The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
| Solicitation #19AQMM18R0428 | | Public Questions |
| Q# | |
| Topic | |
| RFP Section | |
| Question | |
| Response | |
| 1 |
| Award and Transition |
| N/A |
| Based on the government's timeline for submittal on the 15th, what is the timeline for award? Does the government anticipate a bridge contract with the incumbent to accommodate the agreed to transition-in plan, and if so, what would be the performance period? |
| The government hopes to award in summer 2019. The government will work with the incumbent contractor on any type of contract extension to ensure a smooth transition. |
| 2 |
| Award and Transition |
| RFP C.6.2.9, pg 71 |
| Can the Government provide the current contract Phase Out Plan so transition activities can be better planned to align to approved Government actions and improve the ability to establish a seamless transition. |
| The current phase out plan is general in nature and will be provided as reference to the incoming contractor upon award. |
| 3 |
| Award and Transition |
| RFP B.3, pg 1 |
| It’s listed that ‘the transition will begin upon the effective date of the contract and be included as a part of the base period. For effective and complete pricing, can the Government provide an overall timeframe or expectation on the duration of the transition-in period? How long following contract award will full performance be required? |
| The government does not intend to prescribe the transition period as it depends on the Offeror's transition plan. The transition should take place as smoothly and efficiently as possible. |
| 4 |
| Contract Management |
| RFP C.4.4.1, pg 52 |
| “The contractor shall participate in at least quarterly meetings with members of the Government's VSS program management team…”). Can the Government clarify that "participate" could mean representatives can attend in-person or remotely via VTC or teleconference or is it the Government's intent that each quarterly meeting will be in person for the minimum listed participants? |
| The government will work with the vendor to accommodate in person and/or remote attendance options, depending on the meeting location. Generally speaking, if at one of the Centers, the corresponding Ops Manager should be present in person. If in Washington, DC, at least one company representative should be present in person. |
| 5 |
| Contract Management |
| RFP C.4.4.2, pg 56 |
| Can the Government provide a list of all other vendors and a brief description of their involvement in providing services to CA and staff at the center? |
| The Department utilizes separate contractors for facility management, and the principal VSS contractor must work closely with them. Tigua is the facility management contractor at KCC, and PAC Arctic is the facility management contractor at NVC. These contracts are managed by the Department’s Bureau of Administration. The Department also utilizes a third-party contractor for quality assurance at both KCC and NVC. Quality Support Inc. (QSI) is the current contractor for this service. |
| 6 |
| Contract Management |
| RFP Attachment A, pgs 1-2 |
| What does the Government specifically determine to be sound and generally accepted program/project management practices? |
| Please refer to RFP M.4.1 for a description of what the Government will evaluate with regard to the Offeror’s Management Capability and Approach. |
| 7 |
| Contract Management |
| RFP Attachment A, pgs 1-2 |
| We understand there are multiple COR and ACOR designees at either the NVC and KCC sites. In regards to this specific reporting requirement, is there a singular DOS VSS program COR and ACOR reporting channel for security matters, or is security related reporting administered via COR and ACOR designees at each of the two sites? |
| The COR/ACOR at each Center are the main points of contact for center-based operations and questions. |
| 8 |
| Contract Management |
| RFP H.6, pg 92 |
| It is understood that separate contracting efforts (and companies) may be involved with the higher echelon DOS processing and adjudication of the Visa package submission, for instance the USCIS processing branch. Does the Government consider these contractor companies to have Organizational Conflict of Interests in regards to supporting multiple performance and approval stages of the Visa processing workflow? |
| As noted in RFP Section H.6, the Government expects all contractors to disclose all potential organizational conflicts of interest. Regarding potential OCI for contractor companies that work on contracts with partner agencies (i.e., USCIS), the government expects contractor companies to keep work streams and contract information separate and confidential between agencies as it would do with any other contract due to proprietary and privacy considerations. That said, the Government is not aware of any circumstance that would exclude a contractor company supporting another Federal agency with a role in visa processing. |
| 9 |
| Core Mission Fulfillment Services; Pricing |
| RFP Attachment F |
| Will the Government clarify if per unit pricing is to be a ceiling amount for the 10% step increase, or an actual per unit amount for each of the >38K transactions? |
| Please refer to Questions #117-118 |
| 10 |
| Core Mission Fulfillment Services; Pricing |
| RFP B.4.2 |
| How will the government apply the step CLINs for the Core Mission Fulfillment services FFP CLINS? We would suggest this be done on a monthly basis so any month that exceeds one twelfth of the total baseline volume will trigger step CLIN billing. |
| The contractor shall invoice against FFP Base CLIN amounts using the sum of actual “volume of units processed” as they occur in each invoicing period. As stated in B.4.2, “Once the total volume of units in a period of performance exceeds the baseline amount, the contractor shall be entitled to receive payment only for those units actually produced above the baseline.” Therefore, the contractor shall not invoice against any step CLINs until the entire volume of Base CLIN units has been processed. Additionally, the contractor shall only invoice against an individual step CLIN amount (again, using the sum of actual “volume of units processed” as they occur for each invoicing period) after the volume of the previous CLIN has been fully processed. A forthcoming amendment will provide additional details. |
| 11 |
| Core Mission Fulfillment Services; Pricing |
