20R0268 Response to Questions 2152022.docx

19AQMM20R0268 – VENDOR QUESTIONS COMPILED

will be rated on an ACCEPTABLE or UNACCEPTABLE rating scale.

Past performance and experience are assessed using two methods: Recency and Relevancy….

Past Performance and Experience will be evaluated with a technical merit rating for two components: 1) Relevancy Considerations and 2) Confidence Assessments.

M.4.2

M.4.2.2

76-77 EVALUATION FACTOR 2 – EXPERIENCE AND PAST PERFORMANCE uses an evaluation methodology that differs from the other Technical Factors.

All other Technical Evaluation factors are Pass/Fail. They are either ACCEPTABLE or UNACCEPTABLE.

This Factor includes four adjectival ratings for Relevancy Considerations and five adjectival ratings for Confidence Assessments.

Section M is silent regarding how these ratings will be incorporated into an LPTA methodology.

Specifically, if Vendor A and Vendor B have ACCEPTABLE ratings for all other Technical Factors, but Vendor A has superior adjectival ratings for EXPERIENCE AND PAST PERFORMANCE, would Vendor A attain a higher evaluation score?

Please explain how the Department will incorporate this factor into its selection process.

The rating for the Evaluation Factor 2 – Experience and Past Performance has been revised to ACCEPTABLE or UNACCEPTABLE

Congress and the GAO have confirmed the impropriety of using 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 LPTA. 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 subjective judgment as to desirability of each approach to the Government.

The language in RFP Section M.4.4.2 defines a weighted methodology common to a best-value technical evaluation in evaluating Experience and Past Performance.

Similarly, Sections M.2.4 -M.2.8 indicate the Government will “determine the degree” to which the Offeror meets the “criteria and specifications” for Management Approach, Security Plan, Continuity of Operations Plan, Quality Control Plan, and Draft Transition Plan. This language implies a weighing of the relative merits of competing proposals rather than an ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE methodology.

Given the importance of these Evaluation factors, we respectfully suggest the Government consider making this solicitation a best-value procurement.

Section M has been revised as follows;

EVALUATION FACTOR 2 – EXPERIENCE AND PAST PERFORMANCE has been revised to ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE.

The requirements under this solicitation are clearly defined. The offeror is expected to provide Passport Card Stock in accordance with the specifications provided in the solicitation as well industry standards.

Sections M.2.4 – M.2.8 have been revised to reflect ACCEPTABLE / UNACCEPTABLE and remove any reference to weighting of the merits.

and 3 units with single ink colors

We respectfully request the Department revise this factor to express the desired result in terms of numbers of single ink and split fountains and permit the contractor to determine the specifications of the press that will be used to achieve the required security print.

See amendment for update. The Contractor shall decide press configuration to achieve desired results.

Alternatively, the Government could amend its pricing tables to treat Transportation as its treats Travel: a separate line item that is “Not included in Proposal Evaluation.”

Transportation will not be considered as a separate line item. As a baseline, on an annual basis the number of shipments will be: 6 deliveries for APC-Arkansas Passport Center, 6 deliveries for TPC-Tucson Passport Center, and 2 deliveries each for all other locations, excluding Boston for a total of 18 agencies and centers. Boston is no longer applicable for shipment location, as the BN card printer was permanently moved to NPC. See revised Attachment D.

Please correct the numbering accordingly.

See Amendment for revised Attachment O: Compliance Matrix.

Cat will update as soon as SOW updated for all edits.

Please indicate where it should be located and whether its pages are exempt from the 100-page limitation for the Technical Proposal.

The Attachment O - Compliance Matrix should be included as an attachment to the Technical Volume and is not part of the 100-page limitation.

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

The Government will not consider removing the FOCI mitigation requirement. It is up to the Offeror to provide a mitigation plan to the Government that demonstrates how the Offeror intends to handle FOCI and why their plan will be effective. The Offeror’s FOCI mitigation plan should be included as part of their Management Plan. Please see the revised language in Attachment F as well as Section L.10.2.3 – MANAGEMENT PLAN.

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?

No, as Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS) reviews only address the national security interests at the time of the filing, the Government cannot accept current mitigations as sufficient to mitigate the national security interests that may arise from the foreign ownership, control or influence (FOCI) as it pertains to the Passport Card program. The offeror must submit a FOCI mitigation plan as required in L.10.2.3 – MANAGEMENT PLAN.

Buy American-Free Trade Agreements-Israeli Trade Act (May 2014)

FAR 52.225-3

Shouldn’t FAR 52.225-5, Trade Agreements, apply since this is a solicitation valued at $182,000 or more?

The solicitation has been revised to remove FAR 52.225-3 and include FAR 52.225-5.

FAR 52.225-1 applies

FAR 52.212-5

SF 1449

H

FAR 52.225-1, Buy American – Supplies is checked. FAR 52.225-3, Buy American-Free Trade Agreements-Israeli Trade Act is not checked.

Please clarify that only FAR 52.225-1 applies if the Government has determined that the Buy American Act applies to this procurement.

See response to Question No. 12

This approach must include a price narrative providing justification and rationale for the price buildup and addressing pricing/costs identified in Attachment I – Pricing Table.

L.10

L.10 L.10.1.1

L.10.1.4

Please provide further guidance on what the Government expects to see in an offeror’s “price buildup.”

The Government expects the offeror to provide on a separate tab or worksheet a narrative that shows how the offeror developed the price stated in their proposal.

Does the Government intend that if an offeror describes a benefit, they need to specifically price it and discuss how the price is incorporated in their price narrative? If not, will the price proposal be considered unacceptable?

The Government is expecting the offeror to clearly define what is included in their pricing by way of a separate tab or worksheet so that it is understood what is included in their pricing

If not, what are the criteria for Acceptable?

All cards must pass the testing standards.

In addition to Key Personnel performing on the contract, the Corporate Officer performing as the Company Security Officer (or actual CSO) shall be proposed as a key person and must be an employee of the prime contractor.

C.3.1

Attachment F C.3.1

2.d.i Please confirm the only Corporate Officer required to obtain a MRPT is the offeror’s Company Security Officer.

If not, what other Corporate Officers will be required to obtain a MRPT?

In addition to the Company Security Officer, the key personnel identified in Section C.3.2 as well as other contractor employees assigned to this contract, who are involved in the management, design, and production of U.S. passport cards, the control and distribution of passport cards, and the enforcement of the security plan for ensuring secure manufacture, storage and shipment of passport cards will be subject to a Moderate Risk Public Trust (MRPT) investigation conducted by the Department of State. Additionally, the Department of State reserves the right to conduct the MRPT investigation on any additional personnel it deems necessary.

We respectfully request the Government remove this provision or provide specific guidance that will enable Offerors to compete on an equal basis.

See Amendment for updated language in section C.3.3.

1) Be assembled and processed (to include security printing) in the United States. However, individual components of the Card Stock may be manufactured outside the U.S. after determining the individual components cannot be procured domestically and the facilities manufacturing the individual components must meet the Security Plan requirements.

Also, please confirm that the Card Stock must still comply with the Buy American Act, FAR 52.225-1.

See Amendment for revised language.

FAR 52.225-1 applies to this solicitation.

Standard practice in industry is that two passes through a smaller machine can achieve the same quality print, without requiring this high number of offset units and dedicated units.

C.3.5. Shipping & Delivery

C.3.5 Manufacturing, b. 1

2. Can the government identify the minimum set of technical requirements given in the RFP for a Technically Acceptable offer?

See answer to question 3 and updated language in amendment.

The OVD manufacturer will provide the dimensions and placement.

The approximate size of the current barcode is 25.5 x 5 mm.

a. The Contractor Awardee shall provide a subcontracting plan in accordance with FAR Subpart 19.704.

b. After contract award, the Contractor Awardee shall submit the Individual Subcontract Report (ISR), and the Summary Subcontract Report (SSR) using the Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS) ttp://www.esrs.gov), following the instructions in the eSRS and in accordance with FAR clause 52.219-9. Awardee shall provide an update to the CO on a semi-annual basis (every 6 months) and on an annual basis thereafter.

c. Offerors is to submit Attachment P, Small Business Subcontracting Plan with their proposal.

B.8 Small Business Subcontracting Plan Requirements

Attachment D- PersonalizationFacilityLocationsFinal.doc

AND

M.4.2.2 “…The Government will use the following adjectival ratings for the Relevancy Considerations: … The Government will use the following adjectival ratings for Confidence Assessment: …” Section B.2 Type of Contract, subsection B.2 c.

AND

Section M.4.2.2 – Evaluation Factor 2 – Experience and Past Performance

AND

The RFP states at B.2 c. that the basis of award is LPTA.

However, the evaluation process described at M.4.2.2 indicates the Government will assign adjectival ratings other than ACCEPTABLE and UNACCEPTABLE. Please indicate what combination of Relevancy Considerations and Confidence Assessments will constitute ACCEPTABLE and UNACCEPTABLE evaluations. Otherwise, please explain if the adjectival ratings will be used to compare offeror proposals, which would appear to be contrary to FAR 15.101(b)(3), which states, “Proposals are evaluated for acceptability but not ranked using the non-cost/price factors.”

See revised Section M.

See answer to number 19. No, the government will not designate an inlay supplier.

with a target effective start date of 1 May 2021 C.3.6.2.1.1.b, Phase-In

Yes, the 6-month supply will be purchased by DOS at the end of the contract.

may exercise the option by written notice to the Contractor within _______________ [insert in the clause the period of time in which the Contracting Officer has to exercise the option] Section H FAR Clauses, 52.217-6 - Option for Increased Quantity (Mar 1989)

time within which the Contracting Officer may exercise the option]; provided that the Government gives the Contractor a preliminary written notice of its intent to extend at least __________ days [60 days unless a different number of days is inserted] before the contract expires.

Section H FAR Clauses, 52.217-9 - Option to Extend the Term of the Contract (Mar 2000)

consent before placing the following subcontracts:

Section H FAR Clauses, 52.244-2 Subcontracts

also includes the submission of the sample card qualification kits described in Section L.15.

L.9 TIME, PLACE AND SUBMISSION OF OFFER

(a) All cards in the qualification kit should contain the RFID solution offered in the technical proposal meeting all of the requirements in Section C.3.3.4 – ICC Tag Requirements.

(b) 1000 cards with the Government supplied sample card artwork including: 1) Section C.3.3.2 – Card Stock Mandatory Features;

excluding tactile feature, invisible element and window feature. The optically variable element using color shifting ink, Government specified color not required, any color shifting combination is acceptable.

(c) 100 Blank white sample passport cards with Section C.3.3.4 ICC Tag Requirements, no other security features required.

(d) Press sheet(s) that show the front and back of the card Government furnished artwork and color bars prior to card lamination.

Section L.15.2 SAMPLE PASSPORT CARD QUALIFICATION KIT

We respectfully requests an extension of a minimum of 8 months to address Covid pandemic related supply chain issues on global chip supplies and the typical custom artwork sample card production times.

There have been several extensions provided during the course of this solicitation thus providing opportunity for offerors to address lead time issues. See most recent amendment for current due date.

12SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED