EDGAR_Modernization_Q A.pdf

SECHQ1-14-R-0028 EDGAR Modernization Business Process Re-Engineering Support Questions and Answers

Q1. Do you have a bidders list that you could share?

A1. The SEC will not share its list of interested vendors. Vendors are encouraged to add themselves and search for interested vendors in FBO.

Q2. The Government has stated this is the first phase of a larger, multi-phase modernization effort. Would the Government consider allowing Vendors to propose an OCI Mitigation Plan for this solicitation, enabling separate corporate entities to perform on multiple phases with the appropriate firewall separations in place? This would be consistent with the terms of the FAR, providing the Government the necessary protections as well as the flexibility to continue with the corporate processes and procedures of the successful Vendor. We believe a tremendous amount of synergy may be gained with the partnership achieved in this first phase of the modernization effort, resulting in improved execution of the subsequent phases.

A2. Section H.7(e) of the RFP has been amended in response to this Question.

Q3. Is this the entire EDGAR Modernization or just a piece of it?

A3. The Government has stated this is the first phase of a larger, multi-phase modernization effort.

Q4. Is there any way to get the question due date pushed back a few days due to the recent Holiday Weekend?

A4. The question deadline will not be extended.

Q5. Is this a General Services Administration (GSA) Schedule procurement?

A5. No. This procurement is subject to Full and Open Competition.

Q6. Is there an anticipated award date for this procurement?

A6. The SEC anticipates making an award by September 30, 2014.

Q7. Block 8. of the Standard Form (SF)-1449 states that offers are due 07/24/2014 1200 ES. However, Section L.2 states: “Proposals must be delivered… no later than Noon Eastern Time on July 26, 2014.”

July 26 is a Saturday. Please confirm that the correct due date is 07/24/2014 1200 ES.

A7. The proposal due date has been extended until Noon Eastern Time on August 1, 2014. Section L.2 has been updated to reflect this.

Q8. Will this be a single or multiple-award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ)? If the latter, how many awards does the Government intend to make?

A8. This solicitation will result in a single-award IDIQ.

Q9. Section B states: “Fixed price and labor hour task orders will be issued under this contract.”

However, Section H.3 states: “The SEC anticipates awarding Firm Fixed Price task orders under this contract.” Please clarify.

A9. The SEC anticipates awarding fixed price and labor hour task orders. H.3 has been updated to reflect this.

Q10. C.4.3.2 – For the Overall Business Process Support, there is no CLIN associated with this scope or for the BPR Lead Key Personnel. This resource is responsible for the Business Process Improvement scope (C.4.3.2) as well as overall management and oversight of all Re-engineering tasks. Therefore, they could not be factored into the tiered process rates and require a CLIN other than the tiered rate CLINs.

Should this be 0002 with a labor hours CLIN similar to other scope areas and FFP for the specific process tiers? Or should these overall BPR hours be associated with the Program Management CLIN?

A10. Any key personnel associated with BPR work should be factored into the tiered process rates for the BPR work.

Q11. L.3.2 – Go/No Go Factor 2 – Does the SEC have a standard or recommendation for “Verifiable Proof” of the 10 process and 3 > $2M requirement? Will a credential with contact information be sufficient to verification?

A11. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to provide evidence that they meet the requirement, and that evidence must be able to be substantiated. If contact information is provided for verification, the burden is on the Offeror to ensure the contact provided is reachable and able to verify the information provided by the Offeror to the SEC.

Q12. L.3.2 – Tab E BPR define…”how staff will be trained throughout the life of the contract”. Does this training refer back to C.4.4.5 for the post base period support?

A12. Tab E relates to BPR requirements; Section C.4.4.5 does not include BPR requirements. The Offeror needs to provide detail as to how their staff are trained on the Offeror’s methodologies and will be familiar with the SEC’s requirement.

Q13. Section B - What constitutes small, medium and large processes is open to significant interpretation and is likely to result in multiple interpretations by various perspective offerors. Can the SEC provide additional information on the criteria for assessment of Tier 1-3 processes/tasks?

A13. It is up to the Offeror to determine, based on their methodology, and explain the criteria that they use to determine the size of their process tiers. The SEC will not provide any additional information.

