RFP_Amendment_04.pdf

Research Service Section Support

Amendment of Solicitation No. RFP N02TR-17-4002

Amendment No.: 04

Amendment date: 7/20/2017

Due Date for Proposals: August 2, 2017. 3:00 pm Eastern (unchanged)

Issued by:

National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences NINDS R&D Contracts Management Branch 6001 Executive Boulevard Suite 3287, MSC 9531 Bethesda, Maryland 20892-9531

Primary Point of Contact: Secondary Point of Contact:

Jeffrey Schmidt, Contracting Officer Stuart Kern, Contract Specialist Phone: (301) 402-1488 Phone: (301) 402-3334 E-Mail: schmidtjr@mail.nih.gov E-Mail: stuart.kern@nih.gov

NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR: To All Offerors

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth below. Offerors must acknowledge receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT 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 letter, provided each letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

PURPOSE: To respond to questions submitted to the Government

All other terms and conditions of the RFP remain unchanged.

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS

1. Question: Would the Government please consider opening the acquisition to WOSB in the $27.5M size standard?

This solicitation is issued under NAICS Sector 54, Professional, Scientific and Technical Services, NAICS Code 541990, All Other Professional, Scientific and Technical Services. The size standard set by the SBA for this industry is $15 million. The Government will not consider a different size standard for this acquisition.

2. Given the extent of questions, would the Government consider an extension to the due date? An extension of at least 10 days would permit the offerors to incorporate the government's answers to any questions received into our solutions and proposal response.

The Government will not extend the due date for proposals. Proposals are due August 2, 2017, by 3:00 (local time).

3. Please confirm that the cost estimates provided in Section L, f. Estimate of Material Costs function as “plug numbers”, meaning that Offerors do not need to estimate or price those materials. Also, please clarify whether those Section L estimates should be included in the Offeror’s proposed ceiling prices, in the Article B.2 table.

Materials cost included in Section L.1.f, Estimate of Material Costs, are illustrative, and offerors should propose such costs as will accomplish the work described in the SOW. Offerors should include material costs, including handling costs, in the proposed ceiling price.

4. Generally the term “transition in” refers to an incumbent contractor being replaced by a new contractor. As a simple point of clarification, is there an incumbent? If not, does the government desire to assess how the startup will be planned?

NCATS ITRB (Information Technology Resources Branch) is composed of two sections, the Information Technology Services section and the Research Services section, that are supported by shared contract-subcontract arrangements. NCATS is separating the support for these sections through this solicitation, which will support the Research Services Section, and a separate solicitation under the NITAAC CIO-SP3 Small Business GWAC that will support the Information Technology Services Section.

5. The concern is timing from award and identification of personnel to be on board. Are there provisions for interim work pending approval of the individuals in their processing of clearances?

Please confirm that the government requires all personnel to be onsite the day after award to participate in transition with the government personnel currently performing the functions required by the SOW.

The functions identified by the SOW are currently performed by contract personnel. The draft transition-in plan should address the issues identified in this question, including plans for personnel retention, rebadging, replacement, recruiting, training, etc.

6. The referenced website [H.7.A.b.2, HHS HSPD-12 Policy Document, v. 2.0] appears inactive; could the government provide the full text of this requirement?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/memoranda/2005/m05-24.pdf https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/memoranda/2005/m05-24.pdf

7. The referenced website [H.7.B.2, Standard for Security Configurations] requires a user name and password. Can the government please provide the policy document or provide username/password information?

The link referenced at RFP Section H.7.B.2 points to an internal NIH web page. For the purposes of this RFP, refer to the USGCB standard at https://usgcb.nist.gov/.

8. For planning purposes, can the government identify approximately how much time is required for the training [Information Security and Privacy Training, required by H.7.D and H.7.E]?

The training for the requirements listed in H.7.D and H.7.E is satisfied by the NIH Information Security training course and NIH Privacy Awareness course. The courses take 30-60 minutes each.

9. Please confirm proposals are to be submitted electronically per page 2 of the solicitation transmittal letter signed by Mr. Schmidt and not in paper media format as described in Section L.

Proposals must be submitted electronically, as described in Attachment J.1, “Packaging and Delivery of Proposals for Use with the NIH electronic Contract Proposal Submission (eCPS) Website.” Do not submit paper copies. Remember to create an account in the NIH electronic Contract Proposal Submission system well in advance of the due date.

10. Please confirm that this requirement [Section L.1.b.2, requiring end items delivered by a WOSB to be produced by small business concerns in the United States] does not apply to the materials anticipated in Section L, f. Estimate of Material Costs and the SOW Section 2.1.9.

The materials anticipated by Section L and the SOW are services, and are excluded from the production/sourcing requirements of Section L.1.b.2.

11. Please confirm that the government wants all direct cost data included in the technical proposal instead of the customary placement which is the business volume.

Section L.2.4, Separation of Technical and Business Proposals, requires direct cost (i.e. fully loaded labor rates) and resource information to be included in the technical proposal. Offerors should be aware of the distinction between fully loaded applicable rates for a labor category (part of the technical proposal) versus salary information for individuals that the offeror may pay an individual filling that labor category (part of the business proposal).

12. Please confirm that a separate cover page with the items required is to be included in each volume, both the Technical Proposal and Business Proposal, and not as a separate file submission.

Yes, there should be a cover page for each volume.

13. If proposal is to be submitted electronically, is there a need to indicate on the cover page whether the proposal is an original or a copy?

https://usgcb.nist.gov/

No.

14. Please confirm that the metric system of measurement is not applicable to this requirement.

Offerors should comply with Section L.2.a.8, Use of the Metric System of Measurement, where appropriate.

15. Please confirm that past performance contracts from proposed subcontractors may be used.

See Amendments 01 and 03 to the RFP, which provide that the Government will accept all recent and relevant past performance information, and not limit it to contracts for which the offeror was the prime contractor.

16. Given that many WOSB have contracts similar in scope, complexity, and value have a period of performance that may be outside the 3-year recency period, will the government consider allowing past performance performed within the past 5 years if it is relevant and similar in size, scope and complexity?

The Government will consider information about past performance that is recent and information about past performance that is relevant.

17. What is the relationship between RFP Section L.2.a.13, Past Performance Information (RFP p. 44) and RFP Section L.2.c.7.d, Qualifications of the Offeror – Pertinent Contracts (RFP p. 63)?

Submission of the information requested under L.2.a.13, Past Performance Information, will satisfy the information requested under sub-paragraph L.2.c.7.d, Pertinent Contracts, with two caveats: (1) explain the relevance of the work to this RFP, and (2) address the actual delivery and cost performance versus delivery and cost agreed to in the contracts. Note that the request under Past Performance Information for the program manager’s name and telephone number refers to the agency program manager (i.e. the COR or the program office contact) and not the offeror’s program manager.

18. Please confirm the government will accept the bidder’s final financial statement for the company’s most recently completed fiscal year as its annual financial report.

Yes.

19. If the Prime Offeror is not assessed at CMMI Maturity Level 3, will the government favorably evaluate a team wherein a major subcontractor is assessed at Maturity Level 3? Also, could another quality certification such as ISO be evaluated positively to demonstrate the desired organizational commitment to managed processes and performance?

See Amendment 02 to the RFP, which removes CMMI-DEV maturity level 3 as a separate evaluation factor, and provides that third-party assessments and certifications will be considered along with any other evidence of organizational experience, but are not required and will not be considered as stand-alone factors.

20. Please confirm that only RFP Attachments 4, 5, and 7 are required to be completed and included with the Business Proposal submission.

Correct.

21. Please confirm there is no page limit for the Business Volume.

There is no page limit for the business volume.

22. What type assays are used with the Kalypsys automation systems?

NCATS processes biochemical and cell-based assays with a variety of detection modes.

23. Is it the government’s intent for the Principal Investigator/Project Director and the Scientific Program Manager to be one and the same based on the duties of the position? Please confirm that the Scientific Program Manager and the Principal Project Manager are classified as key.

Titles/categories included in Section L.1.e, Estimate of Labor Categories, are illustrative, and offerors may propose such categories as will accomplish the work described in the SOW. The Government expects that roles as scientific program manager and principal project manager would be designated as key, but offerors may propose their own job titles or labor categories, as well as any other positions that they consider to be key.

24. Are the Scientific Program Manager/Principal Investigator, Principal Project Manager both required to be PMP certified?

The Government requires PMP-certified project management support, but does not require that specific positions be certified.

25. Does the Government expect any portion of the support required by the solicitation to be performed at the Contractor’s location?

The Government expects most or all of the support to be provided onsite. Offerors should identify whether they expect to provide any services from the offeror’s location.

26. Is the Government requiring an approach to meeting all security requirements, or an explicit acknowledgement/confirmation that it will comply with all the security requirements? If an approach is required, is this Information Security section EXCLUDED from page count given the extent of the requirements?

The IT security requirements in the RFP have deliverable dates after award of the contract. Offerors should provide sufficient detail in their technical proposals that the Government can evaluate the offeror’s ability to meet those security requirements in a timely manner; however, detailed security plans are not required prior to award.

27. Can the government provide the citation and background for this clause [L.12 52.203-98 Prohibition on Contracting with Entities that Require Certain Internal Confidentiality Agreements

– Representation (Deviation)]?

The RFP is amended to DELETE the clause at Section L.2.a.12, 52.203-98 Prohibition on Contracting with Entities that Require Certain Internal Confidentiality Agreements – Representation (Deviation), and to INCORPORATE BY REFERENCE FAR 52.203-18, Prohibition on Contracting with Entities that Require Certain Internal Confidentiality Agreements or Statements – Representation, and FAR 52.203-19, Prohibition on Requiring Certain Internal Confidentiality Agreements or Statements.