Question_and_Answers_-_07-05-16.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 14 KB Posted
- Attached to
- EDGAR Redesign (ERD) Requirements Gathering
- Solicitation number
- SECHQ1-16-R-0017
- Issued by
-
Securities and Exchange Commission
About this file
Questions and Answers 7/5/2016
View the file
Other files
Show all 27
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Q&A Template SECHQ1-16-R-0017 Questions and Answers (Q&A) - Amendment 000002
| Document Reference | Section Reference | Paragraph | Pages | Question | Answer | |
| RFP | Would the SEC please clarify whether the Senior Program Manager and the Senior Technical Program Manager are required to possess two certifications: (1) PMP or PgMP and (2) FAC-C/FAC-C-IT or DAWIA PM Level 3 certification. Or is the intent behind the requirement that the managers possess at least one of the four named certifications? | Program managers should possess at least one of the four named certifications. Please see revised Section H.10. | ||||
| RFP | Would the SEC please provide required qualifications for the proposed Business Process Engineering Lead? | Offerors should propose qualifications for the Business Process Engineering Lead. | ||||
| RFP | Would the SEC please confirm whether the Facilitator is required to possess the qualifications currently listed under “Project Manager Level III”, or if the “Project Manager Level III” position is an additional, sixth key personnel position? | H.10 has been revised to add qualifications for the Facilitator(s). Qualifications previously listed for the Project Manager Level III are not required for the Facilitator role. | ||||
| RFP | B.1, 1.1 | Program Management Methodology | 61 | We request that all references to a Program Management "artifact" be removed from this requirement. This artifact was developed in support of a mission critical system, the government will not allow us to use it for any purpose other than the one for which it was intended. | The RFP has been revised to show the SEC's intent to receive an actual PMP for the ERD Requirements Gathering program rather than an artifact from a previous project. | |
| RFP | B.1, 1.2 | Business Process Engineering Methodology | 61 | We request that all references to a Business Process Engineering "artifact" be removed from this requirement. This artifact was developed in support of a mission critical system, the government will not allow us to use it for any purpose other than the one for which it was intended. | See revised section L.3.3.B.2 of the RFP. | |
| RFP | B.1, 1.4 | Functional/Non-Functional Requirements | ||||
| Document (FRD) Creation Methodology | 61 | We request that all references to a Functional/Non-Functional Requirements | ||||
| Document (FRD) "artifact" be removed from this requirement. This artifact was developed in support of a mission critical system, the government will not allow us to use it for any purpose other than the one for which it was intended. | See revised section L.3.3.B.2 of the RFP. | |||||
| RFP | B.2, 2.1 | Program Management Plan Artifact | 62 | In support of mission critical systems similar to EDGAR, we have developed a Program Management Plan and Integrated Master Schedule. Our Program Management Plan and Integrated Master Schedule are deliverables under contract to the government. Once delivered, the government owns all the rights to these artifacts. Since this artifact was developed in support of a mission critical system, the government will not allow us to use it for any purpose other than the one for which it was intended. To provide any of these artifacts would be a breach of our government contracts. Recommend the government delete this requirement. | See revised section L.3.3.B.2 of the RFP. | |
| RFP | B.2, 2.2 | Functional/Non-Functional Requirements | ||||
| Document Artifact | 62 | In support of mission critical systems similar to EDGAR, we have developed a Functional/Non-Functional Requirements Document. Our Functional/Non-Functional Requirements Documents a deliverable under contract to the government. Once delivered, the government owns all the rights to these artifacts. Since this artifact was developed in support of a mission critical system, the government will not allow us to use it for any purpose other than the one for which it was intended. To provide any of these artifacts would be a breach of our government contracts. Recommend the government delete this requirement. | See revised section L.3.3.B.2 of the RFP. | |||
| RFP | B.2, 2.3 | Business Process Engineering Artifact | 62 | In support of mission critical systems similar to EDGAR, we have developed a Business Process Engineering artifact. Our Business Process Engineering artifact is a deliverable under contract to the government. Once delivered, the government owns all the rights to these artifacts. Since this artifact was developed in support of a mission critical system, the government will not allow us to use it for any purpose other than the one for which it was intended. To provide any of these artifacts would be a breach of our government contracts. Recommend the government delete this requirement. | See revised section L.3.3.B.2 of the RFP. | |
| RFP | H.10 6010.01 | Key Personnel | 41 | Please provide the qualifications or certifications required for the Business Processing Engineering Lead Labor Category. | Offerors should propose qualifications for the Business Process Engineering Lead. | |
| RFP | H.10 6010.01 | Key Personnel | 42 | Please provide the qualifications or certifications required for the Facilitator Labor Category. | Please see section H.10 of the revised RFP | |
| RFP | H.10 6010.01 | Key Personnel | 41 | Would the SEC consider substituting experience in lieu of a Masters Degree for the Senior Program Manager? | No. | |
| RFP | H.10 6010.01 | Key Personnel | 41 | Would the SEC consider substituting experience in lieu of a Bachelors Degree for the Senior Technical Program Manager? | No. | |
| RFP | H.10 6010.01 | Key Personnel | 41-42 | Would the SEC consider substituting experience in lieu of a Bachelors Degree for the Senior Technical Writer? | No. No change to RFP. | |
| RFP | H.10 6010.01 | Key Personnel | 40-42 | There are 5 key personnel position identified followed by descriptions for six categories. Is the Project Manager Level III also considered key? | The PM Level III has now been removed from H.10. | |
| RFP | H.10 6010.01 | Key Personnel | 40-41 | Is the list of key personnel intended to be limited to 5 or 6 positions or are these key labor categories? For example, if we propose 2 facilitators, should both be designated as key? | All facilitator positions shall be designated as key. See revised H.10 of the RFP. | |
| RFP | Tab C | Personnel | 62 | Offerors are asked to list and describe "the labor categories proposed under CLINs 0002, 0004, and 0006 for Expertise and Support Not Needed On A Fixed Basis." Does the SEC intend for the offeror to create labor categories and identify the minimum requirements for personnel to fill those positions? | Offerors shall propose labor categories. The Contractor is responsible for managing qualifications. | |
| RFP: SECHQ1-16-R-0017 | C.4.2.1.2 and F.3 4003.01 | 3 | 15 and 33 | In Section C.4.2.1.2 Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) the Government states the "schedule is to be provided to the COR no later than one (1) month from the contract start date." However, in Section F.3 4003.0 Schedule of Deliverables states the IMS is due 45 days after contract award. Please confirm when the IMS is due. | The IMS is due 45 calendar days from the contract start date. C.4.2.1.2 has been revised. | |
| RFP | H.10 6010.01 | Key Personnel | 41 | The Senior Program Manager position and the Senior Technical Program Manager require the following certifications: PMP or PgMP, FAC-C/FAC-C-IT or DAWIA PM Level 3. Would the SEC consider substituting additional years of experience or a specific degree (e.g., MBA, MS in Computer Science) in lieu of the required certifications? | No. | |
| RFP | H.10 6010.01 | Key Personnel | 42 | The Project Manager Level III position requires the following certifications: PMP, FAC-C/FAC-C-IT or DAWIA PM Level 2 or above. Would the SEC consider substituting additional years of experience or a specific degree (e.g., MBA, MS in Computer Science) in lieu of the required certifications? | No. | |
| RFP | Tab D | Past Performance | 63 | The RFP references Attachment 4 "Past Performance Statement" and Attachment 4 "Past Performance Questionnaire." Attachment 4 as issued appears to be the EDGAR Submission form. Please clarify the intent of these instructions. | Please see revised RFP, and revised Attachment 3, included in Amendment 000002. | |
| RFP | L.3 | Proposal Submission | 58 | Will the SEC allow Offeror's to utilize another font type other than Times New Roman for graphics? | Yes. Offerors are responsible for ensuring that text in graphics is legible, and adheres to the font size restrictions in the RFP. | |
| RFP | L.3, B.1, B.2 | Proposal Instructions | 58, 60, and 62 | Please confirm that responding only to the Statement of Work Sections called out in sections L.3, B.1, and B.2 would be responsive to the RFP requirements and be considered a compliant response. If not, will the SEC please provide additional guidance in how it expects offerors to responds to the statement of work within the RFP structure of section L. | Offeror's proposals should include a comprehensive response to the entire solicitation. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .