Question_and_Answers_-_7-14-16.pdf

Document Reference

Section Reference Paragraph Pages Question Answer

RFP Section C.2.3.1.3

ERD

Working Group (WG) n/a 8 Does the SEC have an estimate of how many people are expected to be a part of each Working Group?

It depends on the subject matter being discussed in the Working Group, how the Offeror intends to use the Working Group according to their methodology, and how many SEC SMEs are needed to address the subject matter being discussed. Depending on the subject matter, there could be as few as 2 SEC SMEs in attendance or there could be as many as 10 SEC SMEs in attendance.

RFP Section C.2.3.1.3

ERD

Working Group (WG) n/a 8 Does a Working Group only represent one functional area or multiple ones?

In our description of how Working Groups might be used, we envisioned a Working Group to represent a system/environment capability, such as Review Filings or Upload Documents, which could require SEC SMEs from multiple functional areas to be represented in a Working Group. However, the Offeror is encouraged to incorporate the Working Group concept into their methodology and proposal.

N/A N/A N/A N/A Would the SEC please consider extending the proposal deadline, given the delayed response to the Go/No-Go submission?

See Amendment 000003. No further extensions will be provided.

RFP Tab B.2 – Technical Artifacts n/a 62 The Program Management Plan Artifact and the Functional/Non-Functional Requirements Document Artifact can be extremely large documents (a 400 page pan or an MS Project schedule with thousands of lines), and in most cases will need to be heavily redacted in order to protect client confidential information.

Would the SEC allow vendors to provide edited versions of the artifacts that keep the major headings of the artifacts as well as relevant excerpts?

The SEC is going to use the artifacts in the proposals to determine a confidence level of the Offerors' abilities to meet the requirements of the solicitation, therefore, it is in the best interest of the Offeror to provide to the SEC that which they feel is the best example of their previous work in this area.

SECHQ1-16-R-0017 Questions and Answers (Q&A) - Amendment 000004

RFP Tab B.2 – Technical Artifacts n/a 62 Would the SEC allow vendors an additional page per technical artifact in order to provide project context? In cases where vendors needs to redact parts of the artifacts to protect client confidentiality, it may be useful to the SEC evaluators to have a summary of the project.

The SEC is going to use the artifacts in the proposals to determine a confidence level of the Offerors' abilities to meet the requirements of the solicitation, therefore, it is in the best interest of the Offeror to provide to the SEC that which they feel is the best example of their previous work in this area.

RFP Tab B.2 – Technical Artifacts n/a 62 Would the SEC allow vendors to provide sample technical artifacts?

Yes, although actual artifacts are preferred. See Amendment 000002.

SECHQ1-16-

R-0017

C.4.2.2.8 8 25 of 67 When the SEC refers to adding a flexible and dynamic Organization structure, is this in reference to who would receive or have access to a filing or other document?

The question refers to a bulleted item in Section C.4.2.2.8 that represents an example of some technical analysis that may be requested as part of the contract. It refers to the hard-coding of organizational linkages within the application code that make it more difficult and labor intensive to change when business organizational structures change. The analysis, if requested, would be to analyze the current mechanism and find a better mechanism that can adapt to changing business organizational structures.

SECHQ1-16-

R-0017

C.3.2 5a 10 of 67 Can the SEC elaborate on the following statement: A significant constraint of this objective is the reality that this program cannot depend on significant changes to the existing SEC rule regime as a basis for delivering benefits to the program stakeholders. Right-size the solution core to eliminate valueless SEC and filer burden.

These bullets were provided to assist the Offeror with some context as to the politics that may be in place given an Administration transition period, however we do not feel that this statement is detailed enough to impact the Offeror's proposal. Any additional contextual information will be shared with the Offerors as the need arises.

SECHQ1-16-

R-0017

L.3 1 58 Given the Independence Day extended weekend and the requirement for Past Performance Questionnaires, would the SEC consider extending the due date to 7/25/2016? This would provide sufficient time for the Past Performance References to complete their Surveys, and for bidders to submit better quality, responsive, and competitive proposals that meet the requirements of the RFP

See Amendment 000003. No further extensions will be provided.

SECHQ1-16-

R-0017

H.10 6010.01

5 41 Does the government intend to provide any specifications for the Key Roles of Business Process Engineering Lead and Facilitator; or is the intention that the contractor provide their own specification?

The SEC has provided specifications for the Facilitator(s). Offerors should provide their own qualifications for the Business Process Engineering Lead. See Amendment 000002.

SECHQ1-16-

R-0017

C.4.1 Program Management

3 42 The SEC states that the contractor should have staff trained and technically-proven staff, current in the systems, technologies, and services employed by the SEC. Will the SEC specify to which systems and technologies it is referring so that contractors can ensure we are staffing appropriately?

While this is not a development or operations contract, the SEC still expects the Offeror to submit a proposal that incorporates the skills and experience in the types of systems and technologies that can add value to the satisfaction of the requirements in this solicitation. Some of the technologies cited can be found in Section H.12, the analyses sections C.4.2.2.1 through C.4.2.2.6, C.4.2.2.8 and elsewhere throughout the solicitation.

SECHQ1-16-

R-0017

C.4.2.1.4.1 Functional Requirement s Document Outline

17 Are the requirements to be developed anew, or will the contractor be building requirements based on existing requirements?

The requirements document(s) will be created anew based on requirements gathering sessions with SEC SMEs. While we cannot ignore the fact that a current system exists, the goal is NOT to incorporate current requirements, tweak current requirements, or even to validate current requirements, but to start anew with SEC SMEs and to gather requirements that form the basis for a new green field system/environment.

Does the SEC have an estimated Level of Effort to complete the Requirements Gathering effort?

No. The SEC has nothing new to add other than what is currently in this SOW that outlines our estimated timeline. The Offeror should propose their estimates according to their proven methodology.

SECHQ1-16-

R-0017

H.10 6010.01

5 41 To clarify, does the Senior Technical Program Manager have to have only one of the following PMI’s PMP, or PgMP certification, FAC-C/FAC-C-IT or DAWIA PM Level 3 certification?

See Amendment 000002. Only one certification is needed.

Would the SEC please confirm whether the six analysis contract deliverables (C.4.2.2.1 through C.4.2.2.6) should be discussed in the proposal as a part of Tab B.1.2 Business Process Engineering Methodology?

The six analysis contract deliverables (C.4.2.2.1 through C.4.2.2.6) should be discussed in the proposal as part of Tab B.1.3 Analysis Methodology.