ERS RFP Questions and Responses.rtf

QUESTIONS & RESPONSES FOR

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) NUMBER

TIRNO-13-R-00007

The letter to “Prospective Offerers” states Resumes should be submitted as attachments. There are no requirements or mention of resumes in the RFP. Are resumes required and if so what are the requirements?

Response: Resumes are not required. If the vendor chooses to provide resumes to document their employees’ experience, they should be submitted as attachments.

Section C.5 states “Multiple awards would likely be divided up across these categories.” Will the IRS issue one award per Award Group or can multiple awards be issued within each group? (i.e. 2 awards for Award Group 3).

Response: Multiple awards will not be issued within each group.

Response: Adobe Connect would have to be tested before conducting a training session. At this point, we do not know if there are any limitations in the IRS preventing the use of this tool. Typically, vendor trainers use Centra from an IRS location when delivering a training class via a web-conferencing tool; however, some sessions have been conducted using WebEx outside of the IRS intranet.

Please elaborate on the rules for vendors in conducting live webinar training.

Response: The content covered in a class delivered via a web conferencing tool is the same delivered in a face-to-face classroom session. The primary difference in the two delivering methods relates to whether or not CPE credit for CPAs is available. If CPE credit for CPAs is awarded in a webinar, questions have to be asked of the attendees at least every fifteen minutes and the responses have to be recorded.

Is live web based training on any new platform mandatory for all IRS staff?

Response: No.

How will the live webinar training registration process be managed? Will SPDER manage all training registrations and report to the vendor or will the vendor provide access to commercial training options as well?

Response: Typically, live webinar training is conducted via Centra and the IRS handles the registration process. If training is conducted on a vendor’s web-conferencing tool, the registration process would have to be negotiated with the vendor.

How will a vendor’s training offerings be accessed by IRS users? This could include live training webinars, recorded webinars, video tutorials, e-learning courses, PDF training guides and quick reference guides and cards.

Response: The platform upon which training related tutorials, guides, and webinars – either live or recorded – resides will be negotiated with the vendor. If all or part of the vendor-provided training tools resides on the vendor’s site, the site will have to meet the technical requirements outline in section C.4.2 of the statement-of-work.

§ CLIN 0001 (page 3) – CLIN 0001 is described as “Establish for 2014 RFP/tax, legal and business.” Are we correct in understanding that this is simply a placeholder CLIN for the resultant contract, and upon contract award, CLIN 0001 will be replaced by the appropriate CLINs as outlined in Section II – Contract Line Item Prices (pages 5-12)? Please clarify.

Response: The CLIN is a placeholder for the resultant contract.

§ Pricing Tables (page 12) – The RFP indicates that “The Offeror shall NOT MODIFY the Excel spreadsheet in any way.” Are we correct in understanding that the Offeror may attach supplemental pages to explain or describe their proposed price offering (e.g., pricing assumptions)? Please confirm.

Response: Yes, that is correct.

§ Price Proposal (page 13) - On page 13 of the RFP, the solicitation states that “the Offeror shall submit two (2) electronic copies of its pricing proposal on CD or DVD, and that the binder shall be labeled “Price Proposal”. On page 75 of the RFP, Proposal Preparation Instructions—Overall Arrangement of the Proposal, (b), the solicitation indicates that one (1) electronic copy of Volume 1—labeled “Offer and Other Documents” (including pricing) is required.

How many electronic copies of the pricing proposal are required (one or two)?

Response: One electronic copy of the pricing proposal is required.

b) Should Volume I be labeled “Price Proposal” or “Offer and Other Documents”?

Response: Volume I should be labeled “Price Proposal”.

§ Description of Award Groups (page 18)

a) It is our understanding that CCH Incorporated is the current provider of Offline Tax Research Services for Award Group 1. What was the total contract spending for Award Group 1 for CY2012, and what is the projected or estimated spend for CY2013?

Response: Total Contract Spending for Award Group I for 2012 is $1,664,000.00.

b) It is our understanding that LexisNexis (Reed Elsevier) is the current provider of Tax Research Services for Award Group 2. What was the total contract spending for Award Group 2 for CY2012, and what is the projected or estimated spend for CY2013?

Response: Total Contract Spending for Award Group 2 for 2012 is $2,335,219.84.

§ Award Group 1 – Offline Tax Research Service (page 18) – Section C.6.1.1 states that the IRS anticipates approximately 16,000 employees will use this library. The Price Worksheet seeks pricing for a range between 10,000-25,000 employees. What is the current number of employees using Offline Tax Research Services under the current Award Group 1 contract?

Response: The current number of employees is 13,122. Please use the 10,000-25,000 employee when preparing the pricing information.

§ Award Group 1 – Highly Desirable Features (page21) – Award Group 1 lists Mandatory Content, Mandatory Features, and Highly Desirable Content, but there is no heading for Highly Desirable Features. Should there be a Section C.6.5 heading of “Highly Desirable Features” before Section C.6.5.1? Please clarify.

Response: Yes, there should be a heading for section C.6.5 reading “Highly Desirable Features.”

§ Award Group 2 – Tax Research Service (page 21) – Section C.7.1.1 states that the IRS anticipates approximately 25,000 IRS employees and 100 Treasury employees will use this library. The Price Worksheet seeks pricing for a range between 10,000-35,000 employees. What is the current number of employees using Tax Research Services under the current Award Group 2 contract?

Response: The current number of employees is 23,709. Please use the range of 10,000.00-35,000 employees when preparing the pricing information.

§ Award Group 2 – Highly Desirable Features (pages 23-24) – Award Group 2 added several new highly desirable features that were not included in the current Award Group 2 contract (e.g., C.7.5.4-C.7.5.8). It appears that many of these new additional features are duplicative of highly desirable features being sought in Award Group 3 (Comprehensive Tax Research Services). Is it the intent of IRS to add these new highly desirable features to Award Group 2, recognizing that it may result in an increase in price, and may also artificially limit the vendors that are capable of submitting an offer to Award Group 2 to only those vendors capable of providing Comprehensive Research Services, thus having the unintended consequence of limiting the ability of Tax Research Services vendors only from submitting a competitive offer? Please note that there are other Highly Desirable Features listed (e.g., C.7.5.2 and C.7.5.9) that are also more applicable to a Comprehensive Research Service than a Tax Research Service provider. Please clarify.

Response: It is the intent of the IRS to add these highly desirable features to Award Group 2. Since the features are highly desirable and not mandatory, no vendor would be excluded from making a competitive offer based upon these items.

§ Award Group 3 – Highly Desirable Content, Specialized Content (page 32) – C.84.4.11 includes “Dockets.” Does this refer to federal, state, or both?

Response: Dockets refer to both federal and state.

§ Section IV Contract Clauses – FAR 52.212-4 (pages 39-46) – Paragraph 1.0 references FAR 52.212-4 Contract Terms and Conditions – Commercial Items (Mar 2009). Under the current Federal Acquisition Regulation, FAR 52.212-4 has been updated (June 2013). Please clarify.

Response: The updated clause is included in attached file.

§ Section IV Contract Clauses – FAR 52.212-5 (pages 46-51) – Paragraph 2.0 references FAR 52.212-5 Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders – Commercial Items (Dec 2010). Under the current Federal Acquisition Regulation, FAR 52.212-5 has been updated (June 2013). Please clarify.

Response: The updated clause is included in attached file..

§ Section IV Contract Clauses – FAR 52.232-99 (page 53) – Paragraph 9 references FAR 52.232-99 Providing Accelerated Payment to Small Business Subcontractors (Deviation (Aug 2012). It is this vendor’s understanding that this deviation implements a temporary one-year policy provided by the OMB, dated July 11, 2012. Has this temporary one-year deviation been extended? Is it the intent of the IRS to include this for the entire contract term?

Response:

§ Section IV Contract Clauses – Contract Term (page 54) – Paragraph 11 states that the term of this contract (including all option years) is five years, but indicates that it will end December 31, 2019. Should the end date be December 31, 2018, to be consistent with the five-year contract period?

Response: The end date should be December 31, 2018.

§ Section IV Contract Clauses – DTAR 1052.201.70 (page 55) – Paragraph 13 references DTAR 1052.201.70 Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) Appointment and Authority (Apr 2004). Under the current DTAR, DTAR 1052.201.70 has been updated (August 2011). Please clarify.

Response: The updated clause is included in the attached file.

§ Section IV Contract Clauses – IRSAP 1052.204-9003 (pages 55-57) – Paragraph 14 references IRSAP 1052.204-9003 – Information Security Training Requirements (Mar 2008). Under the current IRSAP, has this particular IRSAP been updated to IRSAP 1052.204-9003 – Information Security Training Requirements (Aug 2010). Please clarify.

Response: The clause has been identified in IPS as “obsolete.” The new principle safeguard clause (attached) 1052.224-9008 replaces all of the obsolete safeguard (confidentiality) clauses, and went into effect on October 1, 2012.

§ Section IV Contract Clauses – 1052.224-9000(c) (pages 61-63) – Paragraph 22 references 1052.224-9000(c) – Disclosure of Information – Safeguards (Jan 1998). Under the current IRSAP, has this particular IRSAP been updated to IRSAP 1052.224-9000(c) – Disclosure of Information – Safeguards (Nov 2005). Please clarify.

Response: The clause has been identified in IPS as “obsolete.” The new principle safeguard clause (attached) 1052.224-9008 replaces all of the obsolete safeguard (confidentiality) clauses, and went into effect on October 1, 2012.

§ Section IV Contract Clauses – 1052.224-9001(b) (page 64) – Paragraph 24 references 1052.224-9001(b) – Disclosure of Information – Official Use Only (Jan 1998). Under the current IRSAP, has this particular IRSAP been updated to IRSAP 1052.224-9001(b) – Disclosure of Information – Disclosure of Information – Sensitive but Unclassified Use Only (Mar 2008). Please clarify.

Response: The clause has been identified in IPS as “obsolete.” The new principle safeguard clause (attached) 1052.224-9008 replaces all of the obsolete safeguard (confidentiality) clauses, and went into effect on October 1, 2012.

§ Evaluation Process (page 71) – The RFP states (page 71) that the evaluation process will include a preliminary review to determine whether offerors meet the mandatory requirements outlined in the statement of work, and that the Government will proceed in a full evaluation of the technical and price/business proposals for those offerors who have met the mandatory requirements. The evaluation process will then consider “best value” by evaluating factors such as “Highly Desirable Content”, “Highly Desirable Features”, etc. Please note that there may be differences between vendors on their ability to meet the Mandatory Content and Mandatory Features (e.g., it may not be an “apples” to “apples” comparison as different providers do not have interchangeable Mandatory Content and Mandatory Features). As such, would the IRS be willing to consider Mandatory Content and Mandatory Features as part of the “best value” evaluation process to take into account that different vendors may provide different value and enhancements in Mandatory Content and Mandatory Features?

No.

§ Evaluation Process (page 71) – The RFP indicates that Offerors may be required to conduct an Operational Capabilities Demonstration. Would the IRS please provide more information regarding what is expected during the Operational Capabilities Demonstration?

Response: If a demonstration is required, vendors will be asked to provide a 60 minute demonstration of their product(s) with an additional period for questions and answers. The IRS may ask for demonstration of specific capabilities listed in the vendor’s proposal. If technically feasible, vendors may be asked to provide the demonstration virtually.

§ Volume II—Technical Proposal, (a) General (page 77): Page Limit. Per Amendment 1, each Offeror’s Technical proposal shall have a maximum of 150 pages. If an Offeror submits a proposal for one, two, or three award groups, are they allowed 150 pages per award group? Or is there a limitation of 150 pages total, regardless of the number of award groups that an Offeror may submit a proposal for?

Response: Vendors are allowed 150 pages per award group.

§ Volume II—Technical Proposal, (a) General (page 77): Page Formatting. The solicitation indicates that, “the Technical Proposal shall have a maximum number of 100 double-spaced pages.” We understand that the page limit has been extended to 150 pages (per Amendment 1). We also understand that the 2008 IRS solicitation provided for a 100 single-spaced pages. To ensure that offerors have sufficient space to provide IRS evaluators with the information they need to evaluate proposals, would the IRS please consider allowing for 150 single-spaced pages for Volume II—Technical Proposal? As an alternative, would the IRS consider allowing for 100 single-spaced pages for Volume II, as was done during the 2008 solicitation?

Response: 150 single-spaced pages for Volume II is acceptable.

§ Volume II—Technical Proposal, (a) General (page 77): Two-Column Formatting. The solicitation indicates that, “Magazine formatting (two columns per page) is not permissible”. We understand that the IRS does not want entire proposals submitted using magazine formatting. Would the IRS allow for occasional use of two-column formatting two allow Offerors to better present lists of information (e.g., two-column table)?

Response: Yes.

§ Volume II—Technical Proposal, (a) General (page 77): Margins. The solicitation indicates that proposals shall use 1” page margins. The solicitation further indicates on page 74 that “All pages of each part shall be appropriately numbered, and identified with the name of the offeror, the date, and the solicitation number to the extent practicable.” Can Offerors provide this required page information in headers/footers and may these headers/footers fall within the 1” margin area?

Response: This information may be provided in headers/footers.

§ Volume II—Technical Proposal, (a) General (page 77): Fonts. The solicitation indicates that, “Each page font shall be no smaller than 12-point with standard proportional fonts (e.g., COURIER) for all text material. Offerors may use captions no smaller than 6-point fonts.”

Courier is a mono-spaced font. Would the IRS confirm that you want proposals to be submitted using a proportional font (e.g., Times Roman, Arial) rather than a mono-spaced font?

Response: The contents of the Technical Proposal must be readable. Proposals submitted should use a proportional font.

b.) We understand that captions may be presented in 6-point font. May Offerors present other information in a font size less than 12-point font, but no smaller than 9-point font (e.g., information in tables, headers, footers)?

§ Volume II—Technical Proposal, (b) Format and Content (pages 78–82): Evaluation Criteria. The solicitation provides for an organization of the Technical proposal that includes eight (8) sections. Following the description of Section 8, the solicitation indicates that “The Offeror shall clearly present information adequate to evaluate fully each of the evaluation criteria at 52.212-2 EVALUATION -- COMMERCIAL ITEMS of this solicitation.”

a) Are we correct in understanding that this statement refers to providing information to answer the evaluation criteria as part of the responses to corresponding requirements, e.g., Factor 1–Highly Desirable Content is to be described in Section 4, Factor 2–Highly Desirable Features is to be described in Section 5, and Factor 3 (a) is to be described in Section 7?

b) If (a) is correct, where should Factors 4 and 5 (Work Experience and Past Performance) be addressed in the proposal?

c) If our understanding in (a) is not correct, please advise whether a separate section is intended, or otherwise how we should address the statement in question.

Response:

Award Group 1 –Portable CD Rom Tax Service

Award Group 2 -- Tax Research Service

Award Group 3 – Comprehensive Research Service Factor 1 – Highly Desirable Content

Factor 4 – Past Performance Factor 5 – Current Work Experience Factor 6 - Price

Section II of the RFP includes specific CLINs under Comprehensive Research Services for Treasury users (CLINs x314 – x326, pages 8-12), yet the pricing sheets provided in the Tax Law Pricing Excel file do not include any corresponding CLINs or provision for Treasury users. Would you please clarify if there should be separate sheets for Treasury users, or otherwise how Treasury users should be captured in the pricing sheets provided?

RESPONSE: No, there should not be separate sheets for Treasury users. Pricing for Treasury users should be incorporated in the spreadsheets provided.

Response: Providing a commercial tax service under Award Group 3 is mandatory. The provision of an additional commercial tax is highly desirable.

On page 28, under Mandatory Content for Award Group 3, C.8.3.4 relates to a “tax citator”; whereas, on page 33, under Highly Desirable Content, C.8.5.2 also relates to a “tax citator.” If each of these requirements is intended to address something distinct, please clarify what the intended differences are. On the other hand, if the “tax citator” should be either mandatory or highly desirable, please clarify which it would be.

Response: The provision of a tax citator is mandatory. The detailed description of this citator is highly desirable.

Also, while we are diligently working on our proposal, we are eager to obtain the answers to the vendor questions. Additional time to work with that information would be most helpful in developing the most compelling offer for the IRS, so we ask if you would be agreeable to extending the response deadline to 20 business days after the posting of answers to questions?

Response: The due date for technical and price proposals is now Noon on August 23, 2013.