Answers_to_Contractor_Questions_-_Solicitation_rev.pdf

Questions & Answers in Response to Questions under Solicitation W91QEX-16-R-0001 Dated: 23 December 2015

NOTE TO OFFERORS: All PWS and Solicitation Word Document changes have been highlighted in YELLOW for ease of reference for documented changes below.

1. Page 45, 5.11: What is the typical volume of reader/commenter emails that the website receives that require translation?

Answer 1: The volume generally ranges from 150 to 250 words per day, but on average, the contractor can expect a volume of roughly 200 words per day.

2. Page 37, “1.6.8.1 Special Qualifications: The Site Manager shall be able to obtain and maintain a level of proficiency in Spanish or Portuguese equivalent to a 3/3 on the Defense Language Proficiency Test (DLPT). The contractor shall provide proof of qualification no later than 90 days after contract award.” The DLPT is the military standard for language testing and is only available to service members, are other DLPT equivalent language tests that measure professional level proficiency allowed?

Answer 2: A Defense Language Proficiency Test (DLPT) equivalent shall be acceptable. The specific section in the PWS has been changed accordingly.

3. Page 27, Section 1.6.10.1.1: The PWS states under paragraph 1.6.10.1.1 - Key personnel that the Site Manager will have a degree in Journalism/Communications. As MISO and Journalism/Public Affairs are career paths that rarely cross are other degrees acceptable if the Site Manager has the requisite MISO experience as well as familiarity with Dialogo’s mission and operations

Answer 3: The PWS was revised to read as follows: “The Site Manager shall have at least 10 years of experience in mass communication. In addition the Site Manager shall have a Bachelor Degree in Journalism or at least three years of work experience in journalism, media-relations, or public relations.”

4. Pages 38 and Page 57. The solicitation’s use of the word “propaganda” is confusing, and appears to conflict with U.S. doctrine in some respects. We respectfully request the Government clarify or correct these issues.

a. First, PWS 1.6.16 states that “propaganda violates DoD Commercial Use of Imagery Guidelines,” but this section seems to be prohibiting Contractor use of work product from this contract in marketing and advertising materials, so it is unclear why the word “propaganda” is used.

b. Second, Attachment 2 Deliverables Schedule states that one of this contract’s deliverables is “Website Content Propaganda” for PWS 5.11. According to doctrine, propaganda is “PSYOP conducted by enemy or hostile forces, elements, or groups against U.S. or coalition forces,” and so it does not appear appropriate for U.S. influence activities to be referred to using this term. In addition, PWS 5.11 refers to website operations (email, browsers supported, comment functions), not to content as a deliverable. It is unclear what is meant by the Government’s request for propaganda as a deliverable, or by its link to the cited PWS section.

Answer 4: The PWS section 1.6.16 was revised to remove the work “propaganda” and revised to read appropriately.

In addition, the above referenced deliverables section title changed from “Website Content Propaganda” to “Website Content Propagation”. The reference under the deliverables section was changed from “PWS 5.11.” to “PWS 5.33” accordingly.

5. Pages 44 and 45.The Translation requirements described by the PWS are unclear. PWS 5.1 and 5.6 clearly refer to the same Translation requirement, but 5.1 seems to require a dedicated on-site Translator, whereas PWS 5.6 (along with Section B and Attachment 2) seems to indicate that translation is a service provided by the Contractor.

Please clarify.

Answer 5: The translator can be a dedicated translator or can be one of the key personnel under the resulting contract. Both on-site and off-site translators are required and shall be implemented accordingly by the Offeror and the Offeror’s management plan to meet the performance standards associated with the referenced PWS paragraphs.

Additionally, PWS paragraph 5.1. refers to a labor category and a general synopsis of the required type of services, whereas PWS paragraph 5.6 refers to the actual specific services.

6. Pages 33 and 44.The Translation quality standards described by the PWS are unclear. PWS 5.1 states that the standard is Level 5 IAW the DoS Foreign Service National Handbook, but PWS 5 and 1.4 state that the standard is American Translation Association (ATA) Certification, whereas Section B merely states that the translation must be accomplished by a person or entity that maintains ATA membership. Please clarify.

Answer 6: PWS section 5.1 was revised to remove the statement regarding DoS Foreign Service National Handbook. In addition, clarification has been input and the PWS was revised under paragraphs 1.4, 5, and 5.1 accordingly. A Certification equivalent to ATA Standards shall be acceptable based on common international industry standards such as ISO equivalent to ATA Certification, UK Association of Translation Companies equivalent to ATA Certification, etc.

