Questions_and_Answers_-_7_29_2016.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 25 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Actuarial Support Services Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- PBGC01-RP-17-0002
- Issued by
- Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
About this file
AMENDMENT 01 - CONTINUATION QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| FormSF30_-_AMENDMENT_03-SIGNED.pdf | ||
| PBGC01-RP-17-0002-02_-_SIGNED.pdf | ||
| PBGC01-RP-17-0002-02_Questions_and_Answers_-_8_2_2016.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| SF_30_-_AMENDMENT_I_-_SIGNED_7_29_2016.pdf | ||
| PBGC01-RP-17-0002.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| RFP Document or Attached Reference | ||||
| (or state "General") | Paragraph No. | Offeror Question | Government Answers | |
| Page 3, SF 1449 | Continuation of Blocks 23 and 24 | Q1)What Unit Price and Amount are to be entered here? The sum of hourly rates plus $50,000 in Other Direct Costs from the Pricing Schedule on page 7 – 9, Section B.9? | Section B shall be completed in its entirety per the instructions listed in the solicitation. | |
| Page 3, SF 1449 | Continuation of Blocks 23 and 24 | Q1) Is the anticipated Base Period start Date 10/18/2017? Q2) Or is work under this contract anticipated to begin in 2016? | The Period of Performance start date will be 10/18/2016. | |
| RFP Document | Page 6, B.1.2 | What percentage of TO will be based on FFP, TM, LH, or Hybrid? How does a Hybrid TO work? | An exact percentage is unknown at this time. It is anticipated that the majority of the work will be awarded on a FFP basis. Hybrid Task Orders would consist of specific activities that would be conducted on a FFP basis and other defined elements of work that would be conducted on a LH/T&M basis. | |
| Page 6, Section B | 3 | Q1) Is the contract minimum guarantee awarded in the base period alone or over the base and option periods? | The minimum guaranty is for the entire contract, base and all option periods. | |
| Page 6, Section B | 4 | Q1) Can a Task Order awarded based on Labor Hour or Time and Materials be revised if necessary? | Contingent upon the circumstances (i.e. changes in scope) LH and T&M may be modified at the discretion of the Administrative Contracting Officer. | |
| Page 6, Section B | 5 | Q1) Can the sum of Task Orders awarded to a Contractor exceed the pricing total in subsection B.9 Pricing Schedule? | The sum of the Task Orders awarded may not exceed the maximum order amount identified in Section B. | |
| Page 7, Section B | 7 | Q1) Confirm that FFP CLINs are reimbursed monthly. Q2) If the delivery date or timeline of an FFP CLIN is changed, how does that impact the reimbursement schedule? | Q1) FFP CLINS/Task Order may be billed on a monthly basis. |
Q2) This would be contingent upon the cause of the change in the delivery date/timeline (i.e. change in scope, contractor/government delays, etc..)
Page 7, Section B 9 Q1) Is the Unit Price to be entered for each CLIN in each table simply the hourly rate for that CLIN? Q2) Should there be an amount of hours for each CLIN? Q3) Will the Government provide these hours or does the Offeror submit their own hours? Q1) The Unit Price to be entered is the Hourly Rate Q2) There should not be an amount of hours associated with the IDIQ.
| Page 11, Section C | 4 | Q1) Will OBA's Predictive Plan Processing Complexity Model be made available to Offerors? In what way will this model be used? | No. The output of the model is used to assign complexity to plans (A - G). | |
| Page 11, Section C | 4 | Q1) Can sample output from OBA's Predictive Plan Processing Complexity Model be made available to Offerors? Q2) Data quality, accuracy of plan administered calculations, and volume of data are major determinants of cost. How will these be accounted for in pricing? | Q1) No. Refer to the table in C.4 along with the footnote. Q2) The offerors will be provided applicable information as available to PBGC. | |
| RFP Document | Page 13, C.5, first bullet | What "clearly defined performance measures" during this contract cycle will be considered in transitioning to the performance based contract next cycle? | Performance measures should be defined by the offeror in its response to the RFP. | |
| Page 14, Section C | ||||
| Page 78, Section J | 5.1 | |||
| Attachment D – PWS PRS QASP Template, PWS 7 | Q1) Will the Government clearly define what is a task and what is a deliverable in subsection C.5.1? Q2) The text box for PWS #7 states to "ensure you do not include tasks as deliverables". Will the Government clearly list what is a task versus a deliverable in the Solicitation? | Q1) The deliverables are listed in F.6,. IDIQ Deliverables (page 24 and following pages). Q2) See Q1. | ||
| RFP Document | Page 14, C.5.1.1 | What is the offeror's involvement in data Collection? | Refer to Section C.5.1.1. Contractor should answer based on the objectives in the section. | |
| RFP Document | Page 14, C.5.1.1 | What are the offeror's potential tasks in Data Collection? Does it include building the database and preparing the Participant Data Report? | This depends on the specific plan as needed. | |
| RFP Document | Page 14, C.5.1.1 | What possible flexibility is there on project timing and fees if the offorer deems the database provided by PBGC to not be up to the expected quality? | This depends on the structure and type of the specific task order as well as the normal procedures of handling modifications. | |
| RFP: Contract Type | F.5 (page 24) | States that Task Orders will be issued as Firm Fixed Price (FFP), Time & Materials (T&M), Labor Hour (LH), or a Hybrid. Please explain what Work Types and/or Performance Objectives are expected to be FFP type. | This will be provided in specific task orders. | |
| Page 24, Section F | 1 | Q1) Is work under this contract anticipated to begin in 2016 or 2017? | Q1) 2016. | |
| Page 24, Section F | 3 | Q1) Historically, work has not been delivered to COR, please confirm if that is the new requirement. | Technical, case work, deliverables are provided to the Federal Actuary and other reports (monthly/financial reports etc.) are provided to the COR. | |
| Page 24, Section F | 6 | Q1) There are many tasks such as COOP Test Report and Training Attendance that are required, but it is not clear whether these should also be included in the PWS. Should these tasks be included in the PWS? Q2) Is it expected that Task Orders will be issued for such tasks? | Q1)Yes. Q2) PBGC does not expect to issue a separate specific task order for these two particular tasks. These tasks may be included in the scope of a larger order(s). | |
| RFP Document | Pages 24-31, F.6 | |||
| Page 78-86, J.6, Attachment D, 7.1 | Does the offeror have to follow the deliverable schedule in the RFP exactly in their response or does the offeror have to provide their own schedule? | The required deliverables, frequency, and deadline are defined in Section F. Proposed changes to deliverables or proposed addition deliverables, should be included in an Offeror's proposed PWS. | ||
| Page 26, Section F | ||||
| Page 101, Section J | 6 | |||
| Attachment E WBS 8.2.4 | Q1) Is the "Certificate of Report" the same as the "Actuarial Certification" on page 57, Section J, Attachment A? Q2) If not what is the "Certificate of Report"? If it is a specific document, please make it available to Offerors. | Q1) Yes. Q2) See Q1 | ||
| Page 26, Section F |
Page 79, Section J
Page 91, Section J 6 Attachment D PWS PRS QASP Template, PWS 7.1
| Attachment D PWS PRS QASP Template, PRS | The Benefit Estimation Tool (BET) appears in three tables throughout the Solicitation; F.6 IDIQ Deliverables, PWS 71 Deliverables and Delivery Schedule, and the PRS table. The BET Delivery Deadline description in those three different Solicitation sections is different. Q1) Is the Delivery Deadline described in subsection F.6 IDIQ Deliverables the de facto description that the contract will enforce for all Deliverables? | The deadline provided in F.6 should be used as a guide. The actual delivery depends on the plan specifics. | ||
