Amendment 1 RFP-NIH-NICHD-NCS-10-10.pdf

OMB No 0990-0115

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT N/A 1 6

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

1 (one) May 14, 2010 N/A

6. ISSUED BY CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6)

CODE N/A

National Institutes of Health The Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Contracts Management Branch, Office of Acquisitions 6100 Executive Blvd., Room 7A-07, MSC 7510 Bethesda, MD 20892-7510

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No. Street, County, State and ZIP: Code) (�) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

TO ALL POTENTIAL OFFERORS X RFP-NIH-NICHD-NCS-10-10

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

4/21/2010

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers 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 one (1) copy 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 ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATA 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 data specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/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

FORTH IN 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 is not, is required to sign this document and return 1 copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

PURPOSE: 1) To provide clarifications to RFP-NIH-NICHD-NCS-10-10 National Children’s Study Coordinating Center

Due Date: June 8, 2010 4:00 pm (EST) (unchanged)

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore, 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)

Seena Mathews Contracting Officer, CMB, NICHD

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 16C. DATE SIGNED

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

BY _______________/S/______________________________

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

May 14, 2010

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

PREVIOUS EDITION UNUSABLE Computer Generated Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

RFP-NIH-NICHD-NCS-10-10

AMENDMENT #1

NATIONAL CHILDRENS STUDY COORDINATING CENTER

Q1. Please clarify the expected length and content of the technical proposal. If for example, a contractor is planning on bidding on two tasks, is it expected that the contractors will submit two separate technical proposals each no more than 100 pages (50 pages of proposal text and 50 pages of appendices)? Also, should the content of each technical proposal be as follows: core requirements (administration and management, development of instruments and procedures, development of the manual of operations and procedures, support of the development and implementation of training materials and programs, collaboration with NICHD and other contractors, transition planning and transfer of tasks), followed by the specific task area, and staffing? There appear to be numbering problems on pp. 3-4 of Appendix A that don’t quite match what’s on p. 1 for the Core functions.

A1. If an offeror is to bid on two tasks the offeror is expected to submit two separate technical proposals, each not more than 100 pages (50 pages of proposal text and 50 pages of appendices), as well as a business proposal for each task bid. Offerors shall use Appendix A as a reference guide for formatting the technical proposal. Offerors shall also consider the information found in the statement of work and the evaluation criteria’s when developing a proposal.

Q2. Does the draft Information System Security Plan (ISSP), which is required to be submitted as part of the technical proposal (RFP page 58), count against the 50 pages allowed for appendices and attachments (RFP Attachment 6, page 2), or can it stand alone as a separate document outside of the page limitations?

A2. The draft Information System Security Plan (ISSP) can be a standalone document and shall not count towards the page limitation for the technical proposal.

Q3. Given the substantial level of effort for PIs suggested in Attachment 9, could NICHD provide some description of their expected functions and roles as distinct from Project Director functions and roles?

A3. The level of effort (LOE) presumes that the PI will bring substantive expertise and have active involvement in a given task. If proposed staffing models allow for Project Directors to fill this role instead, the LOE of the PI can be substantially reduced.

Q4. We note the requirement of Article 3.2.1.e(2) to include a draft ISSP, which can be quite a lengthy document, typically 50 pages or more. In light of the page limits for the proposal, would NICHD accept the draft ISSP as a separate document (and hence outside the stipulated page limits)?

A4. The draft Information System Security Plan (ISSP) can be a standalone document and shall not count towards the page limitation for the technical proposal.

Q5. Is the requirement to include a floor plan, as instructed on p.3 of Attachment 6 under “Facilities,” applicable to each of the 4 tasks listed in this RFP? If not, please list which tasks are subject to this requirement and expand on the information being requested (e.g., should it be for each of the buildings project staff may work in? are there some particular features NICHD is interested in knowing about?).

A5. Descriptions of Contractor facilities are relevant for Tasks 2 - 4. With the exception of having adequate meeting space, Task 1 has no requirements regarding space.

Q6. Could NICHD provide guidelines regarding the sample sizes expected in Tasks 1, 3, and 4 so as to help offerers prepare reasonable cost estimates?

A6. Please see the #4 General Assumptions provided under Additional Technical Proposal Instructions.

