Industry Feedback Form - Draft Solicitation.xlsx

Sheet1

We would like to know if this is a brand new contract OR if there is (was) an incumbent performing these services. If not brand new, could you please provide the current / previous contract number?

This is a recompete of 16PBGC20C0024 - Lychval Systems Worldwide is the current incumbent performing these services.

This is a recompete of 16PBGC20C0024 - Lychval Systems Worldwide is the current incumbent performing these services. bloomberg government PRAKHAR GUPTA <pgupta469@bgov.com>

This is a recompete of 16PBGC20C0024 - Lychval Systems Worldwide is the current incumbent performing these services. All contract values can be found by searching the contract number on FPDS.gov

The value of the contract for this opportunity will be determined based on the price of the most competitive proposal. This is a firm-fixed price contract. This is a recompete of 16PBGC20C0024 - Lychval Systems Worldwide is the current incumbent performing these services.

The value of the contract for this opportunity will be based on the most competitive priced proposal. This is a firm-fixed price contract. cansofttech Suraj Bijagarni (CAN Softtech) <sbijagarni@cansofttech.com>

1. Given the number of government estimated part-time resources listed in the SOW, does the PBGC anticipate any issues with remote work being approved by the COR? What is the expectation of on-site work, given remote work approval?

The process from requesting approval to telework must be approved the COR. Currently, there are no issues with remote work being approved by the COR. The current expectation is 3 in-office days per week for local employees.

2. Instead of part-time resources, are there any issues with combining the government estimated resources into full-time resources?

No, As long as the resources are capable and meeting all requirements.

3. When is it anticipated that SE PIMS or ME PIMS be decommissioned? If it is during the POP, will the only resource/services anticipated being needed the actuarial services?

SE PIMS is anticipated to be decommissioned in late summer 2026, during the base year of the POP. The associated work is laid out in section 3.2, item #17. After the system is decommissioned, neither technical nor actuarial services will be required for SE PIMS. It is not anticipated that ME will be decommissioned during the POP. See Attachment 2: Legacy PIMS Task Map and Labor Projections for additional details associated with tasks associated within this requirement.

4. Would the PBGC please consider a short extension to the due date, to Wednesday 05/21/2025?

An extension has been provided. Reference the new proposal submission deadline in SAM.gov. 1. The process from requesting approval to telework must be approved the COR. Currently, there are no issues with remote work being approved by the COR. The current expectation is 3 in-office days per week for local employees.

2. No, As long as the resources are capable and meeting all requirements.

3. SE PIMS is anticipated to be decommissioned in late summer 2026, during the base year of the POP. The associated work is laid out in section 3.2, item #17. After the system is decommissioned, neither technical nor actuarial services will be required for SE PIMS. It is not anticipated that ME will be decommissioned during the POP.

Attachment 2: Task Map & Labor Projections for additional details associated wit.h tasks associated within this requirement.

4. An extension will be provided and the proposal submission deadline is now 05/22/25 @ 4 PM.

geeksi.tech Deniz Franck <deniz.franck@geeksi.tech> Response to #1 needs to be clarified. If we're going to require in-office presence, we need to explain the reason why and how we determine in-office vs remote personnel.

tc={34DAF551-0DF2-4DB0-9572-73AA77109DE0}: [Threaded comment]

Your version of Excel allows you to read this threaded comment; however, any edits to it will get removed if the file is opened in a newer version of Excel. Learn more: https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=870924

Comment:

@Zhang Bowen @Muse Kevin

Could the government please provide valuable answers to our below mentioned query:

Please provide the incumbent information - name, contract # and value.

This is a recompete of 16PBGC20C0024 - Lychval Systems Worldwide is the current incumbent performing these services. All contract values can be found by searching the contract number on FPDS.gov Furthermore Could the government Please provide 10 day extension ?

An extension has been provided. Reference the new proposal submission deadline in SAM.gov.

1. This is a recompete of 16PBGC20C0024 - Lychval Systems Worldwide is the current B12incumbent performing these services.

2. An extension will be provided and the proposal submission deadline is now 05/22/25 @ 4 PM. Fedtech Rashmi Sharma <rashmis@fedtec.com>

Pricing Schedule (Section 1.2 – "EA" Unit of Measure): Could you confirm whether "EA" refers to instances (e.g., per device, per license) or personnel (e.g., per employee)? This will help us structure our pricing accurately.

"EA" is a reference to each technical Assistance/Special project ticket submitted to the contractor to perform the requirements asssociated with the task.

