Responses_to_Vendor_Questions_for_CT.pdf

RFP 15JPSS19R00000005, Private Counsel Debt Collection – District of Connecticut Responses to Vendor Questions

No. RFP Reference Question/Comment Response

1 15JPSS19R00000005 What rate that we are required to submit would be applicable to Appellate Court matters?

In accordance with C.16 Appeals if the AUSA advises the PC to retain the case if the debtor appeals, the PC is not entitled to any additional attorney’s fee based upon its participation in the appeal, beyond the fee to which it would otherwise be entitled for handling the litigation in which the judgment being appealed was entered. This means if the PC was entitled to a flat fee rate under the original case, the rate is not increased or changed because of the appeal.

Also, if the PC was able to request hourly billing for working on the original case, the PC would be entitled to request hourly billing if the AUSA advised the PC to retain the case for the debtor appeal. The PC will still need to adhere to the contractual requirements with obtaining approval for hourly billing.

2 15JPSS19R00000005 Can a Firm decline to pursue unsecured debt collections and only pursue secured debt collections?

As indicated in the RFP, little, if any, unsecured work is expected to be assigned under the contract. However, if the need shall arise where the AUSA finds it necessary for the firm to perform unsecured work, the firm cannot decline to perform. The firm shall consider the relative importance of all evaluation factors and significant subfactors found within the RFP, when submitting their proposal to the Department.

No. RFP Reference Question/Comment Response

3 15JPSS19R00000005 Does the government consider the following to be directly adverse: Foreclosure actions wherein the contractor is foreclosing on a property in which the United States has a subsequent lien or encumbrance?

A determination regarding whether cases are directly adverse depends on the facts of each case. As stated in Section H.8, if there is any doubt as to whether the suit is one in which the interests of the United States are “directly adverse” to the private client or if there is “significant risk” that the representation of the United States will be “materially limited” by the lawyer’s responsibilities to the private client, please present the situation to the AUSA for a determination.

4 15JPSS19R0000005 Does this contract, have an incumbent? Yes.

5 15JPSS19R0000005 If there is an incumbent, who is the incumbent and is the incumbent still working on these cases?

The current incumbent is Witherspoon Law Offices of Farmington, Connecticut. The firm will be exiting the program, and the foreclosure cases will be assigned to the new firm by the

AUSA.

6 15JPSS19R0000005 Can you please confirm if any of these files are old and if so, are there any old judgments that are beyond the 20-year period as per 10 USC Section 3201?

The cases which will be referred are foreclosures and if expeditiously litigated are not impacted by 28 USC 3201.

7 15JPSS19R0000005 How many files/cases are contemplated by this contract?

The USAO anticipates referring approximately 50 foreclosure cases to the contractor.

8 15JPSS19R0000005 Does this contract anticipate any new files and if so, how many are estimated?

Over the past three years, the USAO has assigned 15-30 new foreclosures to the contractor annually.

9 15JPSS19R0000005 What is the Average Debt Balance for each defendant?

The current caseload for a PC in Connecticut has an average secured debt value of $207,000.

There is only one unsecured debt in the PC’s portfolio (bankruptcy), and its value is $550,000.

No. RFP Reference Question/Comment Response

10 15JPSS19R0000005 What is the amount or volume of files expected to be forwarded per month/year?

See responses to Question 7 and 8.