| RFP Attachment F, pg 2 |
| Can the Government provide details in regards to the rational for establishing the specified Immigrant Visa Intake base volume of 381,000 visa cases for the base year? |
| The government estimates are based on historical workload volume and future workload projections. For the base year, the base volumes were reduced from full year estimates to account for a transition period. |
| 12 |
| Core Mission Fulfillment Services; Pricing |
| RFP Attachment F, pg 2 |
| Can the Government provide details in regards to the rational for establishing the specified Immigrant Visa Fulfillment base volume of 412,500 visa cases for the base year? |
| The government estimates are based on historical workload volume and future workload projections. For the base year, the base volumes were reduced from full year estimates to account for a transition period. |
| 13 |
| Core Mission Fulfillment Services; Pricing |
| RFP Attachment F, pg 2 |
| Can the Government provide details in regards to the rational for establishing the specified Non-Immigrant Visa Fulfillment base volume of 364,500 visa cases for the base year? |
| The government estimates are based on historical workload volume and future workload projections. For the base year, the base volumes were reduced from full year estimates to account for a transition period. |
| 14 |
| Core Mission Fulfillment Services; Pricing |
| RFP Attachment F, pg 2 |
| Can the Government provide details in regards to the rational for establishing the specified Diversity Visa Fulfillment base volume of 52,500 visa cases for the base year? |
| The government estimates are based on historical workload volume and future workload projections. For the base year, the base volumes were reduced from full year estimates to account for a transition period. |
| 15 |
| Core Mission Fulfillment Services; Pricing |
| RFP Attachment F, pg 2 |
| Can the Government provide details in regards to the rational for establishing the specified Biometric Validation base volume of 27,000,000 records for the base year? |
| The government estimates are based on historical workload volume and future workload projections. For the base year, the base volumes were reduced from full year estimates to account for a transition period. |
| 16 |
| Core Mission Fulfillment Services; Pricing |
| RFP Attachment F, pg 7 |
| Can the Government provide details in regards to the rationale for establishing the specified Immigrant Visa Intake base volume of 559,000 visa cases for option year one? |
| The government estimates for each option year are based on historical workload volume and future workload projections for the 12 months of performance included in the given option year. |
| 17 |
| Core Mission Fulfillment Services; Pricing |
| RFP Attachment F, pg 7 |
| Can the Government provide details in regards to the rational for establishing the specified Immigrant Visa Fulfillment base volume of 580,000 visa cases for option year one? |
| The government estimates for each option year are based on historical workload volume and future workload projections for the 12 months of performance included in the given option year. |
| 18 |
| Core Mission Fulfillment Services; Pricing |
| RFP Attachment, pg 7 |
| Can the Government provide details in regards to the rational for establishing the specified Non-Immigrant Visa Fulfillment base volume of 583,000 visa cases for option year one? |
| The government estimates for each option year are based on historical workload volume and future workload projections for the 12 months of performance included in the given option year. |
| 19 |
| Core Mission Fulfillment Services; Pricing |
| RFP Attachment, pg 7 |
| Can the Government provide details in regards to the rational for establishing the specified Diversity Visa Fulfillment base volume of 70,000 visa cases for option year one? |
| The government estimates for each option year are based on historical workload volume and future workload projections for the 12 months of performance included in the given option year. |
| 20 |
| Core Mission Fulfillment Services; Pricing |
| RFP Attachment, pg 8 |
| Can the Government provide details in regards to the rational for establishing the specified Biometric Validation base volume of 36,500,000 records for option year one? |
| The government estimates for each option year are based on historical workload volume and future workload projections for the 12 months of performance included in the given option year.[footnoteRef:2] [2: The Government acknowledges receipt of similar questions addressing each of the base volume figures for all FFP CLINs for option years two, three, and four, and has not included them here for brevity. The Government’s responses to those questions are the same as the responses to questions #16-20.] |
| 21 |
| Core Mission Fulfillment Services; |
Pricing
| RFP L.8.6, pg 112 |
| To clarify, offeror’s are required to provide a ceiling price for each Core Mission Fulfillment Services – FFP CLIN, in addition to a specific ceiling price for each listed step above that base support CLIN. Specifically, each step CLIN pricing should only include pricing for support required for that specific step range, and should not include any pricing for base level support thresholds. |
| Correct. Each step CLIN price should only include pricing for support required for that specific step range. |
To clarify how the CLINs should work: When FFP units fall within the base CLIN, the contractor will only be able to invoice against the base CLIN. Similarly, when the base CLIN has been exhausted and FFP units fall within a step CLIN, the contractor will only be able to invoice against the applicable step CLIN. Additional information will be provided in a forthcoming amendment.
| 22 |
| Core Mission Fulfillment Services |
| Attachment B, Current State Snapshot |
| NVC: Where are the FPU personnel (34 FTE) located against the workload volumes provided? |
| Refer to RFP section B.4.3.1 and C.4.1.2 regarding FPU requirements and pricing. |
| 23 |
| Core Mission Fulfillment Services |
| Attachment B, Current State Snapshot |
| NVC: Based on the volume of records and the associated FTE listed, what automated software is being used to support facial recognition? |
The same FR automated software is used across both centers prior to the reviews described. All FR workload includes a manual review of the photos. Additional details will be provided to the successful offeror after award.
| 24 |
| Core Mission Fulfillment Services |
| Attachment B, Current State Snapshot |
| NVC: What is the percentage of facial recognition records that require manual or human assistance or review? |
| 100% of the FR workload requires manual review. |
| 25 |
| Core Mission Fulfillment Services |
| Attachment B, Current State Snapshot |
| NVC: Attachment B and the Workload volume tasks appear to account for approximately 80% of the overall staff. Can the Government align personnel from Objectives 2, 3 and 4 against the workload areas provided for NVC to better assess the overall LOE required to perform each function based off of current metrics? |
| Current contract staffing does not necessarily reflect the requirements of the RFP and the future contract. The government expects Offerors to use the information provided to propose the best business solution to meet the requirements. |
| 26 |
| Core Mission Fulfillment Services |
| Attachment B, Current State Snapshot |
| NVC: The Government has mandated a ratio of 12:1 for management to operations personnel. Please confirm that the Objective 4 – Management Services staff are the only personnel considered “management” in terms of calculating this ratio. |
| Refer to Amendment 1, section C.6.2.2 regarding the staff to supervisor ratio. |
| 27 |
| Core Mission Fulfillment Services |
| Attachment B, Current State Snapshot |
| NVC: Which FTE at NVC, listed in Attachment B, perform Expedites, Baghdad COM and Kabul COM activities? |
| Expedites are processed by the Congressional Unit, and COM processing is done by the SIV Unit. |
| 28 |
| Core Mission Fulfillment Services |
| Attachment B, Current State Snapshot |
| NVC: Is it a correct assumption that the 74 FTE listed as supporting Written Correspondence in Attachment B support Congressional Emails, Written Correspondence – Emails and Written Correspondence – Letters? |
| Communications staff in the current contract provide a variety of communications services; however, current contract staffing does not necessarily reflect the requirements of the RFP and the future contract. The government expects Offerors to use the information provided to propose the best business solution to meet the requirements. |
| 29 |
| Core Mission Fulfillment Services |
| Attachment B, Current State Snapshot |
| NVC: Are the 93 FTE listed as Data Entry / Verification the correct FTE assigned to Case Processing? |
| Current contract staffing does not necessary reflect the requirements of the RFP and the future contract. The government expects Offerors to use the information provided to propose the best business solution to meet the requirements. |
| 30 |
| Core Mission Fulfillment Services |
| Attachment B, Current State Snapshot |
| KCC: Where are the FPU personnel (104 FTE) assigned against the provide workload volumes? |
| Refer to RFP section B.4.3.1 and C.4.1.2 regarding FPU requirements and pricing. |
| 31 |
| Core Mission Fulfillment Services |
| Attachment B, Current State Snapshot |
| KCC: Where are the Objective 2 – Customer Service (16 FTE) assigned against the workload volumes? There doesn’t appear to be metrics (as provided by NVC) for covering these tasks; are they available? |
Please refer to the June 2018 Current Snapshot data in Section J, Attachment B; however, current contract staffing does not necessarily reflect the requirements of the RFP and the future contract. The government expects Offerors to use the information provided to propose the best business solution to meet the requirements.
| 32 |
| Core Mission Fulfillment Services |
| Attachment B, Current State Snapshot |
| KCC: Is the facial recognition automation process and software used at KCC the same as at NVC? If so, please identify; if not, please clarify. |
| Refer to the answer to question 23 |
| 33 |
| Facility Management |
| C.4.3.4 |
| Please confirm that paragraph ii, “to facilitate building renovations or upgrades” does not mean that offorers are required to provide the construction labor to complete the facility upgrades, just supervision support. |
| Please refer to RFP C.4.3.4: “Examples of this type of support would include performing limited maintenance and upkeep on office furniture, facilitating access for other vendors to perform facility maintenance tasks” and “Facilities support, to facilitate building renovations or upgrades; to move, assemble, and disassemble furniture; and, to provide loading dock and internal mail distribution support.” |
This does not include construction projects but could include more than just supervision support.
| 34 |
| Information Systems Management; |
Technology
| RFP C.4.4.1, pg 50 |
| Can the Government provide a list of current Department of State Enterprise software licenses that may be leveraged and applied to the Visa SS effort to allow for potential cost savings to the program and allow for implementation of systems and automated tools to modernize and improve delivery? |
| Please refer to the hardware and software lists in the reading room. Outside of this, please specify any particular software licenses for which you anticipate a need. |
The approved software is listed in the separate baseline statuses for both CA and IRM. If there is a need to install an enterprise license version of software, it would still need to be coordinated with CA/CST to track those specific licenses because they would still need to be accounted for in Department billing.
| 35 |
| Information Systems Management; |
Technology
| RFP C.4.4.2, pg 54 |
| Can the Government provide a current accreditation status and when they are due for updating or reaccreditation on all current VSS systems since this will impact staffing allocations and support? |
| All systems currently in use have already been accredited per the Department’s IA Risk Management Framework (RMF) in conjunction with CA’s Office of Consular Systems and Technology (CA/CST). Similarly, any new systems proposed would require accreditation through this process, for which the timeframe varies. It is not clear to the Government how this would impact staffing allocations and support. |
| 36 |
| Information Systems Management; |
Technology
| RFP C.4.4.2, pg 55 |
| Can the Government provide details on how these items are being tracked currently in terms of the software being used (Barcoding, Excel, Access, etc.) and the last time these databases were 100% inventoried and audited for accuracy? |
| At both centers, government property is tracked using a barcode system and software. The property database was inventoried in November 2018 at NVC and October 2018 at KCC with 100% accountability. |
All hardware is officially inventoried annually and that is maintained in the ILMS system run by CA/EX. The software is inventoried or scanned using Microsoft SCCM and other software tools which update in iPOST for vulnerability scoring but that doesn’t always provide an updated or comprehensive status of each site.
| 37 |
| Information Systems Management; |
Technology
| RFP C.4.4.2, pg 56 |
| Can the Government provide details on the breakout of all hardware and software that supports classified systems by location? |
| The government will provide this information as relevant to the successful Offeror. |
| 38 |
| Information Systems Management; |
Technology
| RFP C.4.4.2, pg 58 |
| Please provide clarity into the role of CA/CST (ECM) in regards to software updates. Does CA/CST drive the software update schedule (e.g. Windows upgrade 2010 to 2013) from the enterprise perspective or are the centers allowed to upgrade, as necessary, to meet mission needs and coordinate with ECM accordingly? |
| CA/CST uses the mandates from IRM to drive the upgrade schedules for software. CST works with the application development teams and the IVV team to ensure that the upgrades and updates are not disruptive for the business unit and that capabilities remain intact. Sites should not perform upgrades without coordination with CA/CST to remain in compliance with IRM. |
| 39 |
| Information Systems Management; |
Technology
| RFP C.4.4.2, pg 58 |
| Can the Government provide a list of all relevant CA applications that are not listed in the software lists provided in the reading room? |
| The Government is not aware of any omissions in the software lists provided in the reading room. |
| 40 |
| Information Systems Management; |
Technology
| RFP Attachment B |
| Can the Government provide an estimated timeline for modernization and replacement of the technology, over the life of the contract, for items presented in Attachment B for planning appropriate updates to staffing and training resources? |
| The government is unable to provide an exact timeline at this time but will work with the successful Offeror on an ongoing basis as implementation timelines are known and defined. |
| 41 |
| Information Systems Management; |
Technology
| RFP Attachment B, pg 4 |
| The Government specifies that ‘Both centers utilize on-site developed Microsoft Access databases for support of daily operations..’. Can the Government provide the specific Microsoft Access version currently in use at both centers? |
| NVC currently has Windows 2007 and 2010 installed. That will be changing once we move to Windows 10 (our best guess is the March -June 2019 timeframe), it will then be Office 2016. |
KCC currently has Windows 10
| 42 |
| Information Systems Management; |
Technology
| RFP C.4.4.2, pg 54 |
| Would the Government please specify what managing software licenses will entail? |
| Please refer to RFP C.4.4.2 Detailed Requirements: “The contractor shall track supply and demand of licenses for Government-provided property used at the centers (i.e., Microsoft Visio, etc.) and notify on-site Government managers when there is a need to secure additional licenses. The contractor shall also support the Government in conducting necessary research and preparing ordering documents upon request.” |
| 43 |
| Information Systems Management; |
Technology
| RFP C.4.4.2, pg 54; C.6.1, pg 67; C.6.2.7, pg 71 |
| Information Systems Management includes a requirement for an IT Management and Continuity Plan for implementation of services. Separately, there is a deliverable calling out the COOP but not the IT Management Plan. Is the IT Management Plan meant to be included in the COOP? |
| Information Systems Management as a capability should be captured as a component in the Management Plan and in the COOP, and does not need any standalone plans. This will be addressed in a forthcoming amendment. |
| 44 |
| Information Systems Management; |
Technology
| RFP C.4.1.2, pg 19 |
| How frequently will the contractor work with CA/CST on IT tasks, risks and/or issues? Will they be collocated with Contractor personnel? |
| Refer to RFP C.4.4.2 Information Systems Management: “IT collaboration, which will establish a consistent liaison function to maintain proactive and ongoing coordination and communication with CA’s Office of Consular Systems and Technology (CA/CST) representatives regarding the delivery and execution of information systems management, as well as the timing and implementation of system updates, equipment purchases and refreshes, enhancements, planned downtimes, and issue resolutions with other visa systems stakeholders.” |
Presently CST does not have an onsite presence at either center, though this is subject to change (reference Additional Context within RFP C.4.4.2)
| 45 |
| Information Systems Management; |
Technology
| RFP C.4.1, pg 11; C.4.1.3, pg 25 |
| Does DoS have its own biometric matchers in place for Biometric Validations or does DoS interface with external systems such as DHS OBIM IDENT or ABIS to retrieve facial matching candidates? |
| The biometric matching function and software is administered by the Department of State. The contractor’s biometric matchers will only need to interface with this software. Additional information to support operator training and oversight will be provided after contract award. |
| 46 |
| Information Systems Management; |
Technology
| RFP C.3, p. 10; C4.3.4, p. 45; C.4.4.1, p. 48; C.5.1.1, p. 58; L.8.2, p. 105;M.4.2, p. 124 |
| We couldn’t find any standards for exchanging the data between DoS and other partner stakeholders. Do you have any Security Standards around data models such as (NIEM models or NIST standards) in place? |
| We use NIEM models as the standard for which we develop data share with partners. |
| 47 |
| Information Systems Management; |
Technology
| Reading Room |
| We see Linux Redhat machines are being used and would like to know how many Windows Servers vs. Linux servers are maintained at each location. |
| NVC has 23 Windows Servers and 9 Linux Servers. |
KCC has 13 Windows Servers and 4 Linux Servers.
| 48 |
| Information Systems Management; |
Technology
| Reading Room |
| How many Oracle databases are installed at each location; or are these stored and operated in Data centers? |
| At KCC, there are two (2) local Oracle databases. At NVC, there are three (3) local Oracle databases. |
| 49 |
| Information Systems Management; |
Technology
| Reading Room |
| Who is responsible for OS patches and images for all hardware and software? |
| The patches and images are tested and made available by CA/CST but the actual deployment of the upgrade depends on the location. In most cases, CA/CST deploys the package to the site, but coordinates with the local Systems Administrator to ensure that the packages installed properly and there are no problems for the site. |
| 50 |
| Inquiry Management |
| RFP C.4.2.1, pg 27 |
| Please provide a description and technical specifications of the IVR system currently in use to include any self-service options, language selection, or skills-based routing. |
| Callers are able to select what they are calling about to get into a specific queue. In addition, they can opt for the Spanish queue. |
| 51 |
| Inquiry Management |
| RFP C.4.4.2, pg 61 |
| Can the Government provide any details on current tier 0 capabilities being provided? |
| Currently there is limited capability through the Consular Electronic Application Center (CEAC) to check case status. We welcome innovation in this area in accordance with DOS technology guidelines. |
| 52 |
| Inquiry Management |
| RFP Attachment B, pg 5 |
| The Government specifies that ‘Special inquiries require more rapid responses. These include, but are not limited to, those received in any form from DHS, U.S. Missions, members of the U.S. Congress, other Government agencies, and officials of U.S. State Governments.’ Can the Government specify the exact response requirement for each of these listed special inquiries and/or organizations? |
| “Special inquiries” as referenced in the current draft of Attachment B are equivalent to “high priority” inquiries as referenced in the current drafts of the RFP and Attachment H. The reference in Attachment B will be updated in a forthcoming amendment. |
| 53 |
| Inventory Management |
| RFP C.4.4.2, pg 61 |
| Can the Government clarify if there is currently a GFE property accountability effort at the Centers and if so, when is the last time each Center had a 100% inventory completed? If not, is it the Government's intent for the awardee to do a 100% inventory of all assets to establish a baseline during transition? |
| There is currently an annual inventory requirement. At KCC, the most recent annual inventory occurred in October 2018. At NVC there is an annual inventory requirement which occurred in November 2018. |
Security Clearance
| RFP C.4.4.2, pg 59 |
| Can the Government provide the current number of personnel (with associated Labor Category), at each center, who require an active TOP SECRET level clearance? |
| The contract staffing of the current contract is different than the staffing requirements in the RFP and the future contract. Under the current contract, the IT Manager and System Administrator at NVC are required to have a TOP SECRET clearance. At KCC, the IT Manager is required to have a TOP SECRET clearance. |
Security Clearance
| RFP C.5.1.11, pg 66 |
| Will the Government consider increasing the security clearance of the Safety and Security Manager to be at the highest level of the program (TOP SECRET) to account for oversight of activities associated with supporting the Class-Net requirements? |
| The government does not intend to change the security clearance level of the Safety and Security Manager. |
| 56 |
| Key Personnel; Logistics Management |
| RFP F.3, pg 85 |
| Can the Government provide details on which Key Positions (by Center) may require International Travel to ensure our selected personnel can support International Travel and will have an active U.S. Passport upon award? |
| Travel may not be limited to key personnel. Historically, the post liaison team as well as other mid-level management positions have participated in domestic and international travel. All international travel must be coordinated through the government, thereby allowing sufficient planning time to get requisite training and documents in order. |
| 57 |
| Key Personnel; Logistics Management |
| RFP F.3, pg 85 |
| Can the Government provide the volume of domestic and international travel (with associated support position), from each center, over the last three years, by year? |
| KCC: Contractor travel requirements vary significantly based on numerous factors. Senior contractor personnel are expected to understand the needs of our domestic and global partners and customers, and to actively participate in coordinating VSS activities to meet those needs. |
NVC: Domestic and international travel has been performed on average 6-8 times a year accompanying one of the NVC USG direct hire staff. This is usually at the mid-management level to support public outreach and new initiatives such as the MIV rollout. Systems administrator training is required for all IT staff every three years located in Washington, DC.
| 58 |
| Knowledge Management |
| RFP C.6.2.10, pg 71 |
| Will the Government provide the most current procedure manuals, workflows, reference materials, "cheat sheets" and associated Knowledge Management artifacts upon award? |
| Yes, that is the Government’s intent. |
| 59 |
| Knowledge Management |
| RFP Attachment A, pg 2 |
| Can the Government provide a copy of the existing fraud prevention program? |
| The Government can share information regarding vendor plans post-award, but does not believe this is relevant to a contractor putting forward their own plan aligned with their solution and capabilities. |
Please note that the reference to a “fraud prevention plan” in the current version of attachment A will be updated to “employee integrity plan” in a forthcoming amendment.
| 60 |
| Labor Management; Collective Bargaining Agreement |
| N/A |
| Since the first union collective bargaining agreement was settled, how many grievances were filed? Of those, how many in 2018? |
| The Department of State follows the policy of impartiality in labor-management relations prescribed by FAR 22.101-1. It does not monitor or seek to influence labor disputes between its contractors and their employees or the collective bargaining agents of those employees. |
| 61 |
| Labor Management; Collective Bargaining Agreement |
| N/A |
| Since the first union collective bargaining agreement was settled, how many went to arbitration? Of those that went to arbitration, how many were discipline/termination versus contract interpretation? Of those that went to arbitration, what was the outcome? |
| The Department of State follows the policy of impartiality in labor-management relations prescribed by FAR 22.101-1. It does not monitor or seek to influence labor disputes between its contractors and their employees or the collective bargaining agents of those employees. |
| 62 |
| Labor Management; Collective Bargaining Agreement |
| N/A |
| Did the union file any more unfair labor practice charges? |
| The Department of State follows the policy of impartiality in labor-management relations prescribed by FAR 22.101-1. It does not monitor or seek to influence labor disputes between its contractors and their employees or the collective bargaining agents of those employees. |
| 63 |
| Labor Management; Collective Bargaining Agreement |
| N/A |
| Relating to the collective bargaining agreement, who handles the grievance process prior to arbitration? Are there other meetings expected in addition to those related to grievance arbitration and contract negotiations? |
| The Department of State follows the policy of impartiality in labor-management relations prescribed by FAR 22.101-1. It does not monitor or seek to influence labor disputes between its contractors and their employees or the collective bargaining agents of those employees. |
| 64 |
| Labor Management; Collective Bargaining Agreement |
| RFP C.4.4.3, pg 61 |
| Is it the Government's intent to mandate the use of union labor throughout the life of the contract? |
| The Department of State follows the policy of impartiality in labor-management relations prescribed by FAR 22.101-1. It does not monitor or seek to influence labor disputes between its contractors and their employees or the collective bargaining agents of those employees. |
| 65 |
| Labor Management; Collective Bargaining Agreement |
| RFP Section J, pg 97 |
| The WD for the NVC location provided with the RFP references a CBA that has not been provided. As required by the FAR, please provide the CBA and all MOUs governing the bargaining unit staff at the NVC so that offerors can bid to the economic terms (wages, health and welfare, and other benefits) of these agreements. |
| The CBA is attached to the Q&A and will be incorporated into RFP Attachment E in a forthcoming amendment. The only service employee classification not covered by the CBA is the Secretary II position supporting the Operations Manager. The incumbent PAE has informed DOS that there are MOU’s, but has declined to release them to us, stating that they contain proprietary methods and applications. |
| 66 |
| Performance Requirements |
| RFP C.6.1, pg 66 |
| Can the Government confirm all deliverables outlined in C.6.1 are anticipated to be unclassified documents? |
| The government confirms all deliverables outlined in C.6.1. are unclassified. |
| 67 |
| Performance Requirements |
| RFP C.6.2.5, pg 70; L.8.1, pg 104; M.4.1, pg 123 |
| In reading the disincentive penalties there is a requirement that the contractor must provide a disincentive plan. Please clarify. |
| Please refer to RFP C.6.3.2 Performance Disincentive Plan. |
| 68 |
| Personnel Management |
| Section I |
| Since this solicitation was issued after January 1, 2017, should FAR clause 52.222-62, Paid Sick Leave Under Executive Order 13706, be included? |
| Yes, this clause will be added in a forthcoming amendment. |
| 69 |
| Personnel Management |
| RFP Attachment B, pg 3 |
| The first paragraph on page 3 states, "The contractor workforce at NVC has been unionized since 2016. VO anticipates that the centers will require, at a minimum, the current staffing levels, with a high probability for increased workforce in specific service areas to maintain continuity and meet expected demand into the beginning of the next contract." Question: Will the Government please provide a very rough estimation of the service areas currently having a high probability of required staffing level increases, for continuity and demand? |
| NVC expects shifts in current staffing as work transitions from legacy paper cases to MIV. NVC expects level of effort to increase with demand in case fulfillment areas, specifically data entry, data verification, and document review. Short term, most but possibly not all, of this increase should be offset by a more efficient form/document review process and decreased level of effort in paper handling and distribution functions. |
KCC expects level of effort to increase with demand in case fulfillment areas, specifically data entry, data verification, and document review due to anticipated increases in approved nonimmigrant petition information being transferred electronically from USCIS. KCC also expects level of effort to increase with demand for research analysts in the Fraud Prevention Research and Analysis Unit (aka “FPU”) during the initial years of VSS 3.0. However, since this unit is affected by shifting or emerging policies and priorities regarding national, and border security, it is difficult to quantify the expected increase at this moment. For reference, staffing for this unit increased 20 percent in FY 2017, and increased an additional 23 percent in FY 2018.
| 70 |
| Personnel Management |
| RFP Attachment B, pg 3 |
| The first paragraph on page 3 states, "The contractor workforce at NVC has been unionized since 2016. VO anticipates that the centers will require, at a minimum, the current staffing levels, with a high probability for increased workforce in specific service areas to maintain continuity and meet expected demand into the beginning of the next contract." Question: Where possible, will the Government provide a very rough estimated increase percentage(s) for main service areas with high probability of staffing level increase requirements? |
| For NVC: With regard to case fulfilment and biometric validation, the Government anticipates up to a 5% increase in combined demand and level of effort. |
For KCC: With regard to case fulfillment, the Government anticipates up to a 30% increase in combined demand / level of effort. With regard to investigation, authentication, and analysis, the Government anticipates up to a 20% increase in combined demand and level of effort.
