Free Notice (Other) - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:08-cv-00492-TCW Document 24-12 ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH Page 1 of 50 Filed 07/14/2008 PROTECTED MATERIAL TO BE DISCLOSED
U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS PROTECTIVE ORDER

Document 4- Attachment A

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 NOTICE LISTING SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
The following solicitation provisions pertinent to this section are hereby incorporated by reference (by Citation Number, Title, and Date) in accordance with the FAR provision at FAR "52.252-1 SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE" in Section L of this solicitation. See FAR 52.252-1 for an internet address (if specified) for electronic access to the full text of a provision.

NUMBER 52.217-5

TITLE EVALUATION OF OPTIONS

DATE JUL 1990

M.2 METHOD OF AWARD (BEST VALUE)
Award will be made to the responsive responsible offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The Government intends to evaluate proposals using a two-step methodology. In the first step, proposals shall be evaluated based upon the technical factors and subfactors described below (Functional Requirements & Technical Requirements, Past Performance & Risks, Implementation Support, Pricing, Project Management), and for price reasonableness. Prior to being evaluated in terms of the technical factors and subfactors, proposals must meet the requirements set forth in section C, and be compliant with the terms and conditions of this solicitation. Offerors proposed price will be considered independently of the technical criteria and will not of themselves be accorded any specific numerical rating. Based on these evaluations, a Competitive Range (FAR Part 15) consisting of the most highly rated proposals will be established. The second step will involve evaluation of a product demonstration against test cases. Vendors that meet the stated requirements and are determined to be in the Competitive Range will be included in the next phase of the evaluation and be asked to demonstrate their product against test cases. Scripts that define scenarios and processes to determine their operational capability in meeting technical and functional requirements will be provided to each Vendor in the Competitive Range. The contract resulting from this solicitation will be awarded to the responsible offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, is determined to provide the "best value" to the Government, which may not necessarily be the proposals offering the lowest cost nor receiving the highest technical rating. It should be noted that cost is not a numerically weighted factor. Although non-cost factors are significantly more important than cost, cost is an important factor and should be considered when preparing responsive offers (proposals). The importance of cost as an evaluation factor will increase with the degree of equality of the proposals in relation to the remaining evaluation factors. When the offerors within the Competitive Range are considered essentially equal in terms of technical, past performance and other non-cost factors (if any), or when cost is so significantly high as to diminish the value of the technical superiority to the Government, cost may become the determining factor for award. In summary, cost/non-cost trade offs will be made, and the extent to which one may be sacrificed for the other is governed only by the tests of rationality and consistency with the established factors.

Case 1:08-cv-00492-TCW Document 24-12 ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH Page 2 of 50 Filed 07/14/2008 PROTECTED MATERIAL TO BE DISCLOSED
U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS PROTECTIVE ORDER

Document 4- Attachment A

Prospective contractors are advised that the selection of a contractor for contract award is to be made, after a careful evaluation of the offers (proposals) received, by a panel of specialists chosen by DOL/OASAM. Each panelist will evaluate the proposals for technical acceptability using the ratings described in Section M.3, below. The factors are presented in the order of emphasis that they will receive. The scores will then be averaged to select a contractor for award on the basis of their proposal being the most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. If there are no significant technical differences among offerors, price alone will be the determining factor for source selection.

M.4 EVALUATION FACTORS AND RATINGS
***Offers will be evaluated using a Cascading method of evaluation. (1) Offers are being solicited from both small and large business under a two-tiered solicitation.

(2) Offers from all small business will be considered for award prior to any offers from large businesses. (3) (a)If the Contracting Officer determines that sufficient competition exists between small businesses, an award will be made to a small business, under the first tier, without consideration of offers submitted by large businesses. (b)If the Contracting Officer determines that insufficient competition exists between small businesses, offers from large businesses as well as small businesses will be considered for award.***

General
The Government will apply the following evaluation criteria to identify the best value proposal(s). The evaluation criteria represent key areas of importance to be considered in the source selection decision. The evaluation criteria (factors, subfactors, and elements) were chosen to support a meaningful discrimination between and among competing proposals. The proposals will be evaluated against the Government's objectives and requirements using these factors:


Past Performance;

Technical and Management Approach; Cost. Note: for purposes of this acquisition, references to "Price" and "Cost" are considered interchangeable.

Definitions
In order to provide insight into the Government's value of the evaluation criteria, the following terminology is used:


More Important. The criterion is greater in value than another criterion.

Comparatively Equal. The criterion is nearly the same in value as another criterion; any difference is very slight and unimportant.

Case 1:08-cv-00492-TCW Document 24-12 ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH Page 3 of 50 Filed 07/14/2008 PROTECTED MATERIAL TO BE DISCLOSED
U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS PROTECTIVE ORDER

Document 4- Attachment A

Relative Importance of Evaluation Criteria
Non­cost factors are comparatively equal. Each of the non­cost factors is divided into subfactors. Non­cost factors are divided into subfactors, which are further divided into elements. Subfactors are comparatively equal within each factor. All elements within a subfactor are comparatively equal. Each non­cost factor individually is more important than the Cost factor. When combined, non-cost factors are significantly more important than Cost.

Non-Cost Factor Evaluation Ratings
Table 1: Non-Cost Factor Evaluation Ratings Adjectival Rating Technical Capability Strengths Weaknesses Past Performance requirements The proposal exceedsThere are numerous strengths that are considered relevant/very recent past Weaknesses Highly and clearly demonstrates of direct benefit to the are the insignificant and have no apparent in all identified past performance Outstanding deliver offeror's capability toGovernment. impact to the program. performance efforts; excellent exceptional performance. performance ratings. The proposal is satisfactory;strengths exist that areweaknesses exist; they are Some the A few of Relevant/somewhat recent past offeror is capable of meeting to the Government; the with minimal benefit correctable performance in all identified past Excellent performance requirements. strengths clearly offset weaknesses. Government oversight or dire performance efforts; acceptable performance ratings. The proposal is minimallystrengths exist that are of weaknesses exist thatrelevant/not very recent past Few adequate; Substantial Somewhat the offeror is most likely ableto the Government; the the program; they are mostly acceptable benefit to may impact erformance; Acceptable meet performance requirements. not offset the strengths do correctable with some Governmentratings. performance weaknesses. oversight and direction. adversely The proposal is inadequate; if is strengths exist that are thatLittle relevant past performance Little, it any, Weaknesses exist doubtful whether the offeror can the Government; the of benefit to impact the program; they are mostly unacceptable identified; Marginal meet performance requirements. clearly offset the weaknesses correctable with significant performance ratings. strengths. Government oversight and direction. oposal is highly inadequate; beneficial strengths. There are no Numerous weaknesses exist that arepast performance Little relevant the offeror cannot meet performance so significant that a proposal re almost all unacceptable identified; Unacceptable requirements. write is not feasible within a performance ratings. suitable timeframe. Completely lacks relevant performance history or past performance is Not used Not used Not used Neutral unavailable, not due offeror's failure to provide information.

