MCC-11-0018-RFQ A01.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

1. Contract ID Code

___________________________,______________,________________L______-,_____J

2. Amendment/Modification No.

AOI

3. Effective Date

See Block 16C

4. Requisition/Purchase Req. No.

Page of Pages

6. Issued By CodeMCC 7. Administered By (If other than Item 6) Code

Millennium Challenge Corporation

875 Fifteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20005

Liz Sandoval sandoval~/n)mcc.aov 202-521-7886

9A. Amendment of Solicitation No.8. Name and Address of Contractor (No., Street, County, and Zip Code) ~ Mrr-l1-00 1R-R FO 9B. Date (See Item 11)

December 3 2010

10A. Modification of Contract/Order No.

10B. Date (See Item 13)

Code IFacility Code

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

~~The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in item 14. I he hour and date specified for receipt of Offers U 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 1 copies of the 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 ACKNOWLEDG

MENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT

IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you 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.

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACT/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

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 fourth 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 I Iis not, IX Iis reauired to sian this document and return 1 COpy to the issuing office. _______________L--L-__ ......__-'---.L£.>~'-'-"'-'''_'!.!.!.'''''-~"''''-'--''-'-""---''''''''''''CJ..!2lJ..;.B~l.!iU.\!.llL_''_'''''''''_''__'''..l!.!.S<~l!e!ill~~''''--_____________

14. Description of Amendment/Modification (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible)

The purpose of this Amendment is to provide responses to questions concerning solicitation MCC-ll

0018-RFQ. Responses are in bold.

(Continued)

Except as provided herein, ali 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)

James R. Blades 202.521.7255

15B. Contractor/Offeror

(Si nature of person authorized to si n)

15C. Date Signed

Contracting Officer

16B. 16C. Date Signed

NSN 7540-01-152-8070 30-105 STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

PREVIOUS EDITIONS UNUSABLE Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Question 1. lr; there an incumbent firm providing this support now?

Question 2. Can you advise !fthere is an incumbentfor the work required in the RFQ or if there is afirm that is currently providing work and/or counseling support ofa similar nature such that it might be reasonably be considered as an incumbent?

Question 3. I was wondering ifyou could confirm for me that a contract exists that is currently implementing this technical supportfor the OCIO's Front Qffice-that this is indeed not a new requirement.

Question 4. I was wondering ifyou could help me by answering a quick question regarding the requirement stated above. I know that the Background section ofthe RFQ/SOW stated that an external vendor made recommendationsforfuture work on this effort, but I am trying to determine ifthis (Solicitation #: MCCll0018RFQ) is a new requirement or not. Will this requirement be different than what the previous vendor did? Also, could you please provide the vendor's name, contract number, award date, expiration date. and value ofthat previous contract? Any information you could provide regarding this requirement would be greatly appreciated. Thank youfor your time and have a great day!

Question 5. Are there incumbent(s) for this contract or who is currently doing similar work?

Will MCC provide the names and POCs? Are they precludedfrom bidding on this initiative?

Question 6. Is there currently an incumbent contractor performing this work?

Question 7. Are there any incumbents to this solicitation?

Question 8. Are there other, competing, contract vehicles in place? rfso, willihis replace them?

./ Which ones?

./ When do they expire?

Response to Questions 1 through 8. There is no predecessor contract.

Question 9. Will the MCC provide the names and POCs ofthe vendors that have performed IV& Vfor the OCIO? Is the work directly related to the work to be performed on the sample task? Is this vendor(s) precludedfrom teaming or bidding as a prime on this initiative? Do you consider this vendor~r;) to be an incumbentfor this initiative? Will MCCprovide the vendor community with copies ofthe previous IVV contract(r;)? What is anticipated will change?

Response to Question 9. Only one Independent Validation and Validation (IV&V) requirement has been accomplished by the MCC in recent months. The RSR Company completed a contract for IV&V of the MCC Integrated Data Analysis System (MIDAS) in 2010. No. This requirement is not restrictive beyond the designated set~aside category. See

Page 2 of8 A01 MCC-ll-0018-RFQ

Answers to Questions 1 through 8. Copies of MCC contracts or other Federal Government records shouldbe requested in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act.

Question 10. What firm conducted the Oct '09 assessment ofthe MCC's ECMprogram? Are they restrictedfrom pursuing MCC- J 1-0 J 8-RFQ and any future ECM development and/or implementation efforts?

Response to Question 10. The 2009 assessment was conducted by CGI. See also response to questions 14 throughl6.

Question 11. Will there be any considerationfor extending the response datefor this requirement?

Question 12. Tri-Cor Industries, Inc. is a Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business and would request that the solicitation due date be extended in order to provide sufficient time to prepare a response.

Response to Questions 11 and 12. An extension is not anticipated at this time.

Question 13. Was there an RFIfor this opportunity? (We would like to make certain that we didn't miss anything ofa substantive nature regarding this opportunity.)

Response to Question 13. No RFI was issued.

Question 14. On page one it states that "This Acquisition is Set Aside JOO%for Service Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business". Ifyou could please verifY that these are the only types ofbusinesses that are able to respond I would appreciate it.

Question 15. Intentionally left blank.

Question 16. Are companies being encouraged to form teams

Response to Questions 14 through 16. The contract is Set Aside 100% for Service Disabled Veteran-Owned Businesses. Reference FAR 52.219-27 NOTICE of Total Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Set-Aside (MAY 2004), which is set forth in full text on pages 20 and 21 of the solicitation. The solicitation does not mention "teaming". Offerors are free to make business decisions around teaming so long as the offer submitted is compliant with the solicitation.

Question 17. Will MCC provide the vendor community the name(s) and POC(s) ofthe vendor(s) that designed and implemented the SharePoint Architecture solution? 1s this vendor(s) precludedfrom teaming or bidding as a prime on this initiative? Do you consider this vendor(s) to be an incumbentfor this initiative? What challenges in the SharePoint architecture does the OCIO feel need to be addressed under this procurement?

Page 3 of8 AOI MCC-ll-0018-RFQ

Response to Question 17. Booz Allen Hamilton is the Contractor. Also, see response to Questions 8, and 14 through 16. Challenges include strategy, oversight, design, & IV&V.

Question 18. What version ofSharePoint Services or SharePoint Server is currently deployed on MCC's intranet and extranet? Who is managing it, and what role they will play in the migration, ifany? Who is primarily re,sponsiblefor the Infrastructure management and administration? What is the expected cut-overlmigrationfrom the current system to the new one?

Does MCC have all the necessary hardware and software & licenses to migrate to SP2010? if No, what is the typical length for its IT HWISW acquisition cycle?

Response to Question 18. The MCC is currently on SP 2007 both internally and on the extranet. The MCC is in the process of planning and migrating to SP 2010 for both the intranet and extranet. The contractor is CSC. TheMCC anticipates a June 2011 cutover.

MCC has the vehicles in place to migrate. The typical acquisition cycle is 90 days;

however the MCC intends to move to a cloud environment.

Question 19. Will MCCprovide the vendor community with the name(,s) and POC(s) ofthe vendor(s) that developed the GCIG Information Security Plan (ISP)? Is this vendor(s) precluded .from teaming or bidding as a prime on this initiative? Do you consider this vendor(s) to be an incumbent for this initiative? What challenges is OCIO facing with the extranet in terms of security or other issues?

Response to Question 19. The contractor is Iron Vine Security. At this time there are no specific security challenges to address. See also response to questions 1 through 8, and questions 14 through 16.

Question 20. Are there some incumbents that have an inherent Organizational Conflict of Interest? Will MCC provide the names ofthese companies so we can ensure we are not contacting them for potential teaming? Will incumbents be allowed to bid on IVVportions ofthe contract? Will contractors who have done IVV work at MCC be allowed to bid on this initiative?

Response to Question 20. See responses to question 1 through 8, and 14 through 16.

Question 21. Will MCC provide the vendor community "with the name and POC ofthe vendor that developed the assessment ofthe current status ofMCC 's Enterprise Content Management (ECM) program? Is this vendor(s) precludedfrom teaming or bidding as a prime on this initiative? Do you consider this vendor(.\) to be an incumbent for this initiative?

Response to Question 21. CGI completed the assessment. See also response to Questions 1 through 8 and Questions 14 through 16.

Question 22. Will MCC provide the vendor community "with access to a reading library that contains the following documents during the proposal development phase? ifnot what are risks ofproviding this information to the vendor community bidding on this opportunity? Are there ways the risks can be mitigated in order to provide these documents:

Page 4 of8

../ Documentation ofcurrent MCC business processes

../ High-level requirements and goals for document management, records management and business process workflow

../ An ECM implementation plan

../ An enterprise Data Model ofMCC unstructured data to the Subject Area, Conceptual, and Conceptual Entity Model levels

../ A proposed structurefor the MCC Governance Board to include roles and responsibilities

../ An analysis ofthe level to which MCC's current set ofECM tools support ident~fied business requirement.

Response to Question 22. No reading library is available.

Question 23. Has an assessment (internal or external) ever been performed on MCC's IT Governance (or any ofits components)? What were the results/maturity levels?

Response to Question 23. Yes, the OIG performed an audit. The results of the audit are pending.

Question 24. Are any IT Governance bodies currently active within MCC? Ifyes, what are the challenges they are facing?

Response to Question 24. MCC has an Enterprise Architecture Steering Committee in place. There are no challenges at this time.

Question 25. Has MCC considered other IT Governance frameworks, and how was it decided that COBIT was the best to implement within its organization?

Response to Question 25. MCC IT Governance audits are based on COBIT standards.

Question 26. What tool('i) is MCC currently using/or managing its ITpor(folio and programs/projects?

Response to Question 26. MCC does not have a current tool in place.

Question 27. What information is MCC willing to prOVide the vendor community about your Administration and Finance Integrated System (AFIS)? Could this information be provided in the reading library?

Page 5 of8 AOl MCC-ll-OOl8-RFQ

Response to Question 27. The AFIS solution will be a federal Line of Business. See also response to Question 22.

Question 28. Will MCC provide or direct us to their latest strategic vision, and plan?

Response to Question 28. The Fy-2008-2010 IT Strategic Plan is hereby attached.

Question 29. Will MCC provide the vendor community with a proposal format? It appears the technical evaluation criteria is geared primarily toward the sample task. How should the vendors address the other requirements discussed in the RFP beyond the scope ofIV& V? How are they included in the evaluation criteria?

__ Question 30. Will MCC be scoring past performance and resumes from subcontractors or just the prime?

Response to Questions 29 and 30. Instructions for proposal submission are contained in Section L, pages 32 to 38 of the RFQ. The Evaluation Factors are contained in Section M, pages 38 to 42. The Evaluation Criteria is listed in paragraph M.3, page 40. Past Performance submission instructions are detailed at paragraph L.4. Past Performance will be evaluated in accordance with paragraph M.3.3.

Question 31. What organizations will be the primary users ofthe contract?

Question 32. Is it anticipated offices outside the DCID will use the vehicle? What is the process for awarding task orders? What is the typical turnaround time on task awards?

Question 33. Ifother offices will use the vehicle is there a contracting fee associated with task awards? How much?

Response to Questions 31 through 33. It is not anticipated that other offices outside the MCC DCID will use the contract vehicle. The process of awarding task orders and the turnaround time will depend on the individual task order, reference paragraph H.7, page 18 of the RFQ.

Question 34. Can you tell us who might be on the selection panel? Both technical and the contracting office? Which MCC organizations will likely be represented?

Page 6 of8

Response to Question 34. MCC does not reveal the members of source selection panels.

Question 35. What type ofcontract do you plan to make? E.g., T&AI, FFP, CPFF, other?

Response to Question 35. Reference paragraph B.1, page 3: "This is a solicitation for an Indefinite DeliverylIndefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract ... Task Orders may be issued on a Firm-Fixed Price or Time-and-Materials basis." Task Order 01 will be firm fixed price, reference paragraph L.5, page 37.

Question 36. What is the expected value of awards? Per year?

Response to Question 36. The contract ceiling is stated at paragraph B.3, page 3.

Question 37. When do you expect to make an award?

Response to Question 37. Contract award is anticipated in January 2011.

Question 38. Will the MCC commit any resources to centrally support internal document coordination and collection? Will the awarded IV& V contractor have access to the Oct '09 as.s·essment documentation?

Response to Question 38. The only resources provided would be access to Sharepoint. All available necessary documentation will be provided upon contract award.

Question 39. Will MCC provide the IV& V contractor with jacilities and workstations for Task Order 01? The IDIQ states the place ofperformance will be at the MCC HQ and that MCC will provide the contractor with work'itations with a PC and phone. Section B - Scope - in Task Order 01 states that the contractor will provide all necessary jacilities and equipment.

Response to Question 39. Paragraph B Scope, page 47 is restated as follows:

"The Contractor shall provide all necessary personnel, facilities, equipment, supplies, transportation, and services required to provide IV &V services for MCC's ECM system.

As necessary and appropriate, MCC will provide a suitable workstation, including computer and telephone at the MCC headquarters location in Washington DC."

Question 40. To planfor the required completion ofthe IV&V Assessment Presentation, approximately how many days after the MCC Contracfing Officer'S response to the IV& V provider's Drajt Assessment do you expect to schedule the project completion?

Page 70f8 A01 MCC-ll-0018-RFQ

Response to Question 40. Reference paragraph D. Deliverables pages 51 and 52 of the

RFQ.

Question 41. Is the response to the Sample Task order counted against the 25 pages allowed in

Volume 1 Technical and Past Performance?

Response to Question 41.

The page limit of the Technical and Past Performance Proposal specified under Paragraph

L.l c, page 35 of the RFQ is changed from 25 pages to 35 pages, which includes the

Technical Proposal response to the Sample Task Order.

Question 42. What levels ofsecurity clearance are needed?

Response to Question 42. Security requirements are contained at MCC 52.204-71 SECURITY REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL (MAR 2006), pages

-27 to 30 of the RFQ.

Page 8 of8 AOl MCC-ll-00l8-RFQ