Amend_3_Responses_to_Attachment_12_RFP_Questions.pdf

15JPSS18R00000030, Amendment 3 Asset Forfeiture Support Services Attachment 12

Question No.

RFP Section and Attachment No.

if applicable

RFP or Attachment Page No.

Vendor’s Question DOJ Answer

1 Attachment 4 Attachment 1 Attachment 11

Attachment 4 Attachment 1 Attachment 11

Attachment 4 SCA WD Listing lists 296 Locations and 198 specific WDs. Attachment 11 lists 152 specific WD’s. Attachment 1 Pricing Tables specifies 84 locations with 48 associated WD’s.

Is it the Government intention to utilize all 296 locations and 198 WD’s.

If so, can the Government provide the associated MSA’s for all the WD’s in the Attachment 4?

Ex 1: AWD 2015-4006 (Portland, ME) is listed in Attachment 11 Workforce Health Benefits Demographic Data and Attachment 4 SCA WD listing, however, this location is not specifically listed in Attachment 1 Pricing Tables.

Attachment 1 shows MSA 26420 for Houston- Sugarland-Baytown, TX. Is it safe to assume that Houston, Sugarland, and Baytown are the only locations in this MSA?

Specific performance locations will be idenitifed on each order. The intent was to provide locations and WDs for any potential performance locations that may be ordered.

No, Houston, Sugarland, and Baytown is a titled included for the MSA not an indicication of all performance locations that fall into that MSA.

2 Attachment 1 Attachment 4

Attachment 1 Attachment 4

Attachment 1 Pricing Tables has the following locations specified that are not listed in Attachment 4 SCA WD Listing. Should Offerors’ use these WD’s for pricing the MSA?

MSA 12060: Atlanta-Sandy Spring-Marietta Sandy Spring and Marietta, GA are in Fulton and Cobb counties [SCA WD 2015-4472]). The

The MSA Table at Section I, H. 1, c (page 6) defines cities based on the commonly required performance locations and make up a particular MSA. This is also detailed in Attachment 1. As stated in Section Section I, H.1,c, further city identification for the MSAs can be found in Attachment 3 by referencing the applicable MSA number

WD listed for Atlanta, GA is solely for De Kalb. provided in the Table in H.1,c. Note that some cities are in the “All Other” category and the instructions in Section I, H.1,c, H.5,m and Section V, H.12, shall be followed. Attachment 4 reflects the current applicable WDs based on performance locations and shall be cross-referenced when formulating your offer.

3 Attachment 4 Attachment 4 Majority of the WD’s listed have been replaced with newer Revisions.

Should those current AWD revisions be used for pricing?

Ex: Detroit, MI [WD 2015-4840 Rev. 5] was replaced 07/31/2018 with WD 2015-4840 Rev.6.

Offerors are responsible for including pricing based on applicable, current AWDs. Any noted deviations should be included in the Business/Pricing Questionnaire under item i, as required at Section V, I.10. The RFP has been updated.

4 Section V, I Volume I – Business Proposal, 12(e)(5)

RFP Page 81 Northeast Region lists DOL/AWD 2015-4024 (Rev 6) which was replaced on 07/24/2018 with Rev. 8.

Should this be used for pricing?

Offerors are responsible for including pricing based on current AWDs.

5 Section V, I Volume I – Business Proposal, 12(e)(5)

RFP Page 81 West Region lists DOL/AWD 2015-4024 (Rev

6) which was replaced on 08/14/2018 with Rev.

6.

Should this be used for pricing?

Offerors are responsible for including pricing based on current AWDs.

6 Attachment 5 Attachment 5 Attachment 5 – Labor Category Descriptions – Seized Property Technician is not listed in Attachment 1 Pricing Tables.

What labor category would this be mapped to in the Labor Category Classification Table in the RFP? Is it the Property Custodian?

The Labor Category Classification Table has been updated to include the Seized Property Technican as referenced in Attachment 1 and Attachment 5 of the RFP.

7 Section I, H(5)(n)(3)

RFP page 13 Escalation shall be applicable to wages and fringe benefits and shall not be applied to G&A and management costs, overhead or profit.

Is the management costs referenced exclusive of the RFP defined “high level management”?

Yes, this would include high level management and any other related costs not directly attributable to wages and fringe benefits.

8 Section I, 12(f) RFP page 82 RFP states that the direct labor portion of the hourly rates should provide latitude for labor market variances within a MSA (as may be reflected in the AWDs), or for longevity and/or

Offerors can escalate rates. Offerors pricing shall not include any allowance for any contingency to cover increased costs for which adjustment will be requested under meritorious salary increases within labor categories.

Based on the above language, is it true the contractor should escalate WD rates for out years as this contradicts FAR Clause 52-222-43

FAR Clause 52-222-43.

9 Section I, H(5) (n)(2)

RFP page 13 Exempt Employees makes mention of AWD’s.

Was this clause meant for Non-Exempt employees?

The solicitation has been updated to change this reference to Non-Exempt.