Place of Performance (Section 8 – Telework Definition): The amended document mentions telework, but we’d like clarification on whether this refers to a hybrid model (partial in-office and remote work) or a fully remote arrangement.

The process for requesting approval to telework must be approved by the COR. Currently, there are no issues with remote work being approved by the COR. The current expectation is 3 days in-office per week for local employees. 1. "EA" is a reference to each technical Assistance/Special project ticket submitted to contractor to perform the requirement asssociated with the task.

2. The process from requesting approval to telework must be approved the COR. Currently, there are no issues with remote work being approved by the COR. The current expectation is 3 in-office days per week for local employees. Qubist LLC Kimberly Moore <kimberly.moore@qubistllc.com> Does the solicitation provide enough information for offerors to know the approximate LOE per Technical Assistance/Special Project ticket?

tc={59C390A4-99D0-4B20-A810-B591A831F215}: [Threaded comment]

Your version of Excel allows you to read this threaded comment; however, any edits to it will get removed if the file is opened in a newer version of Excel. Learn more: https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=870924

Comment:

@Muse Kevin @Zhang Bowen

Pricing and Budgeting:

1. Could you provide an estimated budget range or historical price range for similar contracts previously awarded by PBGC?

This is a recompete of 16PBGC20C0024 - Lychval Systems Worldwide is the current incumbent performing these services. All contract values can be found by searching the contract number on FPDS.gov. For additional pricing related information see Attachment 2: Legacy PIMS Task Map and Labor Projections for additional details.

2. What was the incumbent’s annual cost for Operations & Maintenance (O&M) of the Legacy SE and ME PIMS models, if applicable?

The scope of this requirement has been modified from any previous award and therfore details related to the current pricing structure are unavailable. For pricing related information see Attachment 2: Legacy PIMS Task Map and Labor Projections for additional details.

3. Are the Technical Assistance (TA) requests (3 EA per year) stated as a maximum quantity, or do they reflect a historical average?

The quantity of 3 EA for each Techincal Assistance CLIN states a maximum quantity for the individual CLIN. The total number of TA requests in a single year can vary significantly, so Optional CLINs for Technical Assistance Requests have been added to the pricing schedule in quantities of 3 to manage the possibility of additional Technical Assistance Requests being requested and performed by the contractor.

Technical and Performance Requirements:

4. Regarding the SE-PIMS Decommissioning, could you elaborate on the anticipated scope, specific tasks, or any critical risks PBGC foresees?

Section 3.2 Line # 17 of the Performance Work Statement lists tasks related to the decommisioning of the SE PIMS system.

5. Does PBGC prefer or expect a specific software development methodology (Agile, Waterfall, hybrid) for system modifications?

Currently we expect a Hybrid software methodology.

6. Could you clarify the anticipated timeline or duration of heavy initial development versus routine O&M workload during the first six months of the Base Year?

There will be no heavy initial development to complete this requirement. Both SE & ME PIMS systems are active and operational.

Proposal Evaluation and Past Performance:

7. When evaluating corporate experience, how much emphasis does PBGC place on direct PBGC or federal pension system experience versus relevant commercial experience?

All experience, corporate or federal will be weighted equally and evaluated based on the criteria outlined in the solicitation.

8. For past performance references, which specific performance criteria (e.g., responsiveness, accuracy, timeliness) are most critical to PBGC?

PBGC will evaluate the past performance of corporate experience instances that are determined to be at least somewhat recent and somewhat relevant as described in the evaluation criteria rating definitions. Then after a good-faith effort is made to reach past-performance points of contact for a performance evaluation, a confidence rating will be assigned to each reference and an overall past performance rating for the proposal will be determined.

9. Does PBGC give preference or additional consideration to proposals exceeding the minimum deliverable timelines or providing enhanced support?

Contractors will be determined most competitive based on the results of the assessment outlined in the instructions and evaluation criteria.

Proposal Structure and Submission:

10. Could you specify if PBGC has a preferred or required structure or format for Volume 1 (Corporate Experience & Past Performance)? Is there a certain organization of information you prefer?

This volume shall not exceed three (3) typed pages using a minimum of 10-point font. The page count does not include the cover page. Volume 1 shall be completed in Adobe PDF format and include all the information requested in the solicitation.

11. What are some common pitfalls or mistakes in past proposals that have led to disqualification or lower evaluation scores?

