Q&A_RFP_15JPSS19R00000047.pdf

RFP NO. 15JPSS19R00000047

Questions and Answers

September 18, 2019

RFP #15JPSS19R00000047 - International Service of Process for Office of Foreign

Litigation (OFL)

1) The RFP (Section 1.2 (b), page 5) and the Inter-American Convention (IAC) do not allow a fee to be charged for processing and service of legal documents. Will all incidental costs (processing, handling, postage, etc.) associated with serving IAC documents be reflected in the quoted cost of service for Hague Convention requests?

Answer: Yes. The fixed unit price must include all related costs.

2) The current RFP reporting requirements have been implemented and/or in effected since the original contract was awarded in 2002. Presumably an abundant amount of information has been compiled since the origin of this contract. Based on the data collected, on a monthly and/or annual average, what percentage of serves were:

a. Corporate Defendants ____

b. Individual Defendants ____

Answer: Based on serves so far in 2019, 12% (estimated) were corporations.

3) Based upon the data collected from previous years, what percentage of documents sent out for service on Corporate entities were served upon a Registered/Service Agent?

Answer: In previous years, 44% (estimated) of business were served upon a registered agent.

4) Based upon data collected from previous years, are there concentrated areas (major metropolitan cities) of the United States where most of the legal documents are served?

Are there reports showing this type of document distribution? If so, please provide a copy of the report (s). If there is no report, please provide information on the geographic distribution/concentration of serves over the last five (5) years.

Answer: Attachment 3 to RFP Amendment 1 provides a distribution reporting from last year

(2018).

5) Section 2.2.3.2.1, page 9 allows the Contractor, under defined circumstances, to perform a “deep skip-tracing” to find a new address, and pending the approval of the foreign applicant, charge a new quoted fee. The fee is to be determined by the new award. What is the current quoted fee for the skip trace?

Answer: If the Contractor cannot successfully serve a request based on the address in the request and then uses skip-tracing to find a new current address, the Contractor may ask for a second fee

(same amount as the initial fee charged) if the applicant wants the Contractor to attempt service at the new address.

6) Section 2.2.3.2.2, page 10 allows an option for the Contractor to seek a Waiver of

Service. Based on the presumption that the party submitting the Hague Service Request checks Section a) on the Request Form, does the Contractor have the sole authority to determine whether or not to seek a Waiver of Service?

Answer: Yes, unless personal service is specifically requested by the foreign applicant. If the

Contractor elects to seek a waiver, there must not be an undue delay in the service of the documents unless the Contractor has notified and obtained the express agreement of the foreign applicant.

7) Based upon the data collected from previous years, on an annual basis, in what percentage of documents were Waivers of Service obtained?

Answer: Data for this is not available. Generally, waivers are sought when Section a) on the

Request Form is checked. They only effect service by personal service unless Section c) is checked in which case they check to see if the person to be served will accept service voluntarily.

8) Section 2.2.3.7.1 delineates four (4) specific monthly reports that must be electronically delivered to the COR and OIJA, along with quarterly and annual reports. It is presumed that from the inception of this contract, the DOJ and/or the Contractor, or both, developed software that formatted and created these reports. Is the software the property of the

Department of Justice? If so, will it be shared with the successful Contractor of this procurement in order to meet the reporting requirements?

Answer: The Department of Justice does not have ownership of any database/software managing this requirement. Any software is owned by the Contractor.

9) The current Contractor has operated the contract since its inception in 2002. The

Contractor has been in a favorable position to operate and garner enormous amounts of experience with the Contract and, at the same time, implement changes, corrections, modifications and improvements both on the infrastructure and technological aspects of the delivery system. Because of the various contractual requirements (staffing, training, website development, etc.) and the reporting requirements, and taking into consideration the 30-day contract transition period (Section 1.1 subsection c), it would appear the incumbent Contractor has a distinct advantage over other bidders on this RFP. Hence, will prospective Offerors’ submittals be evaluated on Corporate Experience and Past

Performance separate and distinct from the current Contractor who has seventeen (17) years of experience on this particular contract?