10 Section VI, C(7)(g)(1) and C(7)(g)(2)

RFP page 102 Proposals offering total compensation levels less than currently being paid by the predecessor contractor for the same work will be evaluated, in addition to the above, on the basis of maintaining program continuity, uninterrupted work of high quality, and availability of required competent professional employees. Offerors are cautioned that instances of lowered compensation for essentially the same professional work may be considered a lack of sound management judgment in addition to indicating a lack of understanding of the requirement Given the Workforce demographic data provided in Attachment 11 which shows a majority of the workforce has greater than 15 years of seniority, can the Government provide some guidance as to the number of employees paid over the minimum of the SCA AWD rates?

Can the Government provide the historical direct labor by location and labor category?

This is a competitive procurement. Part of this competition involves evaluation criteria that require industry to propose a solution to the challenging requirement to attract and retain skilled and experienced personnel capable of performing. Offerors’ solutions to delivering the required services are part of what is required in Section V, Item J and will be evaluated in accordance with Section VI.

Offerors will not be evaluated against the incumbent’s labor rates but will be evaluated in terms of their compensation’s impact upon recruiting and retention, realism and consistency with the offeror’s total compensation plan.

11 Section V, J.2(g) and J.2(i)

RFP pages 84 and 85

Section J.2i, Risk Management, appears to be nearly duplicative of section J.2g, also named Risk Management. Both sections request a discussion of potential management risks.

Please clarify if J.2i and J.2g should be combined into a single section.

The RFP has been updated.

12 Volume II, J.2 (m) RFP page 85. RFP Section J.2 (m) states that, for key personnel “not presently an employee of the Offering organization,” the person’s resume

There is no need for an offeror to present a “signed letter of commitment” for a current employee of a proposed subcontractor must be accompanied by a “signed letter of commitment to join the offeror's organization.” Since key personnel may be employees of proposed subcontractors, can the government please clarify whether:

a. The resume of a current subcontractor employee offered as a key personnel must be accompanied by a “signed letter of commitment” and whether the letter’s commitment to join the subcontractor’s organization is sufficient; or,

b. There is no need for an offeror to present a

“signed letter of commitment” for a current employee of a proposed subcontractor offered as a key personnel?

offered as a key personnel.

13 Section V, J 4 a-j. RFP Page 87-88 Section V mandates that corporate experience is restricted in a similar fashion to past performance.

It states:

The prime offeror must provide three (3) directly relevant past or present references and one (1) reference for each major “first-tier” subcontractor. The references must be for commercial and/or Federal/State Government contracts for administrative, professional, and clerical support services similar in size, scope, and complexity of the requirements contained in this solicitation. References must be for work performed as a prime contractor, a team member, or a subcontractor, which are in progress or were completed within the past four (4) years and should clearly identify the role of the prime firm or the “first-tier” subcontractor.

The RFP has been updated to increase the page limitation for this response.

For example, header information, Sub Paragraph a – j, similar to that required in the past performance is required within a 10 page limited section. Typically corporate experience is utilized to allow the offeror to expound on the overall breadth of the offeror’s experience.

Is it the government’s intent to limit corporate experience in this manner and if so will the government increase the page count?

14 Section V.I.12.2

MSAs RFP p.80 The Government stated on p. 80, Section

V.I.12.2 MSAs, that “there is an estimated quantity for every CLIN…(that) results in an overstatement of hours for evaluation purposes”. On p. 86, Section V.J.3 Small Business Participation Plan, the Government states, “SBPCD requirements will be incorporated into any resulting contract(s)”, and requires below in b) for offerors to provide “proposed quantitative participation in terms of the value of the total acquisition (total contract value)”. Because total contract value to be used for evaluation purposes is an overstatement, and because of the dynamic nature of the program in which contract value is constantly changing, will the Government please confirm that only the percentages proposed in the Small Business Participation

Percentages not dollar values will be incorporated in to contractual requirements.

To better inform all offerors and to ensure that offerors propose percentages that can be met during contract performance; the Government will provide information relative to actual requirements for services under the current contract. The cumulative expenditures of the current award from the date of award to 9/30/2018 are approximately $960 million.

Plan will be incorporated into contractual requirements, and not the quantitative dollar amounts?

15 V.F.3 RFP p.72 “Diagrams, pictorial charts, and other graphic material that are predominately a diagram or pictorial with limited text can display font sizes that are no smaller than 8-point font.

Charts that are primarily textual can display font sizes that are no smaller than 12-point.” To eliminate judgement as to what is considered “primarily textual”, will the government require no smaller than 10 point font in all diagrams, pictorial charts, and other graphic material?

The RFP has been updated to state that the government requires no smaller than 10 point font in all diagrams, pictorial charts, and other graphic material.

16 V.F.4 RFP p.72 Will the government allow 10-point font in tables?

See the response to question 15 above.

17 Can I just bid on the message driver services in the San Diego area or do I need to bid on the whole contract?

No all offers must be inclusive of all services.

18 Attachment 10 Medical Benefits

Reference is made to "The Benefit Eligibility Attachment" is this different from Attachment 11?

Attachment 10 has been updated to clarify this reference.

19 Section II Part One Section II Part One page 25, Attachment 1 and Attachment

Reference paragraph H.13.f. The labor category “Supervisory Technical Writer” cited on Page 25 does not appear in Attachment 5 nor Attachment 1. Please confirm the skills required are those of the “Technical Writer” listed in Attachment 5.

The RFP has been updated to remove the reference to Supervisory Technical Writer.

Attachment 2 1 In Attachment 2, the Government includes columns for resources ordered and assigned.

Please confirm items ordered but not assigned represent unfilled orders by the incumbent.

Yes, ordered but not assigned are orders that are not currently filled.

21 Section II Part One 25 Reference paragraph H.13. The Government specifies staffing constraints for Project Directors, Operations Supervisors and other Supervisory and Paralegal staff (e.g., more

Any order that appears to conflict with contract requirements should be raised to the Contracting Officer (CO) or designated CO representative for this type of issue prior to than 2 first level supervisors and over 20 FTE contract positions must be filled to warrant an Operations Supervisor.) How should the awardee respond in the event one or more of these positions are specified on an order for a location that does not meet the minimum staffing constraints specified in Section H?

the commencement of performance or when the issue is identified.

22 Section II Part One 26 Reference paragraph H.13.g. The Government reserves the right to modify the management and supervision labor categories and span of responsibility... Will modifications to labor categories and span of responsibility be via contract amendment or if ordered is the awardee to assume the modification is thereby authorized by the order itself?

This reference is to allow a modification to the contract based on any change accepted by the Contractor and the Government prior to or during performance. Any orders that appear to conflict with contract requirements should be raised to the Contracting Officer or designated COR prior to the commencement of performance or when the issue is identified.

23 Section I 8 Reference paragraph H.4. In the example cited, the Government refers to Table MSA 29700, CLIN 0-1006-RT for the “Supervisory Financial Analyst”. It appears the correct reference is CLIN 0-1004-RT. Please confirm.

The RFP has been updated to correct this reference.

24 Attachment 6 All pages Attachment 6 references several systems, Forms and SOPs that the awardee will be required to interact with during performance. To facilitate training and transition when will the Government and Incumbent provide existing SOPs, Manuals and Training Materials for all required government systems and procedures?

The Government and incumbent would provide the existing referenced information as finalized and agreed upon in the transition plan.

25 Section II Part One 32 Paragraph L.1 indicates an estimated 400 orders are “issued at the beginning of each fiscal year.” Please clarify if fiscal year means Government fiscal year or contract year.

This reference is to the Government fiscal year.

26 Section V 72 Paragraph F.3 states, “no fold outs allowed;”

however, paragraph F.4 states, “Fold-outs shall

The solicitation has been updated to clarify these sections.

be limited to 11" x 17" and shall count as two pages.” Please confirm that fold-outs are permitted.

27 Section V 83 Paragraph J.2.b states, “Define and describe the proposed regional alignment, the overall management structure down to the field office level and how this alignment and structure shall benefit this contract.” Please confirm that field offices are encompassed by the MSAs identified in Attachment 3.

Yes, the MSAs included are based on performance locations where services are currently required.

28 Section V 73 Please confirm that the Compensation Plan is not included in the Volume II Staffing Plan page limitation.

The Compensation Plan is not included in the Volume II Staffing Plan page limitation.

29 Section V 84 & 85 Paragraph J.2.g states “Identification of potential management risks associated with the proposed effort (such as personal services) which could adversely impact effective performance and identification of steps to mitigate these potential risks.” Paragraph J.2.i states, “Identify potential management risks and issues associated with the proposed effort such as personal services, employee compensation during unplanned office closures, and locations with no on-site contract supervisor. Discuss how such risks could adversely impact effective performance and identify steps to mitigate these issues.” Will the Government please update the RFP instructions to remove this apparent duplicate requirement.

See the response to question 11 above.

30 Section V & Attachment 15

RFP page 87 and Attachment 15 pages 2 & 3

There are discrepancies between Section V, paragraph 3 and Attachment 15. For example, RFP Section V, paragraph 3.f states “Small business prime offerors shall include their information on the attachment for subparagraphs a-d above” and Attachment 15 paragraph 6 states “Small business prime offerors shall include their information in the above requested

Attachment 15 has been updated to clarify the requirements for small businesses.

subparagraphs 1-5 as required.” The numbering for the referenced requirements are different and Attachment 15 includes one additional requirement. Please clarify which document instructions (i.e., Section V or Attachment 15), offerors should adhere.

31 Section V Page 73 & 85 Please confirm that the signed Letters of Commitment are not included in the 3-page limit for Key Personnel resumes.

Letters of commitment should be included in the 3 page limitation as much as possible. If not included in the 3-page limitation, the one page letter of commitment will be considered with the resume to confirm the availaibiltiy of the proposed resource only.

32 Section II Part Two and Section V

Pages 30-31 &

Section II Part Two, paragraph I.1 states, “The Contractor shall be responsible for the phase-in of Contractor personnel and the assumption of ongoing tasks in accordance with the Government phase-in schedule.” Given that the Government has already provided the timeframe phase-in Section V, paragraph J.6, please provide the Government phase-in schedule.

The phase-in schedule will be based on the accepted Transition Plan.

33 Section V Page 92 Paragraph K states “The Government will assess the degree to which a offeror, as an organization or entity, has performed contracts of similar size and complexity based on dollar value, contract vehicle type, NAICS code and scope of work as a prime contractor.” Is it the Government’s intent to limit past performance references to multiple award contract vehicles, or will the Government equally consider all past performance references despite contract type?

The Government’s intent is not to limit past performance information. The Government has provided a statement to define relevancy of past performance to ensure that offerors provide their most relevant past peformance.

Past performance information for a contract type similar to the requirements of this RFP, a resultant single award IDIQ contract for commercial services, could be considered more relevant than another type of contract.

34 Section VI Pages 98-101 The RFP states that the Government is concerned with technical superiority and low risk; however, the RFP does not expressly identify the considerations for determining technical superiority and low risk. Will the Government please specify the scoring method or ratings scheme (e.g., adjectival ratings) for

Refer to Section VI, Item B.2 and Item C.4 for the relative importance of the evaluation factors.

the Technical Evaluation Subfactors and the Past Performance Evaluation?

35 Section II Part Two and Section V

Section II Part Two page 30 and Section V

Section II Part Two, paragraph G.2 and Section V, Paragraph J.5.d) Qualifications reference employees remaining fully qualified and up to date with industry standards. Please advise of the Government’s view, and what offerors are required to specifically address in regard to industry standards.

The Contractor’s technical response shall indicate the applicable standards and competencies it proposes to provide the indentified commercial services in support of the asset forfeiture program and other legal programs.

36 Section V and Section VI

Section V page 92-93 and Section VI page

Section V, paragraph K states, “The Government will assess the degree to which a offeror, as an organization or entity, has performed contracts of similar size and complexity based on dollar value, contract vehicle type, NAICS code and scope of work as a prime contractor.” This description of complexity provides an apparent discriminator/advantage for the incumbent contractor, as the strength of proposing the incumbent contract as past performance cannot be neutralized by another bidder. No other contracts meet this complexity description. Will the Government revise the definition of complexity to be in line with how complexity is defined in the “Guidance for Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)” (July 2018)?

Paragraph A3.15 of the Guidance for CPARS, states the following:

A3.15 Complexity. Describe contract/order technical complexity in accordance with the following definitions: Source: CPARS data entry

Low - The contract requires mature, proven technology or services of a non-complex nature, such as the production of simple items or

The past performance section of the RFP has been updated. Based on the definitions provided from CPARS, the most relevant past performance information woud be for contracts designated into a low or medium complexity level as detailed below-

Low - The contract requires mature, proven technology or services of a non-complex nature, such as the production of simple items or performance of simple operations.

Contract requirements are simple and efforts are routine; highly skilled labor is not required in order to meet contract requirements. The contract may be for a follow-on, repetitive type, or commercial acquisition. Contract requirements can be accomplished with a low degree of management effort and routine services may be performed with minimal supervision.

Examples include commercial-off-the-shelf supplies or parts such as transistors and commercial services such as grounds keeping.

Medium - The contract requires mature, proven technology or services of a moderately complex nature. While the technology may be moderately complex and the services require skilled labor, no new performance of simple operations. Contract requirements are simple and efforts are routine;

highly skilled labor is not required in order to meet contract requirements. The contract may be for a follow-on, repetitive type, or commercial acquisition. Contract requirements can be accomplished with a low degree of management effort and routine services may be performed with minimal supervision. Examples include commercial-off-the-shelf supplies or parts such as transistors and commercial services such as grounds keeping.

Medium - The contract requires mature, proven technology or services of a moderately complex nature. While the technology may be moderately complex and the services require skilled labor, no new technology is being developed and the technology is being used for proven applications only; no new applications of the technology are being performed. Contract specifications have moderate tolerances and may have a routine delivery schedule. A moderate degree of management oversight is required to ensure accomplishment of contract requirements.

Examples include night vision goggles, design and construction services for routine repairs and alterations to real property, and financial support services.

High - The contract requires new technology or services, or a new application of existing technology or services, with a high degree of technical uncertainty. Performance requires state of the art machinery or highly skilled personnel.

Contract specifications include stringent tolerance limits and services must be performed to exacting standards. The contract may have an accelerated delivery schedule. A high degree of technology is being developed and the technology is being used for proven applications only; no new applications of the technology are being performed. Contract specifications have moderate tolerances and may have a routine delivery schedule. A moderate degree of management oversight is required to ensure accomplishment of contract requirements. Examples include night vision goggles, design and construction services for routine repairs and alterations to real property, and financial support services.

management effort is required to ensure accomplishment of contract requirements.

Examples include development of new aircraft or weapons systems.

Full text of this guide may be accessed electronically at:

https://www.cpars.gov/pdfs/CPARS- Guidance.pdf

37 Section V Page 93 Paragraph K.h) states, “If any portion of the services in this RFP will be subcontracted or performed by a team member, provide three (3) references for the subcontractor/team member as described above.” Offerors are evaluated on the proposed participation/commitment to use small businesses. Please confirm that this requirement does not apply to small business subcontractors, as they would not have three references of similar size, scope, and complexity, and maintain small business status.

All offerors shall propose the most relevant past performance information available. The RFP has been updated.

38 Section II Part I Section I

1 The Government states, “Offices requiring services are DOJ components and other federal agencies that have a requirement for services contained in the Statement of Work. Orders issued under this contract will not be issued for more than one year and shall not cross fiscal years.” What is the average timeframe from when an order is issued to when the assignment is fulfilled?

The majority of requirements for services are filled when ordered if the order services are performed by incumbment personnel. New requirements for services are usually filled within 128 days after issuance which is inclusive of the agency security and on-boarding processes.

39 Section II Part I Section I

1 The Government states, “Offices requiring services are DOJ components and other federal agencies that have a requirement for services contained in the Statement of Work. Orders issued under this contract will not be issued for more than one year and shall not cross fiscal years.” How regularly are orders typically made? For example, are most assignments

Many of the Governments requirements for services are repetitive and are placed on orders on an annual basis.

https://www.cpars.gov/pdfs/CPARS-Guidance.pdf https://www.cpars.gov/pdfs/CPARS-Guidance.pdf ordered on an annual basis during an ordering season?

40 Section II Part I Section I

1 The Government states, “The anticipated date of award for the proposed contract is 15 April 2019; full performance of the contract is expected to commence by 01 August 2019 (the current contract expires on 30 April 2019).”

There appears to be a gap between the incumbent contract and the Government’s transition timeframe. Does the incumbent’s contract provide for their continuity of services through July 31, 2019?

The incumbents contract allows the potential for performance through September 30, 2019.

41 Section II Part II Part Two- Administrative Requirements Section E

28 The Government states, “The Contractor’s program shall set a goal of no greater than 15% attrition per contract period.” What is the incumbent contractor’s current annual attrition rate?

The current contract includes an award plan incentive period of performance based on an attrition rate of no greater than 15%. The incumbent has successfully obtained the incentive for meeting this performance requirement.

42 Section II Part II Part Two- Administrative Requirements Section I

30 The Government states, “The Contractor shall be responsible for the phase-in of Contractor personnel and the assumption of ongoing tasks in accordance with the Government phase-in schedule. Any specific phase-in assistance to be provided by the Government as requested in the Contractor’s Transition Plan will be approved in advance. Assistance may include the availability of Government personnel and incumbent Contractor personnel to provide administrative and technical information to new Contractor personnel regarding current contract performance.” Please provide the incumbent contractor’s phase-out plan to allow bidders to understand what administrative & technical information will be made available to a non-incumbent awardee.

That information is not available at this time.

The Government will evaluate the administrative and technical information as proposed by each offeror. Any information required from the incumbent will be negotiated in the final transition plan and coordinated with the Government.

43 Section II Part Two 31 Reference paragraph L. Is the incumbent contractor currently providing a web-based, Yes.

automated task order tracking system today?

44 Section II Part Two 31 Reference paragraph L. Please provide please provide the manufacturer, product name, version, and any modules deployed to support the incumbent’s COTS task order tracking system?

That information is not available at this time.

45 Section V 84 Reference paragraph J.1.h. Please provide a listing of all other systems and controls that are used on the current contract to meet contract management and reporting requirements (to include product name and version).

46 Section II Part Two 31 Reference paragraph L. If a web-based, automated task order tracking system is being provided today by the incumbent contractor, what are the current problems/issues the Government faces in using the automated task order tracking system?

Any problems or issues related to the web-based, automated task order tracking system would not be relevant to this acquisition. All requirements are specific to the current requirement.

47 Section II Part Two 31 The RFP does not define performance requirements associated with the automated task order tracking system. In order to ensure the proposed system fully satisfies the Government’s requirements, please provide the following: System availability performance standard(s).

The offeror is required to propose an order tracking system that will be the Contractor’s web based system. The current system is available during Government business hours.

48 Section II Part Two 31 The RFP does not define performance requirements associated with the automated task order tracking system. In order to ensure the proposed system fully satisfies the Government’s requirements, please provide the following: Number of Government/other Government contractor users requiring access.

The offeror is required to propose an order tracking system that will be the Contractor’s web based system. The current number of users is estimated to be 1-2 users per requiring or participating agency as identified in the RFP.

49 Section II Part Two 31 The RFP does not define performance requirements associated with the automated task order tracking system. In order to ensure the proposed system fully satisfies the Government’s requirements, please provide the

There is no requirement for concurrent users, however, there should be an expectation that there maybe concurrent use. The requirement is that the Contractor’s web-based system be available to enter order following: Number of concurrent users. information, view order information, or approve orders during normal business hours.