7. Page 5, Page 11, Page 17, Page 23, Page 29, Page 33, Page 44. Many translation providers with ISO certifications or certification from organizations such as the UK Association of Translation Companies provide quality that often exceeds that required by the ATA. Are Translation certifications and standards equivalent to the ATA acceptable?

Answer 7: A Certification equivalent to or in excess of ATA Standards shall be acceptable. Common internationally acceptable industry standards such as ISO equivalent to ATA Certification, UK Association of Translation Companies equivalent to ATA Certification, etc shall be acceptable.

8. Page 45, PWS 5.7. seems to indicate an up-time requirement of only 90%, which is quite low. Does the Government really consider it acceptable if the Dialogo website is down for up to 36 full days per year, for example?

Answer 8: PWS section 5.7 was revised to indicate an up-time requirement of 98% which is the equivalent of roughly 7 calendar days of down-time will be an acceptable performance standard.

9. Will the Government ensure that the incumbent conducts a responsible and complete handover of all logons, passwords, privileges, and hardware and software systems related to the Dialogo website and associated social media accounts?

Answer 9: It will be part of the transition plan on the existing contract. This process should be seamless as the incumbent does not own this intellectual property or the physical property. The incumbent is required to work with the follow-on contract awardee accordingly.

10. Page, 47 PWS 5.23. PWS 5.23 is unclear about the required format, stating that content will be formatted in “MSWord PDF Email.” These are three different formats. Please clarify.

Answer 10: The format shall be in MSWord ONLY for COR’s approval. Finalized/approved content shall be delivered as an actual posting of the content on the Dialogo website.

11. How many personnel does the incumbent contractor have supporting this program?

Answer 11: A performance-based contract is contemplated and only Key Personnel man hours are reported under the PWS. See PWS Part 7, “Attachment 3, Estimated Workload Data”, for details.

12. What is the current content management system (CMS)?

Answer 12: The current content management system was developed by the incumbent. It is a propriety system.

13. What is the current system for website analytics and traffic statistics?

Answer 13: The current content management system was developed by the incumbent. It is a propriety system.

14. Is the government satisfied with the current website? If not, is there additional functionality the government would like to see in the re-designed site?

Answer 14: The Government will not respond to this question as it concerns procurement sensitive information.

15. Page 45, PWS 5.11. Please confirm that the requirement for functionality latest versions of Netscape was a typo.

Answer 15: PWS section 5.11 was revised to remove the word “Netscape”.

16. Page 44, PWS 5.4. How frequently have website polls been conducted in the last 24 months?

Answer 16: PWS section 5.4 was revised. The polls and surveys under this section will be requested “as required” which will be a determination made by the COR on an as-needed or as mission requires.

17. Page 4, Page 44, PWS 5.4.Where is the Dialogo website currently hosted?

Answer 17: The incumbent hosts the site on Non-Government servers. The servers are not owned by the US Government and the Government will not furnish any website hosting under the resulting contract.

18. Page 110 a.iii*.3. Can any certifications required for the Servicing Personnel Qualifications/Certifications be excluded from page count?

Answer: Yes. The “Instructions to Offerors” Section under Section L, “Instructions, Conditions, and Notice to Bidders”, of the Solicitation has been updated accordingly.

* The Government has made an assumption and has corrected this reference as the verbatim question was not written with the correct reference.

19a. Page 110, Section L.2.a.i.1. Section L.2.a.i.1 requires experience managing websites with a “total contract value no less than $5,000,000” for the U.S. Government or similar entity. Do websites managed for commercial clients meet this requirement?

Answer 19a: Yes, provided that the referenced experience with a total contract value of no less than $5,000,000.00 demonstrates experience in providing planning, development, design, construct, maintenance, and functional operation of a website similar in size, scope, and complexity to the requirements in Section C of the Solicitation.

19b. Do websites managed for a company’s own business purposes that have generated over $5,000,000 in revenue meet this requirement, even if the website was not built and managed under a contract?

Answer 19b: No. These services must have been for a third party or other client no internal to the Offeror.

20. Would the government please provide the current publication and translation schedule?

Answer 20: The publication/translation is a daily requirement in accordance with PWS Paragraph 1.6.4., Hours of Operation.

21. Is a contract vehicle or schedule being used or is this a standalone contract?

Answer 21: A contract vehicle will not be used for the resulting contract. The resulting contract will be established as a standalone contract.

22. Page 33, section 1.4 and page 44, section 5 provide: “The contractor shall provide language translators that are American Translation Association Certified for native speakers and writers of both Portuguese and Spanish languages.” This requirement is rare, expensive and impractical for non-US vendors, who may be a cost-effective source of native-level fluency. Also, as written, this suggests that single translators must be fluent concurrently in both Portuguese and Spanish. Finally, ATA certification is not available in Brazilian Portuguese. Will the USG revise these provisions to simply require educated native fluency-level translations?

Answer 22: The Government will not accept native fluency-level translations; however, as it relates to the above question, the PWS was clarified and revised under paragraphs 1.4, 5, and 5.1. The clarification is as follows: A Certification equivalent to ATA Standards shall be acceptable based on common international industry standards such as ISO equivalent to ATA Certification, UK Association of Translation Companies equivalent to ATA Certification, etc.

23. Page 33, section 1.4 and page 44, section 5 (1/3 of the way into the paragraph) provide: “The Contractor must have the ability to adapt to these changes and provide the same level of services without any interruption in performance.” To what “changes” do these provisions refer? Note that the same language appears at the very end of page 44, section 5.

Answer 23: PWS section 1.4 and section 5 was revised. The changes referred to are joint publication changes. Both PWS sections, 1.4 and 5, have been revised accordingly.

24. Page 34, section 1.6.4.1 provides “The contractor personnel will receive guidance from the COR on agency operations.” To what “agency” does this refer?

Answer 24: The agency refers to USSOUTHCOM. The PWS has been updated accordingly.

25. Page 34, section 1.6.7.2 provides “Contractor personnel performing work at USSOUTHCOM HQ under this contract must have an active personnel security clearance at the SECRET level” yet page 43, section 4.2 provides “The Contractor’s employees, performing work in support of this contract, shall have been granted a SECRET personnel security clearance.” The earlier provision suggests the clearance requirements are particular to on-site personnel __________________* while the subsequent provision suggests all personnel working in support of the contract. Also, page 112, paragraph 4 provides “The Offeror shall provide documentation which illustrates that the Offeror and its proposed personnel, both Key and Non-Key Personnel, have the minimum active or interim facility and personnel security clearances necessary to perform the tasks of this requirement in accordance with the DD254.”

Can the USG clarify? If the broader requirement controls, how is “work in support of this contract” defined, as contractor may have technical, translation management, finance, and other management personnel supporting this contract?

Answer 25: Only key personnel are required to possess and maintain a SECRET clearance. As a result, Section 4.2 of the Performance Work Statement has not been revised; however, Instruction to Offerors Section iii(4), Contractor / Service Personnel Security Clearances, and Evaluation Factors Section 1(4), Contractor / Service Personnel Security Clearances , of the solicitation has been revised to remove the verbiage as it pertains to “Non-Key Personnel” accordingly.

* Portion has been redacted to prevent identifying information which was in the question.

26. Page 36, section 1.6.10 provides for an alternate when the site manager is not available. A third “stand by” key person would increase costs significantly. Can the on-site editor/journalist, required in subsequent sections, also serve as the alternate site manager?

Answer 26: This is a management decision for the contractor as this is a Performance-Based Service Acquisition.

27. Page 34, section 1.6.7.2 and page 37, sections 1.6.10.1.1 and 1.6.10.2.1 provide that on-site personnel (site manager and on-site journalist editor) have secret clearances. ________________________*.Top secret is mentioned on the top of page 35 in subsequent portions of section 1.6.7.2, as well as at page 35 section 1.6.7.2.1 and page 41 section 2.2 (Acronyms). Can the USG clarify the clearance level required of on-site personnel?

Answer 27: SECRET Clearance is the level of Security Clearance required for all on-site personnel. PWS Sections 1.6.7.2, 1.6.7.2.1, 1.6.10.1.1, and 1.6.10.2.1 have been revised accordingly.

* Portion has been redacted to prevent identifying information which was in the question.

28. Page 37, section 1.6.13 provides “The contractor may be required to travel to off-site training locations and to ship training aids to these locations in support of this PWS.” If this is not a typographical error, will the USG define the nature of these materials so that any import/export compliance aspects can be contemplated? Also, will the USG define packaging and shipping specifications so that costs can be calculated?

Answer 28: PWS paragraph 1.6.13 has been revised to include the nature and size of the materials which may need to be carried with the Contractor as a part of off-site travel. The Contractor will be required to bring these training aids with them personally during travel via a small bag or suitcase.

29. Page 37, section 1.6.14 suggests that ODCs can include stock imagery providers such as AFP. However, section 1.6.15 provides “The Government has unlimited rights to all documents/material produced under this contract.” And page 45, section 5.9 provides “All contractor produced original content, content synthesized from other sources that is configured and posted, reader comments and feedback comments, will all become the property of the Government.” While archival rights can be negotiated with AFP and other similar stock imagery providers via subscription agreements, these entities do not relinquish ownership rights. Does the USG recognize that contractors cannot provide/transfer ownership rights of materials obtained from such providers?

Answer 29. Yes, the Government recognizes and acknowledges that contractors cannot provide/transfer ownership rights of materials obtained from such providers. Accordingly, there has been a note added under PWS paragraph 5.9

30. Page 38, section 1.6.16.1 (as well as the Deliverables Schedule on page 56) refers to a “Non-Disclosure Agreement.” Will the USG provide this document/format?

Answer 30: The Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) shall be provided by the requiring activity in accordance with USSOUTHCOM’s policy. The NDAs will be issued to the Contractor at time of the award.

31. Page 44, section 5.1 provides “The contractor shall provide a language translator that is level 5 IAW U.S.

Department of State Foreign Affairs Handbook Volume 3 Handbook 2 - Foreign Service National Handbook, speaking and writing abilities for both Portuguese and Spanish languages.” The referenced DOS Handbook makes no reference to translation abilities - is the requirement actually “Proficiency Code 5” as shown at Caution-http://careers.state.gov/gateway/lang_prof_def.html < Caution-http://careers.state.gov/gateway/lang_prof_def.html >, and if so, will the USG correct this provision? Does this requirement refer to all translators, or a specific person or persons? If all translators, is this over and above the ATA certification required at Page 33, section 1.4 and Page 44, section 5? If a specific person or persons, what are the work requirements of them? Also, does this require a single person to be concurrently proficient at the stated level in both languages, as the provision indicates?

Answer 31: The PWS was clarified and revised under paragraphs 1.4, 5, and 5.1. The clarification is as follows: A Certification equivalent to ATA Standards shall be acceptable based on common international industry standards such as ISO equivalent to ATA Certification, UK Association of Translation Companies equivalent to ATA Certification, etc. The requirement shall be applicable for all translators, not specific persons. The proficiency levels described above shall be applicable for either Spanish or Portuguese, not both as describes in PWS paragraph 5.1.

32. Page 44, section 5.5.1 provides “This website is published five days per week with at least 40,000 words per month” yet page 49, section 5.38.2 provides “The contractor shall monitor feature and word counts and make recommendations to help achieve high level of customer satisfaction within site content budget constraints.” Is the 40,000 words per month specified a minimum requirement, or a maximum requirement?

Answer 32: The PWS section 5.5.1 was revised to change the statement from “at least 40,000 words” to “up to 40,000 words.”

33. Page 46, section 5.14 provides “The contractor shall be required to maintain log sheet to track adjustments, contents and other functions. The log sheet shall be provided to the COR by the 25th of month in word and/or pdf and submitted via email.” Is this log sheet only for “2 hour” changes specified at the start of that section, or all content changes? Also, is the log sheet only for the prior month, or for all changes to date?

Answer 33: The log sheet shall be for all changes and will be written as one running document from day one of contract performance which shall sum up all changes to date. This shall be submitted in MSWord Format. The PWS has been updated accordingly.

34. Page 47, section 5.23 provides “Website content shall be formatted in MSWord PDF Email by the contractor and submitted to the COR.” Is the purpose of this submission for approval or archival purposes? Can contractor provide email notices with links to its content management system in lieu of attaching documents to emails?

Answer 34: The purpose of the submission is for approval and shall be delivered in MSWord format.

35. Page 56, Deliverables schedule, with respect to “Travel Costs Estimate” provides “Within 10 days of travel date.” Will the USG correct the referenced section from 1.6.12 to 1.6.13 and correct the frequency from “within 10 days” to “NLT 10 days prior” of travel date”?

Answer 35: The deliverables section titled “Travel Costs Estimate” was revised with the correct references from “1.6.12” to “1.6.13.” The Frequency for this deliverable was changed to state “no later than 10 days.”

36. Page 56, Deliverables Schedule, with respect to “Travel Voucher”: since this is a FFP contract with a specified Travel CLIN amount, will the USG remove this requirement (which also references an incorrect section number)?

Answer 36: Travel CLIN is a cost CLIN and will not be removed as the Government needs to verify appropriate Contractor costs in accordance with the DoD Joint Travel Regulations for quality and accuracy purposes. The deliverables section titled “Travel Voucher” was revised with the correct references from “1.6.12” to “1.6.13.”

37. Page 57, Deliverables Schedule, with respect to “Website Content” refers to section 5.23 and provides for a frequency of “25th day of each month.” Will the USG change the reference to section 5.5.1 and the frequency to “5 days per week”?

Answer 37: The Deliverables schedule section “Website Content” reference was changed to 5.5.1 and the frequency was revised to state “5 days per week” and the reference was changed to 5.5.1.

38. Page 57, Deliverables Schedule, with respect to “Website Content Propaganda”, this appears to be a typo. Will the USG correct to “Website Content Propagation” and correct the reference to section 5.33?

Answer 38: The Deliverables Schedule section “Website Content Propaganda” was revised to state “Website Content Propagation.” The reference was changed to “5.33” in place of “5.11”.

39. Page 57, Deliverables Schedule, with respect to “Special Qualifications DLPT Language Score Certificate”, suggests a “certificate” is required, yet page 36, section 1.6.8.1 suggests that proof of “equivalency” is required. Is an actual DLPT certificate required? If so, will the USG sponsor and arrange any required testing?

Answer 39: Certification equivalent to DLPT is acceptable. The Deliverables Schedule section “Special Qualifications DLPT Language Score Certificate” was revised to state that an equivalent certification is acceptable.

40. Page 57, Deliverables Schedule, with respect to “Polling Questions” references an incorrect section. Will the USG change the reference to section 5.11?

Answer 40: The Deliverables Schedule section “Polling Questions” reference was changed from 5.33 to 5.11.

41. Page 78, Attachment 1 Rate Sheet, provides “Base Period (11 months) but the Page 60 delivery dates as well as the proposed CLIN schedule in pages 3-7 indicate the base period is 11 months. Will the USG clarify/correct this?

Answer 41: The statement was changed to state “Base Period (11 months).”

42. Page 110 with regard to “Subfactor 1 – Technical Capabilities” of the Volume 1 Technical provides for contract references that seem commingled with the Volume 2 Past Performance requirements on page 112. Will the USG clarify?

Answer 42: This information and the distinction between both technical experience and past performance can be found in the Proposal Submission Instructions, Section A under 1(c) which states the following: “The distinction between technical experience and past performance is experience pertains to the types of work and volume of work completed by a contractor which is comparable to the types of work covered by this requirement, in terms of size, scope, and complexity. Past performance pertains to both the relevance of recent efforts and how well a contractor has performed on the contracts”.

43. Page 113, Instructions to Offerors, with respect to price proposal, section ii requires offerors to indicate after-hours, surge/overtime pricing for on-site personnel. If offerors intend to provide exempt personnel and absorb any overtime charged as part of the firm fixed price, is this still required?

Answer 43: The intent to use exempt personnel is acceptable, however, the Government would still require the submission of after-hours/surge/overtime pricing for on-site personnel. After-hours/surge/overtime pricing for on-site personnel will only be evaluated for price reasonableness and not included in the total price evaluation.

44. Will the USG unify the disparate language proficiency requirements found at Page 33 section 1.4, Page 36 section 1.6.8.1, Page 44 sections 5 and 5.1 by simply requiring “educated native fluency”?

Answer 44: The Government will not simply require “educated native fluency”. The Government has clarified and revised the reference sections as follows: A Certification equivalent to ATA Standards shall be acceptable based on common international industry standards such as ISO equivalent to ATA Certification, UK Association of Translation Companies equivalent to ATA Certification, etc.

45. Page 78, Attachment 1. The instructions state that the Offeror shall fill in a price and list hourly rates for all Key Personnel. Is it correct to assume that the Government is asking Offerors to provide fully burdened hourly rates?

Answer 45: Yes, The Government request to see fully burdened hourly rates for all Key Personnel.

46. Page 45, section 5.6 provides “The contractor shall provide translation support for all content on the websites to include translation support on all associated social media sites.” Does this require translation of Facebook comments

Answer 46: The requirement is that the contractor translates only content on social media that the contractor produces. The government should be responsible for translation of all content provided by the government or derived from other sources.

* Portion has been redacted to prevent identifying information which was in the question.