| Page 28, Section F | 6 | The footnote states the actual submission of the work products Calculations of Present Value of PBGC Termination Benefits, Listings of Complete Calculations for Each Participant (Final Calculations), Individual Benefit Statements, Detailed Benefit Statement Worksheets, and Customized PBGC Payments Adjustment Calculations System Output are not until the Actuarial Case Report is submitted to PBGC. Q1) Please confirm that all of these work products are delivered when the Actuarial Case Report is submitted and that all of their deliverable deadlines included in the table are cumulative. | The work products are to be delivered as a part of the Actuarial Case Report. The deadlines for individual work products are provided as a guide and the offeror's PWS and technical approach should document suggested completion dates/timelines/# of days etc. for individual work products to ensure timely completion of the Actuarial Case Report. | |
| Page 28, Section F | 6 | Q1) Will an example of the Administrative Manual be provided to the Offerors? | No. This is to be developed by the offeror. | |
| Page 32, Section F | 3.b | There are various required online training classes required to maintain systems access. Q1) Will those such training classes be deemed to be approved for reimbursement? | It is anticipated that the required online training classes will be performed during the performance of a given Task Order and will not be separately reimbursed. | |
| Page 34, Section G | 1.3.1 | The Solicitation states a contractor will provide a technical and price proposal in response to a Task Order Request. Q1) Are all the requirements to be included in the contractor's technical and price proposal listed in subsection G.1.4 beginning on page 34? If not please provide a list of the other requirements necessary. | The specific information that will be required for an individual Task Order Request will be identified in that request. | |
| Page 34, Section G | 1.3.1 | A reference is made to "agreed to prices … of the base IDIQ." Q1) What such prices in the base IDIQ are anticipated beyond the hourly rates requested in subsection B.9 on page7? | None, this only refers to the established hourly rates. | |
| Page 34, Section G | 1.3.2 | The Solicitation states that "Price will be more important than non–price considerations". Q1) Will the contractor with the lowest price task order proposal win the proposed work in a specific Task Order Request? | Q1) Price/Technical trades off will be considered during the award of the subsequent task orders; however, price will be a significant factor in the award decision. | |
| RFP Document | Page 34, G.1.3.1, G1.3.2 | How would PBGC respond to a request for additional fees in the case of a Task Order purchased on an FFP basis for which new information that materially affects the work required to fulfill the assignment is discovered that wasn’t found during the 7 day discovery period? | In the event of an unforeseeable circumstance, the Administrative Contracting Officer would make a determination as to whether it effected the scope of the requirement and if an economic adjustment is warranted. | |
| RFP Document | Page 34, G.1.3.1, G1.3.2 | How will PBGC differentiate from question 3 and legitimate new information complicating a case after TO has been awarded? | This would be handled on a case by case basis and contingent upon the nature/significance of the new information/circumstances | |
| Page 35, Section G | 1.6 | The Solicitation states that the "task order award will be based upon the proposal which represents trade off/best value to the Government, price and other factors considered". Q1) What are the "other factors"? Q2) Does this statement contradict the statement on Page 34 subsection G.1.3.2 that price will be more important than non–price considerations? Q3) What exact factors and in what order will the Government use these factors to award a task order? | The non-priced factors and their relative significance will be determined at the Task Order level; however, price will be a significant factor in the award decision. | |
| RFP Document | Page 35, G.1.4.6 | Can the discount be contingent on certain deliverables from PBGC or future discoveries, such database quality, prior plan administration, or number of QDROs? | No, contingent discounted pricing will not be considered during the award of the Task Orders. To the extent possible, items such as data base quality, prior plan administration, etc. should be identified prior to the submission of the proposal. | |
| Page 36, Section G | ||||
| Page 37, Section G | 4 | |||
| 5 | Q1) When is the invoice delivery due date? Q2) Are invoices due by the 15th calendar day of the month? | This will be established at the Task Order Level. Typically, invoices are permitted to be submitted no less than monthly. | ||
| Page 38, Section H | 1 | Q1) Is the "Actuarial Certification" discussed in "Required Specialized Experience" for (1) Actuary and (2) Associate Actuary the same as the "Actuarial Certification" on page 57, Section J, Attachment A? | Yes. | |
| Page 38, Section H | 1 | Q1) Is the "Required Specialized Experience" of "Must meet the Qualification Standards promulgated by the American Academy of Actuaries to sign Actuarial Certification" strictly for those employees who qualify as an (1) Actuary and (2) Associate Actuary and will actually sign the Actuarial Certification? Q2) If an employee will not sign the Actuarial Certification and he or she meets the Minimum Education Requirements, Minimum Qualifications, and other Required Specialized Experience with regards to plan terminations only, will he or she be approved as an (1) Actuary and (2) Associate Actuary? | Only an Enrolled Actuary (EA) can sign the Actuarial Certification. Section H.1 provides qualifications needed. | |
| Page 38, Section H | 1 | Q1) What does the "*" denote in Minimum Education Requirements for (1) Actuary and (2) Associate Actuary? | The * is meant to explain that the degree must be from a U.S. accredited college/university or one approved by PBGC. | |
| Page 38, Section H | 1 | Q1) Will the Roles and Responsibilities of the (2) Associate Actuary include completing complex actuarial calculations such as QDRO calculations and complex airline, steel, automotive, or other industry unique calculations? | See section H.1 for Role and Responsibilities | |
| Page 38, Section H | 1 | Q1) Will the Roles and Responsibilities of the (2) Associate Actuary include serving as Senior Lead Actuary or Primary contact on complex actuarial related tasks with advanced PBGC approval? | See section H.1 for Role and Responsibilities | |
| Page 40, Section H | 1 | Q1) Is the Minimum Qualifications for (8) Accounting and Reporting Clerk truly "N/A" or should the Required Specialized Experience be the Minimum Qualifications? | The minimum qualifications are the same as the required specialized experience for these labor categories. | |
| Page 40, Section H | 1 | Q1) Should the Required Specialized Experience for (9) Data Clerk/Summer Student be "N/A" or something else? There are not many college students who will have "2 years of bookkeeping and secretarial experience including preparing lengthy technical reports." | The specialized experience is "None." | |
| Page 42, Section H | 3.g | Q1) Does transportation of sensitive information from one approved location to another approved location require the CO's approval? | Yes. | |
| Page 56, Section J | List of Attachments | It is stated "Usable versions are posted on fbo.gov with this solicitation" for Attachment E – WBS and Work Types. Q1) When will these be made available on fbo.gov? At the time of submitting these questions they were not on fbo.gov. | WBS and work types are already included in the solicitation. | |
| Page 57, Section J | Attachment A – Actuarial Certification | The Actuarial Certification states "I have examined all applicable information provided to me by PBGC. Such information includes, but is not limited to, plan documents and amendments, the statement of assets, and participant data. Such data, which I have not audited, appear to be complete, reasonable and consistent, except where changes have been described in the Actuarial Case Memorandum." Q1) How much work is the actuary expected to do to certify that the statement of assets appears to be complete? Q2) If we are not auditing the assets, what specifically should we be doing? Q3) Who is responsible for answering questions we may have about the assets? Q4) Similarly, if we did not build the database or did not do the fieldwork to collect the data, is it really appropriate for us to make comments about the completeness and accuracy of the data? | There will be no changes made to the certification. | |
| RFP: Performance Work Statement | C.5.2 (page 17), J.5 (page 71) and L.8.1.1 (page 119) | A PWS/PRS/QASP template is provided. Is it your intention that this template should be edited by the offeror and submitted? What sections do you expect will require more information? | Offerors should use their independent judgment when developing their PWS/PRS/QASP. The documents provided in the solicitation are only a template. | |
| Page 71, Section J | Attachment D – PWS PRS QASP Template, PWS 2 | Q1) For the Background section, what more language is required beyond that provided? Q2) Is the language currently provided in the Background section required to be in the Offeror's PWS? | Offerors should use their independent judgment when developing their PWS. The documents provided in the solicitation are only a template. | |
| RFP: Performance Work Statement | J.5 - 3.3 (page 72) | Please explain the project parameters and the example provided. Should it be edited? What period does it cover? | Offerors should use their independent judgment when developing their PWS. The documents provided in the solicitation are only a template. | |
| Page 72, Section J | Attachment D – PWS PRS QASP Template, PWS 3.3 | Q1) The current example shown of "3.3.1. Number of Complexity Level 1, Work Type I plans per annum:2 ...", should this be in the text box for subsection 3.3? | Offerors should use their independent judgment when developing their PWS. Not all elements identified in the template may be required for the IDIQ and more applicable to resulting Task Orders that have a defined scope of work. | |
| Page 72, Section J | Attachment D – PWS PRS QASP Template, PWS 3.3 | Q1) In the Offeror's PWS what should be included in subsection 3.3 Project Parameters? Q2) Are the Project Parameters based on ASD's annual goals and available budget? Q3) Does the Government have a list of Project Parameters at this time to share with the Offerors? Q4) If not, should the Offeror only include historical data? Q5) If the Offeror is to include historical data, over what time period should the historical data represent? Q6) Is the point to establish a level of effort commitment from the offeror? Q7) Should this reflect the maximum annual effort the offeror can provide? Q8) Please note that, if the maximum level of effort is being requested, it is largely a function of advance notice to the contractor. In that case, is any advance notice anticipated? Q9) Another common constraint is having to wait on a responses to a technical issue, receipt of review comments, etc. Is this where these issues should be addressed? Q10) Please provide examples (even if hypothetical to clarify the intent of this section.) | Offerors should use their independent judgment when developing their PWS. Not all elements identified in the template may be required for the IDIQ and more applicable to resulting Task Orders that have a defined scope of work. | |
| RFP Document | Page 72, J.5, Attachment D, 3.3 Sample | Is section 3.3 based on capacity to perform work or based on some recent period of historical performance? What is the purpose of this section? | Offerors should use their independent judgement when developing their PWS. Not all elements identified in the template may be required for the IDIQ and more applicable to resulting Task Orders that have a defined scope of work. | |
| Page 73, Section J | Attachment D – PWS PRS QASP Template, PWS 3.4 | As alluded to above, some of the largest historical constraints are the volume and quality of data as well as the complexity and accuracy of the prior plan administrator's calculations. Another constraint is the number of QDROs and their associated difficulty. These constraints arise based on various policies (these are just a sample and do not embody all possible policy related constraints): tolerance test, administrative rules on QDROs etc., tolerance test on accuracy of PIA, and AMB testing; but in some of these areas the guidance is very vague. The PIA testing guidelines are hard to reconcile with the guidelines on retiree benefits and there is very limited guidance on AMB testing. Q1) s it anticipated that this section be used to address these constraints; or was something else anticipated? | Offerors should use their independent judgment when developing their PWS. However, this section should include the identification of applicable policies, procedures, etc. |
The identification of possible risks and steps to be taken to mitigate those risks should be included in Performance Requirements.
Page 75, Section J
Page 119, Section L Page 129, Section M Attachment D – PWS PRS QASP Template, PWS 5 8.1.1
4.1.1 Subsection 8.1.1 emphasizes that an Offeror's PWS will thoroughly describe "how" the Offeror will accomplish all aspects of the SOO. The test box for PWS #5 specifically states defining "what" not "how" the Offeror will accomplish the requirements. This is a direct contradiction. Q1) The Offeror will be providing a service as requested by the Government, as the Offeror cannot foresee "what" the Government will request should the Offeror explain "how" the requirements (that may or may not be requested) will be completed? Q2) Will the Government provide more guidance on the "what" that is expected in PWS #5? Q3) If the Offeror does not provide the "how" in PWS #5, how will the Government be able to evaluate Factor 1 as described in subsection M.4.1.1? Q1 & Q2) The PWS provided in the solicitation is only a template and the offeror should use their independent judgment while developing their PWS. However, the "how" in 8.1.1 is referring the "what" in the template PWS in terms of which elements of work are identified in the PWS to be conducted the achieve the desired outcomes and "what" measures will be taken to identify/mitigate risks.
Q3) The PWS will be evaluate in accordance with Section M.4.1.1.
Page 75, Section J Attachment D – PWS PRS QASP Template, PWS 5 To properly address this section alone, we think it would require that we significantly exceed the page limitations of this Solicitation. Q1) Would the Government consider extending the page requirement to 75? Many triggers are simply a function of PBGC's internal resources, budget resources, and other factors that seem inappropriate for offerors to comment on. Q2) Does the Government intend to issue a series of small task orders over the life of the plan or does the Government intend to issue larger task orders that combine most aspects of processing a plan? The latter method puts a lot of risk on the contractor due to the large volume of unknowns in the early phase of case processing. The sample description provided does not address the risks, triggers, and many other features required. Q3) Will the Government provide a more complete example that incorporates many of the bulleted requirements? Q4) Certain bulleted requirements associate strongly with building a product versus providing a service, to what extent do you want Offerors to address all bullets for each task? Q4) Please provide an example addressing all bullets. Q1) The Government will consider increasing the page limitation.
Q2) The Government does anticipate issuing larger task orders that encompasses most aspects of processing a series of plans, which will be described in greater detail in the Task Order Requests.
The PWS provided is only a template and the offeror may identify other elements (i.e. identification/mitigation of risk) Q3) No.
Q4(1)) The PWS provided is only a template, each offeror should use their independent judgment to determine if the examples provided are pertentant to their PWS or if it should include additional items/task.
Q4(2)) An example addressing all bullets is not available.
Page 78 – 80, Section J Attachment D – PWS PRS QASP Template, PWS 7 In the second row on page 80, the description of this section indicates that the contractor shall "apply appropriate rates and actuarial factors…" However, it does not mention where or how the benefits were determined or where they came from. The actual benefit determination is often the most significant task in completing a Title IV valuation. Q1) Is it expected that each offeror add all such details in additional deliverables in order to have a PWS that incorporates all work required by the SOO or is it PBGC's view that such determinations of the benefits to be used for this deliverable do not constitute deliverables that should be included but rather are simply tasks as described on page 78 in the large box? Q2) If it is considered such a task, is it a task that should be assumed to occur in this particular deliverable? Q3) The general nature of this question applies to many other portions of the PWS, so any additional guidance on the distinction between tasks and deliverables is welcomed. The PWS and PRS included in the solicitation is only a template. The PWS/PRS submitted with an offerors proposal submission should identify the task and deliverable required to achieve the objectives of the SOO.
| Page 86, Section J | Attachment D – PWS PRS QASP Template, PWS 7.2 | Q1) If a deliverable is in the Government's possession beyond 10 business days without formal acceptance in writing, is the deliverable by default accepted with no further changes? Q2) Can the Government request changes if the deliverable has been in the Government's possession for more than 10 business days? Q3) Are more than 10 business days allowed for the contractor to make requested changes in instances such as the changes cannot be completed in that time due to IT limitations or policy issues require resolution? | Offerors should use their independent judgement when developing their PWS/PRS. The documents provided in the solicitation are only a template. The offeror may propose alternative time lines and allowances for deviations to the extent that they are approved by the CO/COR. |
| Page 87, Section J | Attachment D – PWS PRS QASP Template, PWS 9 | The text box for Place of Performance states that "Service is required at the PBGC site". Q1) Is this a typo? This contradicts subsection C.10 Place of Performance on page 20. | Section C states the Government's requirements and the template PWS/PRS should be tailored to the Offeror's approach in meeting those objectives. It is not the Government's intent to require performance at the PBGC site. |
| Page 88, Section J | Attachment D – PWS PRS QASP Template, QASP 4.1 and 4.2 | Q1) What is the "Evaluation Table" that is included in 4.1 and 4.2 of the QASP Template? Q2) Will the Evaluation Table be provided to the Offerors? | Offerors should use their independent judgement when developing their PRS. The documents provided in the solicitation are only a template. |
| Page 89, Section J |
| Page 78, Section J | Attachment D – PWS PRS Table | |||
| Attachment D – PWS PRS QASP Template, PWS 7.1 | The PRS table is a repeat of columns and data that appears in the table PWS 7.1 on page 78. Q1) In an Offeror's proposal can subsection 7.1 of the PWS strictly be a narrative versus table or matrix form as shown in the example? | Offerors should use their independent judgment when developing their PRS. The documents provided in the solicitation are only a template. | ||
| Page 89, Section J | Attachment D – PWS PRS Table | The text in the text box under "NOTE: See SAMPLE Performance Requirement Summary (PRS) Table below:" is incomplete or is cut off. Q1) What appears after "Using objective and measurable terms, describe the standard of"? | Offerors should use their independent judgment when developing their PRS. The documents provided in the solicitation are only a template. | |
| Page 89, Section J | Attachment D – PWS PRS Table | The performance standard specified in the sample table is typically stated as a percentage greater than or equal to 95%. For various deliverables, there is nothing obviously quantifiable. Q1) How does by PBGC propose to arrive at such measures in a uniform method across its various technical reviewers? Q2) In some instances, the performance requirement is 100%. Are the offerors allowed to propose alternative amounts or should offerors try to use what is in the sample? | Offerors should use their independent judgment when developing their PRS. The documents provided in the solicitation are only a template. | |
| RFP Document | Page 89, Last Sentence in first box | Can the full definition of the Performance Standard be provided? | Offerors should use their independent judgment when developing their PRS. The documents provided in the solicitation are only a template. | |
| RFP Document | Page 89-98, Attachment D, Sample PRS | Does the offeror have to follow the performance standard in RFP exactly in their response or does the offeror have to provide their own standard? Does it have to be a percent grade or can the offeror propose an alternative grading scale? | Performance measures should be defined by the offeror in the PWS, and PRS. | |
| Page 99, Section J | Attachment E – WBS | Q1) Are the items listed in the WBS to be considered tasks or deliverables in the context of those words described above on page 80? It appears that it is a combination. Q2) Will the Government identify those items in the WBS that it specifically wants denoted as Deliverables in the PWS? | Q1 & Q2) It is incumbent upon the offeror to develop the WBS and determine which activities are deliverables. | |
| Page 116, Section L | 7.1 | Q1) Would the Government accept tables that utilize a font size of 10 pitch print or larger in Times New Roman? | Q1) No. | |
| Page 116, Section L | 7.1 | Q1) Would the Government accept graphics, figures, or illustrations that utilize a font size of 9 pitch print or larger in the Time New Roman family? | Q1) Yes, the use of smaller fonts for graphics, figures, or illustration will be accepted. | |
| Page 116, Section L | 7.1 | The Solicitation requires Offerors to respond using 12–point font. Q1) May Offerors use a smaller, still readable font for the following: headers and footers, requirement text, exhibits/diagrams, and tables? | Q1) Smaller text may be used for header, footer, exhibits/diagrams, and tables. | |
| Page 117, Section L | ||||
| Page 118, Section L | 7.2.1 | |||
| 8 | Q1) What is a Compliance Traceability Matrix? Q2) Will an example or template be made available to the Offerors? | Q1) Defined in Section L.8 |
Q2) No
| Page 119, Section L | 8.1.1 | Factor 1 is to include the PWS, PRS, and the QASP. In the PWS/PRS/QASP Template (Attachment E of Section J) the PRS table appears to be within the QASP. Q1) When submitting Volume 1, is it acceptable to provide for Factor 1 a PWS and a QASP that contains the PRS? Q2) Or does the PRS need to stand alone in Factor 1 as well as within the QASP? Q3) What is meant by "High Level Design" as this term is heavily associated with IT architecture versus the services requested in this Solicitation? | The PRS may be included in the PWS. The QASP shall be a stand alone document. | |
| Page 119, Section L | 8.1.1 | Q1) Is the Offeror required to use the PWS template when responding to the PWS portion of Factor 1? Q2) Or may the Offeror provide a narrative to meeting the Statement of Objectives in the PWS portion? | Q1) No, the use of the PWS/PRS templates is optional. However, it shall include the elements required for a PWS/PRS to include, but not limited to the work to be performed, the performance standards, etc. | |
| Page 120, Section L | 8.1.2 | Q1) Is a Transition-in plan required from an incumbent contractor? | Yes. | |
| Page 120, Section L | ||||
| Page 121, Section L | 8.1.2 | |||
| 8.1.3 | Q1) Are resumes required for Non-Key Personnel? Q2) Should the Offeror include a list of all available personnel, both Key and Non-Key in Volume I? | Q1 & Q2) Resume requirements are defined in L.8.1.3 | ||
| Page 121, section L | 8.1.2 | Q1) What is meant by "reach back capabilities"? Q2) Will the Government provide an example of this need as it relates to the services requested in the SOO? | Q1) Reach back capabilities refers to the ability to ensure appropriate staffing resources are available for work under this contract. Q2) No. | |
| Page 121, section L | 8.1.3 | Q1) How many Key Personnel does the Government expect to be provided? Q2) Must there be Key Personnel in both the Actuary and Associate Actuary labor category? Q3) May the Offeror provide resumes for all personnel eligible to be Key Personnel? | Q1) Resumes shall be provided for all Actuary and Associate Actuary as specified in L.8.1.3 |
Q2) See Q1.
Q3) See Q1
| Page 121, Section L | 8.2.1 | Q1) If an Offeror is a subcontractor to a Government contract, which Point of Contact should be used, the Government COR or the project manager at the company who is the prime contractor to the Government? | Q1) Recommend providing both the Government COR and the Prime Contractor. |
| Page 122, Section L | 8.3 | It states that the Offerors will provide Firm Fixed Prices and hourly rate pricing by labor category in the Price Proposal. There is no evidence of requesting Firm Fixed Prices elsewhere in the Solicitation. Q1) Are Firm Fixed Prices required to be provided in the Price Proposal? Q2) What deliverables or tasks are these Firm Fixed Prices to be based on? In what format should the Firm Fixed Prices be presented in the Price Proposal? | Q1) Only the Firm Fixed Priced hourly rates are required in response to this IDIQ solicitation. |
Q2) The specific deliverables and the pricing structure will be defined at the Task Order level.
| RFP Document | Page 122-123, L.8.3 | The opening paragraph of this section requests that both a Firm Fixed Price and hourly rate pricing be provided by labor category using the pricing schedule in Section B. However Section B appears to be set up for the entry of the hourly rate pricing only. Will the PBGC confirm that FFP pricing, where requested, will apply to individual task orders and not on some other basis? | Only the Fixed Price Hourly Rates are required in response to this solicitation. Firm Fixed Prices for the defined elements of work will be established at the Task Order level. |
| Page 123, Section L | 8.3 | The Solicitation requests that the Offeror specify other direct costs. As referenced above, PBGC mandates various training classes (including online security training). Q1) Should such required training be considered "other direct costs"? Q2) Are the various reports identified in the PWS (excluding those that are part of with the case report) deemed Administrative indirect expenses to be borne by the Offeror? | PBGC anticipates that Agency training would be conducted during the performance of the Task Order and billed appropriately contingent upon the Task Order Type. |
| Page 12, Section C |
Page 23, Section E Page 24, Section F 4
| 4 | Q1) Are deliverables to be submitted to the COR, Federal Actuary, or PBGC personnel designated by the COR? These three sections are inconsistent. | Technical, case work, deliverables are provided to the Federal Actuary and other reports (monthly/financial reports etc.) are provided to the COR. | ||
| RFP: Task Orders | F.4 (page 24) and G.1.2 (page 34) | States that the Government intends to award an initial task order to meet the minimum guaranty (up to three). Please describe the structure and work covered by this initial task order. | The work for the initial task orders will be similar to the work types described in the scope of the IDIQ for specific PBGC plans. | |
| Section B.9 | 1 | Please confirm that submission of the rate card for each of the award years satisfies Section B. | Providing the hourly rates for each of the labor categories for the base and all option periods will meet the requirements of Section B. | |
| Section G.1.2 | N/A | Will the initial task order include recently trusteed plans for which no actuarial work has begun, or will it consist of work in process plans transferred from either Federal or contractor actuaries? | It will include either or both. | |
| Section H.1 | N/A | The Minimum Education Requirements for the Actuary and Associate Actuary have asterisks after “A Bachelor’s Degree in Actuarial Science or related fields from an accredited college/university*”. What does the asterisk refer to, if anything? | Asterisk was meant to indicate that the degree must be from an accredited U.S. college/university and/or approved by the PBGC. | |
| Section L.8 | 1 | Does PBGC have a standard format for the Compliance Traceability Matrix or should the offeror utilize their own? | No. Contractor should use its own. | |
| Section L.8.1.1 | 1 | Please confirm that offerors' technical approach should utilize the PWS/PRS/QASP template provided in Attachment D. | The use of the PWS/PRS/QASP templates is not required. | |
| Attachment D, PWS Section 3.3 | 1 | Please confirm that the number of plans per annum listed in the section are for example purposes only. Additionally, please provide additional guidance on PBGC’s expectation of what offerors should provide in this section as non-incumbent offerors would not have the historical data to complete this section. | Yes. These are for example purpose only. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .