SPECIAL NOTICE
D -- Forest Service Customer Contact Center
- Notice Date
- 6/29/2007
- Notice Type
- Special Notice
- NAICS
- 541519
— Other Computer Related Services
- Contracting Office
- Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, WO-AQM IT Support, 333 Broadway Blvd, SE, Albuquerque, NM, 87102, UNITED STATES
- ZIP Code
- 00000
- Solicitation Number
- AG-7604-S-07-0017
- Response Due
- 7/13/2007
- Archive Date
- 7/28/2007
- Description
- The USDA Forest Service appreciates your review of Sections C, L and J of the Customer Contact Center (CCC) solicitation. The Forest Service, in accordance with FAR Part 10 and 15.201, is releasing these draft documents for comment in order to obtain industry feedback on (1) the acquisition strategy, (2) the specificity and feasibility of the requirement including performance requirements, (3) the suitability of the proposal instructions, (4) the availability of reference information, and (5) any other industry concerns or questions. To maximize the effectiveness of this market research effort the Forest Service has identified key questions (listed below) where industry feedback is deemed most critical to the quality of the final solicitation. Potential offerors are not obligated to respond specifically to these questions and may elect to respond with comments in addition to, or instead of, responding to these questions. Furthermore, the Government may elect to respond to some, all, or none of the potential offeror comments in a written posting on FedBizOpps or through revisions to the solicitation. The strategy adopted will align with the Government?s intent to (1) improve industry's understanding of Government requirements, thereby allowing potential offerors to judge whether or how they can satisfy the Government's requirements, (2) enhance the Government's ability to obtain quality supplies and services at reasonable prices, and (3) increase efficiency in proposal preparation, proposal evaluation, negotiation, and contract award. Industry comments are requested by July 13, 2007 at 09:00 a.m. EDT by email to the Forest Service Contracting Officer's Representative Ann McDonough at amcdonough@fs.fed.us. It is the Government's intent to issue a request for quotations to GSA Schedule 70 (SIN 132.51) and progress through award of a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) along the following schedule, which is subject to change at Government discretion: Industry comments due on draft Sections C, L, and J requested by 07/13/07, 9:00 am EDT; Pre-proposal Bidder's Conference between 8/6 and 8/8/07; Final RFQ release by 08/27/07; Vendor questions due by 08/31/07; Proposals due 09/21/07; Contracting Officer to set Competitive Range by 10/22/07; Discussions between 11/05 and 11/09/07; Request Final Revised Proposals between 11/05 and 11/09/07; Final Revised Proposals due 6 business days after request; Award of BPA by 12/04/07; Issue BPA Call 0001 by 12/19/07 QUESTIONS FOR INDUSTRY: The following questions are intended to allow the potential Offerors to comment on areas of specific interest for the Forest Service. Additionally, and equally important, respondents should feel free to add any other comments that will help improve the quality of the Government's solicitation. 1. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES: Are the division of roles and responsibilities between the CCC Contractor and the Forest Service Information Solutions Organization (ISO) clear and well-defined? If not, in what areas? Are the lines of demarcation, in terms of ticket handling, between Tier 0/1 and Tier 2 and Tier 3 clear? 2. TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP: The Government's goal is to optimize the handling of customer tickets such that tickets of varying complexity are addressed by the support channel (e.g., Tier 0, Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3) best equipped and staffed to address the specific issue towards the goal of overall reduction of Total Cost to the Forest Service. Does the distribution of ticket volume indicated in these documents maximally achieve that goal? If not, how could the approach be improved? 3. RISK: Which requirements create the greatest risk to the CCC Contractor, why, and what mitigation is proposed? 4. RADIO AND TELEPHONE SUPPORT: What is the impact (positive and/or negative) of the inclusion of Radio and Telephone support in CCC Tier 0/1 support? 5. REQUIREMENTS DEFINITION: Where are the Government's requirements articulated in an overly restrictive or prescriptive form such that the Offeror's proposal is constrained in a manner damaging to the Government? 6. INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS: Are the Instructions to Offerors (Section L) clear? Is the format of the Offeror's required response well-defined? Are there Proposal elements that should be required that would allow the Offeror to better describe their solution? 7. SCOPE: The scope of the BPA is intentionally defined very broadly. Where does this broad definition of scope pose the greatest cost and/or performance risk? 8. TECHNOLOGY: Are the technology/tool requirements overly prescriptive? Do these requirements limit the Offeror's technical solution in a manner that negatively impacts the Forest Service? Which technology/tool requirements (ACD, IVR, KMS, SAS, TMS, SGTS, etc.) are increasing cost in a manner disproportionate to the benefits? 9. PERFORMANCE BASIS: Is the performance basis well described and optimal for aligning Forest Service and CCC Contractor incentives? What are your suggestions to improve the award fee plan, while still putting some amount of revenue at risk? Is the use of "swappable" SLAs and SLOs optimal? Is there a better approach? 10. PRICING: Does the approach of pricing Firm Fixed Price by Band optimally align Government and Contractor incentives and goals? 11. SOFTWARE SUPPORT: What are the pros and cons of the Government's use of two categories to delineate primary responsibility for software support? 12. MAC SUPPORT: What are the cost and complexity implications of including Macintosh computer support in scope? 13. ASSUMPTIONS: What are the particular areas of ambiguity or risk that are of greatest concern to your organization? Please describe how these areas could be addressed to reduce the number of assumptions your company is forced to make and reduce the risk profile of this requirement from your company's perspective. 14. COST DRIVERS: What requirements are driving costs in addition to actual contact volume? Please identify these drivers and how the Forest Service can best address these issues with the goal of reducing overall costs and maintaining a predictable year over year service cost. 15. INFORMATION GAPS: Has the RFQ provided your company with enough detail (i.e., call volumes, etc.) for your company to produce a cost competitive bid? If not please indicate what additional information your company would like to have in order to make the most competitive bid possible. 16. TRANSITION GAPS: What additional information would your company need in order to facilitate a smooth and successful Transition? 17. FIRST CALL RESOLUTION: Given that a stated goal of this solicitation is to increase the rate of first call resolution are there any requirements that would impede your organization?s ability to deliver high levels of first call resolution? 18. TRANSITION TIMELINE: Is ninety (90) days adequate for Transition and what are the associated risks with such a timeline? 19. SOFTWARE SUPPORT: Today's GOTS software is supported through a combination of the centralized EUSC helpdesk, Tier 2 ISO support, and individual help desks operated by GOTS application owners. It is the Government's intent to migrate applications currently supported by individual help desks operated by GOTS application owners to the centralized CCC. What are the implications of this migration to your technical and cost proposals? 20. ORALS AND TECHNICAL DEMONSTRATION: The Forest Service contemplates requesting Offerors in the Competitive Range to participate in a single day meeting per Offeror that includes (1) oral presentations of the Offeror's Technical Approach, (2) demonstrations of the Offeror's technical tools (such as the Knowledge Management System, Situational Awareness System, and Ticketing System) and (3) oral discussions of proposal weaknesses and deficiencies. Please provide your comments on this approach. 21. INCENTIVES FOR KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT: The Government's pricing model is intended to incentivize the Contractor to invest substantially in the development of Knowledge documents and a Knowledge Management System for its own agents as well as for use by Forest Service end users. How does the Fixed Price Strategy accomplish this goal? 22. TASK ORDER APPROACH: The Government is contemplating issuing six (6) Calls against the BPA, one (1) for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2008; one (1) for each of four (4) succeeding fiscal years (2009 through 2012); and one (1) for the first six (6) months of Fiscal Year 2013 (to include transition to a succeeding contractor). With the Offeror's Proposal the Government intends to request the Offeror's fixed Price Proposal for each band (as indicated in Section L.1, sub-section 3) for each period/Call, with the resulting best value award. Please discuss pros and cons to this approach. END OF QUESTIONS See attached solicitation excerpt (Sections C, J, and L)
- Record
- SN01331370-W 20070701/070629220412 (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |