The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
Request for Proposal 15JPSS22R00000028, EOIR Legal Access, Orientation, and Representation Services
Question 1
| Section Title: | Minimum and Maximum Amounts |
| RFP Section: B.2.b | |
| Page Number: 1 | |
| Language Referenced: |
| There are no maximum quantities or amounts for each individual CLIN, task order, or contract period. The maximum aggregate amount of all task orders issued under the contract shall not exceed $250,000,000.00 for the entire term of this contract, including all options which may be exercised. |
| Question: |
| Can the government confirm that if new/additional Statements of Work for programs not included in the RFP are issued after the RFP period, the "maximum amount" ceiling will be revised? |
| DOJ Response: |
| The maximum aggregate amount will not be changed and covers all of the existing programs and any new programs that may be added to the contract. |
Question 2 Section Title: Project Management Support
| RFP Section: C.3.3; C.3.1.b.4 |
| Page Number: 5; 4 |
| Language Referenced: |
| All reports required under this contract shall be delivered to the COR as shown below. This list of reports is not exhaustive; additional reports shall be delivered as required by the COR. (C.3.3) |
(4) Providing monthly and ad hoc or other periodic reports (when requested by the Government) status and financial reports to the Government in an agreed upon format. (C.3.1.b.4)
| Question: |
| This clause specifies a requirement for additional reports as required by the Government to the Contractor. May the Government clarify an estimated volume of ad hoc requests under this clause and examples of the type of additional reports that would be anticipated across the programs? |
| DOJ Response: |
| The volume of ad hoc requests under this clause will depend on program needs, as they arise. Due to the ad hoc nature of these requests, the Government is unable to provide an estimated volume. Congress and governmental stakeholders have historically requested ad hoc reports. Such reports have included, for example, aggregate numbers of individuals served by a particular program and/or the nature and volume of the services provided in a given time period. |
Question 3
| Section Title: | Program Operation Plan (POP) |
| RFP Section: C.3.3.2.c | |
| Page Number: 8 | |
| Language Referenced: |
| Site Monitoring and Evaluations. The Contractor shall perform an annual evaluation of each program site. Site visits should be in-person but may be conducted remotely in consultation with the Government, as specified in each individual task order, and shall include at a minimum: i) collection and review of data evaluating the level and quality of services provided, and ii) the impact of such services on the goals of the program to determine the performance of each local program site. The Government will participate in these program site visits at its discretion. |
| Question: |
| Will the government consider requiring annualized site monitoring and evaluations of only the orientation programs? If not, can the government define “program site” for representation programs (e.g., immigration courts, detention centers, or providers)? The representation programs will likely have a much higher number of “sites” (regardless of how defined) and therefore requiring site visits to all sites could signify a significant cost to the government. |
| DOJ Response: |
| The Government will require annualized site monitoring and evaluations for the orientation programs only. Section C.3.3.2.c (page 8) has been revised to clarify this. |
Question 4
| Section Title: | Legal Orientation Program for Custodians of Unaccompanied Children (LOPC) |
| RFP Section: C.5.1.2 | |
| Page Number: 10 | |
| Language Referenced: |
| The services to be performed include, but are not limited to, the following: group and/or individual orientations; development of Pro Bono Referral Plans; and other services as deemed necessary by the COR. |
| Question: |
| The services listed under the LOPC task orders section does not mention Self Help Workshops, is that a purposeful omission? If not, would the government consider issuing an amendment to correct that omission? |
| DOJ Response: |
| Section C.5.1.2 (page 10) has been revised to include “self-help workshops.” |
Question 5
| Section Title: | Legal Orientation for Detained Adults (LOP) |
| RFP Section: C.5.1.1 | |
| Page Number: 10 | |
Language Referenced:
| Question: |
| Does Attachment (2) limit the locations to be included in the prospective Contractor’s proposal in response to this RFP, or may the prospective Contractor propose additional sites/locations as capacity allows? |
| DOJ Response: |
| Attachment (2) provides a list of current sites where the different programs exist; thus, the offeror’s proposal shall be limited to those sites included in Attachment (2). Additional sites/locations can be added through a contract modification, as the need arises. |
Question 6
| Section Title: | Immigration Court Helpdesk Program (ICH) |
| RFP Section: C.5.1.3 | |
| Page Number: 11 | |
| Language Referenced: |
| The services to be performed include, but are not limited to, the following: group sessions; individual sessions; self-help workshops; development of Pro Bono Referral Plans; and other services as deemed necessary by the COR. |
| Question: |
| Friend of the Court is not listed as a component of ICH (as compared to FGLOP). Is that a purposeful omission? May the government clarify whether friend of court services are included among the tasks expected in the program? |
| DOJ Response: |
| Sections C.5.1.1 (LOP), C.5.1.2 (LOPC), and C.5.1.3 (ICH) (pages 10 - 11) have been revised to include “Friend of the Court services.” |
Question 7
| Section Title: Family Group Legal Orientation Program |
| RFP Section: C.5.1.4 |
| Page Number: 11 |
| Language Referenced: |
| The services to be performed include, but are not limited to, the following: single-family group orientations; self-help workshops; Friend of the Court services; assistance in referring cases to pro bono representatives; and other services as deemed necessary by the COR. |
| Question: |
| Multi Family Group Orientation is not listed as a component of FGLOP. Is that a purposeful omission? |
| DOJ Response: |
| Section C.5.1.4 (FGLOP) (page 11) has been revised to include single-family “and multi-family” group orientations. |
Question 8
| Section Title: | Counsel for Children Initiative (CCI) |
| RFP Section: C.5.1.6 | |
| Page Number: 12 | |
| Language Referenced: |
| The Contractor shall implement and oversee legal representation and other related services to certain children in removal and other specified immigration proceedings before specific EOIR Immigration Courts throughout the United States (as identified by the COR). |
| Question: |
| May the government confirm that representation in state court proceedings related to young client’s immigration relief will be included and covered by this program? |
| DOJ Response: |
| Yes. Section III(A)(1)(d) of the current Counsel for Children Initiative Statement of Work states that covered program services include "[r]epresentation to obtain Special Immigrant Juvenile status and related work in state court, including appeals or writs." The Government does not intend to change that provision. |
Question 9
| Section Title: | Security of Department Information and Systems |
| RFP Section: H.5. b.3 | |
| Page Number: 34 | |
| Language Referenced: |
| DOJ Information means any Information that is owned, produced, controlled, protected by, or otherwise within the custody or responsibility of the DOJ, including, without limitation, Information related to DOJ programs or personnel. It includes, without limitation, Information (1) provided by or generated for the DOJ, (2) managed or acquired by the Contractor for the DOJ in connection with the performance of the contract, and/or (3) acquired in order to perform the contract. |
| Question: |
| Please confirm that “DOJ Information” applies to PII maintained by the prime Contractor and does not include routine information necessary for the delivery of services, privileged information, or information intended by the Contract for public consumption. |
| DOJ Response: |
| “DOJ Information” applies to PII maintained by the prime Contractor whether it is “routine information necessary for the delivery of services, privileged information, or information intended by the Contract for public consumption.” In general, “privileged information” would be PII and therefore “DOJ Information” would generally apply to privileged information. |
Question 10
| Section Title: | Security of Department Information and Systems |
| RFP Section: H.4.1.a.1 | |
| Page Number: 25 | |
| Language Referenced: |
| All references to “contract(or) personnel” and “contract(or) employee” in this clause means all individuals, without limitation, to include individuals employed by the contractor, team member, subcontractor, consultant, and/or independent contractor, who will have access to information of the Department of Justice (DOJ) or information that is within the custody and control of the DOJ, access to DOJ IT systems, and/or unescorted access to DOJ facilities/space in connection with the performance of this contract. |
| Question: |
| Our understanding is that “Information of the Department of Justice or information that is within the custody and control of the DOJ” as used within this clause has the same meaning as “DOJ Information” as defined in H.5(b)(3). Please confirm. |
| DOJ Response: |
| This is correct. |
Question 11
| Section Title: | General Requirements |
| RFP Section: H.4.1.a.1 | |
| Page Number: 25 | |
| Language Referenced: |
| All references to “contract(or) personnel” and “contract(or) employee” in this clause means all individuals, without limitation, to include individuals employed by the contractor, team member, subcontractor, consultant, and/or independent contractor, who will have access to information of the Department of Justice (DOJ) or information that is within the custody and control of the DOJ, access to DOJ IT systems, and/or unescorted access to DOJ facilities/space in connection with the performance of this contract. |
| Question: |
| The Personnel Security requirements as drafted appear to require a high level of security clearance for all contractor and subcontractor personnel who perform work under this Contract. Can the government clarify if these provisions are intended to apply to the following classes of individuals for whom these security requirements do not currently apply? |
a. pro bono attorneys;
b. attorneys who primarily handle information subject to privilege;
c. individuals processing referrals for representation;
d. individuals delivering legal orientation services in person;
e. individuals delivering legal orientation services remotely over call center lines;
f. paralegals and legal assistants;
g. social workers;
h. individuals managing data entry;
i. volunteers providing program services;
j. individuals primarily handling information for public consumption;
k. administrative staff; and
l. program management staff responsible for materials, trainings, and technical assistance.
In our experience this process has often taken in excess of 6 months. Multiplied by the number of labor categories and FTEs, this standard would constitute an extreme burden that would create the risk of non-performance during this period of time required to get cleared. Please consider only including those individuals at the prime Contractor who will require access to DOJ Information containing PII, which is the current standard.
| DOJ Response: |
| The Government is reexamining applicable security requirements and will amend the RFP if necessary. Potential offerors should monitor SAM.gov for updates. |
Question 12
| Section Title: | Security of Department Information and Systems |
| RFP Section: H.4.1.b.1 | |
| Page Number: 33 | |
| Language Referenced: |
| The contractor will not be permitted to commence performance under this contract until a sufficient number of its personnel, as determined by the Security Programs Manager (SPM), in consultation with the Contracting Officer’s Representative if one is appointed, have received the requisite security approval. |
| Question: |
| If the government applies personnel security requirements and public trust investigation requirements broadly without exemptions, there will be a significant interruption of services at the commencement of the contract. Please allow a grace period of 12 months for incumbent personnel to pass clearance. |
| DOJ Response: |
| The Government is reexamining applicable security requirements and will amend the RFP if necessary. Potential offerors should monitor SAM.gov for updates. |
Question 13
| Section Title: | Security of Department Information and Systems |
| RFP Section: H.5.d.9 | |
| Page Number: 38 | |
| Language Referenced: |
| The Contractor must remove all DOJ Information from Contractor media and return all such information to the DOJ within 15 days of the expiration or termination of the contract, unless otherwise extended by the CO, or waived (in part or whole) by the CO, and all such information shall be returned to the DOJ in a format and form acceptable to the DOJ. |
| Question: |
| This contract includes development/generation of information that is subject to attorney-client privilege. May the Government confirm that the resultant contract will explicitly exclude from the Return of Data requirements those materials protected by attorney-client privilege and also information restricted from disclosure by Institutional Review Board protections or other applicable laws? |
| DOJ Response: |
| There is no DOJ requirement that Attorney-Client (A/C) information, or information restricted from disclosure by Institutional Review Board protections or other applicable laws, which belong to the contractor must be removed and returned to DOJ upon expiration or termination of the contract. However, the Government would ask that the Contractor ensure, to the greatest extent possible, that DOJ information is kept separately from A/C information and information restricted from disclosure by Institutional Review Board protections or other applicable laws, so that any return of DOJ information can be effected without sharing information not required to be returned. |
Question 14
| Section Title: | Staffing Plan and Attachment (1.0) Pricing Table for PM Support |
| RFP Section: | L.3.2.3 |
| Page Number: 77 | |
| Language Referenced: |
| Provide a resume for the Program Manager and any other proposed key personnel and describe in detail plans for implementing these positions (See Section H.15). |
| Question: |
| Labor resources in program management are not easily blended to a single rate. The variance between the tiers and labor categories can range from a low of $50 to over $200 per hour, we believe this spread is not conducive to a single rate or advantageous to the government. Can the government confirm that more than one “Program Manager” (with the same labor rate) will be allowed considering that the RFP contemplates more than one program? May the Offeror insert additional rows in Attachment (1.0) Pricing Table for PM Support as needed? |
| DOJ Response: |
| The Program Manager is the primary interface with the Contracting Officer’s Representative and serves as key personnel at the contract level (not under each program or project) and program management oversight for all of the services required under the contract. The Government is looking for a single person (or persons) to fulfill this role; thus, the Government is changing this position to an IDIQ Program Manager, rather than a Program Manager. Revisions are made to Attachment (1.0) Pricing Table for PM Support and Section(s) F.4(d), I.3.3(4), and L.3.2.3 of the RFP. |
If the offeror chooses to propose other Program Manager(s) at the program or project level, the offeror may propose additional labor categories other than those listed in Attachment (1.0) Pricing Table for PM Support (please refer to the notes included in the second tab (1. Project Management Support), line 20)). Please also be reminded that the fixed unit prices for each labor category are the maximum ceiling rates on the contract. The contractor is permitted to discount the contract ceiling rates at the task order level.
Question 15
| Section Title: | N/A |
| RFP Section: N/A | |
| Page Number: N/A | |
| Question: |
| Given the number of questions that we have asked and the implications of such, would the government consider a one-week extension of the RFP submission deadline? |
| DOJ Response: |
| The Government has extended the due date for proposals to May 9, 2022 at 4:30pm, local time. |
Question 16
| Section Title: | Attachment (1.1) Pricing Table for LOP |
| RFP Section: J | |
| Page Number: N/A | |
| Language Referenced: |
| South Florida LOP Services |
Site Locations:
LaSalle ICE Processing Center Pine Prairie ICE Processing Center Winn Correctional Center South Louisiana ICE Processing Center (Basile) Jackson Parish Correctional Center Richwood Correctional Center
| Question: |
| It appears that the sites listed under the South Florida LOP Services tab are all located in Louisiana. Was this an erroneous inclusion, and if so, may the government issue an amendment correction listing the relevant South Florida facilities (for example, Broward, Krome, etc.)? |
| DOJ Response: |
| Attachment (1.1) Pricing Table for LOP has been revised at Tab 7 (South Florida) to include the relevant South Florida facilities. |
Question 17
| Section Title: | Attachment (1.3) Pricing Table for ICH |
| RFP Section: J | |
| Page Number: N/A | |
| Language Referenced: |
| Worksheet that provides the Offeror's price proposal for FGLOP services at the Los Angeles Immigration Courts (N. Los Angeles, Van Nuys, and Olive St.). |
| Question: |
| The government made a reference to “FGLOP” in the Pricing Table for ICH, was it the government’s intention to reference “ICH”? If so, would the government consider issuing an amendment to correct that reference? |
| DOJ Response: |
| Attachment (1.3) Pricing Table for ICH has been revised at the first tab (0. Instructions), line 8. The reference to “FGLOP” has been replaced with “ICH.” |
Question 18
| Section Title: | Attachment (1.0) Pricing Table for PM Support |
| RFP Section: J | |
| Page Number: N/A | |
| Question: |
| Historically, resources in program management are not limited to labor resources. The spread of Other Direct Costs in program management are not conducive or advantageous to the government to include in program management labor loadings. May the government consider amending Attachment (1.0) Pricing Table for PM Support to include Other Direct Costs (ODC)? |
| DOJ Response: |
| The Government does not anticipate any other direct costs associated with project management support; however, should the offeror propose any other direct cost item categories associated with project management support, it must be clearly identified in the third tab (2. Other Direct Costs) to the revised Attachment (1.0) Pricing Table for PM Support. The actual cost of the other direct costs for project management support will be negotiated at the task order level. Regarding the legal representation programs, e.g., NQRP and CCI, other direct costs are fully loaded in the fixed price per case. |
Question 19
| Section Title: | Attachment (1.5) -(1.6), Pricing Tables for NQRP and CCI |
| RFP Section: J | |
| Page Number: N/A | |
| Question: |
| May the government confirm whether the number of case units in the Pricing Tables for NQRP, Attachment (1.5), and CCI, Attachment (1.6), are the expected number of new case assignments for these programs per project period/year? |
| DOJ Response: |
| Yes. The number of case units in the NQRP and CCI pricing tables represent the projected number of new case assignments per year. |
Question 20
| Section Title: | Attachment (1.5)-(1.6), Pricing Tables for NQRP and CCI |
| RFP Section: J | |
| Page Number: N/A | |
| Question: |
| Do new case assignments include both (1) new cases initiated during the first contract year; and (2) existing program cases that are still pending at the time of implementation of this contract or project period and will need to be carried over? If not, given the critical importance of ensuring continuity of representation services between contracts, can the government confirm how pending program cases should be accounted for? |
| DOJ Response: |
| New case assignments include both new cases initiated during the first contract year and existing program cases that are still pending at the time of contract implementation. Nationwide Policy cases are currently funded on a firm fixed price basis. As such, NQRP funding does not cover Nationwide Policy cases carried over from previous contract periods. However, NQRP funding does continue to cover the ongoing costs of pending Franco cases not completed during the prior contract period. |
Question 21
| Section Title: | Attachment (1.6) Pricing Table for CCI |
| RFP Section: J | |
| Page Number: N/A | |
| Language Referenced: |
| Counsel for Children Initiative (CCI) Sites: |
1. Atlanta
2. Houston
3. Los Angeles
4. San Francisco
5. New York
6. San Diego
7. Seattle
8. Portland
9. Newark
10. New Orleans
11. Chicago
12. Memphis
| Question: |
| Santa Ana and San Antonio seem to be omitted from Attachment 1.6 Pricing Table for CCI. Will the government consider amending the Pricing Table for CCI to include Santa Ana and San Antonio? |
| DOJ Response: |
| Attachment (1.6) Pricing Table for CCI has been revised to include Santa Ana and San Antonio. |
Question 22
| Section Title: | Attachment 1.6 Pricing Table for CCI |
| RFP Section: J | |
| Page Number: N/A | |
| Language Referenced: | |
| x-6103 | Other Direct Costs (Travel, etc.) |
| Question: |
| Did the government erroneously include this CLIN on the CCI Pricing Table? It does not appear on the NQRP table, and earlier language states that travel should be built into the rates. If this was done in error, may the government consider issuing an amendment to correct it? |
| DOJ Response: |
| Attachment (1.6) Pricing Table for CCI has been revised to remove Other Direct Costs as a separate line item. |
Question 23
| Section Title: | Attachment (2) Program Sites |
| RFP Section: J | |
| Page Number: 1-2 | |
| Question: |
| The LOPC Call Centers (East and West) and the LOP Information Line are not listed as program sites in Attachment (2) Program Site despite being listed in the relevant pricing tables for each program. Was this a purposeful omission? If not, may the government consider issuing an amendment adding these to Attachment (2). |
| DOJ Response: |
| Historically, the LOPC Call Centers (East and West) and the LOP Information Line have not been referenced as program sites. These services will be listed, however, in the LOP and LOPC Statements of Work, and must be priced accordingly in the relevant pricing tables for each program. |
Question 24
| Section Title: | Attachment 2 - Program Sites |
| RFP Section: J | |
| Page Number: N/A | |
| Language Referenced: |
| Dorchester County Detention Center, Snow Hill, Maryland; |
| Question: |
| It appears that the Dorchester County Detention Center is located in Cambridge, MD. May the government confirm that the city should be updated to Cambridge, MD to reflect the location of the Dorchester County Detention Center? |
| DOJ Response: |
| Attachment (2) Program Sites has been revised at page 1 to include Cambridge, not Snow Hill, as the location of the Dorchester County Detention Center in Maryland. |
Question 25
| Section Title: | Attachment 2 - Program Sites |
| RFP Section: J | |
| Page Number: N/A | |
| Language Referenced: |
| Children receiving services under the CCI must be in proceedings in the immigration court jurisdictions noted below. |
| Question: |
| This list appears to be missing two existing locations – is it the government’s intention to exclude San Antonio and Santa Ana? |
Will it be possible to add sites to the CCI jurisdictions during the contract period with written approval by the COR?
| DOJ Response: |
| Attachment (2) Program Sites has been revised at page 3 to include San Antonio, Texas, and Santa Ana, California, in the list of site locations for the Counsel for Children Initiative (CCI). Additional CCI sites may be added with written approval by the COR if there is no increase in the agreed upon number of CCI cases. |
Question 26
| Section Title: | Attachment (2) Program Sites |
| RFP Section: J | |
| Page Number: N/A | |
| Language Referenced: |
| Laredo Immigration Hearing Facility |
| Question: |
| If MPP is discontinued at the Laredo IHF, will ICH continue at the permanent Laredo immigration court? |
| DOJ Response: |
| Yes, at least for the duration of the task order period. |
Question 27
| Section Title: | Attachment (6) Labor Categories |
| RFP Section: J | |
| Page Number: N/A | |
| Question: |
| May the government consider additional labor categories related to the delivery of services? |
Should the government confirm, may the Offeror amend the Attachment (1.0)-(1.6) Pricing Tables to include proposed additional labor categories?
| DOJ Response: |
| The offeror is permitted to propose labor categories other than those listed in Attachment (6) Labor Categories, providing that, if the offeror proposes an alternative solution requiring categories of labor not listed in Attachment (6) Labor Categories, the offeror must provide the position title, education/qualifications, and functional responsibilities for each labor category, along with the fixed unit prices for the base and all option years, for each of the locations listed in the pricing tables for the legal orientation programs, i.e., LOP, LOPC, ICH, and FGLOP. This information can be submitted as part of the business proposal. See Section L.3.1.7 of the RFP for more details. The offeror may not change any of the pricing tables, with exception of Attachment (1.0) Pricing Table for PM Support, to allow the offeror to add any additional labor categories, other direct cost item categories, and fixed unit prices for project management support. |
Question 28
| Section Title: | N/A |
| RFP Section: N/A | |
| Page Number: N/A | |
| Question: |
| Is this effort considered a new requirement? If not, can the Government provide the incumbent contractor’s name, contract number and contract value? |
| DOJ Response: |
| This is not a new requirement. The incumbent is Vera Institute of Justice, Inc. The blanket purchase agreement number is DJJ17-PSS-S-2757 with an estimated value of $100 million. |
Question 29
| Section Title: | N/A |
| RFP Section: N/A | |
| Page Number: N/A | |
| Question: |
| Is the Service Contract Act (SCA) applicable to this requirement? If so, has the Government determined a specific Wage Determination Code? |
Question 30
| Section Title: | N/A |
| RFP Section: N/A | |
| Page Number: N/A | |
| Question: |
| Will telework be allowed or is the position expected to work entirely on-site? |
| DOJ Response: |
| We are unable to provide an answer due to the vagueness of the question. No position is identified. |
Question 31
| Section Title: | N/A |
| RFP Section: N/A | |
| Page Number: N/A | |
| Question: |
| Can you please confirm if the maximum limit for receiving email attachments is 25 MB? |
| DOJ Response: |
| The maximum limit for receiving email attachments is 50 GB. |
Question 32
| Section Title: | N/A |
| RFP Section: N/A | |
| Page Number: N/A | |
| Question: |
| Can you also confirm if a zipped PDF file is acceptable or is there a restriction we should take into account? |
| DOJ Response: |
| Proposals shall be formatted in accordance with the instructions provided in Section L of the RFP. |
Question 33
| Section Title: | N/A |
| RFP Section: N/A | |
| Page Number: N/A | |
| Question: |
| In addition, Per L.3.1.3 Business/Pricing Questionnaire, Offerors are to provide: |
· Our most current certified balance sheet,
· Income,
· And profit and loss statement.
Does “certified” mean audited in this instance?
| DOJ Response: |
| Yes, audited and signed by an appropriate official. |
Offeror Questions and DOJ Responses, April 29, 2022
