Attachment 1_Questions and Answers III.pdf

06 October 2011

Questions and Answers for HSHQDC-11-R-00144

1. Question: We request that the Offeror Team Matrix be deleted from the Additional Instructions, as it is irrelevant and not cited as part of the evaluation criteria. The division of labor within Offeror firms for the collaborative development of solutions, the multi-step, integrated process for proposal development (outlining, technical solution development, writing, graphics preparation, pricing, editing, formatting, etc.), and the highly variable availability of personnel that might be bid (some bid personnel may be billable on another contract, currently in another location, or are contingent hires) makes any measurement of their involvement in the proposal process or comparison of their level of involvement among Offerors problematic.

Answer: This is important information and Offerors shall include this information in their Proposal.

2. Question: The RFP does not include any information about the current or future program requirements in terms of level of effort, number of tasks, task order size, complexity or dollar value, level of required oversight, technical direction, technical tools, number of contractor personnel doing development work, level of maturity using agile development methods, current PMO staffing levels in terms of FTEs or hours, status of program management artifacts, or any indication as to how Offerors might staff the program over the two year period. Please provide sufficient information to allow Offerors to propose staffing levels for the IDIQ portion, as well as Task Order 01.

Answer: The Program has just recently awarded a two-year, $20 million development contract to Hewlett Packard (HP). The HP Statement of Objectives (SOO) Excerpt was provided to identify the scope of work involved with the development effort and level of maturity using agile development methods.

In accordance with the DHS Systems Engineering Life Cycle Process, all of the critical acquisition documents, MNS, AP, APB, CONOPS, TEMP, PMP, IMS, ILMS and LCCE exist. These documents are subject to the need to modify or refine through the HSIN Program life cycle. Using the information provided in the HP SOO Excerpt and the Offeror’s subject matter expertise, the Offeror should able to determine the skill set required to provide HSIN Support.

3. Question: To what extent is the HSIN program complete? 5%, 50%, 75%? What functionality has been deployed to date; how and by whom are any deployed systems used including numbers of users? Is the future work merely an incremental refresh of the existing functionality, involve the addition of some new functionality, or a complete project “do-over” that may require the preparation of a completely new set of program management plans and related artifacts, extensive development of new requirements, the formulation of new policies that will require approval, and extensive levels of new testing efforts? As per question 2, above, please provide sufficient information so that Offeror can estimate the level of effort required to do the work and eliminate the inherent competitive advantage that the current RFP structure provides to the incumbent.

Answer: The HSIN is a mixed life cycle Program. The scope of the Program involves a complete technology refresh, the replacement and decommission of the HSIN Legacy System. Development of HSIN Release 3 is scheduled to start in July 2012. Please refer to the HP SOO Excerpt for insight on the HSIN Release 3 functionality.

HSIN is an operationally mature program. Program life cycle management related to HSIN Release 3 already exists. The HSIN PMO Statement of Work requires the successful Offeror to maintain, update, and modify the HSIN as directed by the Government.

4. Question: How should Offeror price CLIN 5, which is described as Optional Tasks. Should pricing levels be zero, since the tasks are not defined? If pricing is required for CLIN 5, would the government provide a “plug” number for this CLIN? Will the Offerors’ technical response to CLIN 5 be evaluated?

Answer: Optional Task 5 is no longer an “Option” and will be evaluated as part of the IDIQ. Please refer to Attachment D, which has been revised. Also, see the revised Attachment A1 for the revised CLIN structure.

5. Question: What is the minimum font size acceptable for writing the response?

Answer: The minimum font size acceptable is 11. A smaller font size, minimum 8 point font, may be used in figures, tables, and captions.

6. Question: Is the staffing and management plan for Task Order 01 same as the SOW and the page limit is four (4)?

Answer: See Attachment D for revised page limits.

7. Question: What are the enterprise architecture, source code control, project management, document management (other than SharePoint), EVM/capital planning tools, and other technologies used to support HSIN efforts that the successful vendor should be conversant in?

Answer: There are none at the moment. However, this does not preclude an Offeror from being conversant in enterprise architecture, source code control, project management, document management (other than SharePoint), EVM/capital planning tools, and other technologies used to support HSIN efforts.

Please refer to Attachment D –

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. Contract Award

Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is determined to best meet the needs of the Government after considerations of all factors, that is, the proposal that provides the best value to the Government. Best value is defined as the offer that results in the most advantageous acquisition decision for the Government as determined by an integrated assessment and trade-off analysis among non-price and price factors.

8. Question: In RFP Attachment D, Evaluation Factors for Award, the Government specifies:

1. Technical Solution and Management Plan The offeror shall propose its technical solution to meet the requirements of the HSIN SOW (Attachment B) for providing professional program management support services which include:

a. Program Management Support

b. Program Operations Support

c. Requirements Management Support

d. Test and Evaluation Support

The Government does not mention the Optional Task #5 that is included in the HSIN SOW. Should those Optional Tasks be addressed in the Technical Solution and Management Plan?

Answer: Please refer to the Answer provided for Question #4 above.