50 Section II Part Two and Attachment 13

Section II Part Two page 31 and all of Attachment 13

The RFP does not define performance requirements associated with the automated task order tracking system. In order to ensure the proposed system fully satisfies the Government’s requirements, please provide the following: Applicable FedRAMP requirements with which the contractor’s platform must comply.

The offeror shall ensure that it’s proposed web-based system is secure and that the Government can access the system to enter order information, view order information, or approve orders during normal business hours.

51 Section II Part Two 31 The RFP does not define performance requirements associated with the automated task order tracking system. In order to ensure the proposed system fully satisfies the Government’s requirements, please provide the following: Workflows showing how the order processing system is used by the Government.

Workflow shall allow for designated offices or the Contractor to enter any requirement for contract services including selection of appropriate labor category, performance location and rate. The documentation as entered shall be sufficient to print out an order or all required order information. After all information is entered; the document shall be available for approval by at least three levels above to include the Quality Assurance Evaluator, Agency COR, COR or CO if applicable. The information as entered shall be sufficient for printing. Once the order is entered in the Contractor’s system, the information is generally compared to the Government’s pending or approved order or modification. Each requirement as entered shall have the ability to be assigned a status similar to the following: pending final requirement entry, pending approval, being reviewed with DOJ order, approved.

52 Section II Part Two 31 The RFP does not define performance requirements associated with the automated task order tracking system. In order to ensure the proposed system fully satisfies the Government’s requirements, please provide the following: Information required by system reports

The proposed system shall allow for general data queries by the CO, COR and ACORs based on order information entered and tracked in the system.

53 Section V 84 Paragraph J.2.h does not provide information on the structure of the demonstrations to be held Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday of either the week of November 26th or December 3, 2018.

Please provide all information necessary for contractors to prepare for the demonstration, to include but not limited to: the number of contractor presenters allowed, if the Government will ask questions, what equipment will be provided by the Government.

The RFP has been updated to address the information requested that is not already addressed in the RFP. The Government does not intend to ask questions as the purpose of the demonstration is for the offeror to demonstrate the offeror’s proposed web-based system to determine if it meets solicitation requirements. The only questions would be follow up questions related to the demonstration.

54 Section V 84 Paragraph J.2.h does not provide information on the structure of the demonstrations to be held Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday of either the week of November 26th or December 3, 2018.

Please provide the evaluation criteria the Government will use in determining the “system meets solicitation requirements,” and please provide the specific set of solicitation requirements that must be demonstrated.

Solicitation requiremetns are contained at Section II, Part 2, Item L. Refer to the answer to question 51.

55 Attachments 1, 2, 3, and 4

All By using the provided attachments, we have been able to correlate the various WDs to their respective MSAs with the exception of five locations, as follow:

Agana, Barrigada and Hagatna, Guam (WD 2015-5694) and Alpine and Marfa, Texas (WD 2015-5842). Can the Government please provide guidance on the applicable MSA for these locations?

There are no MSA’s for these areas. Refer to the answer to question 2.

56 Attachment 4 Page 7 The Government has identified WD 2015-5218 as the applicable WD for Lufkin, TX, however, wdol.gov indicates the applicable WD is 2015- 5280. Please confirm that the 5218 is a typo and it should actually be 5280.

The attachment has been updated to reflect the current WD is WD 15-5280 Rev.-10

57 Section V, and Attachments 1, 2, 3, and 4

RFP page 81 and all pages of attachments

Reference paragraph I.12. Many of the named cities/counties on Attachment 4 correspond to MSAs listed on Attachment 3 for which there is no corresponding MSA worksheet in

See the response to question 2.

Attachment 1. Would the government please provide guidance as to how those locations should be priced? If allocable to the "All Other" tables for their respective regions, are we to use the WD identified in Attachment 4, or the WDs listed on page 81 of the RFP, item 5?

58 Attachment 1 and RFP Labor Category Classification Table

RFP page 77 and Attachment

The Labor Category Classification Table on page 77 includes 2 labor categories for which there is no corresponding CLIN on the Attachment 1 worksheets,. Will the government please clarify if there should be additional rows added to the MSA worksheets for those positions and, if so, provide a revised Attachment 1?

The RFP has been updated to remove Senior Civil Investigator and Civil Investigator from the Labor Category Classification Table.

59 Section V and Attachment 1

Section V page 77 and Attachment 1

The Labor Category Classification Table on in Section V of the RFP, page 77 includes a position entitled Property Custodian. Can the government please confirm that this position is equivalent to the Seized Property Technician CLINs on the Attachment 1 worksheets?

Refer to the response to question 6. There is no requirement for a Property Custodian.

60 Section III Page 43 Paragraph C states that currently at least 400 orders are issued at the beginning of each fiscal year. Please clarify if the fiscal year reference refers to the contract fiscal year or the government fiscal year. Also, please confirm if additional orders may be expected throughout the fiscal year and, if so, can they be issued for a full year of performance or are they limited to the end of the then current fiscal year?