Q14. C.4.2.7.1 & C.4.5.3 Outline of Re-Imagining Electronic Filing, Analysis, and Disclosure at the SEC

– In the description of the overall deliverable outline the Technical Review includes a To-Be Analysis however in the description of the deliverables within the section there is no mention of To-Be rather a focus on alternatives and best practices which align with the technology improvements and recommendations in the outline. Does the SEC desire a To-Be analysis? If so can you please clarify the scope of the To-Be deliverable?

A14. Section C.4.1 and Section C.4.5 discuss technical review topics that help focus the Offeror in their analysis of the current system and potential future system. A review of these topics requires an As-Is analysis, which will lead the Offeror towards recommendations and improvements that would represent the To-Be analysis. The Offeror must incorporate these concepts and others that they find during their analysis into their proposal to meet the requirements of this task.

Q15. C.4.4.3 – There is scope for “A trained, experienced team that can provide professional analysis and advice for improving federal laws, structure of disclosure rules, agency rules, process, etc.;” and ” and “The Contractor shall provide personnel with expertise and a sound understanding of the rules, processes…” Can SEC confirm that the intent is for policy reviews but not legal advice on laws and rules?

A15. The intent is for reviews and recommendations, not legal advice.

Q16. C.4.4.3 – “The Contractor shall also use its expertise and a representative sampling of the following as SMEs for innovative ideas from external entities”. Does SEC have specific SME’s in mind or is SEC looking for recommendations on the sampling of SME’s?

A16. The SEC requires that the Offerors determine which SMEs to include in their analysis.

Q17. Section B – There is no Business Process Re-Engineering Labor Hours CLIN to support the work as defined in section 4.3.2. Does SEC plan to add a labor hours CLIN to support this work?

A17. The BPR CLINs are Firm Fixed Price.

Q18. L.3.2 – Would the SEC consider adding an additional more junior labor level to accommodate additional resource types? We would anticipate this lower level employee supporting BPR documentation and PMO support. These resources can decrease project length and total project cost.

A18. The CO for individual TOs may grant waivers for these levels or allow substitution of certain technical certifications for education and/or experience if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government, as stated in L.3.3.1.c.

Q19. L.3.2 – To estimate the support in option years the SEC has asked to assume a level of support consistent with the level of support in the base year, does this assumption hold for the on-going support for Electronic Disclosure Requirements and Technical Review Support (CLINS 0009, 0010, 0013, 0014, 0017, 0018)? Further, we would anticipate the effort requiring fewer resources during these support periods than during the initial review and assessment period. Since there is no estimate for the option years, would SEC consider a more representative estimation to be built on year 2 of the base period as a proxy for continuing support?

A19. As stated in L.3.3 Tab D, Offerors shall propose prices based on Year 1 of the base period for evaluation purposes only. More information will be provided when task orders are issued.

Q20. G.3 – Can you please clarify the frequency of invoice submission?

A20. Offerors shall propose an invoice schedule, as indicated in L.3.2 .2. Tab C.

Q21. Key Personnel - On Page 19 the RFP references task managers and sub-task managers as key.

However, on page 45 section H.10.1.0610.01, the RFP references a different set of key personnel and adds 2 categories not previously discussed in the RFP.

• Page 19 “The PM is key personnel on the contract. The Task Managers for each process and each sub-task are also key personnel on this contract.”

• H.10.1.0610.01 program manager, the POC (see 6010.03), Electronic Disclosure Requirements and Process Review Lead, Technical Review Lead, Business Process Re-Engineering Lead, a Subject Matter Expert (SME) in both the software and in contracting, and a system administrator if one is assigned to work at the SEC

Can you please clarify the Key Personnel required for this scope?

A21. Key personnel on this contract are Program Manager, Electronic Disclosure Requirements and Process Review Lead, Technical Review Lead, and Business Process Re-Engineering Lead. See revised H.10.1.

Q22. Clause H.7.e OCI is intended to prevent unfair competitive advantage as it relates to requirements EDGAR modernization. However, this concern typically applies when contractors prepare and/or furnish complete specifications to be used in the competitive acquisition process. In this procurement, contractors are not being asked to furnish complete specifications; requirements are not in scope for the BPR. The BPR should not be subject to preclusion from modernization procurement. Would SEC consider that section H.7.e be removed, or in the alternative, that mitigation plans be allowable for a contractor to bid on the EDGAR modernization/replacement procurement?

A22. Section H.7(e) of the RFP has been amended in response to this Question.

Q23. H.10.2 Point of Contact (POC). The SEC requires a POC. “The POC may be the Program Manager but the POC must have some contracting knowledge and be very experienced in the function and use of the software being implemented.” Since this is a BPR vs. system, does this same concept apply?

A23. See revised H.10.2.

Q24. H.12 – CTMS. Does the use of CTMS apply to labor hours work only and not the FFP work?

A24. CTMS is for on-site contractor personnel only. This contract is to be performed at the contractor site, and therefore will not use CTMS.

Q25. We would like to request an extension for the questions due date to July 17, 2014.

A25. See Question 4.

Q26. Also, we would like to request a four (4) weeks extension for proposal due date.

A26. See Question 7.

Q27. Given the size and complexity of the effort, we would like to request an extension of the July 26, 2014 deadline so we can formulate a valuable submission for the SEC.

A27. See Question 7.

Q28. Attachment J-1, J.2.2, item 1 Modernize and Enhance EDGAR Functionality.

a) When the SEC asks for improvements to “the presentation quality of SEC filings” are you talking about visual presentation or referring to presentation and access to filing content?

b) Are you expressing any dissatisfaction with the typical HTML submission?

A28. The Offeror should propose their best solution for meeting the requirements of this solicitation.

Q29. Attachment J-2. Attachment J-2 is mislabeled as Attachment J-1.

A29. Noted.

Q30. Attachment J-2, Page 1. Are we accurate in concluding that a “start document tag <DOCUMENT>” is missing from the sample material provided?

A30. Yes. There is a “start document tag” , <DOCUMENT>, missing from the J-2, Page 1. It should appear after the first “end document tag” </DOCUMENT>.

Q31. Attachment J-2, page 3, XBRL.

a) Now that XBRL submissions are mandated, how rigorously are XBRL documents validated?

b) Are filings ever suspended for invalid XBRL?

c) If they are not suspended, what protocol does the SEC follow re dissemination, notice to filers, or resubmission?

A31. The answers to technical details concerning XBRL documents and handling can be found in the EDGAR Filer’s Manual on www.sec.gov and at xbrl.sec.gov.

Q32. Attachment J-2, page 3, XBRL. The final sentence says “XML” instead of “XBRL.”

A32. The final sentence should read, “XBRL filings represent approximately 2% of documents currently filed on EDGAR.”

Q33. Attachment J-2, Submission Traffic. Can the SEC provide access to the 148 paper-only form types?

A33. Access to all paper-only form types, if necessary, will be provided to the successful Offeror.

Q34. C.4.1.2, page 17, 8th bullet. Please provide further insight into the desire for establishing a facility to include “camera-ready copy” within an EDGAR submission.

A34. The Offeror should propose their best solution for meeting the requirements of this solicitation.

Q35. C.4.2.7.1, pages 22-24, Outline of Re-Imagining Electronic Filing, Analysis, and Disclosure at the SEC. In your outline of the deliverable entitled Re-Imagining Electronic Filing, Analysis, and Disclosure at the SEC there are chapters for the filers and internal SEC. Should there also be a chapter for the Dissemination users?

A35. Section C.4.2.7.1 has been amended in response to this Question.

Q36. Attachment J-3, APP.1.2 Internet Services, Last Paragraph. How many leased lines are currently in operation?

A36. The answer to this question is not relevant to this procurement.

Q37. Section B, Page 4, In the table, column “Unit.” Please provide your definition of “Process”.

http://www.sec.gov/

A37. BPR processes will be identified in resulting task orders, as indicated in C.4.3.

Q38. C.4.3, Page 25,“The SEC will identify the processes and issue task orders for each process.” Please identify the processes at this time such that the contractor has a better understanding of how the government defines a business process?

A38. The Offeror should propose their best solution for meeting the requirements of this solicitation.

Q39. C.4.3.2, Page 26, C.4.3.2, Page 26. Is there a structured business process flow charting tool (besides Visio) available for use at the SEC or recommended by the SEC?

A39. No. Offeror is free to propose one for consideration; however, not using the charting tool cannot affect the ability for the contractor to perform at a high level on this contract.

Q40. G.8.1, Page 28, Placement of Task Orders. As this is an IDIQ contract, what is the first task order that we should respond to?

A40. The SEC anticipates awarding a task order for CLINs 0001, 0003, and 0004 at the time of contract award, based on the successful Offeror’s response to this solicitation.

Q41. L.3.2, Page 64, Go/No-Go Factor 2. Please confirm the government’s intent of this factor is the following: The demonstrated BPR experience on 10 processes is for business processes, not necessarily project or contracts. For example, one contract may have included the BPR of multiple business processes, similar to this EDGAR Modernization BPR contract.

A41. Correct - the intent is for Offerors to demonstrate BPR experience using their proposed methodology on 10 processes, and multiple processes may have been included in a single project or contract. Further, Sections L & M are being amended with respect to Go/No-Go Factor 2 to require that the combined total value of the effort for the 10 BPR processes must have been valued at $2 million or more.

Q42. Section C, Pages 10, 11 and 17, Section C, Pages 10, 11 and 17. How recently were these concepts generated? Were they conducted through recent workshops with leaders, SMEs? Were they the results of prior analyses conducted by contractors?

A42. No additional information is being provided at this time.

Q43. C.4.2.7.1, page 23, Outline of Re-Imagining Electronic Filing, Analysis, and Disclosure at the SEC.

Is the SEC open to structuring the BPR sections by functional area or process, versus Organizational Unit?

A43. Not at this time.

Q44. C.4.2.7.1, page 23, Outline Section 13, entitled “Business Case”. When the SEC indicates “Alternatives Analysis”, is that referring to the comparison of estimated or exact costs and cost savings associated with a small, medium and/or large degree of process change? Or must they be based on exact quotes of IT solutions?

A44. In some, perhaps many, cases, the “exact quotes of IT solutions” will not be possible. It is the SEC’s intent to include in this report as much cost information as possible and known at the time to assist in decision-making. Exact costs would be ideal.

Q45. C.4.3.3, page 26, Business Process Re-Engineering, paragraph 2. Please clarify whether the Contractor is responsible for implementing processes in the Base Period. The text indicates as such. “The Contractor shall….design and implement re-engineered, lean and agile processes.”

A45. The Contractor is responsible for developing a sound and accurate report. Implementation of process change is not within the scope of this contract. See revised C.4.3.3.

Q46. C.4.3.2, page 26, Overall Business Process Improvement Support, first paragraph. Can you please clarify what the SEC means with respect to “the development and population of a knowledge base as part of the process improvement program”? Please define expectations of the “knowledge base.” Is this posting materials on a Share Point site? Or developing a separate solution for a repository?

A46. The Offeror is to propose a solution based on its methodology, however, the Offeror should adhere to simplicity.

Q47. L.3.2, page 67, Contract Documentation and Pricing Volume Instructions. Suggest change of numbering to “L.3.3” for compliance tracking purposes.

A47. This has been revised.

Q48. L.3.2.2, page 68, Tab C – Exceptions and Deviations. Suggest change of numbering to “Tab B” for compliance tracking purposes.

A48. This has been revised.

Q49. L.3.3, page 69, Oral Presentations. Suggest change of numbering to “L.3.4” for compliance tracking purposes.

A49. This has been revised.

Q50. I.(b).(17), page 53, 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. Can the government confirm that the SEC agency goals are to be used in the development of the proposal small business subcontracting plan?

A50. Offerors should propose goals in their Subcontracting Plan. These goals are subject to review and negotiation by the SEC prior to award.

Q51. Small Business Participation. Can the SEC please provide its expectations and agency goals for small business?

A51. See Question 50.

Q52. Section I, page 59, FAR Clause 52.216-18. This FAR Clause states that all services will be ordered by DO/TO.

a) Does the government intend to issue DO/TOs for all work performed under this contract ?

b) If this is not the case, which CLINs will be exercised by DO/TO?

A52. a) Yes. Task orders will be issued for all work to be performed under this contract.

Q53. H.6, page 42, Other Direct Costs. The RFP states that travel will be reimbursed at cost, but there are no travel CLINs nor is there a travel amount to be included in the proposal. Does the government intend for the offeror to propose travel or will it add travel CLINs and funding upon award?

A53. Offerors should include travel CLINs in their proposal if applicable, in accordance with H.6.

Q54. H.23, page 51, Subcontractor Approval Required Documentation. What will the requirements be for subcontractors for the proposal? Will we submit teaming agreements and will they submit sealed packages?