9. Question: There are a number of technical items in the Task Order 01 SOW that are not in the HSIN SOW (such as Identity Management (IDM) Implementation and Integration, Global Federated Identity and Privilege Management (GFIPM) Support, Development Support, Consolidation Planning, Migration Support, Engineering Support). The instructions for the Technical Solution and Management Plan only says to address the HSIN SOW. Where should these additional technical requirements be addressed?

Answer: The requirements specified in TO1 are within the scope of the HSIN SOW and are not “additional technical requirements”. Please refer to Attachment B, HSIN SOW, Subtask 5.1. “Portal Consolidation Solutions Delivery Projects”.

The HSIN SOW frames the types of services that may be required. The Task Order identifies the specific services to be performed. The Offeror shall address Task Order 01 SOW requirements in Volume III entitled “Staffing and Management Plan for Task Order 01”.

10. Question: Attachment B, Statement of Work and Attachment F, Statement of Work:

Does the government require Offerors to have any credentials demonstrating capability to perform Earned Value Management or Quality Management?

Answer: Certifications are not required. However, please refer to Attachment D, Technical Proposal Requirements and Evaluation Factors For Award.

11. Question: Could the Government please provide an estimated level of effort for the work?

Answer: See the revised Attachment A1. The number of hours is not being requested for the price proposal for the IDIQ.

Regarding TO 1: The estimated total number of hours for the transition period of Task Order 01 is 3,680.

The estimated total number of hours for the base period of Task Order 01 is 23,200. The estimated total number of hours for Option Period 1 is 13,920.

The estimated total number of hours for Option Period 2 is 10,320.

12. Question: Please provide the Level of Effort and Labor Categories for the benefit of all Hub Zone offerors.

Answer: See the revised Attachment A1. See the answer to Question 11 for information regarding Level of Effort.

13. Question: To assist Offerors in scoping TO1, would the Government please quantify the level of effort (e.g. the number of Full-time equivalent staff) on the current task order?

Answer: The current PMO Support task order has in the past, been staffed with as many as 15 FTE.

14. Question: Should Offerors include Optional Task 9 in the pricing for TO 1?

Answer: TO 1 has been revised to include Optional Task 9 as a basic requirement.

Offerors shall include Task 9 in their pricing for TO1.

15. Question: If Offerors should include pricing for Optional Task 9 in the TO 1 price proposal, would the Government please provide the basis of estimate to be used (e.g. labor hours, specific tasks)?

Answer: Please refer to the Answers for Questions 11 and 14 above. Additionally, please refer to Section 5.1 in the HP SOO Excerpt and the DHS SBU Interoperability Portal Segment Architecture document for additional planning and estimating insight.

16. Question: Attachment D, page 9: Attachment D states that “the Government will evaluate offers by summing the total estimated price of the base year with the total estimated price of each option period”, but Attachment A-1 rate table does not identify any IDIQ LOE for evaluation purposes. Will the Government be using the TO1 price as the sole price factor in evaluating which company is awarded the IDIQ?

Answer: See the revised Attachment D.

17. Question: Attachment D, page3, Item 4 Price: At the bottom of the 1st paragraph the Government states: “These rates shall be clearly differentiated by Government fiscal year and shall not include any costs associated with travel.” Therefore, Labor Rates per Contract Period will need to be broken-out by Government Fiscal Year. The Government’s A-1 Pricing Template doesn’t accommodate this requirement, as it does not separate for fiscal years, but rather by base and option year. Should pricing be broken out by fiscal year in addition to the base/option years?

If so, does the Government have a projected contract start date?

Answer: At this time, the projected Contract start date is 1 December 2011.

The Offeror shall provide a separate schedule which shows its labor rates by Government fiscal year – Contractor format is acceptable. Indicate whether the labor rates to be used are Government-approved. If not, indicate the basis on which the rates were established.

Provide a copy of any labor rates approved or recommended by the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) – or Forward Pricing Rate Agreement approved by DCAA. Include a copy of the DCAA Approval Memorandum.

18. Question: In the SF-1449, there is a request for a base year, plus twelve month option period.

In the Attachment A2 Task Order Pricing Schedule, there is a base year, option year 1 and option year 2. Is the Government looking for the price on that second option year, or should we only price base year and option year 1?

Answer: Attachment A2 includes Option Period 1 and Option Period 2. The time frame for these options is identified in Attachment F, the Task Order 01 Statement of Work. The Offeror shall price each period of performance in Attachment A2.

19. Question: In the SF-1449, the Government asks for lot price total for base year and option year 1 broken out by each of the 5 tasks. In Attachment A1 IDIQ Pricing Schedule where tasks are broken down, the Government only asks for hourly rate and no total. In the Attachment A2 Task Order Pricing Schedule, there is a total but only for the entire base for option year 1 and no break down by task. How should we work up the task pricing for the SF-1449 based on this?

Would the Government like a single lot price for base year and option year 1, but not broken down by task?

Answer: The CLIN structure has been revised. See Amendment 00004 for the revised structure for the SF 1449 as well as the revised attachment A1.