Q7. Sec. L.2.a.15 states “the Section 508 standards applicable to this solicitation are identified in the Statement of Work/Specification/Performance Work Statement” but they seem to be absent. Could NICHD identify which deliverables or products are expected to be Sec. 508 compliant?

A7. The Section 508 standards applicable to this solicitation are located in Article H. 15: Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility. The standards that are applicable are:

Software applications and operating systems.

Web-based intranet and internet information and applications.

Telecommunications products.

Video and multimedia products.

Self contained, closed products.

Desktop and portable computers.

Q8. To properly assess cost implications, is Article H.14 (a-j), regarding Information Security, Position Sensitivity Designations, etc., equally applicable to all 4 Task Areas?

A8: Yes, H.14 regarding Information Security is equally applicable to all 4 Task Areas.

Q9. We assume there is a separate proposal for each Task that is bid. Further, for each Task that is bid there will be a technical proposal and a business proposal. Is this correct?

A9. Yes, this assumption is correct. A technical and business proposal must be submitted for each task an offeror bids on. As stated in Section M #6 each proposal will be evaluated separately and have standalone scores.

Q10. We also assume that if all four Tasks are bid there will be four technical proposals, each with a 100 page limit. In addition, we assume that for each technical proposal, 50 pages are allotted to cover core requirements for that Task, technical approach, management and staffing, organizational experience, and facilities and resources. The balance of the 100 pages is for attachments and appendices that support that particular Task proposal. Is this correct?

A10. Yes, this assumption is correct. The technical proposal shall be no more than 50 pages and the supporting appendices/attachments shall be no more than 50 pages for each task. Offerors shall consider the information found in statement of work, evaluation criteria’s and additional instructions when developing a technical proposal.

Q11. Further, to confirm our understanding of #1, Attachment 11, we assume that the core requirements for a Task bid are included with the business proposal for that Task bid. Is this correct?

A11. Yes, this assumption is correct. The core requirements for a Task bid are included with the business proposal for that Task bid.

Q12. We are having difficulty understanding Attachment 6, pages 1-4, TECHNICAL PROPOSAL – TABLE OF CONTENTS. We believe the order presented below follows the spirit of the table of contents template and the evaluation criteria. If we put the proposal together in this sequence, does this respond to that section?

1. Core Requirements

2. Technical Approach

3. Proposed staffing and key personnel

4. Organizational experience

5. Facilities and Resources

A12. Attachment 6 shall be used as a reference guide for formatting a technical proposal. Offerors shall also consider the information found in the statement of work and the evaluation criteria’s when developing a proposal.

Q13. On page 3 of Attachment 6 within section A, Administration & Management, sections #3, 4, 5, and 6 are missing. We assume that it is the government’s intention that we do address these sections in our proposal. Is that correct?

A13. Yes, these sections should be addressed. Attachment 6 shall be used as a reference guide for formatting a technical proposal. Offerors shall also consider the information found in the statement of work and the evaluation criteria’s when developing a proposal.

Q14. On page 3 of Attachment 6 there is an outline presented for the Technical Approach – Statement of Work. Section 1, Core Requirements does not include sub-sections B, C, and D of the Core Requirements as presented in the Statement of Work. We assume that it is the government’s intention that we do address them in our proposal. Is that correct?

A14. Yes, these sections should be addressed. Attachment 6 shall be used as a reference guide for formatting a technical proposal. Offerors shall also consider the information found in the statement of work and the evaluation criteria’s when developing a proposal.

Q15. Are any organizations that hold current contracts or subcontracts with NICHD for support of the National Children’s Study, including Study Center prime contracts or Study Center subcontracts, precluded from bidding on any of the four task areas in this RFP?

A15. No, organizations that hold current contracts or subcontracts that support NCS are not precluded from bidding on any of the four tasks listed in this RFP.

Q16. Will an organization receiving a contract for any of the task areas awarded under this RFP be precluded from bidding any future NCS RFPs?

A16. At this point, not knowing what future acquisition needs for the study will be, NIH cannot make a determination of competition requirements, or potential conflicts of interest.