Please provide all requested information by the submission deadline in accordance with the instructions. 4. Section 3.2 Line # 17

5. Currently we expect a Hybrid software methodology.

6. No heavy initial development is expected because both systems are active and operational.

7. NEED RESPONSE

8. A confidence rating will be determined based on the quality of the corporate experience.

9. Contractors will be determined most competitive based on the recency and relevancy of corporate experience aolong with strength of Past Performance.

MAN-TECH DESIGNS LLC Emanuel Castellano <emanuel@mantechdesigns.com> I rewrote the response to #2 as follows: "The Government declines to share this information; however, it is important to note that the scope of work under the current solicitation is different than the scope of any previous contract for this work." Please confirm this is accurately stated.

tc={88B65436-7941-458C-BF02-A217450FF314}: [Threaded comment]

Your version of Excel allows you to read this threaded comment; however, any edits to it will get removed if the file is opened in a newer version of Excel. Learn more: https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=870924

Comment:

@Muse Kevin @Zhang Bowen tc={34DAF551-0DF2-4DB0-9572-73AA77109DE0}: [Threaded comment]

Your version of Excel allows you to read this threaded comment; however, any edits to it will get removed if the file is opened in a newer version of Excel. Learn more: https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=870924

Comment:

@Zhang Bowen @Muse Kevin 1. The legacy contract number in the description (16PBC20C0024) appears to have a typographical error. Can the government please confirm this is a recompete of 16PBGC20C0024 awarded to Lynchval Systems Worldwide on 9/1/2020, expiring 8/31/25?

Yes, 16PBGC20C0024 is the correct contract number and is awarded to Lynchval Systems Worldwide on 9/1/2020, expiring 8/31/25.

2. Is the incumbent contractor eligible to bid on this requirement?

Yes.

3. Do incumbent staff have right of first refusal for positions under the new contract?

No, this is a competitive proposal for all eligible small businesses.

4. The Task Map and Labor Projections lists five (5) labor categories:

a) Are any/all of these considered key personnel?

No, the information in the following table represents an estimate of the labor categories and hours of effort the Government believes will be necessary to successfully perform this work. PBGC is providing this information purely to assist interested contractors in preparing their proposals. Contractors should not rely exclusively upon this information, but instead use it as one of multiple considerations in formulating their proposals.

Contractors may deviate from this estimate as deemed appropriate. Ultimately, each contractor bears responsibility for developing its own staffing plan and proposal prices, and furthermore if selected for award, performing the work as defined in the contract at the contract price.

b) Does the government require offerors to submit resumes of proposed personnel?

No, there is no key personnel submission requirement.

c) None of these positions appears to be full time based on the project hours listed. Is it permitted for offerors to combine positions provided the proposed resource has the necessary qualifications?

Offerors are permitted to propose their own resource allocation as long as the resources are capable and meeting all requirements. The table represents an estimate of the labor categories and hours of effort the Government believes will be necessary to successfully perform this work, but is included solely as a point of referend to assist interested contractors in preparing their proposals.

5. Lynchval Systems offers pension administration and evaluation software as a product, but it appears PRAD developed PIMS in-house using C++ and runs it in a standard Microsoft Azure cloud environment. Can the government confirm the current PIMS system does not use any proprietary software that would advantage one offeror over others?

No, the current PIMS system does not use any proprietary software that would advantage one offeror.

6. This chart contains several acronyms for what appear to be departments within PRAD or IT but do not appear in the PWS or other documents (e.g., BISD, BCMD, ITBCM). If the government could please clarify the role of these team members in the overall PIMS support process that will help us in preparing our response.

This is in reference to Attachment 3 (SEE TEAMS CHAT RESPONSE)

7. Would the government consider extending the due date by two weeks to enable vendors to prepare optimal proposals?

An extension has been provided. Reference the new proposal submission deadline in SAM.gov. 1. Yes, 16PBGC20C0024 is the correct contract number and is awarded to Lynchval Systems Worldwide on 9/1/2020, expiring 8/31/25?

2. Yes

3. No, this is a competitive proposal for all eligible small businesses.

4.

a) No, we are not considering Key personnel.

b) No, there is no Key personnel submission requirement.

c) As long as the resources are capable and meeting all requirements offerors are permitted to combine positions.

5) No, the current PIMS system does not use any proprietary software that would advantage one offeror.

6) Attachment 3 identifies (NEEDS RESPONSE)

7. An extension will be provided and the proposal submission deadline is now 05/22/25 @ 4 PM. Mindbank Consulting Group David Ethridge <David.Ethridge@mindbank.com>

1) [No reference]: Is there an incumbent contractor? If so, what is its name and contract number?