Answer: Yes, all Offerors will be evaluated in accordance with the RFP. Offerors will be evaluated based on the corporate experience and past performance provided as required by the

RFP. Please see the RFP Amendment 1, specifically changes in Sections 6.0 and 7.3.

10) Was there a reason for the change of the original Posting Date of August 27th, 2019 to

September 4th, 2019?

Answer: RFP 15JPSS19R00000047 was posted on FBO on August 27, 2019. The same RFP was transferred to a new user account created in FBO.gov on September 4, 2019, thus showing the new issue date.

11) RFP 1.2(d): Is this “or” inclusive or exclusive? In other words, would the Contractor be required to accept payment by all four methods, or would (at least) one suffice?

Typically, when performing outbound international serves, it is our experience that many countries require certified checks for payment, with no alternatives accepted. We would like to follow the customary international practice.

Answer: This requirement is about the forms of payment the Contractor would need to accept from foreign applicants for incoming requests for service under the Hague Service Convention and letters rogatory requests. The Contractor needs to accept all four methods of payment in order to accommodate the maximum amount of foreign applicants and payment regimes around the world. Currently, foreign applicants typically pay by check or bank transfer.

12) RFP 2.2.2(b): Can the duties of the Program Manager function be split among two or three individuals, at least one of whom will be an attorney?

Answer: This should be based on the Offeror’s business practice and what they deem to be appropriate.

13) RFP 2.2.2: Based on historical data, how many requests per annum have required written

Spanish-language responses?

Answer: The Contractor must have the ability to review documents submitted in Spanish and must be able to answer calls and emails from Spanish speaking speakers. Spanish speaking countries frequently submit requests for service so the Contractor must be able to communicate with Spanish speaking applicant both orally and in writing.

14) RFP 2.2.2: Based on historical data, how many requests per annum have been submitted in French?

Answer: This data is not required and exact numbers are not available. Submissions from France are provided with a French translation of the documents, also see RFP Attachment 002 for estimates from France.

15) RFP 2.2.2: Based on historical data, what is the typical duration of the monthly calls with

OIJA?

Answer: This is a new requirement and OIJA does not have monthly calls with the current

Contractor. OIJA estimates the monthly calls will last up to one hour.

16) RFP 2.2.2: Based on historical data, how many calls with OIJA take place each month?

Answer: The Government estimates about one call a week with the Contractor. Per the RFP, the

Contractor is required to hold monthly calls with OIJA to discuss topics such as workflow, problematic requests, and issues with foreign applicants.

17) RFP 2.2.3.1: Based on historical data, what is the average page count per submission, (broken out by Hague Service Convention versus Inter-American Convention, if possible)?

Answer: Regarding Hague Convention requests, sizes vary, estimates for each order average 40 pages in length for the service set and can range from 20 to 1,500 pages. Inter-American

Convention documents have estimated page counts ranging from 200 to 1,000 pages.

18) RFP 2.2.3.1.1(a): Who is responsible for paying the shipping costs for any requests forwarded to OIJA by mail courier?

Answer: The Contractor is responsible for the shipping costs and those costs should be included in the fixed unit CLIN prices.

RFP 2.2.3.1.1(a): “Original documents” – how is this defined, especially in the case of electronic submission?

Answer: Original documents only applies to requests received by mail. In cases where requests are received by the Contractor but those documents need to be forwarded to OIJA, the original documents are to be mailed to OIJA by mail courier. If those documents are only received electronically, they can be directly emailed to OIJA.

19) RFP 2.2.3.1.1(a): Based on historical data, how many serves were made on the US government in the last 3-4 years?

Answer: It is estimated to be less than 20 per year.

20) RFP 2.2.3.1.1(a): Under what circumstances would a Contractor retain the fee for requests that get forwarded to US government entities and/or rejected?

Answer: None. If the request is rejected (no attempt to serve is made) or the request is for the

United States, its departments, agencies and/or employees, and is transmitted to OIJA, then the

Contractor must reimburse or return the fee to the foreign applicant.

21) RFP 2.2.3.1.1(b): How is “reasonable” defined in this section?

Answer: The Contractor can define the amount of documents they are willing to accept that lack the required copies but generally 50 pages would be considered reasonable.

22) RFP 2.2.3.1.4: If affidavits or declarations are provided with the express approval of the

COR, can the Contractor charge for this service (in excess of CLINs 1001, 1002 or 1003 as appropriate)?

Answer: No. Any such declarations or affidavits are short and narrow in scope, usually just attesting to the role of the Contractor and whether or not service was affected. Any requests for declarations or affidavits that go beyond this scope can be referred to OIJA.

23) RFP 2.2.3.2.1: In our experience serving internationally (outgoing), foreign Central

Authorities are much more stringent in their requirements, especially where proper addresses are concerned. For example, foreign Central Authorities are unwilling to change addresses for parties to be served – provision of a correct address is the responsibility of the requestor. Further, service upon an address not specified by the requestor may lead to complications in compliance. For this reason, we respectfully request that the requirement to “attempt to correct the name or address” be removed from the solicitation.

Answer: The policy of the United States Central Authority, through its Contractor, is to provide judicial assistance to foreign applicants to the best of its ability. To that extent, we would require the Contractor to correct, amend, and supplement addresses where doing so easily and effectively can ensure service is effected. The United States does not rely on reciprocity and how foreign Central Authorities implement their obligations to determine how it will fulfill its obligations to serve judicial documents. The requirement that the Contractor must attempt to correct a name or address will remain in the solicitation.

24) RFP 2.2.3.2.1: How is “deep skip-tracing” defined in this section, as contrasted with the

“other sources” listed earlier in the section?

Answer: Deep skip tracing is defined however it is typically defined in the process serving industry.

25) RFP 2.2.3.2.1: Unless this section is revised in accordance with our Question 14, this section seems to suggest that the Contractor is obligated to 1) proactively perform address research before returning the request to the foreign applicant unexecuted. It then states that 2) the Contractor may ask for a new quoted fee if that research required “deep skip-tracing,” but conditions this fee upon acceptance by the applicant. It then states that

3) additional costs shall not be incurred without the agreement of the applicant. 1 and 3 are mutually exclusive. Please clarify this section.

Answer: When a Contractor receives a request for service, they must review the address for completeness and accuracy. If part of an address is missing or incorrect, they must try to correct the deficiency though minimal efforts – such as a Google map search. If the address cannot be corrected through publically available resources and the process server is not able to effect service based on the address provided, then the Contractor has the option to use skip-tracing to find a current and correct address and ask the applicant for a new fee if they want the Contractor to attempt service at this new address.

26) RFP 2.2.3.2.1: How has “reasonable” been interpreted under the existing contract?

Answer: See answer to Question 21.

27) RFP 2.2.3.2.1: What measures are currently being undertaken by the incumbent under this section with regards to address research and correction?

Answer: The government expects that the Contractor to review addresses upon receipt of a new request and takes minimal efforts, using publically available resources, to correct, amend, and supplement addresses.

28) RFP 2.2.3.2.3: Shipping original documents seems to be a significant component of the cost for this project. Further, international shipping fees vary widely by destination country. Are bidders expected to incorporate the cost of shipping documents (after completion, and/or upon rejection) into CLINs 1001, 1002 and 1003? Alternately, is there a mechanism by which requestors can be assigned responsibility for the cost of return shipping?

Answer: Yes, bidders are expected to incorporate the cost of shipping documents. Shipping costs will be the responsibility of the Contractor.

29) RFP 2.2.3.2.4.1: What proof is required/acceptable under this contract to make a determination that the addressee has consented to voluntarily accept service?

Answer: If an addressee accepts the documents voluntarily, the Contractor can state so on the proof of service and/or the Hague Service Convention or Inter-American Convention certificate.

30) RFP 2.2.3.2.5: For requests received through diplomatic channels by the Department of

State, does the Contractor charge the appropriate fee? If so, how is that fee to be collected, and from whom?

Answer: Yes, the Contractor charges the appropriate fee for requests sent through diplomatic channels. The fee is paid by the foreign applicant, the same way foreign applicants pay for

Hague Convention Requests. Applicants who send requests through diplomatic channels typically include a check with the request or wire the funds to the Contractor and provide proof of payment with the hard copy documents.

31) RFP 2.2.3.2.5: Based on historical data, how many requests per annum are transmitted through diplomatic channels by the Department of State?

Answer: Approximately 120 per year.

32) RFP 2.2.3.5: Who initiates the website revisions (COR, OIJA, Contractor, or some mix of the three)?

Answer: Both OIJA/COR and the Contractor can initiate changes to the website.

33) RFP 2.2.3.5: How are website revisions currently handled?

Answer: The Contractor is required to handle all website revisions.

34) RFP 2.2.3.5: “The Contractor must also provide a mechanism by which a foreign requesting authority can submit requests for service within the United States electronically and then track the status of such requests if the request is made online.”

Please specify what information, at a minimum, is required to be provided to the authority in the status-tracking capacity.

Answer: Status tracking should include a confirmation that the request was received by the

Contractor. For requests that are rejected, the Contractor should provide a rejected status and date of return to the applicant. For accepted requests, current status such as “under review”, “out for service”, “successful service and date”, “unsuccessful service and reason” should be provided.

35) RFP 2.2.3.6: What reports are currently made available, and in what format are they available?

Answer: See RFP Section 2.2.3.6 for the record keeping required of the Contractor and Section

2.2.3.7 for reporting and filing requirements.

36) RFP 2.2.3.6(e): Please provide the confidentiality requirements referenced in this section.

Answer: The Contractor is required to follow all federal or state requirements regarding privacy i.e. Privacy Act of 1974, Protection of PII, FAR 52.224-1 and FAR 239-1.

37) RFP 2.2.3.7.2: Based on historical data, please provide a breakdown of serves by country of origin.

Answer: See RFP Attachment 002 showing 2018 data.

38) RFP 2.2.3.7.2: Based on historical data, please provide a yearly breakdown of serves by the state/territory where service took place (or by ZIP if possible).

Answer: See Question 4 and RFP Attachment 003 showing 2018 data.

39) RFP 2.2.3.7.2: If this information is not available, please provide the number of serves that took place in each of the following major metropolitan areas: New York City, Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Houston, Washington DC, Miami/Dade.

Answer: See Question 4 and RFP Attachment 3 showing 2018 data.

40) RFP 2.2.3.10: Please clarify how pending jobs are to be handled during the transition period, especially regarding payment. For example, if the applicant has already paid the outgoing vendor, does that payment get passed on to the successor along with the responsibility to continue processing the request? Or does the outgoing vendor continue processing those requests that are pending at contract's end?

Answer: If a job has already been paid to the outgoing vendor, then that vendor is expected to fulfill those orders. Transfers are not expected.

41) RFP 3.0: How is “work product” defined in this section? To what does “any and all diagrams” refer? Does this section refer to solicitation deliverables, or to the service of process documents that Contractor would provide as a result of an award? Please clarify.

Answer: This section refers to deliverables e.g. monthly, quarterly and annual reports.

References to diagrams is removed in the amended RFP.

42) RFP 6.0: Page #69: How is “commensurate” defined in regards to the Past Performance projects?

Answer: Please see amended RFP pages 69-70 regarding Past Performance.

43) RFP 6.0: Page #69: If the proposed solution involves a team approach, does the response require 3 references per team member? 3 references total, regardless of team size? Please clarify.

Answer: If there is a teaming arrangement, the prime should provide no more than three past performance references and each subcontractor/team member should submit no more than two past performance references each. See amended RFP pages 69-70.

44) RFP 7.0: Are there any issues and/or concerns related to the current contract performance that DOJ aims to address with this RFP? Based on historical data, what have been the biggest problems and/or pain points in the current contract’s implementation?

Answer: We are prohibited from discussing the current Contractor’s past performance.

Generally, the biggest issue has been that foreign applicants do not send complete/correct requests and often do not include the required payment. It is also difficult to contact foreign applicants and try to remedy deficiencies. Some requests are voluminous or unorganized and require time to go through them and ensure compliance with technical requirements.