20R0009-A003 Responses.docx

**The information below is source selection sensitive.

All Changes are noted as BOLD Italics in reference Attachments, Sections, paragraphs.

The Offeror shall assume full and total responsibility for ensuring that its offer is received by 11:00 Eastern Standard Time on 27 April 2020. (See Block 9 of the SF-33).

L.16.1. Proposal:

30 calendar days from RFP release L.10

L.16

L.16.1

L.11.1. Volume 1: Price Proposal The Price Proposal shall set forth current, accurate, and complete information as required by this solicitation. The Price Proposal shall be prepared as follows: Tab A – SF 33 (reference L.11.1.1) Cover SF1449

L.11.1

Box 10 - The Acquisition is Small Business Set Aside Cover SF1449

The Sources Sought Notice issued on March 10, 2017 (SAQMMA-17-SS-PASSCS) did not include a requirement for the prime contractor to own its manufacturing facility. Did the Government conduct market research to determine whether any small businesses were capable of competing for this procurement?

Will the Government consider making this solicitation full and open competition?

If the Government will not consider competing this requirement on a full and open basis, will the Government amend the solicitation to (i) permit nonmanufacturers to compete as the prime contractor; and (ii) seek a class waiver of the nonmanufacturer rule for this procurement?

Refer to Amendment A003, FAR Clause 52.212-5 revised. As stated, Offeror is responsible to meet certifications and requirements to include any required waivers.

The clauses at FAR 52.212-5(b) are not marked to identify which clauses apply to this Solicitation. Will the Government amend the solicitation to identify the clauses that do apply?

Refer to Amendment A003. FAR Clause 52.212-5 revised.

The technical proposal volume is limited to a maximum of 50 pages.

L.11

L.11.2

Will the Government consider competing this requirement on a full and open basis using a best value tradeoff?

Refer to Amendment A003, Section B.2 and revised FAR Clause 52.212-5 as stated.

most important. Note: of Tabs C1-C7, tab C4 (security plan) is the most important; all other tabs within Factor 3 will be equally weighted. Factor 4 (Quality Control Plan) is the fourth most important.

a. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. To be considered technically acceptable, the technical proposal must provide the information requested in Section L, conform to the requirements of the solicitation in Section C, and demonstrate the ability to perform the prospective contract successfully (experience and past performance).

M.1.4.c

M.1.5.a

The solicitation states that the basis of award will be Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA).

The FAR provides that an LPTA evaluation may be more appropriate “where the requirement is clearly definable and the risk of unsuccessful contract performance is minimal.” See FAR 15.101. Procurements with less definitive requirements, more development work, or greater performance risk are better suited for best value evaluations. Id.

In the past several years, Congress and the GAO have also recently confirmed the impropriety of utilizing an LPTA evaluation scheme in complex procurements. For example, Section 813 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 mandated the revision of Department of Defense regulations to require contracting officers to consider specific criteria prior to using the LPTA evaluation process. This includes considering whether (1) the Government would realize little to no benefit from offerors’ differing technical approaches; and (2) the technical approaches would require any subjective judgment as to desirability of the approach by the Government.

The language in M.1.4.c defines a weighted methodology common to a best-value technical evaluation that recognizes that “Factor 1 (technical capability) is the most important followed by Factor 2 (past performance and experience).” The solicitation emphasizes the importance of schedule, continuity of operations, and acceptable standards of performance.

Given the stringent technical requirements and to ensure the Government receives the benefits of a technologically superior product (Factor 1) from an offeror with superior experience (Factor 2), we respectfully suggest the Government make this a best-value procurement rather than LPTA.

Refer to Amendment A003, Section B.2 and Section M.1.4.c. as stated

M.1.8. Price/Cost rating The following criteria will be rated on an ACCEPTABLE or UNACCEPTABLE Rating Scale.:

1. SF 33

M.1.7.1

M.1.8

In accordance with Section M.1.3, the Government has the discretion to reject an offer if an offeror fails to submit any of the required proposal documents, but it is not mandatory. Sections L.11.1.1, M.1.7.1, and M.1.8 do not provide for criteria to determine whether an SF 33 is Acceptable or Unacceptable.

