RFP_Amendment_01.pdf

(If applicable)

JTL (If other than Item 6)

(No., street, county, State and ZIP Code)

(SEE ITEM 11)

November 21

(SEE ITEM 13)

(If required)

(Specify authority)

(such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, etc.)

(Specify type of modification and authority)

(Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

12 Dec 21

(Type or print (Type or print)

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer) 12/11/2018

Request for Proposal Amendment No. 01 NIHDA2018000362 Page 2 of 4

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS

QUESTION 1: Are there any page limits or instructions about margins and format that we should follow?

RESPONSE 1: There are no defined instructions regarding margins and formats however, all images and fonts must be completely legible and submitted in a font size that can be easily read. The recommended type density and size is between 10 to 12 points.

There are no page limits or restrictions, Offerors are encouraged to provide a complete description addressing all requirements and criteria as stated in the RFP. The description must be cohesive and include sufficient information to allow evaluation by reviewers and NIH staff. However, Offerors are also encouraged to be economical when preparing a response and can reference duplicative information addressed in various sections of Technical Proposal when practicable and (as stated on page 66 of the RFP) the Technical Proposal and Business Proposal shall be separate and complete in itself so that evaluation of one may be accomplished independently of, and concurrently with, evaluation of the other.

QUESTION 2: Regarding the independent assessment (page 9 of the RFP): what criteria are used to determine the independence of the organization conducting an independent assessment? Specifically, can the group be at a different unit, but at the same institution as the group requiring an independent assessment? If not, can the costs for obtaining an external independent assessment be included in the budget?

RESPONSE 2: The criterion for Independent Assessors have been defined by National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (see excerpt below) which requires the assessors to be impartial to the system during any stage of the Systems development life cycle (SDLC).

Assessors can be from within the same institution or external, however, they require technical knowledge of the environment and should be well versed in NIST guidelines.

If the assessor is hired externally, budget allocations are typically made prior to implementing the system.

From NIST 800-37 RMF Section 3.4:

“An independent assessor is any individual or group capable of conducting an impartial assessment of security controls employed within or inherited by an information system.

Impartiality implies that assessors are free from any perceived or actual conflicts of interest with respect to the development, operation, and/or management of the information system or the determination of security control effectiveness… Independent security control assessment services can be obtained from other elements within the organization or can be contracted to a public or private sector entity outside of the organization. Contracted assessment services are considered independent if the information system owner is not directly involved in the contracting process or cannot unduly influence the independence of the assessor(s) conducting the assessment of the security controls.”

NIHDA2018000362 Page 3 of 4

QUESTION 3: In Qualifications of the Offeror (page 95 of the RFP), should we only include Government contracts in the section on Pertinent Contracts?

RESPONSE 3: As stated on page 95 of the RFP, “Pertinent contracts is defined as a listing of each related contract completed within the last three years or currently in process.” This would include both public and private contracts.

QUESTION 4: In Qualifications of the Offeror (page 96 of the RFP), for the section on Pertinent Grants: How far back should we report this or is this referring only to current grants? Also, should we report about any cooperative agreements?

RESPONSE 4: As stated on page 96 of the RFP, Offerors should list any grants supported by the Government, that demonstrate the relevant work experience to that called for in the RFP. Offerors should report relevant experiences that have been recently completed as well as those which are ongoing.

QUESTION 5: In the Qualifications of the Offeror, how does performance history (page 95 and 96 of the RFP) differ from Pertinent Contracts and Grants?

RESPONSE 5: The Pertinent Contracts and Pertinent Grants Sections should list specific relevant work experience, while the Performance History Section should provide a description of how the Offeror has met contract objectives within delivery and cost schedules on efforts, either past or on-going, which is comparable or related to the effort required by this RFP.

QUESTION 6: To address past performance information (as described on page 69 of the RFP), can we add the additional information (e.g. NAICS code; contact information of the program officer etc..) to the Qualifications of the Offeror instead of repeating the information in two sections?

RESPONSE 6: Please refer to the second paragraph of RESPONSE 1. Given this response, additional information may be added to a specific section and referenced in a later section so long as both sections provide sufficient information to allow evaluation by reviewers and NIH staff.

QUESTION 7: Please clarify the submission of the excel budget spreadsheet and format of file.

The cover letter indicates submitting the spreadsheet using secureemail.nih.gov (format not specified, i.e. excel or PDF) and Attachment 1-Packaging & Delivery gives instructions to submit the spreadsheet in both formats using the eCPS system. Does the spreadsheet need to be submitted through both systems?

RESPONSE 7: Offerors are instructed to follow the proposal submission instructions detailed in “Attachment 1 - Packaging and Delivery of Proposals for Use with the NIH electronic Contract Proposal Submission (eCPS) Website”.

QUESTION 8: Where can we find descriptions of the required labor categories (e.g. on page 19 of the RFP - professional, professional support, administrative support, other support) so that we can allocate the proposed staff to the applicable category?

RESPONSE 8: The labor categories used in the RFP are intentionally broad in nature to encourage Offerors to utilize originality and innovation in determining how to designate

NIHDA2018000362 Page 4 of 4 its resources and accomplish the required work. The general rule for the individual classification of the labor categories can be found within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) under 29 CFR 541. When preparing the proposal, Offerors should identify each individual job title and correlate it to the applicable labor category.

Again, the intent is to afford Offerors the ability to develop an innovative and cost-effective approach to support the programmatic needs of the Government and complete the requirements defined in the Statement of Work.

[End of Page Intentionally Left Blank]