A54. Offerors shall provide the SEC with an explanation of the type of agreement(s) the Contractor and subcontractors are proposing. This explanation shall clearly define the relationship(s) between the Contractor and subcontractor(s) and what each party’s responsibilities/duties shall be, as stated in H.23.

Q55. Attachment J-6, Certification by Corporations Regarding an Unpaid Delinquent Tax Liability or a Felony Conviction under Federal Law. Which Tab in the Business Volume should include the completed J-6?

A55. Tab C. The solicitation has been revised to reflect this.

Q56. SF 1449, Box 8/L.2, page 62, Offer Due Date. Box 8 states the due date is July 24th. Section L.2 says the due date is July 26th. Please clarify.

A56. See Question 7.

Q57. Section B, Page 4, Section B, Page 4. States “Fixed price and Labor Hour task orders will be issued…” This conflicts with Page 42, Section H.4 which states “…anticipated awarding Firm Fixed Price task orders…” Please clarify.

A57. See Question 9.

Q58. CLIN Table, Page 4, 0002, 0002A, 0002B, 0002C. Please define TBD.

A58. The number of BPR tasks is to be determined. Task orders will be issued following contract award.

Q59. CLIN Table, Page 4. Where does the contractor propose ODCs such as travel? Should that value be included in our CLIN price?

A59. See Question 53.

Q60. Tab I, Page 67, Past Performance. Does SEC have a page limitation for each past performance?

A60. No, there is no page limitation on past performance.

Q61. Attachment J-1, Page 4, Last bullet on top of page. Of the 500,000 entities authorized to file on EDGAR, how many are active?

A61. 500,000.

Q62. Attachment J-1, Each paragraph. Each paragraph ends with a volume statement indicating the percentage of that type of document “currently filed on EDGAR”. How recent are the estimates? Over the past month, past six months, year?

A62. These estimates are fairly recent, and should be used for this solicitation.

Q63. C.4.2.2, Page 19/L.3.2, Tab D, Page 64, Program Management Plan (PMP). States PMP is to be delivered with the proposal. The PMP is not shown in section L.3.1. Where should the PMP be included and are there page limitations for the PMP?

A63. The PMP should be included in Tab D, and is included in the page limitation for Tab D.

Q64. L.3.2, Tab D, Page 64, Program Management. Recommend SEC consider adding the following:

Offeror shall describe how it maintains an ISO 20000, or similar international standard, continuous improvement process.

A64. This is not a requirement for this procurement.

Q65. C.2.2, Page 15, Overarching Strategy For Determining Modernization Requirements. States: “The results of the prime activity must be explained to and vetted by stakeholders throughout the SEC for consideration and decision-making.” Does SEC have a desired mechanism for this vetting process?

A65. No additional information is being provided at this time.

Q66. C.4.2.8.5, Page 25, Suggest changing “The Contractor shall monitor the development effort to ensure the quality…” to “The Contractor shall monitor all tasks to ensure the quality…” A66. This has been revised.

Q67. C.4.3.2, Page 26, 1st paragraph. First paragraph says we will populate a knowledge base. Is this “knowledge base” a system SEC will provide or is the contractor to include it in their cost?

A67. See Question 46.

Q68. G.8.1, page 39. For future task orders, will new CLINs be added?

A68. The SEC does not anticipate inclusion of any new CLINs at this time. New CLINs for future in-scope work may be added as necessary in negotiation with the successful Offeror.

Q69. H.10.1, 6010.01, page 45. Suggest the following be changed from: “Key personnel shall include the program manager, the POC (see 6010.03), Electronic Disclosure Requirements and Process Review Lead, Technical Review Lead, Business Process Re- Engineering Lead, a Subject Matter Expert (SME) in both the software and in contracting, and a system administrator if one is assigned to work at the SEC.” To:

Key personnel shall include the program manager, the POC (see 6010.03), Electronic Disclosure Requirements and Process Review Lead, Technical Review Lead, Business Process Re- Engineering Lead, and Subject Matter Experts (SME) at the contractor’s discretion.”

A69. See Question 21.

Q70. H.23, page 51. Please provide more information on the type of cost breakdown required for subcontractors. What is this in addition to the pricing information provided by the prime?

A70. Please see revised H.23.

Q71. L.3.2, Tab H, page 66, 2nd paragraph. Assuming the cognizant business unit could be several hundred personnel (or more), how would SEC like the Offeror to provide “the educational and professional certificates obtained by the personnel”?

A71. This requirement has been moved to cover only key personnel. See revised L.3.2 Tab H.

Q72. Page 66, Tab H, 1st paragraph. Are Letters of Intent exempt from the page count?

A72. Yes, Letters of Intent will not be included in the page count.

Q73. Page 67, Tab I, 5th paragraph. Please confirm that the contractor is responsible for including the past performance questionnaires in their proposal.

A73. The Offeror shall include the past performance questionnaires in its technical proposal, as indicated in L.3.2.2 Tab I.

Q74. Attachment J-7. Can this form be modified by the contractor? For example, there is no place to identify the project and the customer.

A74. Offerors shall not revise the form. References should include this information in the body of their responses.

Q75. What is the submission requirements for the past performance questionnaire? For example, will the evaluator submit directly to you, are they to be included in the proposal, etc.

A75. See Question 73.

Q76. Can this form be modified by the contractor? For example, there is no place to identify the project and the customer.

A76. See Question 74.

Q77. Reference Section L, paragraph L.2: Will the contract Office consider extending the Proposal due date by two to three week time period?

A77. See Question 7.

Q78. The RFP notes that this is an IDIQ. What defines a Task Order and how will they be initiated (e.g., are the CLINs akin to a task, and initiation is based on how CLINs are executed)?

A78. All work will be issued via a task order, as described in Section B.

Q79. Section L.2 notes the due date as July 26. However, the date of July 24 is listed on SF 1449. What is the due date and time?

A79. See Question 7.

Q80. Section H.10.1 6010.01 Key Personnel lists a POC, SME, and a System Administrator as key positions for software/system development. Further, Section H.10.2 6010.03 notes that the POC is to be very experienced in the use of the software being implemented and be present through system acceptance. Given that no system development work is contemplated in this SOW, can these positions be waived or can the experience requirement with regard to software be clarified?

A80. See Question 21.

Q81. Can the government clarify the key personnel requirement for the contract’s administrator and whether it intends for that position to be full-time?

A81. See Question 21.

Q82. Is it acceptable for the two references provided in accordance with the Past Performance requirements in L.3.2.2 Tab I to be different than the experiences provided in accordance with the Evaluation Factor 2 Go/No-Go Factor requirement?

A82. Yes.

Q83. How many processes does the Government believe to be a part of the EDGAR system?

A83. The number of BPR processes to be awarded is unknown at this time. BPR work will be issued in resulting task orders.

Q84. Regarding Evaluation Factor 2 Go/No-Go Factor requirement, can the government clarify whether the 10 processes may be part of a single engagement (e.g., one broader task/job/contract that has multiple processes addressed, such that the job totals $2 million or more) or whether the intent is to provide 10 specific process references in which each one had a cost of $2 million or more?

A84. See Question 41.

Q85. Please clarify the size and scope of the processes that would be deemed comparable for go/no-go factor 2.

A85. See Question 41.

Q86. Since the successful bidder will be excluded from future EDGAR Modernization systems development work, can the Government confirm that the Offeror will be able to compete on future advisory work, such as program management, requirements development, acquisition support, independent testing, etc. related to the modernization of EDGAR?

A86. Section H.7(e) of the RFP has been amended in response to this Question.

Q87. As noted in H.23, subcontracts which are subject to requirements of 52.244-2 shall be submitted to the Contracting Officer for review and approval. In accordance with FAR 52.244-2, Contractors with purchasing systems reviewed and approved in accordance with FAR Part 44 are not subject to the consent to subcontract requirements in accordance with FAR 52.244-2(c) and (d), or advanced notification requirements in accordance with FAR 52.244-2(e)(2). Can H.23 be modified to clarify that Contractor’s with purchasing systems reviewed and approved in accordance with Part 44 are not required to submit subcontracts to the Contracting Officer for review and approval.

A87. This has been incorporated into revised H.23.

Q88. Will the contractor be interfacing with/manipulating any personally identifiable information (PII) or protected health information (PHI) for this contract/task order? If yes, how many anticipated PII/PHI records will the contractor be accessing?

A88. The contractor will NOT be accessing or manipulating any PII at the SEC or on SEC systems.

They may be exposed briefly to PII during the execution of the task in a read only manner during demonstrations by SEC staff. They will have no access to PHI.

Q89. If we are anticipating exposure, are there any controls in place on client side to limit or restrict the exposure of contractors to PII/PHI within systems (e.g., will the data be de-identified by the client, can client equipment be provided to contain PII/PHI, or if it’s a database are there technical/logical controls in place to restrict all access)?

A89. See Question 88.

Q90. Can the government please confirm that the Offeror has the option to provide multiple labor categories and rates within each of the four levels provided in the table under “Section L.3.2 - Contract Documentation and Pricing Volume Instructions” (page 68) in the RFP?

A90. Confirmed.

Q91. To allow more comparable pricing per tiers, would the Government provide an example “process” per tier for the FFP CLINs? Likewise, would the Government provide a total hour estimate for the labor hour CLINs?

A91. Since the size of the processes should be tailored to the Offerors methodology and since the Offeror is going to describe the criteria for each tier, the SEC will not provide any additional information. The Government will not provide a total hour estimate for the labor hour CLINs.

Q92. The Draft Statement of Work for the RFI issued on September 23, 2013 included a “Legal Review” task at C.4.4. In the RFP, the Legal Review task appears to have been replaced with “Electronic Disclosure Requirements and Process Review,” which is at C.4.4 of the RFP. The original “Legal Review” task seemed to contemplate the direct involvement of a law firm with expertise on the relevant statutes and regulations, but it is not clear that such is the case under the RFP. Does the Commission anticipate direct involvement of non-SEC attorneys with expertise in the relevant statutes and regulations? If so, can the Commission provide any guidance as to the nature of that involvement?

A92. The SEC does not require any direct involvement of non-SEC attorneys. The SEC is not seeking legal advice, but does expect personnel with knowledge and expertise of relevant laws and regulations to be involved to the extent necessary to inform the Offeror’s reviews and recommendations.

Q93. The first bullet point under C.4.4.3 Basic Services specifies that the Contractor shall provide “A trained, experienced team that can provide professional analysis and advice for improving federal laws, structure of disclosure rules, agency rules, process, etc.” The first bullet point under C.4.4.3 Basic Services in the RFI’s Draft SOW specified “A trained, experienced legal team . . .” (emphasis added). Does the Commission anticipate that the Basic Services listed at C.4.4.3 will be performed by non-legal personnel?

A93. The Offeror should propose their best solution for meeting the requirements of the solicitation. Also see Question 92.

Q94. To the extent that outside legal expertise may be required for the Contractor to perform services under C.4.4 or other portions of the RFP, can you provide guidance on how such services fit into the structure of the RFP? For example, would you expect that a Contractor would retain outside legal counsel to provide advice and that such services would be reflected in the proposed labor categories and labor rates?

A94. The Offeror should propose their best solution for meeting the requirements of the solicitation.

Q95. To the extent that outside legal expertise may be required, does the Commission contemplate forming an attorney-client relationship with outside legal counsel in connection with the tasks identified in the RFP? If so, does the Commission have a plan that would allow experienced securities lawyers to form such a relationship with the Commission while also continuing to represent private clients in matters before the Commission?

A95. The SEC will NOT form an attorney-client relationship with outside legal counsel.

Q96. The RFP contains a number of references to non-SEC SMEs with which the Contractor will be expected to work. Can you provide any additional guidance on how the work of such non-SEC SMEs would be charged and how it should be reflected in the Price Proposal?

A96. Offerors should refer to L.3.3.2 Tab D for guidance on how to submit price proposals.

Q97. Due to the Magnitude and complexity of scope of this RFP is it possible to extend the due date?

A97. See Question 7.

Q98. Section C.2.2 Page 15. Can the Government provide an estimate of the number of processes that it plans to include within this scope of work over the base period, and how much of this work will be expected to be done concurrently to help clarify the potential size and staff loading of the overall effort? What is the an anticipated number of processes to be reviewed for each business unit (i.e, Divisions of Investment Management, Trading and Markets, Enforcement, etc).

A98. The SEC cannot provide that information at this time.

Q99. Section C.1.3 Page 11. What is SEC's procurement strategy for Modernization? Does the SEC plan to procurement modernization services through existing vehicles or a new full and open procurement?

A99. The answer to this question is not relevant to this procurement.

Q100. Section H.7 6006 Page 42. Will vendors involved in the existing EDGAR support or the award of this work be precluded from participating in the implementation of the modernization effort?

A100. See revised Section H.7.

Q101. Section L.3.2 Page 64. Please clarify if Factor 2 requires vendors to demonstrate BPR on 10 processes on a single project or a sub set of a project or across multiple projects. And please also clarify if each BPR project is expected to be over 2M or if the BPR on the collective 10 processes should be over 2M. Any clarification on factor 2 is appreciated.

A101. See Question 41.

Q102. We respectfully request a three (3) week extension to both the Questions period and the proposal due date.

A102. See Questions 4 and 7.

Q103. SF 1449, block 8 and section L.2, SF1449-1/L-62. The SF 1449 states proposal submission is due by July 24, 2014 at Noon Section L.2 states proposal submission is due July 26, 2014 at Noon.

Please clarify when proposal submission is due.

A103. See Question 7.

Q104. L.3.1 and L.3.2-2, 63,64. The L.3.1 format specifies the page limit of the cover letter is 5 pages and the executive summary is 1 page. L.3.2-2 specifies that the page limit of the cover letter is 1 page and the executive summary is 5 pages. We assume the intent was for the cover page to be limited to 1 page and the executive summary limited to 5 pages. Please confirm these page limits.

A104. The cover page is limited to one page and the executive summary is limited to 5 pages. L.3.1 has been revised.

Q105. C.4.2.1 and H.10.1, C-19, H-45. C.4.2.1 requires that the PM and each task lead are key personnel.

H.10.1 increases the number of key personnel to include a software SME, a contract SME, and a Systems Administrator. Is the government requiring that the three roles (software SME, contract SME, and systems administrator) be included in the technical solution?

A105. See Question 21.

Q106. C.4.2.1 and H.10.1, C-19, H-45. C.4.2.1 requires that the PM and each task lead are key personnel.

H.10.1 increases the number of key personnel to include a software SME, a contract SME, and a Systems Administrator. Since this contract does not deal with software design or implementation, does the government intend that the required software SME be an EDGAR SME, a software generalist SME or a SME of some specific software? If some specific software, please identify the software?

A106. See Question 21.

Q107. C.4.2.1 and H.10.1, C-19, H-45. C.4.2.1 requires that the PM and each task lead are key personnel.

H.10.1 increases the number of key personnel to include a software SME, a contract SME, and a Systems Administrator. While the contract would be administrated by corporate contract specialists and an experienced PM as key staff, beyond that the tasks do not suggest the type of work that would warrant the need for an additional key for contracting, please clarify the intent in the requirement for a contracting

SME?

A107. See Question 81.

Q108. C.4.2.1 and H.10.1, C-19, H-45. C.4.2.1 requires that the PM and each task lead are key personnel.

H.10.1 increases the number of key personnel to include a software SME, a contract SME, and a Systems Administrator. Is the government requiring that the three roles (software SME, The tasks in the RFP do not indicate services warranting a key systems administration and, in accordance with section F2, all work other than interviews is to be performed at contractor’s site. Please clarify the government’s intent regarding the need for a systems administrator as key personnel at the SEC?

A108. See Question 21.

Q109. The first question is on the 'unrestricted' eligibility and the RFP's section M.3.2.1: Evaluation of Go/No-Go Factors.Factor 2 under M.3.2.1 section requires the company to have BPR methodology on 10 process over the last three years, at least 3 of which are valued at 2 million or more. Is this factor favoring larger, established consulting firms? If the SEC is asking for bold innovation, is it in its best interest to exclude any capable persons or entities? I am now working as an individual. Under this restriction, I would have to find an entity fitting this restriction, who may already be staffed.

A109. The SEC is seeking Offerors with demonstrated corporate experience in BPR.

Q110. The second question is on section H.5 6006.00 Conflicts of Interest (e)(2), that the selected contractor/subcontractor for this project is ineligible to participate in Edgar's development. Please comment on FAR subpart 9.5.03 waiver, and 9.5.505-2(a)(3).

A110. Section H.7(e) of the RFP has been amended in response to this Question.

Q111. Can the proposal be "lump-sum, progress billing on labor, based on estimation value by category (to be approved by SEC)?

A111. Offerors shall provide a proposed invoice schedule, as stated in L.3.3.2 Tab C.

Q112. Is there protection for IP?

A112. FAR 52.227-14, Rights in Data—General, and other applicable FAR provisions govern the protection of IP. Offerors should clearly identify any limited rights data or restricted computer software to be protected.