Please confirm how the Government will determine whether an offeror’s SF 33 is Acceptable or Unacceptable.

Refer to Amendment A003 and Q2

Proposals that do not include rates/prices for all line items for the base and option years may be rejected.

M.1.8. Price/Cost rating The following criteria will be rated on an ACCEPTABLE or UNACCEPTABLE Rating Scale.:

2. Section B M.1.7.2

M.1.8

In accordance with Section M.1.7.2, the Government has the discretion to reject an offer if an offeror does not include rates/prices for all line items, but it is not mandatory.

Section B pricing tables and Attachment I do not contemplate the option years of the contract.

Please provide an updated Section B and Attachment I and confirm how the Government will determine whether an offeror’s Section B is Acceptable or Unacceptable.

Refer to Amendment A003, revised Attachment I identified as 20R0009-A003 Attach-I as well as revised Section L.11.1.2. Refer to Section B.2 and revised Section M.

Offerors must demonstrate and show their price buildup as discussed in Section L.

M.1.8. Price/Cost rating The following criteria will be rated on an ACCEPTABLE or UNACCEPTABLE Rating Scale.:

3. Other Than Cost and Pricing Worksheet M.1.7.3

In accordance with Section M.1.3, the Government has the discretion to reject an offer if an offeror fails to submit any of the required proposal documents, but it is not mandatory. Sections L.11.1.3, M.1.7.3, and M.1.8 do not provide for criteria to determine whether an offeror’s Other Than Cost and Pricing Worksheet is Acceptable or Unacceptable.

Please confirm how the Government will determine whether an offeror’s Other Than Cost and Pricing Worksheet is Acceptable or Unacceptable.

Refer to Amendment A003, Section L.11.1.3 as stated

Offerors must demonstrate and show elements as discussed in Section L.

M.1.8. Price/Cost rating The following criteria will be rated on an ACCEPTABLE or UNACCEPTABLE Rating Scale.:

4. Business Management M.1.7.4

In accordance with Section M.1.3, the Government has the discretion to reject an offer if an offeror fails to submit any of the required proposal documents, but it is not mandatory. Sections L.11.1.4, M.1.7.4, and M.1.8 do not provide for criteria to determine whether an offeror’s Business Management Plan is Acceptable or Unacceptable.

Please confirm how the Government will determine whether an offeror’s Business Management Plan is Acceptable or Unacceptable.

Refer to Amendment A003, and revised Section M.

Offerors must be registered in SAM and have the most current ISO certifications.

M.1.8. Price/Cost rating The following criteria will be rated on an ACCEPTABLE or UNACCEPTABLE Rating Scale.:

5. Representations and Certifications M.1.7.5

1. 1000 cards with government supplied artwork and government directed OVD.

2. 50 sample passport cards with no artwork per Card Stock source.

3. Press sheet(s) that show the government furnished artwork prior to card lamination.

L.16.3.1.

If, for example, the 1000 cards in Item 1 require the incorporation of ICC tag, tactile elements (requiring an etched lamination plate) and other advanced components, we ask the Government to provide no less than 90 days for delivery of the qualification kit.

Do the 50 sample cards with no artwork in Item 2 require OVD or other elements or components? If so, we ask the Government to specify them.

With respect to the press sheet (s) specified in Item 3, would this requirement be satisfied by a single polycarbonate sheet with the printed government furnished artwork? If additional elements or components or more than one sheet are required, we ask the Government to specify them.

Refer to Amendment A003. See revised Section L.16.3.1

PASSPORT CARD TEST STOCK

OTHER TRAVEL CARDS (Optional) CLIN 0210 - TEST STOCK(Optional)

Pricing Table

Period of Performance This contract contains a one (1) year Base Period and four, one-year Option Periods to be exercised at the sole discretion of the Government.

B

Attachment I

F.1

Attachment I

Section 2 Personalization Printer/RFID Testing Test Strategy – Lab Card Performance Evaluation Item d. Privacy access for attenuating sleeve - The tester will evaluate card performance when attempting to read a card encased in its attenuating sleeve (e.g., when the card is placed in the attenuating sleeve, the card should not be readable).

Attachment J

Attachment J

There are two critical labor categories.

C.3.2.1. Project Manager C.3.2.2. Production Manager

d. Key management personnel proposed by the offeror and agreed upon by the DOS must be U.S. citizens who have received a favorably adjudicated Moderate Risk Public Trust (MRPT) determination performed by the Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS).

i. The Company Security Officer shall be proposed as a key manager and a contractor employee of the prime contractor.

C.2

C.3.2 C.3.2.1 C.3.2.2

Attachment F

8-9

Attachment F The RFP indicates there are no key personnel but cites the Project Manager and Production Manager as “critical labor categories.”

Attachment F describes the Company Security Officer “shall be proposed as a key manager.”

We ask the Government to provide guidance with respect to how offerors should present these three positions in the proposal. If there are positions other than these three that need to be addressed, we ask the Government to indicate the positions or categories.

Refer to Amendment A003 and revised Section C, L, M, and Attachment F.

Attachment F Will the Government consider removing the requirement for foreign-owned U.S. firms to propose FOCI mitigation?

If not, can the Government clarify the acceptable forms of FOCI mitigation and how the presence of FOCI will impact an offeror’s evaluation?

· Will the Government find an offeror with FOCI ineligible for award?

· Must the FOCI mitigation be approved by the Government prior to contract award or will the Government provide the successful offeror a grace period to negotiate the appropriate FOCI mitigation measures with the Government after award?

Foreign ownership of certain U.S. businesses requires the review and approval by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFIUS”). CFIUS approval is only granted upon a determination that there are no unresolved national security risks arising as a result of a U.S. company’s foreign ownership.

· Will the Government accept evidence of successful review and approval by CFIUS without the imposition of mitigation strategies as sufficient FOCI mitigation for purposes of this procurement?

Refer to Amendment A003 and revised Attachment F as stated

Attachment F

b. The Offeror shall clearly mark on the face of each Volume, ‘original’ or ‘copy’.

c. All Volumes shall be in no less than a 12 font; Times New Roman; 1-inch margins on all sides. Proposals pages shall be sequentially numbered on 8-1/2” by 11” or A4 paper for each individual section. The page numbers for each Tab should re-start with “1”.

All documentation shall be professionally placed in a 3-ring binder, tabbed and in an index format, the cover and spine shall be affixed with labeling. All documentation covers shall clearly identify name of country, volume number, solicitation number, Offeror’s name, name of contact, email address, mailing address, telephone number and indicate ‘original’ or ‘copy’. The Offeror shall mark proprietary data by page(s), Section(s) and sentence(s). Do not generalize.

Procurement is an RFQ but there are also references to it being an RFP. Are the evaluation criteria in Section M rated either Acceptable Or Unacceptable rather than scored?

B.2 and M.1.5 B.2.c and M.1.5.1

Please provide clarity on the type of procurement, the evaluation process and the Evaluation criteria.

Refer to Amendment A003, revised L.2.2

provide an updated table with the complete contents of the last column.

Please provide an updated table with the complete contents of the last column.

Refer to Amendment A003 with corrected Table F-2

It is our understanding that this RFP desires responses by Oferrors for Card Stock only; not personalization. Therefore, no laser marking of any kind (i.e. "Card Number") should be performed by the Card Stock Offeror on the preprinted (artwork) card bodies. Please confirm or correct our understanding.

Attachment E

Clarify that no laser marking of any kind is required by the Card Stock Offeror as this is Personalization Data and will only be known by DoS and the Personalization Service, which is out of scope of this RFP.

Refer to Amendment A003 See revised section C.3.3.3.b.

For the purposes of preparing the cards for RFP submission, will DoS provide the expected values for "Company Prefix", Document Type", and Serial Numbers for all cards submitted?

Attachment C

2. c, d, and e

1 and 2

Please provide the expected data for these fields for the Card Offeror to encode their cards for the RFP response.

Refer to Amendment A003 See revised Attachment C identified as A003.

What is the definition of "card number(s")?

C3.5.2, D.2.a

Please clarify that "Card Numbers" are in fact defined by the Issuing Authority to the Personalization Offeror, not the Card Stock Offerror and that this requirement is not for the Card Offeror.

Refer to Amendment A003 See revised section C.3.3.3.b.

Duplicate Sections

D.2 and D.3

Delete D.3 as redundant to D.2

Refer to Amendment A003 and revised Section D.

Is "Physical Card #" the same as "card number"? Is this in scope for the Card Stock Oferror? It seems this information is intended only between the Issuing Authority (DoS) and the Personalization Offeror (out of scope of the Card Stock Offeror)

C3.5.4.a

13-14

Remove Physical Card # from the required data transfer elements list as this represents a binding of ICC data to printed information known only to the Personalization Offeror (out of scope to the Card Stock Offeror)

Refer to Amendment A003, and revised section C.3.3.3.b.

data"

Source of the range of unique numbers to store in the ICC for the sample cards to be included in the Card Stock Offeror response package.

C.3.3.4.c

Please supply the range of unique numbers to be stored in the ICC by the Offeror for each of the required sets of cards (secure artwork and blank white) required for submission.

See revised Attachment C identified as A003.

and features, offered security features, and the offered personalization process" re:"Card Stock Pre-Printing"; our understanding of this requirement is exclusively to the common secure artwork as given by example in the artwork, however, this text implies that the Card Stock provider will also provide personalization services. We believe this to be in error.

C.3.3.3.a

Our understanding is that DoS will perform all personalization of the front and back of the Passport Card. Please clarify that the Card Stock Offeror will NOT perform personalization services.

Refer to Amendment A003, and revised section C.3.3.3.a.

a 1-Dimensional Code 3 of 9 type barcode alongside according to artwork in Section J: Attachment C.

"This number shall not be related to the electronically written data. This number shall not be related to the electronically written data."

Our understanding is that a key system design objective of the CBP WHTI data privacy objectives is to maintain separation of the ICC Serial Number written to the RFID tag and the document number assigned by the issuing authority. If, however, the Card Stock Offeror is required to write both the ICC Serial Number to the RFID chip, and the Card Number/Physical Card Number (presuably by laser marking on the front and back and as a 1-D bar code as done on the current issue PP Cards), this is in fact personalization and linking the ICC Serial Number and the cardholder's Card Number in the data transfer file. On the current PP Card, the Code 3 of 9 barcode represents the Passport Card Number that is printed both on the front and rear of the card, presumably by the Personalization Offeror, not the Card Stock offeror. Please clarify what data is printed by whom.

C.3.3.3.b

Is the "unique serial number" that is laser engraved on to each card a card stock number to be applied/managed by the Card Stock Offeror? Or is this intended to be the "Card Number" or "Physical Card #"? and how is, or is, this different than the Passport Card Number on the currently issued Passport Card, for example. Note: Artwork is not found in Section J: Attachment C. This is the Data Format for Passport Card.

Refer to Amendment A003, and revised section C.3.3.3.b.

Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Contractors’ Past Performance Submittal (to be provided as an Attachment P)

Please identify or clarify Attachment P

M.1.5.2.1.1.

Provide a template or clarification for Attachment P or remove the language.

Refer to Amendment A003. Attachment P removed.

Please provide the full chart for section F-2 as it is in portrait mode and some elements are sut off.

F-2.

24-25

Provide section F-2 in landscape format so all data can be read.

Refer to Amendment A003 and Q21

Revised for consistency Attachment H Table and Section C Table C-1

Refer to Amendment A003, Section J, Attachment H – Table on Page 1 updated to match Section C, Table C-1.

Revised too correct omission Transition Plan

Refer to Amendment A003, revised Section L and M

SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED