simply "desirable"? If some are only "desirable", can you please clarify which line items are mandatory and which tine items are desirable?

Answer: The listed requirements are mandatory.

Section 1.3.2 provides that the "Contractor shall [emphasis added] provide OlG access to the following materials" and then lists 34 separate line items.

a) This vendor notes that the described content set (line items 1-34) is actually for more content than what the OIG is receiving under its current online legal research content. Is it the intent of GSA to increase the content that OIG end users are receiving, recognizing that an increase in content may result in an increase in price? Please clarify.

Answer: It is GSA’s position that the listed items reflect content OIG is currently receiving.

b) Are all 34 line items considered "mandatory" requirements, or are some of these line items simply "desirable"? If some are only "desirable", can you please clarify which line items are mandatory and which line items are desirable?

Answer: The listed requirements are mandatory.

7. 1.3.3 Task 3� Provide CBCA Research and Technical Support (pages 17-20) - Section 1.3.3 provides that the "Contractor shall [emphasis added] provide CBCA access to the following materials" and then lists 29 separate line items.

a) This vendor notes that the described content set (line items 1-29) is actually for more content than what the CBCA is receiving under its current online legal research content. Is it the intent of GSA to increase the content that CBCA end users are receiving, recognizing that an increase in content may result in an increase in price?

Please clarify.

Answer: It is GSA’s position that the listed items reflect content CBCA is currently receiving.

b) Are all 29 line items considered "mandatory" requirements, or are some of these line items simply "desirable"? If some are only "desirable", can you please clarify which line items are mandatory and which line items are desirable?

Answer: The listed requirements are mandatory.

8. Section 2.0 Schedule of Supplies and Services (pages 22-26) - Section 2.0 outlines the Schedule of Supplies and Services that must be completed for purposes of the price proposal.

a) May vendors offer alternative price options that may be more effective in meeting the needs of OGC, OIG, and CBCA end users, and/or may result in overall cost savings to the Government?

b) May vendors offer optional, separately-priced add-ons for additional databases, features, and services that may be of interest to OGC, OIG, and CBCA?

Answer: The structure of an offeror’s pricing proposal is left to its business judgment.

GSA is interested in all price options that may result in cost savings to the Government so long as all of the RFP’s requirements are met. However, as stated in the REP, award will be made to the technical acceptable proposal offering the lowest price.

9. Section 2.0 Schedule of Supplies and Services - Task 2 and 3 and Notes (pages 22-23) - Note 2 (page 23) indicates that CLINs 002-003 are optional tasks that may be exercised at any time during the contract’s base period [emphasis added].

Both CLIN 0002 and CLIN 0003 indicate a base period of 7 months. Would it be a correct understanding that the intent of the Government is that optional tasks 2 and 3 (CLINs 0002 and 0003), if awarded under this RFP, would be effective from 10/1/2013- 4/30/2014? Please confirm.

Answer: Yes. The intent of the Government is that optional Tasks 2 and 3 (CLIN5 0002 and 0003), if awarded, would be effective from 10/1/2013-4/30/2014.

10. Section 4.0 Contract Schedule and Milestone Dates (page 29) - The schedule of milestones in Section 4.0 provides that vendors must establish access controls (i.e., passwords) by the planned completion date of April 28, 2013. It is unclear how vendors can accomplish this task when the anticipated date of contract award is "on or about April 30, 2013." Can you please clarify the expectation with respect to this milestone as vendors cannot perform any work until a contract has been awarded? Should the planned completion date be changed from April 28, 2013 to "five business days after contract award"? Please clarify.

Answer: See answer to Question 3. The planned completion date may change depending upon the actual date of contract award.

11. Section 4.1 Period of Performance (page 30) - There appear to be several inconsistencies in Section 4.1. For example, the narrative provides that the base contract period will be from date of award through April 29, 2014. However, the table provides that the base contract period will be from date of award through April 30, 2014. Also, the table indicates that the Base Year shall be through April 30, 2014, and Option Year 1 will begin on April 29, 2014. Each of the successive option years has the same problem. These appear to be typographical errors. Would it be a correct undestanding that the Period Lof Performanc e shiluIdhP as, follows -

Performance Year Dates Base Year (FY2013) Date of award through April 30, 2014 Option Year I (FY2014) May 1, 2014 through April 30, 2015 Option Year 2 (FY2015) May 1, 2015 through April 30, 2016 Option Year 3 (FY2016) May 1, 2016 through April 30, 2017 Option Year 4 (FY2017) May 1, 2017 through April 30, 2018

Please confirm that this is a correct understanding.

Answer: Yes, the chart above reflects a correct understanding of the intended periods of performance.

12. FAR 52.212-5 Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders - Commercial Items (pages 35-39) - The RFP lists the May 2012 version of FAR 52.212-5. It is our understanding the most current version of FAR 52.212-5 is January 2013. Can you please clarify which version applies to this RFP?

Answer: Yes, 52.212-5 is the correct version. The RFP has been amended accordingly.

13. Section 2.0 Submission of Offers (page 45) - The RFP Cover Letter states that proposals are to be submitted via e-mail. Section 2.1 Offer Preparation Instructions also states that the technical and price proposals should be forwarded via e-mail.

However, Sections 2.2 Submission of the Written Price Proposal and Section 2.3 Submission of the Written Technical Proposals provide that offerors will submit an original, 1 paper copy, and an electronic copy of the proposals. Is it acceptable that vendors submit their proposals via e-mail only (e.g. no need to submit a paper copy proposal)? Please note that in order to submit a paper copy by the deadline of Friday, April 12, vendors will have to ship their proposals no later than Wednesday, April 10. If answers to questions are not released until Tuesday, April 9, then vendors will have no time to prepare their proposals and ship by the deadline. Please clarify whether submission via e-mail only is acceptable.

Answer: Submission of offers via email only is acceptable.

14. Factor 1: Database Availability Matrix (page 45) - This section states that the Offeror shall identify and describe research databases or source materials to which it will grant access that are responsive to the requirements in Section 2. The reference to "Section 2" is unclear. It is this vendor’s understanding that the Database Availability Matrix should describe how it will meet the requirements of the OGC, OIG, and CBCA listed in Sections 1.3.1 (Task 1 - OGC), 1.3.2 (Task 2 - OIG), and 1.33 (Task 3- CBCA). Is this a correct understanding? Please confirm.

Answer: Yes.

15. Factor 4: Past Performance (page 46)/Section 3.1.4 Factor 4� Past Performance (page 48) - These sections state that Past Performance information must be submitted in the format provided in List of Attachments - Attachment B. The Table of Contents also referenced an Attachment B (Past Performance Reference Sheet).

However, neither the original RFP, nor the revised RFP, included an Attachment B (Past Performance Reference Sheet). Amendment #2 to the RFP included the Attachment B.

a. Given the short turn-around time for response, the delay in releasing Attachment B, and recognizing that it may be a challenge for busy contracting officers and/or program officers to complete and return Attachment B under such a short timeframe, would GSA consider waiving the requirement for a Past Performance Reference Sheet?

Answer: Yes, GSA will waive the requirement to complete and return Attachment B.

GSA will use the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), and the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) to evaluate Past Performance.

Offerors must identify three Government projects similar in size, scope, and complexity to the requirements identified in the RFP. For each project, offerors shall identify the contract number, the type of contract, the award amount, the contract’s period of performance, and a brief description of the services provided by the offeror. Factor 4 (Past Performance) in Sections 2.3 and 3.1.4 are amended, accordingly.

b. Would it be sufficient for vendors to simply provide the names/contact information for three customers similar in size and scope to this RFP?

Answer: See above.

c. In the alternative, would GSA consider (as stated in Section 3.1.4) using other methods to evaluate past performance (e.g., CPARs, PP IRS, or FAPIIS, and/or GSA’s previous experience with a given vendor)?

Answer: See above.

16. Factor 5: Corporate Experience (page 46)/Section 3.15 Factor 5 Corporate Experience (page 48) - The information required in Factor 5 appears to be duplicative of the information required in Factor 4 (e.g., both factors are essentially seeking information demonstrating that vendor has performed work similar in size/scope/complexity to the RFP Requirements). As such, would it be appropriate to combine the requirements into a single factor? Please clarify.

Answer: INo, the Government will not combine the two factors. Factor 4, Past Performance, requires the identification of three projects so that the Government may confirm that the offeror has a satisfactory history of performance on projects of similar size, scope and complexity. Factor 5, Corporate Experience, requires that an offeror provide information about the success in completing two projects, problems encountered, and corrective action taken.

RFP (Responses to Questions)

Question I (General) Who is the incumbent for this contract?

Answer: Westlaw

Question 2 (General) What is the value of the current contract?

Answer: The value of the current contracts is not relevant because the Government’s requirements, as reflected in the RFP, have changed.

Question 3 (General) To facilitate GSA’s evaluation of offerors’ proposed online legal research services, will GSA provide the opportunity for offerors to deliver a technical presentation I demonstration?

Answer: No, oral presentations and demonstrations will not be permitted.

Question 4 (General) The REP initially indicated that GSA intended to enter into an agreement with one or more vendors. Will the GSA be issuing one or more contract award(s) under FAR Parts 12 and 15?

Answer: GSA intends to award a single contract.

Question - (Genera l) Since the requested services are for the GSA, and many vendors offer online legal research services via GSA Schedule 76, why was this REP not solicited via GSA eBuy?

Answer: This question is not relevant to the REP requirements.

Question 6 (General) The RFP initially included a memorandum from GSA’s Acting Administrator, dated 9/17/2012, indicating that GSA employees are required "to use existing GSA acquisition vehicles before establishing new contracts for similar products or services." Why was this memorandum removed in subsequent modifications/amendments?

Answer: The memorandum was included in the RFP inadvertently.

Question 7 (Cover Letter) GSA has indicated that it has targeted, but cannot guarantee, a response to offerors’ questions on April 9. If it is unable to provide a response on or before that date, will GSA issue an extension to the due date of April 12?

Answer: GSA responded to all questions on April 9.

Question 8 (Cover Letter, PWS Sections 1.3.1-1.3.3) Factor 1, Database Availability Matrix refers to a Requirements Table. Please confirm that this reference is to the tables provided in PWS Sections 1.3.1-1.3.3.

Answer: Yes.

Question 9 (PWS Sections 1.3.1-1.3.3) In reference to Performance Work Statement (PWS) Sections 1.3.1-1.3.3, has the incumbent provided customized web pages to GSA OGC, OIG, and CBCA?

Answer: This incumbent’s performance in regard to customized web pages is not relevant to the RFP and, therefore, is beyond the scope of the questions the Government will consider during the question period.

Question 10 (PWS Sections 1.3.1-1.3.3) How many users currently use CCH Government Contracts Reporter?

Answer: The RFP is being amended to remove this requirement.

Question 11 (Cover Letter, Sections 2.1-2.2 of the Solicitation Provisions) The Cover Letter and Section 2.1 of the Solicitation F’rOViions indicäWTht I ech?iiT and Price Proposals should be submitted via e-mail. However, Section 2.2 refers to a paper copy of the Price Quote. Please confirm that the Government desires electronic submission of all proposal volumes.

Answer: The Government requires electronic submission of all proposal volumes. No paper copies are required. The RFP at Section 2.2 has been amended accordingly.

Question 12 (Cover Letter, Section 3 of the Solicitation Provisions) The Cover Letter states that that contract award will be made to the offer that provides "the overall best value" to the GSA, with price being a major consideration. However, Section 3 states that award will be made to the "technically acceptable, lowest priced" offer, based on proposals being determined to be "technically acceptable" for all five evaluation factors.

Please confirm that the GSA intends to evaluate proposals on a Lowest Price, Technically Acceptable (LPTA) basis.

Answer: GSA intends to make an award to the lowest priced, technically acceptable proposal.

Question 13 (PWS, Attachment A) The PWS and Attachment A include numerous references to vendor-specific products.

Please clarify the basis for including these products.

Answer: Attachment A reflects current usage. GSA recognizes the data is vendor-specific to the incumbent contractor and is provided only to show usage.

Sections 1.3.1-1.3.3 of the PWS identifies GSA’s requirements. However, the vendor-specific products listed are not exclusive requirements. GSA invites offerors to propose an equivalent source by including the instruction: "Specify source or its equivalent --include description."