This is a recompete of 16PBGC20C0024 - Lychval Systems Worldwide is the current incumbent performing these services.

2) [No reference]: If there is an incumbent contractor, has the scope or size of the contract changed in any nontrivial way between the incumbent contract and the present solicitation?

The scope and size of the contract has changed to Firm-Fixed price which including changes to how the requirement is priced. The scope has been modified to incorporate requirements and continued operations after SE PIMS decommissioning.

3) [No reference]: If there is no incumbent contractor, then are there existing contractor(s) that are doing some of the work of this PWS? If so, what are their name(s) and contract number(s)?

N/A

4) [No reference]: If there are no contractors doing any of the work currently, then how is the work of the PWS being done? Or is it not being done at all?

N/A

5) [No reference]: If the work of the PWS is not being done at all right now, then is there a backlog that the incoming contractor will have to handle? If so, please explain and describe how much of a backlog there is.

N/A

6) [No reference]: If there is an incumbent contract, is the scope and estimated workload for the present solicitation approximately the same as for the incumbent contract?

No, the scope has been modified to incorporate requirements for SE PIMS decommissioning, but with continued operations of ME PIMS thereafter. The estimated workload for this requirement projects a reduction of work and services based on the decommissioning of SE-PIMS.

7) [No reference]: What is the estimated workload for this PWS?

For workload and pricing related information see Attachment 2: Legacy PIMS Task Map and Labor Projections for additional details.

8) PWS 3.2(1): What is the approximate monthly or annual volume of user-reported issues or tickets for the ME-PIMS and SE-PIMS models, so we may estimate the level of effort for O&M tasks?

NEED Kevin Response

9) PWS 3.1: Are there any specific minimum actuarial credentials (e.g., ASA, FSA, EA) or security clearance requirements for the personnel who will support actuarial studies and modeling?

There are no minimum creditial requirements. Competitiveness is based on the factors outlined in the solicitation. No security clearance is required beyond Public Trust.

10) PWS 3.2(17) & 3.2(18)(VI): Has the Government identified a tentative month or year for triggering the decommissioning of Legacy SE PIMS, or is it purely event-driven by the new PIMS system’s Authority to Operate?

SE PIMS is currently projected for decommissioning at the end of the base year period of performance.

11) PWS 3.3(8)-(9): Does PBGC require specific automated testing tool standards or code coverage thresholds (e.g., 80% coverage) for unit, regression, or performance testing?

No.

12) PWS 3.4.4: Beyond standard project/status meetings, are there recurring governance board meetings or other formal work sessions (e.g., IPT sessions) that the contractor is required to schedule, facilitate, or attend at a set frequency?

Currently no, only standard project status meetings are required.

13) PWS 3.4.6: The PWS states a 60-day transition-in period and a transition-out plan 30 days before contract end. Beyond these, does PBGC require any overlap (e.g., shadowing period) between incumbent and successor contractor staff for knowledge transfer?

No, there is no further overlap beyond the 60 day transition in and 30 days transition out.

14) PWS 3.1–3.2: What is the estimated number of active PBGC end-users (or user groups) who regularly run the Legacy PIMS models, so that we can plan concurrent user support and training sessions?

For each of the PIMS model, there are primarily two PBGC end-users and a few additional intermittent end-users, but these specific end-users vary by model.

15) [No reference]: Does the Government require any specific background checks (e.g., Public Trust) or other personnel security clearances for contractor staff? Will contract staff be issued Government laptops to access PIMS?

Public Trust is required for staff. Yes PBGC will issue Governement approved laptops and all work shall be performed on Governement approved devices.

16) Solicitation Section 4.1(b)(1): For the Price Analysis, does the Government want contractors to provide a detailed labor breakdown (e.g., labor categories, hours, indirect costs) for each CLIN, or is a single firm-fixed price per CLIN sufficient with minimal cost detail?

KEVIN RESPONSE. BISD would like to see it although it is not required. Need to confirm if in PWS.

17) Solicitation Section 1.2, CLINs 0004, 0006–0010, etc.: Each Technical Assistance Request CLIN references “3 EA.” Are these three discrete requests per period, or is “3 EA” a not-to-exceed quantity? How should we interpret the scope of each TA request?

The quantity of 3 EA for each Techincal Assistance CLIN states a maximum quantity for the individual CLIN. The total number of TA requests in a single year can vary significantly, so Optional CLINs for Technical Assistance Requests have been added to the pricing schedule in quantities of 3 to manage the possibility of additional Technical Assistance Requests being requested and performed by the contractor. Scope can be determined by referring to the "Technical Assistance (TA) Requests" section of PWS section 3.0 as well as referring to Attachment 2: Legacy PIMS Task Map and Labor Projections for additional details.