Risk Assessment Ratings
The Government performs a risk assessment of each offeror's proposal. The proposal risk assessment focuses on the risks and weaknesses associated with the offeror's proposed approach. Assessment of risk is done at the noncost factor levels, and includes potential for disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, and the need for increased Government oversight as well as the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. For any risk identified, the evaluation addresses the offeror's proposal for mitigating those risks and why that approach is or is not feasible. The table below provides definitions to be used for risk assessment of non-cost factors.

Case 1:08-cv-00492-TCW Document 24-12 ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH Page 4 of 50 Filed 07/14/2008 PROTECTED MATERIAL TO BE DISCLOSED
U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS PROTECTIVE ORDER

Document 4- Attachment A

Table 2: Risk Assessment Ratings for Non-Cost Factors Risk Rating Description

Offeror's proposed approach is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule or degradation of performance, and will require a high level of contractor emphasis and Government monitoring to overcome difficulties Medium Offeror's proposed approach is likely to cause a moderate disruption of schedule or degradation of performance, and will require a medium level of contractor emphasis and Government monitoring to overcome difficulties Offeror's proposed approach is likely to cause minimal or no disruption of schedule or degradation of performance, and will require a low level of contractor emphasis and Government monitoring to overcome difficulties

(1) Risks may occur as a result of a particular technical approach, business process, management approach, or as a result of the schedule and economic impacts associated with these approaches. (2) A risk assessment rating will be used along with the ratings for each assessed factor. The statements within the rating definitions assess different evaluation aspects rather than the risk assessment ratings. The statements within the rating definitions reflect how well the Past Performance and Technical and Management volumes meet the solicitation requirements.

Non­Cost Factor Evaluation Criteria Factor 1 ­ Past Performance
The Government assesses the offeror's capability to perform tasks under the solicitation by evaluating the offeror's past performance as a prime contractor on previous contracts. Only past performance data regarding FM SSP efforts completed within the last three years, or work that is ongoing, is evaluated. The lack of relevant past performance information will result in the assignment of a neutral rating (i.e., neither favorable nor unfavorable). Technically complex tasks managed and implemented across an enterprise will be rated higher than tasks of lesser size, scope, and complexity. Subfactor 1 ­ Previous Contracting Effort #1 The Government evaluates the offeror's past performance as the prime contractor in management of large and complex FM SSP­related efforts. The evaluation focuses on the offeror's technical understanding and technical capability as demonstrated by the size, scope, complexity, and results achieved in fulfilling the objectives of actual contracts and task orders similar to those contained in Section C of the solicitation. Technically complex tasks managed and implemented across an enterprise similar to DOL rate higher than tasks of lesser size, scope, and complexity. The evaluation also focuses on the innovative solutions developed and implemented by the offeror to address complex efforts and technical challenges, along with the results achieved. Emphasis is placed on the application and use of performance metrics and quality assurance plans that demonstrate program objectives and customer expectations were met or exceeded. Element 1. Past Performance Information Data The Government evaluates the offeror's proposal to determine the degree to which the offeror demonstrated its past performance in hosting, maintaining, and operating financial management systems consistent with the objectives and complexity described in the SOO (Section C). At a minimum, offerors must provide evidence of experience (i.e., in at least three contract(s) or order(s)) covering all SOO task areas. Technically complex FM SSP performance across an enterprise rates higher than tasks of less size, scope, and complexity. Successful past performance of data migration and data cleansing will also warrant a higher rating. Element 2. Cost Control

Case 1:08-cv-00492-TCW Document 24-12 ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH Page 5 of 50 Filed 07/14/2008 PROTECTED MATERIAL TO BE DISCLOSED
U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS PROTECTIVE ORDER

Document 4- Attachment A

The Government evaluates the offeror's ability to deliver services at an agreed­to price/cost. Variances in the award amounts and the amounts at completion (or Estimate To Complete) are evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror controlled customer costs. Past Performance with lower cost variance relative to OMB thresholds will be evaluated higher than past performance with larger variances. Element 3. Schedule Control The Government evaluates the offeror's ability to deliver a service according to an agreed­to schedule. The cause of any schedule variances is evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror was able to deliver services on time. Element 4. Organizational Change Management The Government evaluates the offeror's ability in Past Performance to provide integration and coordination of all activities needed to execute the contract to satisfy the customer's requirements and objectives, including transition management services (e.g., training, migration planning, change management, sequencing). Element 5. Quality The Government evaluates the offeror's ability to provide a service that met the customer's quality requirements. Examine the offeror's performance to determine if the quality of service necessary in providing conformance to contract requirements was met. Element 6. Socioeconomic Goals The Government evaluates the offeror's ability to meet subcontracting goals (large businesses and federal agencies proposing the use of contractors). Consider any circumstances that negatively impacted the offeror's ability to consistently meet or exceed small business subcontracting goals. Element 7. Subcontracting Management The Government evaluates the offeror's proposal to determine the extent that subcontracting management goals were met. This determination includes whether subcontracts were awarded in a timely manner, whether subcontractors were paid on time, and whether there were any significant problems with subcontracts that resulted in cost, schedule, or performance problems in the contract completion. Element 8. Business Relations The Government evaluates the offeror's ability to demonstrate a business­like concern for the customer's interests and the ability to demonstrate reasonable and cooperative behavior. The Government examines the assessment to determine the degree to which the offeror met the levels of cooperation needed to act as an effective business partner.

Subfactors 2­4 ­ Previous Contracting Efforts 2­4
Elements 1­8 Same as Subfactor 1 above.

Factor 2 ­ Technical & Management Approach
The Government assesses the offeror's capability to perform under the contract by evaluating the offeror's proposed technical approach and capabilities.

Subfactor 1 ­ Technical Approach
In response to the solicitation, the Government will evaluate the offeror's proposed technical solutions to address tasks similar to those in the solicitation.