| 71 |
| Personnel Management |
| RFP Attachment B, pg 3 |
| The second paragraph on page 3 states, "Specific functions, such as paper intake, will eventually cease to exist, but as processes shift to digital services, other functions will require increases in staff." Question: Will the Government provide minimal additional insight regarding potential functions which will require increases in staff via processes shifting to digital services, whether very rough percentage estimate(s) and possible prioritizations, or otherwise? |
| For NVC: With MIV, the Government anticipates a shift associated with front loading the level of effort associated with the data entry and data verification stages. Conversely, the Government anticipates gaining efficiencies overall via reductions in the level of effort associated with document review and paper handling. MIV currently accounts for over 50% of document reviews and is steadily increasing. The Government expects to realize additional processing efficiencies as the percentage of MIV document reviews continues to increase. |
For KCC: With remote scanning of NIV petitions by USCIS, the Government anticipates a shift associated with increased level of effort associated with data entry and data verification. Conversely, the Government anticipates reductions in the level of effort associated with document intake and case creation, document sorting, and document digitization, allowing staff supporting those functions to follow the increased demand in other areas. The Government also anticipates that adjustments in petition prioritization will mitigate some effects from petition volume increases.
| 72 |
| Personnel Management |
| RFP Attachment A, pg 2 |
| What does the Government determine to be adverse action? For instance, if potential inappropriate, unethical, or illegal activities may be taking place, and the contracting company removes network, system, and/or physical site access pending Diplomatic Security and corporate investigation, would the Government determine this to be appropriate action or adverse action against the VSS employee? |
| The Government will remove the word “adverse” in a forthcoming amendment to avoid the potential for diverging interpretations and emphasize the requirement for the contractor to notify the Government of all actions taken in response to suspicion or confirmation of any VSS employee becoming involved in inappropriate, unethical, or illegal activities. Examples would include, but not be limited to, activities that are not in compliance with RFP H.7, H.9, H.12, and the contractor’s employee integrity plan. |
| 73 |
| Personnel Management |
| RFP Attachment A, pg 3 |
| Can the Government clarify the major and/or minor VSS functions and associated PWS task areas that require on-site supervisory personnel? |
| Please refer to RFP section C staffing requirements. |
| 74 |
| Personnel Management |
| RFP Attachment A, pg 3 |
| What specific requirements will the Government use to review and approve the replacement of initially proposed key personnel staff? Will the Government use our initially proposed key personnel and staff education, certification, and experience criteria as benchmarks for candidate approval? Will the Government review and approve key personnel changes throughout the contract lifespan, or only against our initially proposed key personnel? |
| Please refer to RFP section H.4 Key Personnel, which applies throughout the contract lifespan. Also, note that the duplicative reference to key personnel replacements in the Staff section of Attachment A will be removed in a forthcoming amendment to avoid confusion. |
| 75 |
| Personnel Management |
| RFP Attachment A, pg 3 |
| What is the required timeframe that contracting companies are required to notify the Government of voluntary position transitions? Is the company required to notify once the positions is officially vacant? |
| The Government expects to be notified as soon as the contractor receives notice from the employee, and will clarify this requirement. Also, note that the referenced requirement in Attachment A will be removed entirely as it is duplicative of a requirement already included under RFP C.4.4.3. Both of these changes will be reflected in a forthcoming amendment. Any additional staffing information needs associated with staff departures and subsequent vacancies will be coordinated between Government and contractor management as such circumstances occur. |
| 76 |
| Personnel Management |
| RFP Section I, pg 6 |
| Is FAR 52.222-62 Sick Leave under EO 13706 applicable to this contract? |
| Yes, see the response to question #68. |
| 77 |
| Personnel Management; Collective Bargaining Agreement; Pricing |
| RFP Section B, L.8.6, M.4.6; pgs 1-7, 112-116, 132-133 |
| Is it possible for the government to provide with a copy of the most current seniority list including dates or hire for any NVC employees covered by the collective bargaining agreement? We believe this information will be helpful to craft a reasonable compensation plan -- and the related pricing structure -- that takes into account an employee's length of service in terms of their benefits, vacation leave, sick leave, and other seniority-related provisions specified in the document entitled "Agreement Between FCI Federal LLC and United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America Local 228 Effective Dates March 1, 2018 to February 28, 2020". |
| The Government does not hold this information. The incumbent contractor provided the attached seniority list of CBA-covered employees at NVC. |
| 78 |
| Personnel Management; Labor Management |
| RFP SF33, pgs 10,18 |
| Are the monetary wage values contained in the statement of equivalent rates for federal hires (2014) based on the NVC or KCC locale? |
| The rates shown are based on the Greater Boston area locale, which includes Portsmouth, NH. |
| 79 |
| Personnel Management; Recruitment |
| RFP L.8.6, pg 109 |
| Can the Government provide the tenure of the incumbent staff currently working on the contract at each CSC location? Particularly those that fall under the Service Contract Act. |
| The government does not maintain this data, except notionally, as contractor staff are employees of the incumbent contractor. Per FAR clause 52.237-3 - Continuity of Services in the current VSS contract, the Government will help to facilitate the provision of these details to the awardee as part of the phase-out/phase-in and transition planning. |
| 80 |
| Personnel Management; Security Clearance |
| RFP Attachment C |
| Can the Government provide the number of current contractors who have LES access? |
| NVC: Historically all contract staff have signed the LES acknowledgment based on having access to the information in the case files (which contain information law enforcement sensitive information from DHS) and processing systems. |
KCC: All Fraud Prevention Research Analysts have LES access. This may expand in the future.
| 81 |
| Personnel Management; Workload Management |
| RFP Attachment B |
| Can the Government provide clarification on if the FTE number provided is actual head-count or a number based on contractual workhours provided? If derived from workhours, what annual number was used to arrive at the FTE count; 1860, 1880, 1920, etc. annually? |
| KCC used head count. NVC used FTEs based upon 1820 annual working hours. |
| 82 |
| Personnel Management; Workload Management |
| RFP Attachment B, pg 1 |
| The data represented in the FTE tables displays data from June of 2018. This data represents a particular snapshot in time of the DOS VSS workforce. We understand the work efforts involve typical peak seasonal demands. Can the Government provide FTE estimates and data breakdowns over the previous 12 months of performance to provide accurate forecasting and analysis for the future support effort? |
| Please refer to Amendment 1 for additional staffing information as well as workload volume breakdown by month. |
| 83 |
| Processing Volumes; Biometric Validation |
| B.4.2, pg 2 |
| Can the Government provide their rationale on the dramatic drop in Biometric Validation requirements after Option Year One? The requirements from the most recent metrics provided (2017) and the Base Year and Option Year One numbers would suggest a continued necessity for supporting significant Biometric Validations rather than seeing them level off in the out years. |
| Refer to section B.4.2 for biometric projections and rationale. Note that the base year volumes are reduced in anticipation of the transition phase that will occur during that timeframe. Further note that biometric validation is performed at both NVC and KCC. The Facial Recognition metrics quoted in the question are for NVC only. |
| 84 |
| Processing Volumes; Performance Requirements |
| RFP B.4.2-B.4.4, pg 2-5 |
| Can the Government map the reading room statistics provided to Attachment H to ensure no misunderstanding of the relationship between criteria, or provide basic processing statistics that are better aligned to the quality criteria in Attachment H? |
| Due to changes in the contract structure between the existing contract and the future contract, the government is unable to provide additional detail in this regard. |
| 85 |
| Program Requirements |
| RFP Attachment A, pgs 1-2 |
| Can the Government provide examples of new requirements and current DOS VSS program priorities? |
| Please refer to RFP C.2.1 Modernization of Visa Services and Requirements and C.2.2 Objective of RFP. |
| 86 |
| Proposal Evaluation |
| RFP M.5, pg 132 |
| If the Government is using third party contractor support service to assist in technical evaluations of the Offeror's proposals, will a Non Disclosure Agreement be required between the Contractor support services and the Offeror? If so, please provide the associated NDA to be executed and submitted with the proposal in a following solicitation amendment. |
| The government has NDAs and COI statements in place for all direct-hire and contractor staff involved in the technical evaluation process. No additional NDAs will be required. |
| 87 |
| Proposal Evaluation |
| RFP M.5 |
| Can the Government clarify if any contractor support services will be used for technical evaluation support on this effort? If so, can you identify which company or companies are providing the support? |
| Consular Affairs is assisted by acquisitions support contractors from Deloitte and A. Prentice Ray & Associates, LLC (APRA). |
| 88 |
| Proposal Evaluation; Pricing |
| RFP M.4.6 |
| Evaluation Factor 6: Cost/Price -- How will the completed pricing tables and LCAT price lists be quantified and graded against other bidders? Will it be the total price of all CLINs combined or a specific combination of CLINs? How will the volume bands be included in the evaluated price? |
| The Government will consider each proposal’s total cost, aggregating all ceiling prices quoted in Section J, Attachment F for all firm-fixed price and labor-hour CLINs for all contract periods of performance, with the exception of Government-prescribed ceilings for applicable CLINs. This will be clarified in a forthcoming amendment. |
| 89 |
| Proposal Submission |
| N/A |
| Given that questions are due hours before a potential government shutdown, and in the event a shutdown becomes eminent, it is anticipated that a timely response to questions would impact small businesses ability to materially modify responses in compliance with any answers. Would the government consider an extension to the submission date based on the impact of any shutdown? |
| The government intends to give industry a minimum of 2 weeks (10 business days) from the release of public questions/answers until the RFP due date. The revised proposal due date will be confirmed in a forthcoming amendment. |
| 90 |
| Proposal Submission |
| RFP L.7.1.3, L.3.1.4, L.3.1.5; pgs 101-102 |
| We understand and will comply with the requirement for double sided printing and the limitation on 75 double-sided printed pages, except where specifically excluded by the government. However, there are pagination issues associated with the use double-sided printing and physically bound dividers (dividers are and encouraged in L.7.1,5) that could adversely affect the page limitations specified in Section L.7.1.3. |
For example, if Part A: Management Capability and Approach, Tab 1 Management Plan and Business Strategy ends on an even numbered page (say, page 20), the following odd numbered page (page 21), that would normally start Tab 2, would be blank because of presence of the divider. In this example, if the blank page is included in the page limitations, a page is wasted. To continue with the example, where the last page of the Tab A is Page 20, the following page, the obverse side of Page 20, would be labeled as “This page is intentionally left blank” without a header, footer, or page number. The first page of Tab 2 will bear a header., footer, and be numbered as page 21.
In the event that a blank odd numbered page falls before a divider in the printed copy of the proposal, may offerors label such blank pages as “This page is intentionally left blank”, exclude such pages from the page limitations, and recommence the page numbering on the first page of the next Tab or Part of the Technical Proposal?
The government will amend the instructions in L.7.1.4 to exclude pages marked as “intentionally left blank" from the overall page count.
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.