18) Solicitation Section 1.2, CLINs 0011–0012 & equivalents in option periods: For Special Project requests (1 EA each), what typical size or duration should we assume (e.g., an experience study spanning several months versus smaller one-off analyses) so we can accurately price these CLINs?

Per PWS section 3, Special Project requests are independent from requests for Technical Assistance and are longer-term in nature. An example includes a project to perform the data and actuarial analysis to complete an experience study for a PIMS assumption. Smaller one-off analyses are not expected to be included.

19) Solicitation Section 1.2 Pricing Schedule: May we combine different labor categories (actuaries, developers, IT support, etc.) within a single CLIN to derive our firm-fixed price, or should each CLIN reflect a single labor category rate?

A fixed price should be proposed for each CLIN. The Labor mix shall be determined by the contractor.

In order to estimate labor effort, and therefore price, for each of the CLINs, we have the following questions:

20) PWS 3.2: Could the Government provide any historical or forecasted monthly incident ticket volume (including severity or complexity breakdown) for both Legacy ME-PIMS and SE-PIMS, so we can estimate the O&M effort?

21) PWS 3.2(1)–(15): Is there a typical schedule or baseline set of routine maintenance tasks (e.g., environment monitoring, backups, periodic system checks) for ME-PIMS and SE-PIMS? If so, how many hours per month do these typically require?

There are no typical schedule for maintenance tasks done for the SE Model by the development team.

The ME PIMS model is contained within a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and therefore O&M is highly limited to troubleshooting problems within Excel and expected to be significantly lower effort than O&M for SE PIMS.

22) PWS 3.2: Approximately how many system patches or upgrades (OS, database, or application-level) do you anticipate per year for both ME-PIMS and SE-PIMS, and what is the expected complexity (low/medium/high) of these patches? Approximatley 1-2 system patches are expected annually, of low-medium complexity.

23) PWS 3.2(7): How many audit activities (e.g., internal, external, FISMA-related) are expected each year, and how many hours of contractor support have been historically needed for these audits (e.g., data gathering, responding to findings)?

24) PWS 3.4.5: How many user training sessions are typically requested per year (for ME-PIMS and/or SE-PIMS), and what is the average number of attendees or session duration?

User training sessions are infrequent and there have not been any in the past few years. Ad hoc training may be requested for a new end-user that joins PRAD, although these have not been requested in recent years.

25) PWS 3.2(11): How many Disaster Recovery (DR) tests are planned each year for the Legacy PIMS systems, and can you provide a rough estimate of the level of effort to plan, execute, and document each test? Currently neither SE nor ME PIMS are part of the DR exercises.

26) PWS 3.2(17): Does the Government have an approximate schedule or scope for SE-PIMS decommissioning (e.g., full data archiving, code removal)? If so, can you share any metrics associated with the prospective decommissioning?

SE Decomissioning is expected at the end of the base period PoP. Expected activities include storing the code per Program Office requirements, archiving the dat aper the record management process, disabling user accounts, making sure all existing documents are updated and archived, working with our partners in ITIOD to decomission the associated infrastructure in the devepment, test, and PROD enviornments, and working with our security and privacy team to remove the system from security boundaries.

27) PWS 3.1 & 3.3: On average, how many legislative or regulatory changes require model updates to ME-PIMS or SE-PIMS each year, and what is the typical complexity (e.g., minor vs. major overhaul) of those changes?

The number of Technical Assistance requests requiring model updates varies significantly year-to-year, but is expected to fall within the total range (0 to 18) for all CLINS included in the PWS. Complexity can also vary by request. Refer to the sample hours in Attachment 2 for information about the estimated level of required support.

28) PWS 3.1 & 3.3: For each Projections Report cycle, how many model enhancements or modifications are typically introduced, and how many test cycles (including regression testing) do you usually conduct?

The number of model enhancements or modifications varies by year based on the requirements for that year. For years with significant changes in pension law, additional modifications may be required. For years with little-to-no changes in pension law, a modest number of modifications may be required and more limited to model enhancements. Refer to the sample hours in Attachment 2 for information about the estimated level of required support.

29) PWS 3.2: Approximately how many active end-users regularly run or interact with the Legacy ME-PIMS and SE-PIMS models, and do they typically require concurrent access or ongoing user support?

For each of the PIMS model, there are primarily two PBGC end-users and a few additional intermittent end-users, but these specific end-users vary by model. There is limited need for concurrent access and there is periodic user support required.

Alagant Eli Liang <eli.liang@alagant.com>

30) PWS 3.3 & 3.4: How many Technical Assistance (TA) Requests arise per year on average?

The number of Technical Assistance requests requiring model updates varies significantly year-to-year, but is expected to fall within the total range (0 to 18) for all CLINS included in the PWS.

31) PWS 3.3 & 3.4: What is their typical complexity (e.g., quick policy analysis vs. multi-step modeling)?

Complexity can varies by request. Some requests are very minor updates to the model and other requests require more substantial changes to the programming. Refer to the sample hours in Attachment 2 for information about the estimated level of required support.

32) PWS 3.3 & 3.4: On average, how many model runs or scenarios are required per TA request?

The number of model run varies by request, with the majority of requests requiring 1-3 runs. Occasionally requests can require 4-8 runs.

33) PWS 3.3 & 3.4: Do TA requests usually involve both ME-PIMS and SE-PIMS simultaneously, or just one model?

An individual TA request will typically require one or more runs from either the ME PIMS or the SE PIMS model, but typically not both models in one request.

+A29

34) PWS 3.3 & 3.4: How many review or approval cycles (e.g., stakeholder checks, final sign-offs) are typical for each request?

The offeror must satisy the review requirements outlined in PWS section 3 and the requirements of the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan in PWS section 5. At a minimum, this requires at least one internal quality review prior to providing deliverables to PBGC. PBGC will review delivered work products and assess the quality against the requirements of the PWS. The number of PBGC review and approval cycles can vary, but is expected to be 1 rigorous cycle and 1-2 higher level cycles.

35) PWS 3.4: How many Special Projects do you typically initiate per year, and what is their average scope or duration (e.g., multi-month experience studies vs. short one-off analyses)?

In the past few years we have not initiated any Special Projects, but may require this type of support during the contract's period of performance. Per PWS section 3, Special Project requests are independent from requests for Technical Assistance and are longer-term in nature. An example includes a project to perform the data and actuarial analysis to complete an experience study for a PIMS assumption. Smaller one-off analyses are not expected to be included.

36) PWS 3.4: What phases or tasks are typically required (e.g., data gathering, multiple model runs, final deliverables)?

The anticipated tasks of a Special Project include data collection, data scrubbing and analysis, modeling (which may or may not include PIMS), and reporting. Refer to the sample hours in Attachment 2 for information about the estimated level of required support.

37) PWS 3.4: How many review/approval cycles (e.g., stakeholder or executive review) are common for these projects?

The number of PBGC review and approval cycles varies by Special Project, but is expected to be 1 rigorous cycle and 1-2 higher level cycles.

38) PWS 3.4: Do Special Projects often require effort in both ME-PIMS and SE-PIMS, or typically just one environment?

Some special projects are expected to be completely outside of the PIMS models, such as a data analysis or experience study used to support PIMS model parameters. If a Special Project does incorporate PIMS modeling, it will be for just one of the two models.

Is there an incumbent? If there is an incumbent, what is the incumbent contract number?

This is a recompete of 16PBGC20C0024 - Lychval Systems Worldwide is the current incumbent performing these services.

If there is an incumbent, how many FTEs are currently supporting these requirements?

There is no full time equivalent requirement. The contractor is responsible for determining labor mix and meeting the requirement outline in the solicitation.

Is PBGC open to modernizing its processes to include using AI?

PBGC will review all proposals that meet the solicitation requirements.

Are there any other programming languages we should be aware of for SE PIMS and T-PIMS?

The programming lanaguges required to complete the requirements of the PWS are C++ and c# for SE PIMS, and VBA for ME PIMS. PBGC end-users utilize SAS and Python for separate purposes, but use of SAS and Python is not required to complete the requirements.

Confirm Volume 1 is only 3 pages.

This volume shall not exceed three (3) typed pages using a minimum of 10-point font. The page count does not include the cover page.

Confirm table of contents will not be included in the page count for Volume 1.

The page count does not include the cover page. The contractor may include a table of contents on the cover page.

Confirm there is no technical or management approach requirement.

There is no technical or management approach requirement.

Twhite Parker Shaunesy Behrens <shaunesy.behrens@twhiteparker.com>

@Zhang Bowen @Muse Kevin

Reformat Questions Fixed Income Investment Service Questions

16PBGC25R0062

Sheet2