Case 1:08-cv-00492-TCW Document 24-12 ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH Page 6 of 50 Filed 07/14/2008 PROTECTED MATERIAL TO BE DISCLOSED
U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS PROTECTIVE ORDER

Document 4- Attachment A

Element 1. Viability of FM SSP Offering The Government evaluates the offeror's proposal on whether the solution being offered by the FM SSP includes an installed and operational FSIO-compliant core financial system (Oracle Federal Financials 11i); the minimum FSIO-required services (as defined in the FSIO Migration Planning Guidance): IT Hosting and Administration, Application Management, Implementation Services; a SAS-70 Type II audit within the past year that resulted in either an unqualified opinion or with findings that are not significant enough to impact the organization's ability to serve as an FM SSP; a financial audit within the past year that resulted in a clean opinion or a qualified opinion with findings that do not impact the organization's ability to serve as an FM SSP; and standards and templates for systems implementation, interface configuration, operations, and ongoing support. Element 2. Implementation Services The Government evaluates the proposal on the extent that the offeror demonstrates a repeatable set of best practices for delivering standardized services for the implementation of their FM SSP solution. The offeror's proposal is also evaluated on the degree to which the offeror's response demonstrates flexibility to accommodate unique agency business processes and a formal governance model for configuration management that communicates changes and impacts to the customer. Element 3. IT Hosting & Administration The offeror's proposal is evaluated to determine the degree to which the offeror's response demonstrates an understanding of the scope and complexity of infrastructure necessary and the level of effort involved to effectively provide IT Hosting and Administration of the underlying infrastructure for an FM SSP under this task as well as an ability to support increasing transaction volumes consistent with expanding services to meet customer needs, without adversely impacting current support levels Element 4. Application Management Services The offeror's proposal is evaluated to determine the degree to which the offeror's response demonstrates an understanding of the scope, complexity, and level of effort involved in managing a financial management application; staffing a help desk with regular hours of operation and personnel trained in the use of the Oracle Federal Financials; and the provision and adequacy of formal procedures for communication, escalation, and resolution of issues, including critical issues, non-critical issues, incidents and problems. Element 5. Service Level Agreement The Government evaluates whether the offeror's FM SSP Service Level Agreement has a performance measurement methodology with metrics that address system availability, performance, and costs and meets the FM LOB Service Assessment Guide performance measures. Element 6. Security and Incident Response The offeror's proposal is evaluated to determine the existence and adequacy of (1) Continuity of Operations (COOP) Plans for each agency it services and for which successful Disaster Recovery Testing has been performed within the last 12 months; (2) the offered FM SSP is implemented with the appropriate security controls consistent with the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) and NIST Special Publication 80053; (3) processes for performing periodic testing and evaluation of information security controls in accordance with FISMA and NIST Special Publications 800-37 and 800-53A; (4) evidence that all environments and applications being used to provide FM SSP services have been FISMA Security Certified and Accredited (SC&A) within the last three years; (5) no indication of significant deficiencies from the most recent FISMA risk assessment review completed for the FM SSP; (6) documentation that a Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) risk assessment was completed within the last 36 months in accordance with NIST Special Publication 800-30; (7) an appointed information systems security officer as required under FISMA. Element 7. Federal Enterprise Architecture

Case 1:08-cv-00492-TCW Document 24-12 ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH Page 7 of 50 Filed 07/14/2008 PROTECTED MATERIAL TO BE DISCLOSED
U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS PROTECTIVE ORDER

Document 4- Attachment A

The Government evaluates the offeror's proposed Target Enterprise Architecture for its alignment with the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA) Business and Data Reference Models. Element 8. Requirements Compliance The Government evaluates the extent to which the offeror demonstrates its customer-relevant financial management systems are substantially compliant with FFMIA system requirements, including FSIO mandatory requirements, USSGL, CGAC structure, and accounting standards; and its ability to support DOL mandatory requirements. Element 9. Feeder System Interfaces The Government evaluates the extent to which the offeror demonstrates its ability to support an interface to the FM-related E-Gov Initiatives including E-Travel, Central Contractor Registration (CCR), and E-Payroll; its ability to use acceptable tools and processes to develop automated interfaces with feeder systems electronically as part of its solution . Support is defined as being capable of interfacing or integrating with one or more of the solutions provided by these initiatives. The offeror's proposal is evaluated on the capability of the offeror's existing feeder system interfaces to accommodate data interchange for the type of transactions processed and interchange methods used by DOL's feeder systems to provide continued automation of DOL business functions and processes to support the objectives and requirements of the solicitation; and experience implementing agreements similar to the interconnection security agreement and Memoranda of Understanding outlined in NIST Special Publication 800-47 for agency feeder systems such as Federal ePayroll, eTravel, SmartPay credit card systems, etc. Element 10. Enhancement Development Approach The offeror's proposal will be evaluated on their demonstrated ability to provide software enhancements to address customer unique requirements in such a way that does not impact the core Oracle Federal Financials COTS product. Element 10. Financial Management Reporting The Government evaluates the extent to which the offeror demonstrates their FM SSP solution provides standard and ad hoc reporting capabilities that fulfill DOL's objectives and requirements for financial management reporting. The offeror's proposal is evaluated on the capability of reports provided to fulfill external reporting requirements; to convey information in a clear, concise, and easy to use manner; and to enable more efficient financial control and improved financial management decision making within DOL.

Subfactor 1 ­ Management Approach
The Government assesses the offeror's ability to successfully manage FM SSP implementations and operations by evaluating its structure, quality focus, business operations, Human Resource practices, and Subcontracting Plan. Element 1. Organizational Structure The Government evaluates the offeror's proposed organizational structure for the extent to which streamlined business operations, rapid decision making capability, and effective delivery of services is likely. Element 2. Quality Assurance Plan The Government evaluates the QA Plan presented by the offeror to ensure high quality in its FM SSP solutions. Consistency with the proposed Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan, Performance Work Statement, and Service Level Agreement is also evaluated. Element 4. Ability to Recruit, Train, and Maintain High­Quality Personnel Offerors shall provide a Compensation for Professional Employees Plan for evaluation and evidence that staff at each data center providing FM SSP services have the appropriate security clearances as required by NIST Federal Information Processing Standard 201, PIV Part1.

Case 1:08-cv-00492-TCW Document 24-12 ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH Page 8 of 50 Filed 07/14/2008 PROTECTED MATERIAL TO BE DISCLOSED
U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS PROTECTIVE ORDER

Document 4- Attachment A

Element 5. Subcontracting Plan (large businesses and federal agencies proposing the use of contractors) The offeror must identify key aspects of its Subcontracting Plan and how the offeror plans to meet or exceed the small business contracting goals set forth in the solicitation. Element 6. Key Personnel The offeror is evaluated on the suitability of proposed Key Personnel, the applicability and quality of their skill and experience. While no minimum experience is required, the Government will evaluate the extent to which proposed key personnel resumes demonstrate the full breadth of financial management and technical expertise necessary to implement, host, and manage a core financial management solution. Key personnel with financial personnel certifications (e.g., Certified Public Accountant - CPA; Certified Government Financial Manager CGFM; Certified Internal Auditor - CIA; Certified Management Accountant - CMA; Certified Information Systems Auditor - CISA; and Certified Information Security Manager ­ CISM) are rated higher than Key personnel without a certification.

Cost Factor
(1) The offeror is required to submit all cost data in the format indicated in the solicitation (See Sections B, J, and L). Offerors are required to submit their proposed costs for the entire period of performance, as set forth in the appropriate attachment to Section J of the solicitation. The evaluation period commences with the start of work which shall be assumed to be July 1, 2008. (2) The Government will evaluate the proposed costs for completeness and reasonableness. Reasonableness of the overall cost will be determined on the basis of adequate cost competition and by comparison with the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE). (3) The Government may evaluate cost realism with regard to the ability of the offeror to meet objectives and requirements in terms of skills required, complexity of disciplines, and job difficulty if the Government deems such analysis necessary. The offeror's cost proposal will be compared to the technical proposals to determine the offeror's (a) understanding of work to be performed and (b) capability and capacity to provide the required services and accomplish the required objectives and requirements. Unrealistically low costs may indicate a lack of complete understanding of the objectives and requirements, a high­risk approach to performance, and/or an inability to attract and maintain a high­quality workforce. The Government considers the findings of such analysis regarding an offeror's ability to perform and the risk of its approach. (4) The Government bases the cost evaluation for all proposals on the total Discounted Life Cycle Cost (DLCC) for each proposal. The total DLCC for the contract is the total of the costs to DOL for each contract period (base and option periods) with appropriate discount rates applied. The Government will use the discount factors indicated below based upon the nominal discount rate specified in OMB Circular A­94.
Table 3: OMB Circular A-94 Discount Rates

Contract Period

Base Opt. 1

Opt. 2

Opt. 3

Opt. 4

Opt. 5

Opt. 6

Opt. 7

Discount Factors (based on OMB Circular A­94)

Comment [JGM1]: Make Table header consistent with other tables.

Case 1:08-cv-00492-TCW Document 24-12 ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH Page 9 of 50 Filed 07/14/2008 PROTECTED MATERIAL TO BE DISCLOSED
U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS PROTECTIVE ORDER Factor 4- Attachment B

Factor 4 ­ Attachment B ­ Clarifications posted via Amendments to the Solicitation concerning the evaluation methodology

The following has been extracted from Amendment A0005 dated February 07, 2008 9. Reference: At the top of page 62 of 69, reference is made to "...using the ratings described in Section M.3, below." We were unable to find section M.3. Question: Should the section labeled M.4 simply be labeled M.3? If not, please clarify. Response: Yes. Section "M.4. Evaluation Factors and Ratings" is revised to read "M.3 Evaluation Factors and Ratings" 10. Reference: Page 62, Section M4 "Cascading method of evaluation"; Page 67, Factor 2 Element 5 Subcontracting Plan, "the offeror must identify key aspects of its Subcontracting Plan and how the offeror plans to meet or exceed the small business contracting goals set forth in the solicitation." Question: DOL is soliciting offerors from both small and large businesses under a "two tiered" solicitation. Additionally, DOL states that subcontracting plans will be evaluated with regard to how the "offeror plans to meet or exceed the small business contracting goals set forth in the solicitation". There is no reference to a subcontracting plan in Section L and we did not find any guidance regarding small business subcontracting for large business prime offerors. Additionally, with FMLoB, DOL can leverage Shared Service Centers (SSCs) to reduce risk and provide inherent economies of scale. Commercial leaders have established SSCs which, by definition, utilized shared resources across customers. A broad small business subcontracting goal for NCFMS can effectively raise the price of service because the new small business staff cannot be shared effectively across an existing SSC resource base. That leads to the development of a custom, dedicated, resource model for NCFMS that is counter to the goals of a SSC. (a) Is it the Governments intent for the contractors to provide a Subcontracting Plan? (b) If yes, we request that OPM confirm that an offeror's GSA Corporate Small Business Subcontracting Plan is acceptable. This model has been used recently on other FMLoB procurements (e.g., OPM FSM). (c) Please also clarify submittal instructions for subcontracting plans. Response: (A) See Amendment A0004; (B) An offeror's GSA Corporate Small Business Subcontracting Plan is acceptable as long as it meets the subcontracting plan requirements of this solicitation; (C) See Amendment A0004 12. Question: Section M.4, Evaluation Factors, p62 calls for evaluating small business offerors first to determine if there is "sufficient competition between small businesses." Will the determination of sufficient competition include an evaluation of price reasonableness?

Case 1:08-cv-00492-TCW Document 24-12 ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH Page 10 of 50 Filed 07/14/2008 PROTECTED MATERIAL TO BE DISCLOSED
U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS PROTECTIVE ORDER Factor 4- Attachment B

Response: Yes. Price Reasonableness will be included in the determination of whether or not sufficient competition exists under tier 1. 17. Question: Please identify the preference provided to small business offerors in the evaluation of their technical and management proposals? Response: None. 18. Question: In the event of a finding of "sufficient competition" between small business offerors, will the Department of Labor award to a small business offeror at a "fair and reasonable price" independent of the technical and management scores of the small business offeror's proposal? If not, are there minimum technical and management scores that the small business offeror must achieve? Will the small business offeror be required to achieve "minimally acceptable" or "acceptable" technical and management evaluations? Response: Sufficient competition will be determined to exist if proposals are received from two or more responsible small business concerns that are competitive in terms of market prices, quality, and delivery, in accordance with FAR 19.502-2. 34. Question: Page 62 - Evaluation Factor M4 Question ­ In what order will federal SSPs be considered for contract award? The RFP indicates that "offers from a small business will be considered for award prior to any offers from large businesses". However; federal SSPs are not included in that statement. Response: The RFP statement you quoted is accurate. Beyond small business consideration, there is no other "order". Federal SSP's are considered "Other than small business". 41. Reference: On pages 46 of 69, under the heading Past Performance Volume Requirements (Volume 1), the following statement is found: "Volume 1 shall consist of four Past Performance sections, one for each of the three required Past Performance References." This is followed on page 47 by: "The Past Performance section shall include three current contracts or contracts completed within the last three years that are relevant to the objectives and requirements of this solicitation. The Offeror may also include current and completed contracts that are relevant to the objectives and requirements of this solicitation and that were performed for state government, local government, and/or private sector clients." Further on page 65 of 69, in Section M, under the subheader M.4 Evaluation Factors and Ratings ­ Factor 1 Past Performance ­ Subfactor 2-4, the following statement is found: "Previous Contracting Efforts 2 ­ 4" Question: Is it the Government intent to require the Offeror to provide three (3) or four (4) total past performance references? Response: The Past Performance Volume (Volume I) must include three (3) past performance sections, one for each of the Past Performance References submitted. All references to four (4) Past Performance References and four sections in Volume I are hereby modified to be only three references and sections.

Case 1:08-cv-00492-TCW Document 24-12 ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH Page 11 of 50 Filed 07/14/2008 PROTECTED MATERIAL TO BE DISCLOSED
U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS PROTECTIVE ORDER Factor 4- Attachment B

The following has been extracted from Amendment A0006 dated February 12, 2008 4. Question: Section L.6, Use of Support Contractors, p47, please identify the support contractor(s) assisting the government in its evaluation of offers. Response: No contractors are providing assistance in the evaluation of offers. 35. Question: Reference: On pages 46-47 of 69, under the heading Past Performance Volume Requirements (Volume 1), the following statements are found: "Volume 1 shall consist of four Past Performance sections, one for each of the three required Past Performance References...The Past Performance section shall include three current contracts or contracts completed within the last three years that are relevant to the objectives and requirements of this solicitation. The Offeror may also include current and completed contracts that are relevant to the objectives and requirements of this solicitation and that were performed for the state government, local government, and/or private sector clients...The Offeror shall provide detailed references for each Past Performance entry. A detailed reference will consist of (1) an overview of the contract, and (2) a Past Performance Survey...The Offeror shall also include in each overview a description of the scope of work performed and the results achieved. Each overview shall not exceed three pages. Reference: On page 64 of 69, under the heading Non-Cost Factor Evaluation Criteria, Factor 1 ­ Past Performance, Subfactor 1 ­ Previous Contracting Effort #1, and Element 1. Past Performance Information Data, the following statements are found: "The Government assesses the offeror's capability to perform tasks under the solicitation by evaluating the offeror's past performance as a prime contractor on previous contracts...The Government evaluates the offeror's past performance as the prime contractor in management of large and complex FM SSP-related efforts. The evaluation focuses on the offeror's technical understanding and technical capability as demonstrated by the size, scope, complexity, and results achieved in fulfilling the objectives of actual contracts and task orders similar to those contained in Section C of the solicitation...The Government evaluates the offeror's proposal to determine the degree to which the offeror demonstrated its past performance in hosting, maintaining, and operating financial management systems consistent with the objectives and complexity described in the SOO (Section C). At a minimum, offerors must provide evidence of experience (i.e. in at least three contract(s) or order(s)) covering all SOO task areas." Reference: On page 65 of 69, under the subheading Subfactors 2-4, the following statement is found: "Previous Contracting Efforts 2­4." Question: These sections appear to require 3 large and complex Federal FM SSP related references that the prime contractor has performed. This section also allows additional state, local, and commercial references. Write ups are limited to not more than three pages each. Can you confirm this interpretation? Are total references limited to four (i.e., three Federal and one state or local government, or commercial reference)? Can the fourth reference be a Federal engagement or is it limited only to state or local government or commercial? Response: The interpretation that the write-ups are limited to three responses is correct. While DOL prefers all references to be federal references, DOL will

Case 1:08-cv-00492-TCW Document 24-12 ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH Page 12 of 50 Filed 07/14/2008 PROTECTED MATERIAL TO BE DISCLOSED
U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS PROTECTIVE ORDER Factor 4- Attachment B

accept relevant (e.g., Oracle-based financial implementations), state/local/commercial references, if offerors have no prior federal implementation experience. The following has been extracted from Amendment A0008 dated February 19, 2008 1. Reference: Evaluation Criteria, Cost Factor, page 69. (4) The Government bases the cost evaluation for all proposals on the total Discounted Life Cycle Cost (DLCC) for each proposal. The total DLCC for the contract is the total of the costs to DOL for each contract period (base and option periods) with appropriate discount rates applied. The Government will use the discount factors indicated below based upon the nominal discount rate specified in OMB Circular A­94. Question: The current RFP applies A-94 to significantly discount out year prices for purposes of price evaluation. The effect is that the evaluated price differential between high and low bidders is discounted in out years. The compression in evaluated prices can be significant when accruing across 8 or 10 years, as is common in FMLOB procurements and in this RFP. For example, in the 7th option year, the evaluated price differential between high and low bid prices is discounted by 29% relative to the actual bid prices, providing advantage to higher prices in the O&M phase. These discounts become material when accrued for all years. We suggest that for purposes of price evaluation under the RFP that A-94 be removed from the RFP, consistent with the practice of previous FMLOB RFPs, and that price be evaluated based on total proposed prices. Response: DOL will not make the suggested change at this time. 17. Page 62 ­ Evaluation Factor M4 ­ Question - In what order will federal SSPs be considered for contract award? The RFP indicates that "offers from a small business will be considered for award prior to any offers from large businesses". However; federal SSPs are not included in that statement. Response: Offers from a small business will be considered for award prior to any offers from large businesses or federal FM SSPs. 38. Question: As part of the cascading evaluation, will the public competition be evaluated at the same time as small business? Or will it be evaluated with the large business proposals? Or will it be evaluated with both? Response: Offers from federal FM SSPs will not be evaluated with the initial evaluation of small business offers. 39. Question: Section M.4 ­ Evaluation Factors and Ratings Please clarify "cascading" or whatever contracting approach is being used for this solicitation. Is this in the sheltered market or potentially in a sheltered market? Response: Refer to section M.4 (3)(a) and (b) "Evaluation Factors and Ratings" on page 62 of 69 of the solicitation.

Case 1:08-cv-00492-TCW Document 24-12 ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH Page 13 of 50 Filed 07/14/2008 PROTECTED MATERIAL TO BE DISCLOSED
U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS PROTECTIVE ORDER Factor 4- Attachment B

40. Question: Section M.4 ­ Evaluation Factors and Ratings Can the same group of firms bid both sheltered and non-sheltered with different prime contractors on separate bids? Response: Yes. The following has been extracted from Amendment A0009 dated February 22, 2008 28. Question: We suggest that the Department of Labor require or give higher value to Federal client references. Federal financial management practices are unique; hence, allowing the inclusion of non-Federal clients as references could make the evaluation of references challenging as the management and processes behind non-Federal implementations do not map to the Federal methods. Additionally, since Oracle Federal Financials is in use at over half of Cabinet level agencies as their financial system of record, and other Federal agencies, we believe that those agency references present a sufficient pool and would map best to DOL's requirements and needs for performance verification. Response: Noted. 35. Question: The Solicitation indicates that the Department has determined to implement Oracle Federal Financials as the core component of the NCFMS. In order to maximize value to the Department, ensure a fair and robust competition, and protect against actual or apparent conflicts of interest, has the Department considered the advantage to it of assuring a level playing field between all potential bidders (including affiliates of the software provider)? For example, by requiring a specific software package, has the Department considered the potential for unfair or uncompetitive pricing (inconsistent with the FAR) in the event that an affiliate of the software provider is an interested bidder? Has the Department considered the potential price disadvantage to the Government in such an event? With that consideration in mind, has the Department considered the following available solutions which protect the integrity of the competition and facilitate the availability of the best pricing for the solution: (a) We understand that the Department has the ability to procure the Oracle software and commercial support directly from Oracle pursuant to one or more Blanket Purchase Agreements or Federal Supply Schedules in place between the Government and Oracle. In order to maximize value to the Department and protect the integrity of this procurement, will the Department consider procuring the Oracle Federal Financials software and support directly and, thereby, amend this Solicitation to state that all required Oracle Federal Financials software and support will be furnished as Government Furnished Property? (b) In order to maximize value to the Department of Labor, can the software provider agree in writing or otherwise commit to the Department of Labor that it will provide the necessary software licenses and associated support for Oracle Federal Financials to all NCFMS prime contract bidders on a nondiscriminatory basis, i.e. at prices and on terms and conditions that eliminate price discrimination and other unfair treatment in favor of any subsidiary or affiliate? (c) In the alternative, will the Department consider amending the Solicitation to provide that the price evaluation will not consider the cost of software licenses and support for Oracle Federal Financials?

Case 1:08-cv-00492-TCW Document 24-12 ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH Page 14 of 50 Filed 07/14/2008 PROTECTED MATERIAL TO BE DISCLOSED
U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS PROTECTIVE ORDER

Factor 4- Attachment B

Response: a. No b. DOL cannot respond for the "software provider." c. DOL cannot say we will not consider the cost of software licenses and support. 53. Question: Section M4, Evaluation Factors and Ratings, Factor 2, Technical & Management Approach - This section states that the government will evaluate whether the solution includes installed and operational FSIO-compliant core financial system (Oracle Federal Financials)." Similarly, Element 6 states that DOL will evaluate whether "the offered FM SSP is implemented with the appropriate security controls consistent. with NIST 800-53" Is it the government's intent to restrict competition to only SSPs with currently installed and accredited Oracle Federal Financials implementations (e.g., systems already in use by other agencies)? Further, is it the government's intent to combine their financial operations with such a system that is already in use by another agency? Response: No to both questions. It is the Government's intent that the offeror have a facility already accredited or able to be accredited before our operational date. 54. Question: Section M.4, Cascading Methodology - Under the Cascading method of evaluation, if the Government receives at least two qualified bids from small businesses, then the government will exclude public Shared Service Centers (FM Lines of Business) and large businesses from consideration. Since the solicitation is characterized as a limited private/public competition, was it the Government's intent to limit competition and not evaluate bids from public SSPs and large businesses? Response: No, and we encourage all small and large businesses, public and private, to submit competitive proposals.

Case 1:08-cv-00492-TCW Document 24-12 ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH Page 15 of 50 Filed 07/14/2008 PROTECTED MATERIAL TO BE DISCLOSED
U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS PROTECTIVE ORDER
Factor 4-Attachment C

Page 1 of 1

From: Jordan, Ronald - OASAM Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 10:07 AM To: 'Ficalora, Rosemary (US - Reston)' Subject: RFP DOL089RP20497 - NCFMS - OCD/DISCUSSION DATE
Ms. Ficalora, Reference my email, May 9th, same subject. This is your notification that your vendor presentation is scheduled on Tuesday, May 27, beginning at 8:00 a.m. at your designated location in the greater Washington, DC, area. Specifics relating to your presentation -- functionality to be demonstrated and clarifications to your proposal information in your proposal(s) -- will be provided five business days prior to presentation date.

Any questions should be referred to Ronnie Jordan at (202) 693-4595, or via email at [email protected]. Sincerely, Ronnie Jordan Contracting Officer 202-693-4595 202-693-4579 (fax)

file://Z:\2nd D & F\Factor 4 -- Intergrity of Procurement System\Factor 4 - Attachm... 7/12/2008

Case 1:08-cv-00492-TCW Document 24-12 ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH Page 16 of 50 Filed 07/14/2008 PROTECTED MATERIAL TO BE DISCLOSED
U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS PROTECTIVE ORDER
Factor 4-Attachment D(1)

Page 1 of 2

From: Jordan, Ronald - OASAM Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 3:48 PM To: 'Ficalora, Rosemary (US - Reston)' Subject: RFP DOL089RP20497 - NCFMS - OCD/DISCUSSION Attachments: Attachment 1 - Proposal Review Questions.xls; Attach 2 - OCD.xls; Attachment 3 - Additional Questions.xls
Ms. Ficalora, The following is Source Selection Sensitive for the NCFMS Solicitation. This information is for the exclusive use of appropriate members of the Source Selection Evaluation Board for the NCFMS Solicitation. Per my email dated May 09, 2008, subject: RFP DOL089RP20497, this is to advise you that DOL has scheduled Deloitte's meeting for RFP DOL089RP20497, NCFMS Project, for Tuesday, May 27, beginning at 8:00 am, at the place of your designation. The agenda is attached below for your reference. 1) The specific questions we expect you to answer and be prepared to discuss during the "Proposal Review: Questions", are captured in Attachment 1. Please provide 20 printed copies of your responses to these questions to myself at the start of the meeting. Also provide an electronic version by email no later than COB May 23. 2) The specific functionality we expect you to demonstrate during the Operations Capability Demonstration (OCD) is captured in Attachment 2. 3) Additional questions we expect you to answer but not necessarily discuss are in Attachment 3. Also, provide 20 printed copies of your responses to these questions to myself at the start of the meeting and send an electronic version by email no later than COB May 23. All questions represent areas where the need for clarification is known at this writing; DOL reserves the right to ask any additional questions on any part of your proposal at the meeting or during any part of the rest of our evaluation process.

Times 8:00 - 8:15 8:15 - 8:45 8:45 - 10:00

10:00 - 10:15 10:15 ­ 11:45 11:55 - 12:00 12:00 - 12:15 12:15 - 3:00

Topic Welcome Proposal Highlights Proposal Review: Questions (Attachment 1) Break OCD (Attachment 2) Summary Break DOL Session

Presenter/Attendees DOL CO and NCFMS PM / All Offeror Program Manager / All DOL CO and NCFMS PM / All DOL NCFMS PM / All DOL CO and NCFMS PM / All NCFMS PM/DOL attendees only

Subsequent to the meeting you will have two days to develop revisions to your proposal if necessary. You should make every effort to ensure that revisions to the Tech and Management and Cost Volumes are accomplished within the page limits of the original proposal, with all revisions being clearly marked. Revisions to Volume IV should be clearly marked.

Any questions should be referred to me at (202) 693-4595, or via email at [email protected].

file://Z:\2nd D & F\Factor 4 -- Intergrity of Procurement System\Factor 4 - Attachm... 7/12/2008

Case 1:08-cv-00492-TCW Document 24-12 ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH Page 17 of 50 Filed 07/14/2008 PROTECTED MATERIAL TO BE DISCLOSED
U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS PROTECTIVE ORDER
Factor 4-Attachment D(1)

Page 2 of 2

Please confirm receipt Sincerely, Ronnie Jordan Contracting Officer 202-693-4595 202-693-4579 (fax)

file://Z:\2nd D & F\Factor 4 -- Intergrity of Procurement System\Factor 4 - Attachm... 7/12/2008

Case 1:08-cv-00492-TCW Document 24-12 ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH Page 18 of 50 Filed 07/14/2008 PROTECTED MATERIAL TO BE DISCLOSED
U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS PROTECTIVE ORDER

Factor 4- Attachment D(2)

Question 192 - Phase one of the project has SW pricing of $4.8M, please explain the timing for this pricing. Can Deloitte charge for SW later in the development lifecycle? Why is it necessary to charge for it in phase one? 132 - Please explain your rationale for setting up the accounting code classififcation. Discuss why you choose to use a single set of books instead of multiple sets of books and how you will manage the agencies that are on a program year that begins on July 1.Include pros and cons of each option. 187 - How does the vendor support multiple ALCs under the same set of books? 189 - Provide details on your predefined Oracle account code structure including the number of characters in each segment and whether your solution meets DOL requirements. 128 - Please explain your rationale and approach for upgrading from Oracle Federal Financials Release 11i to Release 12 including how you determined the schedule to October 2012 upgrade.

Reference Volume: 3; Section: WBS Pricing; Page: NA Volume: 2; Section: 3.2.3 FM SSP Implementation Strategy; Page: 12 Volume: NA; Section: NA; Page: NA Volume: NA; Section: NA; Page: NA Volume: 2; Section: Major Upgrade Schedule; Page: 8

141 - Explain your process for migrating data from DOLAR$ to NCFMS in preparation for making NCFMS the system of record at DOL on 10/1/2009. Include how you intend to support Volume: 4; Section: 3.2.7 Data Conversion Approach; Page: 20 DOL agencies that operate on a program year where PY2010 begins on July 1, 2009. 186 - Discuss how the Working Capital Fund (WCF) would be set up, allocated in accordance with agency agreements, monitored for spending and funds availability. Volume: NA; Section: NA; Page: NA 131 - Please explain your methodology for assessing and developing interfaces for NCFMS at DOL. How did you determine whether to build a real time interface vs. a batch interface? For the outputs from NCFMS how did you determine whether to build an output interface vs. building a flat file report? Finally, please provide the interface types planned for each of the Volume: 2; Section: 3.1.9 Oracle Software-related interfaces you have identified building (as opposed to providing out of the box). Assumptions; Page: 9

Case 1:08-cv-00492-TCW Document 24-12 ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH Page 19 of 50 Filed 07/14/2008 PROTECTED MATERIAL TO BE DISCLOSED
U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS PROTECTIVE ORDER
Factor 4- Attachment D(3)

NCFMS - Vendor Selection Operational Capabilities Demonstration (OCD) Category: Invoice Processing Items to Demo or Review
(Issue or Process)
1 Invoice Processing 2 Invoice Processing 3 Invoice Processing 4 Invoice Processing 5 Invoice Processing 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Invoice Processing Invoice Processing Invoice Processing - Edit Criteria Invoice Processing - Edit Criteria Invoice Processing - Edit Criteria Invoice Processing - Edit Criteria Task Task Task Query Query Query Query Report Report

Additional information to be gained from OCD session or question or discussion topics
Show a document in the system with available obligated funds found across multiple agencies. Capture invoice data to include: vendor invoice number or account number; invoice date; invoice receipt date; vendor ID number; and additional invoice data that may be required (PMC-01). Validate for duplicate vendor invoices (PMC-05). Demonstrate a valid and invalid invoice for

duplicate vendor invoices.
Validate invoices from CCR vendors (PMC-06). Demonstrate a valid and invalid invoice from CCR

vendors.
Match invoices to obligations, receiving reports and acceptance information by document line item and quantity (PMC-08) Set-up recurring payments (PMC-14). Record payment as a partial or final payment of the referenced obligation (PMC-12). Define the criteria to be used in editing for duplicate vendor invoices (PMC-04). Define reason codes for invoice processing errors (PMC-17). Define reason codes for improper invoices (PMC-19). Import CCR vendor updates (PMC-23). Associate documents with source documents (SMC-03). Re-open a closed document (SMC-07). Reference multiple prior documents (SMC-08). Perform a related documents query (SMC-10). Perform a standard document transactions query (SMC-11). Perform a standard document query (SMC-12). Perform outstanding receivable balance query (RMB-25). Generate the FMS 224 report (FBC-10). Allow agencies to independently run the FMS Form 224 report and related bulk files for the ALCs they are responsible for (FBC-10.01). Provide ability to selectively exclude certain ALCs from the FMS Form 224 bulk file for transmission to Treasury (FBC-10.02). Demonstrate how the system produces reports on elimination entries for receivables/payables and revenues/expenses between agencies at the Department level. Demonstrate the application's ability to produce required Department of the Treasury reporting for FACT I and FACT II by appropriation. (GLG-07) Demonstrate how the system produces the detail balance for the US Standard General Ledger and in particular for SGL accounts: 1010, Fund Balance with Treasury; 1312, accounts receivable; 2110, accounts payable; and 4800, obligations. (GLG-04, GLG-05, GLG-06, GLF-07)
Page 1 of 2

21 Report 22 Report 23 Financial Statement 24 Financial Statement

Category: Operational Capability Demo

Case 1:08-cv-00492-TCW Document 24-12 ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH Page 20 of 50 Filed 07/14/2008 PROTECTED MATERIAL TO BE DISCLOSED
U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS PROTECTIVE ORDER
Factor 4- Attachment D(3)

NCFMS - Vendor Selection Operational Capabilities Demonstration (OCD) Category: Invoice Processing Items to Demo or Review
(Issue or Process)

Additional information to be gained from OCD session or question or discussion topics

Category: Operational Capability Demo

Page 2 of 2

Case 1:08-cv-00492-TCW Document 24-12 ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH Page 21 of 50 Filed 07/14/2008 PROTECTED MATERIAL TO BE DISCLOSED
U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS PROTECTIVE ORDER Factor 4- Attachment D(4)

Question 179 - Provide information relative to meeting subcontracting goals for the previous contracting effort references provided. 178 - Describe how you worked with subcontractors for the references provided. 183 - Your proposed solution is dependent on significant redesign to DOL's processes. Please clarify your approach with respect to process re-engineering, change management, and managing customization. 134 - You have requested for DOL to provide the following resources: Internal, external and IG audit reports and personnel throughout the project. All requests for Government Furnished Information will be handled on a case by case basis. Allow time for this process in your schedule where necessary. 182 - Your SLA showed you met the objective if 85% of the requirements were delivered. Please provide a rationale for a relatively low percentage. 184 - Provide evidence that processes in the QAP are used in your approach. 181 - You included an assumption that stated "enhancements over 40 hours are not in scope." Please clarify what you mean by that assumption.

Reference Volume: 1; Section: NA; Page: NA Volume: 1; Section: NA; Page: NA Volume: 2; Section: NA; Page: NA Volume: 2; Section: 4.8 Management Approach Assumptions; Page: 48 Volume: 2; Section: NA; Page: NA Volume: 2; Section: NA; Page: NA Volume: 2; Section: NA; Page: NA

185 - Your risk management process indicated risks were monitored quarterly; DOL expects risks to be monitored more frequently, especially during critical periods in development and implementation. Explain your rationale or adjust for more frequent monitoring. Volume: 2; Section: NA; Page: NA 180 - Describe any experience you may have providing this type of service for a large, federal Volume: 2; Section: NA; Page: NA organization. 191 - Will you provide WBS level 6 pricing for the following WBS elements: 01 02 02 02 01 Prepare Functional Requirements Document ($0.798M, a 2.5 month task); 01 03 02 03 01 Prepare Draft Detailed Design Document ($2.228M, a 4 month task); 01 04 02 06 01 Prepare Draft Acceptance Test Report and Approval ($1M, a 3.5 month task);01 05 02 01 01 Updated Implementation Plan and System Acceptance Letter ($.765M, a 2-month task). 142 - Please explain your rationale for when and how often to apply major release upgrades (point upgrades) on Release 12. 139 - Please explain your tranining rationale including how many users will be trained and in what capacity will they be trained. 138 - You have requested for DOL to provide all required documentation including functional, technical, configuration and interface documents as well as other documents specified in DOL's RFQ during week 1 of the project.Please specify what specific documents you require during week 1.

Volume: 3; Section: WBS Pricing; Page: NA Volume: 4; Section: 3.2 Assumptions; Page: 17 Volume: 4; Section: 3.2 Assumptions; Page: 16

Volume: 4; Section: 3.2 Assumptions; Page: 16

Case 1:08-cv-00492-TCW Document 24-12 ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH Page 22 of 50 Filed 07/14/2008 PROTECTED MATERIAL TO BE DISCLOSED
U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS PROTECTIVE ORDER

Factor 4- Attachment D(4)

136 - Please provide an estimate for the DOL resources you will require during implementation by each phase. 113 - What is the time window for NCFMS help desk support? 176 - What is the latest start date we could have without impacting the October 1, 2009 operational date? 143 - You have indicated that travel authorized by the COTR to DOL field locations will be conducted under government travel orders to allow Deloitte Consulting team members to obtain government rates. This is not a valid assumption. 169 - IMS numbering should follow the template provided in the RFP. Items can be added, but none should be subtracted. Adjust IMS. 171 - Assume that all basic program documents -- the Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA), Program Management Plan (PMP), Programmatic Work Breakdown Structure (WBS), Risk Management Plan (RMP), budget documents (e.g., Exhibit 300), Enterprise Architecture ­ will be accomplished by the PMO, with updates from the FMLoB SSP. DOL anticipates that the End-of-Phase Review is a 1-2 day meeting where all the phase deliverables, previously approved individually, are verified as being complete and approval is granted to pr 172 - The IMS will now require a detailed post-award IBR. Incorporate a one-week of activities supporting the IBR and eliminate tasks, if any, associated with a "kick-off." 174 - IMS should include IV&V activities for Test Plan, Testing Results, Draft Design Document, at a minimum. Is there sufficient time in your schedule for independent validation to occur concurrently or consecutively? 175 - DOL anticipates all program documentation updates would occur just prior to the end-ofphase review to incorporate decisions throughout the phase and set the stage for the subsequent phase's activities. Please provide a rationale for your approach or adjust your IMS. 144 - You have indicated that the response and resolution time clock will stop if Deloitte Consulting is waiting for further information or clarification of an issue from any third party. Please provide an example for clarification on an instance where 3rd party response is required in regards to SLA calcuations. 129 - What are your anticipated DOL work-space requirements for the life of this project? Additionally provide your reasoning for your space requirements. 190 - How much of your pricing is attributable to Interface work? Please provide WBS element(s) and dollar amounts.

Volume: 4; Section: 3.2 Assumptions; Page: 15 Volume: 4; Section: PWS; Page: NA Volume: 4; Section: IMS; Page: NA Volume: 4; Section: 3.2 Assumptions; Page: 17 Volume: 4; Section: IMS; Page: NA

Volume: 4; Section: IMS; Page: NA Volume: 4; Section: IMS; Page: NA Volume: 4; Section: IMS; Page: NA

Volume: 4; Section: IMS; Page: NA

Volume: 4; Section: 18.3.1 Helpdesk Assumptions; Page: 12 Volume: NA; Section: NA; Page: NA Volume: 3; Section: WBS Pricing; Page: NA

Case 1:08-cv-00492-TCW Document 24-12 ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH Page 23 of 50 Filed 07/14/2008 PROTECTED MATERIAL TO BE DISCLOSED
U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS PROTECTIVE ORDER
Factor 4- Attachment E(1)

May 23, 2008

Deloitte Consulting LLP

Proposal to Support

U.S. Department of Labor
New Core Financial Management System Oracle R11i Baseline with Upgrade to Oracle R12 Solution RFP Number: DOL089RP20497 Source Selection Evaluation Board for the NCFMS Solicitation--Answers to Attachment 1 Questions

Case 1:08-cv-00492-TCW Document 24-12 ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH Page 24 of 50 Filed 07/14/2008 PROTECTED MATERIAL TO BE DISCLOSED
U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS PROTECTIVE ORDER Factor 4- Attachment E(1)

U.S. Department of Labor
New Core Financial Management System Oracle R11i Baseline with Upgrade to Oracle R12 Solution RFP Number: DOL089RP20497 Source Selection Evaluation Board for the NCFMS Solicitation--Answers to Attachment 1 Questions

May 23, 2008 Presented by

Deloitte Consulting LLP

12010 Sunset Hills Road, Suite 500 Reston, VA 20190
Technical POC and Authorized Negotiator: Contracts POC:

Mr. Daniel J. Collins Principal Tel.: 202-220-2740 Email: [email protected]
Submitted To:

Ms. Rosemary Ficalora Contracts Manager Tel.: 703-885-6320 Fax: 703-885-6661 Email: [email protected]

Mr. Ronald J. Jordan Contracting Officer U.S. Department of Labor/OASAM Office of Procurement Services 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Room N-5416 Washington, D.C. 20210

This proposal or quotation includes data that shall not be disclosed outside of the Government and shall not be duplicated, used, or disclosed in whole or in part for any purpose other than to evaluate this proposal or quotation. If, however, a contract is awarded to this Offeror or Quoter as a result of or in connection with the submission of this data, the Government shall have the right to duplicate, use, or disclose the data to the extent provided in the resulting contract. This restriction does not limit the Government's right to use information contained in this data if it is obtained from other sources without restriction. The data subject to this restriction are contained in this entire proposal.

Case 1:08-cv-00492-TCW Document 24-12 ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH Page 25 of 50 Filed 07/14/2008 PROTECTED MATERIAL TO BE DISCLOSED
U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS PROTECTIVE ORDER
Factor 4- Attachment E(1)

Deloitte Consulting LLP 12010 Sunse