Loren Data's FBO Daily™

fbodaily.com
Home Today's FBO Search Archives Numbered Notes CBD Archives Subscribe
FBO DAILY ISSUE OF JULY 17, 2009 FBO #2790
MODIFICATION

99 -- Subscription to commercially available Financial Ratings of Banks, Thrifts & Holding Companies

Notice Date
7/15/2009
 
Notice Type
Modification/Amendment
 
NAICS
511199 — All Other Publishers
 
Contracting Office
Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Acquisitions, Operations Center, 6432 General Green Way, MS 0-20, Alexandria, Virginia, 22312-2413, United States
 
ZIP Code
22312-2413
 
Solicitation Number
SECHQ1-09-Q-9006
 
Archive Date
8/7/2009
 
Point of Contact
Nancy M Foster, Phone: 202-551-8267, Wanda J. Armwood, Phone: 202-551-8561
 
E-Mail Address
fostern@sec.gov, armwoodw@sec.gov
(fostern@sec.gov, armwoodw@sec.gov)
 
Small Business Set-Aside
N/A
 
Description
July 15, 2009 -- The following are additional questions asked and the answers: Question 1: The request states vendor need supply ratings for holding companies and their respective “subsidiaries.” Elsewhere in the request you specify a requirement for ratings for the parent and the bank/thrift subsidiaries. Please confirm that the request does NOT require ratings for the significant non-bank operating subs of the parent holding company such as broker dealers, insurers, etc. Answer 1: Confirmed. Question 2a: The requests states that the SEC requires “a commercially available service that, at a minimum, analyses all publicly available data reported for all holding companies that are SEC registrants and their respective subsidiaries, as reported to their primary regulator.” a. Does this requirement mean that a compliant proposal must include ratings based upon a comprehensive survey of data from SEC, FDIC and the Fed? For example, must a rating for a bank holding company (BHC) rely upon data gathered by the Fed in the Form Y-9 or may the vendor employ SEC filings data in reaching its ratings for a BHC? Answer 2a: The Contractor should utilize primary bank regulator data and not SEC data. Question 2b: The requests states that the SEC requires “a commercially available service that, at a minimum, analyses all publicly available data reported for all holding companies that are SEC registrants and their respective subsidiaries, as reported to their primary regulator.” The OTS does not collect or publicly disclose data for thrift holding companies. Also, many thrift holding companies have significant non-financial operations. Will a proposal with ratings for the thrift subsidiary based upon FDIC bank unit data and/or a holding company rating based upon SEC data be compliant? Answer 2b: Thrift subsidiary data should be from primary regulator (FDIC or OTS). Thrift holding company data should be provided by primary regulator, if available. If not, SEC data should be used. Question 3: The request specifies “a qualitative rating of the items below, using CAMELS rating format.” Will a ratings methodology in an extant COTS product that includes all of the factors listed in the request but in a different order or presentation format and/or with different labels be compliant? Answer 3: This question is interpreted as, "Is a COTS product that includes all of the factors listed in the request but in a different order or presentation format and/or with different labels compliant? The SEC would like the labels to be as close as possible, but the order is not important. Question 4a: Bank supervisors and stock market investors engage in extensive monitoring of BHCs, but for different reasons. Investors are looking to ensure that BHC managers maximize shareholder value, but bank supervisors monitor BHCs to enforce regulations, gauge their safety and soundness, and guard against broader systemic risk. A “CAMELS” type analysis listed in the request is specifically designed for assessing bank safety and soundness. The analysis that is applicable to holding companies is far broader, however, and focuses instead on the ability of the parent holding company to serve as a source of financial and managerial strength to its subsidiary banks. Please confirm that the intent of the request is to provide an equivalent of a “CAMELS” type analysis applied to the parent holding company only and NOT to include the other factors contained in an “RFI” BHC rating maintained by the Fed as part of its supervisory process. Answer 4a: Confirmed. Question 4b: Please confirm, in general terms, the analytical objectives of the request. Is the SEC interested only in a safety and soundness type analysis a la the “CAMELS” type rating or does the SEC wish to receive a broader analysis that focuses on other factors, for example, such as those included in the Basel II framework such as Economic Capital? Answer 4b: Confirmed. Question 5: Regarding supplementary risk and stress measures, bank risk analysis involves evaluating data using methodologies in addition to the core “CAMELS” test points. These additional examination warning flags are part of supplementary test used by bank regulators to determine conditions of risk, financial factors and extraordinary stress caused by the parent company and/or non-depository subsidiaries on the subsidiary depository institution(s). To what degree does the SEC value the incorporation of these types of analysis elements as part of the services contract? Answer 5: The SEC is interested in "warning flags" to assess risk(s). Question 6: Regarding question 4(b) above and more generally, IRA employs analytical anomaly flags and automated test battery analysis systems to provide a tripwire line of defense for users of our ratings. Certain combinations of test outcome patterns indicate conditions that recommend additional examination by the ratings consumer to confirm or deny the existence of risk. To what degree does the SEC desire the contractor to incorporate tripwire indicators which are part of the COTS product into the service offering? Is the SEC open to considering some of the contemporary methods for risk analysis or is the “CAMELS” style analysis, which is decades old, sufficient? Answer 6: The SEC would be open to additional tripwire indicators, but we would not be willing to undertake additional analysis to interpret data on our own. Question 7a: The request specifies “a spreadsheet format that can be manipulated by the user.” A single spreadsheet containing the requested data may be cumbersome and difficult to manipulate. Is the SEC open to other forms of delivery such as individual spreadsheets for each institution or a web services facility that can deliver such spreadsheets upon request? Answer 7a: The SEC would be open to a general spreadsheet with Camel-type rating numbers and more comprehensive data provided by individual spreadsheets or on-line. Question 7b: Is the SEC interested in other types of functionality related to the display and/or delivery of the required ratings and data? For example, if vendor has extant capability in a COTS product to display the relationships required and deliver the ratings, and supporting data elements and derived metrics, in an Excel spreadsheet and/or SQL table upon request, would such a delivery arrangement be compliant with the request? Answer 7b: An existing commercial product which incorporates the ratings we require is acceptable and compliant. Question 8a: Regarding coverage, banking reporting entities do not have a perfect one-to-one correspondence to SEC Registrants. Most records resolve so that banking ID’s can be correlated to market symbols and SEC CIK numbers. Some require additional manual investigation. To what extent does the SEC wish the contractor incorporate an ongoing level of effort to resolve disconnects between the two reporting regimes as part of the contract? Is this assumed to be part of the COTS product offering? Answer 8a: If a Contractor anticipates disconnects that might occur between the two reporting regimes, they should include this information in their response. The SEC needs clarification on the types of disconnects, if applicable, that a contractor anticipates. Question 8b: The request refers to “SEC registrants.” Does this include voluntary filers? Answer 8b: Yes. ======================= The following are questions asked and the answers: Question 1: This is exaclty similar to Solicitation # SECHQ1-09-Q-0128. Was that solicitation canceled? Answer 1: SECHQ1-09-Q-0128 was canceled and a notice was posted on FBO. This requirement is different because it includes savings and loan holding companies and their subsidiary thrift instititions. It also specifies ALL holding companies that are SEC registrants. Question 2: Does my firm need to have a GSA Schedule in order to submit a quote? Answer 2: No, you do not need to have a GSA Schedule to respond to the request for quote. All vendors are encouraged to submit a response. Question 3: Is it possible to submit our quote without the CCR or ORCA? Answer 3: Quoters must be able to show that they have made an attempt to register with CCR and provide their certifications in ORCA. You can submit an email, a copy/screen shot of the CCR and/or ORCA page to show your attempt to comply with the requirements of the contract. ================================================================= (i) This combined synopsis/solicitation will result in a firm fixed price commercial purchase order for subscription to financial ratings of Banks, Thrifts & Holding companies for the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). This announcement and its attachment constitute the only solicitation. Quotes are being requested and a written solicitation will not be issued. (ii) The procurement is unrestricted. (iii) Quoters shall quote a firm-fixed price for the items listed in the attached SECHQ1-09-Q-9006 in accordance with the Statement of Work. The Government may award a contract(s) resulting from this solicitation to the responsible quoter(s) whose quote conforms to the solicitation and is advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. (iv) Quotes are due Thursday, July 23 at 2:30 pm Eastern. All quotes must be signed. Quotes may be faxed to (703) 914-1005, Attn: Nancy Foster, with signed original forwarded by mail to: U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Acquisitions, Mail Stop 0-20,6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312, Attn: Nancy Foster. Signed and scanned quotes may be emailed to FosterN@sec.gov. A complete quote will consist of: (1) Completed and signed (blocks 11, 13, 14, 15 and 16) Request for Quote (cover page); (2) Price Quote (completed Part 1, The Schedule, Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs); (3) Description of the subscription to financial ratings of Banks, Thrifts & Holding Companies service being quoted; (4) Narrative addressing contractor’s past performance, including 3 references; (5) Copy of the quoter’s Central Contract Registration (http://www.ccr.gov); (6) Copy of the quoter’s Representations and Certifications from ORCA (http://www.bpn.gov/orca). (v)All questions concerning this RFQ shall be submitted in writing to Nancy Foster at FosterN@sec.gov and Wanda Armwood at ArmwoodW@sec.gov, no later than 2:30 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 13, 2009. QUESTIONS SUBMITTED AFTER THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON MONDAY, JULY 13, 2009, DEADLINE WILL NOT BE ANSWERED. QUESTIONS WILL NOT BE ANSWERED ORALLY. E-MAIL SUBMISSION OF QUESTIONS IS REQUIRED.
 
Web Link
FBO.gov Permalink
(https://www.fbo.gov/spg/SEC/OAPM/PCB/ SECHQ1-09-Q-9006/listing.html)
 
Place of Performance
Address: U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of the Secretary - Library, 100 F Street, NE, Washington, District of Columbia, 20549, United States
Zip Code: 20549
 
Record
SN01876207-W 20090717/090716000026-fbe3726a1f6c641ec19668749826d225 (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 |
ECGrid: EDI VAN Interconnect ECGridOS: EDI Web Services Interconnect API Government Data Publications CBDDisk Subscribers
 Privacy Policy  © 1994-2016, Loren Data Corp.