Q17. Attachment 6 of the RFP states

• “THE TOTAL PAGE LIMITATION FOR EACH ENTIRE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL PACKAGE

IS 100 PAGES INCLUDING APPENDICES AND ATTACHMENTS.” (page 1 of Attachment 6)

• “Separate technical proposals shall be submitted for each proposed task.” (page 1 of Attachment 6)

• “The technical proposal for the core and each task area shall not exceed a total of 50 pages with font size no smaller than 12-point.” (page 2 of Attachment 6)

• “Any appendices and attachments shall not exceed 50 pages of the 100 total pages with font size no smaller than 12-points.” (page 2 of Attachment 6)

We are assuming that if we are interested in submitting a proposal for all four task areas:

a. We would submit four separate proposals. Each of these would have a page limit of 100 pages, with 50 pages for the core and the specific task area, and 50 pages for attachments.

b. Common elements of our proposal for the core would be repeated in the technical proposal for each of the four proposals.

c. Common elements of the attachments would be repeated in the appendices for each of the four proposals.

d. Each of the four 100-page proposals would be a standalone proposal that would have all information for evaluation included in it and not require cross-reference to any other document.

Please confirm if these assumptions are correct, or, if they are incorrect, please elaborate on how the page limits apply to common elements across the four tasks (such as discussion of the core requirement).

A17. All the assumptions are correct. If an offeror submits a proposal for all four tasks the proposals shall be standalones and, as stated in Section M #6, be evaluated separately and have standalone scores..

Q18. The government has furnished estimates of effort by annual contract year for each of the four task areas in Attachment 9. Do these estimates include the government’s estimate of the level of effort to perform the core requirements? If not:

• Can the government provide estimates of the level of effort for the core requirements?

• Should the level of effort and associated costs for the core requirements be included in each separate business proposal for each task area? This would appear to overestimate the level of effort and costs associated with the core requirements for an organization awarded more than one task area.

• Similarly, should the estimated costs for Steering Committee and Investigator meetings, and Study governance trips be included in each of the separate business proposals for each task area? Again, this would appear to overestimate the level of effort and costs associated with central meetings for an organization awarded more than one task area.

A18 .The estimate of effort does include the government’s estimate of the level of effort to perform the core requirements. The LOE provided is estimate only and does not imply any minimum expectation by the Government, as best value is a consideration. For any contractor receiving multiple awards with the same named staff, reconciliation of time and travel across awards will be completed during negotiations.

Q19. The section numbering in certain areas of Attachment 6 is confusing. Please confirm nothing is missing related to the following section numbers:

• Under General Notes on Page 2, numbering goes 3,4,5,2,3

• Under Section 1: Technical Approach – Statement of Work, I. Core Requirements, page 3, number goes from A, Administration and Management, to E, Collaboration with NICHD and Other Contractors; and under A Administration and Management, numbering goes 1,2,7.

A19. The numbering is incorrect under General Notes. It should read 3,4,5,6,7. There is no information missing.

Attachment 6 shall be used as a reference guide for formatting a technical proposal. Offerors shall also consider the information found in the statement of work and the evaluation criteria’s when developing a proposal. No information is missing from this section.

Q20. Please explain the nature of the “coordination visits” mentioned in RFP Attachment 11, item 6.

A20. Coordination refers to working (in-person) with the PO or other contractors on development, testing, training, etc.

Q21. Given the need to include resumes in the attachments, would the government consider excluding some attachments, such as the Information Security Plan and 508 Compliance Plan, from the page limit?

A21. The draft Information System Security Plan (ISSP) can be a standalone document and shall not count towards the page limitation for the technical proposal.

Q22. Task Area 3 of the RFP includes Study Center Readiness Support and Data Collection Monitoring and management. Does the government see any conflict of interest if an organization bidding on this RFP is currently under contract to support one or more study centers? In particular:

• Could an organization under contract to support a study center implement the activities for Task Area 3 for that study center?

• If not, could an organization under contract to support a study center subcontract with another organization to implement the activities of Task Area 3 for that study center?

• If not, does this mean the organization is precluded from bidding on Task Area 3 since there is expected to be only one award per task area?

A22. Organizations that hold current contracts or subcontracts that support NCS are not precluded from bidding on any of the four tasks listed in this RFP.

Q23. IMS/IT Clarification

A23. It shall be noted that none of the tasks listed in the RFP contain any IMS development or support tasks. All IMS tasks will be handled by a separate IT contactor and/or an IMS Support contractor.