The fiscal year refers to the Government fiscal year. Requiring offices may place orders at any time for performance through the end of the fiscal year.

61 Section V and Section VI

Pages 87-88 and

Given the applicability of the SCA to this type of contract, all offerors will essentially be able to provide the technical requirements contained in the SOW by offering the right of first refusal to the incumbent workforce. Will the Government consider changing the Corporate Experience instructions and evaluation criteria to focus on what truly discriminates offers, The RFP has been updated.

ensures consistent and effective performance of the contract, and achieves the asset forfeiture mission?

Recommendations for revised Corporate Experience instructions and evaluation criteria include the following areas that would demonstrate experience successfully performing the offerors proposed approaches:

• experience of management and supervisory experience of high-level management and key personnel

• organizational capacity to manage and administer the contract

• systems and controls for contract management and reporting

• quality control

• experience meeting the proposed performance measures

• employee retention transition

62 Section II Part One, Section VI and Attachment 1 Pricing Tables

Pages 25, 100 and Attachment 1 Pricing Tables

Reference paragraph H.13. Of the management and supervisory labor categories identified in the solicitation, Regional Director and Agency Manager appear to be roles that could be blended within a single full time equivalent (FTE) resource, assuming appropriate skills and experience. Please confirm our understanding that, given the Government’s stated interest in bidders demonstrating efficient management within their Management Plan, these roles do not represent a one-for-one resource requirement within the management organization and there are no constraints limiting the ability of a bidder to propose dual-hatted managers, when and where appropriate. If so, would the Government allow flexibility in the pricing template to accommodate this efficiency?

Offerors may submit an alternate price proposal to accommodate any similar solutions. If submitting an alternate price proposal the offeror must address how management requirements will be met. All offerors would be required to submit pricing in both formats if submitting an alternate price proposal.

63 Section V Page 93 Proposal responses are due by 12:00 p.m. local Yes, the Government will allow a two (2)

Washington D.C. time on Thursday November 15, 2018. Would the Government consider a two week extension of this due date until November 29, 2018 to allow offerors sufficient time to incorporate answers to questions?

week extension. The RFP has been updated.

VI.C.6 101 With regards to past performance evaluation, the RFP states that “complexity is determined by dollar value, the type of contract vehicle, NAICS code and the scope of contract.” Considering that many small business subcontractors will not have past performances that match the complexity and dollar value of this contract, could the government modify the definition of complexity for subcontractor members only, to just include the scope of the contract and not dollar value?

The RFP has been updated to clarify the relevancy of past performance.

65 Attachment 1 Attachment 2 Attachment 5

p. 77 Labor categories: There are four places in the RFP that contain a list of contract labor categories:

1) Labor Category Classification Table (page 77)

2) Pricing Tables (Attachment 1)

3) Current Services Ordered (Attachment

2)

4) Labor Category Descriptions

(Attachment 5) We recognize that the four sources may not match exactly, because there may be labor categories that are on the contract but are not currently ordered or assigned (and therefore not shown on Attachment 2). However, there are several other discrepancies between the lists:

• Civil Investigator and Sr. Civil Investigator – these positions are on lists #1 and #3 (which indicates that they are currently ordered on the contract), but not priced (#2) or shown in the Labor Category Descriptions (#4)

Refer to the responses to questions 6 and 58.

Property Custodian and Seized Property Technician. It appears that this is the same labor category. However, it is called “Property Custodian” in #1 and #3, but “Seized Property Technician” in #2 and #4. Can you please confirm that it is the same position?

66 Section V, Item K p. 93 Past Performance. The instructions state that the references provided by the offeror should be “as a prime contractor.” However, it is not clear if this restriction applies to past performance references provided for a subcontractor. We presume that it does not, since past performance as a subcontractor by a company proposed as a subcontractor for this program would seem to be very relevant. Can you please confirm that the past performance references submitted for proposed subcontractors can be for work performed as a subcontractor?

Past performance references can be submitted for subcontractor work; however, past performance provided for work performed as a Prime Contractor shall be considered more relevant.

67 Section V, Item M

p. 93 Proposal instructions. Can you please clarify/verify the instructions in the “Items to Be Delivered” column of the table? It appears that the following is required:

• Volume I (Business): one paper copy and three CDs

• Volume II (Technical): two paper copies and 8 CDs

• Staffing Plan Addendum: two paper copies (in a separate binder from Technical) and 8 CDs

Can you please confirm that this understanding is accurate?

The RFP has been updated to address the Items to be delivered.

68 Section V, Item I, 12.F.7

Transition Plan Price

p. 82 Price for Transition Plan. This section states that the offeror should provide a price to support the proposed Transition Plan. However, there is no place in the pricing spreadsheet for this information. Can you please confirm that the Government intends to pay the awardee for these costs? If so, does the Government intend

A separate order would be issued to cover the final agreed upon Transition Plan services and price.

to issue a firm-fixed price task order for the proposed transition price provided in this section?

69 Attachment 11 N/A Workforce Health Benefits Demographic Data. The last column in this table shows tenure per position. Can you please provide the “as of” date that was the basis for the tenure figures?

Attachment 2 N/A Current Services Ordered. This worksheet contains columns titled “Ordered” and “Assigned.” Can you please provide additional explanation of the content of each column? Is “Assigned” intended to show the number of positions that are currently filled? Can you provide additional explanation of the large difference (232 positions) between the two columns?

Refer to the answer to question 20.

71 Attachment 2 N/A Current Services Ordered. In the “Location” column, there are 17 positions showing a location site of El Paso, TX. However, the Region columns shows about half of these position in the West Region, and half in the North Central Region. El Paso is one of the priced MSAs in the North Central Region. Can you please clarify if this split is intentional, or if all of these positions should be considered to be in the North Central Region for pricing purposes?

The attachment is based on the current classification of Contractor employees.

Offerors shall price as instructed in the RFP.

72 Section V, Item J, #4

p. 87 Corporate Experience. The instructions state that “at least one (1) of the prime offeror’s references must reflect the offeror’s participation in a multiple award contract vehicle with task order style requirements (i.e., IDIQ, GWAC, or BPA).” This requirement seems unusual given that this contract will be a single award. Will the Government consider removing this requirement?

Section V, Item J, #4

p. 87 Corporate Experience. This section has a page limit of ten pages, but requires one reference for each “first-tier” subcontractor. Given the extensive subcontractor requirement clarified in Amendment 1, it is possible that an offeror will have many first-tier subcontractors. Would the government consider increasing the page limit to account for the increased subcontractor participation, or allowing SB references to be included as an attachment?

74 Attachment 4 N/A SCA WD Listing. The heading of this document states the revision number of AWDs shown is “as of 7/24/2018.” Nearly all of the wage determinations listed have had revisions since July 24th. Can you please clarify how offerors should handle this? Should offerors determine the most current revision and utilize this in their pricing?

Refer to the response to question 4.

75 Section V, Item J, Staffing Plan

Health Benefits Questionnaire and Fringe Benefits Table

(p. 90)

Staffing Plan Addendum. The proposal instructions state that the information for both of these sections “shall be submitted in a separate volume.” Can you please confirm whether this means a separate physical binder, or a separate section within Volume II Technical Proposal?

The Staffing Plan Addendum should be placed in a separate file, section or binder as applicable.

76 Section 1, Item D p. 4 Transition Period. The first sentence of Section I (D) states that the anticipated date of award for the proposed contract is 15 April 2019, and full performance is expected to start on 01 August 2019. However, the third sentence states that “the transition period includes the phase-in of Contractor personnel and the assumption of ongoing services.” This sentence seems to indicate a phased assumption of personnel and services during the transition period, rather than a full start of service on August 1st. Can you please clarify the Government’s intent for the transition period and start date?

The anticipated award date is 15 April 2019.

The Contractor will include a transition plan that will allow full performance to begin on 1 August 2019.

77 Section V, Item J, 2.E

p. 84 This paragraph asks offerors to describe how they will mitigate the appearance of “personnel services.” We assume this is a typo and should have referred to “personal services.” Can you please confirm this?

78 Section I, H.5.l.2. p. 11 RFP Section I H.5.l.2. (p. 11) states: “Exempt.

Employees performing in a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity as defined in 29 CFR 541 are exempt from the SCA. These labor category CLINs will not be subject to price adjustment.”

However, Sections H.5.n.2 and 3. (p. 13) provide a procedure for obtaining price adjustments for exempt employees based on revised wage determinations.

It is our understanding that only SCA labor classifications are subject to adjustment for option periods based on FAR 52.222-43, and that exempt labor classifications are not. Can you please clarify?

Only SCA labor classifications are subject to adjustment for option periods based on FAR 52.222-43 and exempt labor classifications are not. Refer to the answer to question 9.

79 Attachment 5 p.1 Labor Category Description. The fifth sentence of the introductory paragraph to this section states: “The qualifications set forth under the labor category position descriptions are not intended to be requirements but to provide information relative to previous performance and industry standards.” However, the language in each labor category description reads like a firm requirement for educational and/or experience qualifications. Can you please clarify the intent of this statement?

The statement is to clarify the intent of the attachment. The attachment is to provide offerors with the current qualifications of individuals performing services. The attachment provides qualifications that have previously ensured successful performance.

80 Section 1, H.1.3 page 11 Price Adjustments. The first sentence of this section states: “No labor hour price adjustments will be made during the base period of this contract to any CLINs for non-exempt labor categories.” Given that there is a planned 8.5 month period between proposal submittal (11/15/18) and start of service (8/1/19), it is very likely that some wage determinations will be

Any request for equitable adjustment in accordance with FAR 52.222-43 as submitted by the Contractor will be reviewed.

revised between proposal submission and the start of contract performance. Can you please verify that price adjustments will be processed if the wage determination in effect when the contract commences is different than the current wage determination…