draft RFP Medical ServicesQuestionsResponses.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 25 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 70B06C26R00000017
About this file
This file is a Questions and Answers (Q&A) document from the draft Request for Proposals (RFP) for CBP Medical Support Services (Solicitation 70B06C26R00000017). The Q&A addresses clarifications and modifications to the Statement of Work (SOW) and RFP instructions across multiple service categories and operational requirements.
The document clarifies critical requirements including: pre-employment medical examinations, fitness testing (PFT-1), and drug testing timelines, with modifications establishing that pre-employment drug tests will be scheduled within five (5) business days of request and fitness tests within ten (10) to fourteen (14) business days depending on CHHQ responses. The government confirmed that HHS certification (not OSHA) is required for drug testing sites and collectors, disregarded references to "highway" miles in favor of a 60-mile radius standard, and indicated that interim Authority to Operate (ATO) may be granted for IT security accreditation despite the 90-business-day performance requirement. Key personnel matters were clarified: alternate key personnel (MROs, reviewing physicians, mental health consultants, vision physicians) require resumes/CVs prior to contract start (not with proposal), alternate MROs and reviewing physicians cannot fill other key personnel roles, and military behavioral health evaluation experience is now acceptable in lieu of law enforcement experience for Mental Health Reviewing Consultants. The government estimates contract value at $400M-$600M, with overseas drug testing volumes averaging approximately 672 collections across fiscal years 2021-2026. Proposal submission details were updated, including page count limits (25 pages for Volume I), oral presentation requirements (6 presenters including 5 key personnel), and clarification that transition-in plans and quality control plan descriptions may be submitted as appendices outside page limitations. The advisory notification process does not establish a competitive range, and all offerors may proceed to Phase II, though only those with reasonable award likelihood are encouraged to continue.
View the file
Other files
Show all 42
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet 1
| FILE: 2.2.1- ATTACHMENT 1_DRAFT 70B06C26R00000017- SOW | ||
| Section | Page Number | Question |
| 1.10.1.5, 1.10.3.4, 1.10.4.2 | 15, 16 | There is a variance between pre-employment exams, fitness tests, and drug tests completed. Will the government provide insight into the reasons for the variance and whether it is expected to continue? |
Unsure what is meant by 'variance'.
2.1.5.4 19 If cancellations must occur on the 7th calendar day prior to the actual scheduled day of the examination, how are last minute cancellations (i.e., illness, death in family, etc.) to be handled?
For general examinations and IMEs, cancellation fees must be included in the pricing.
2.6.4.1.2, 2.6.4.2.3, 2.6.6 30, 31, 33-34 For Drug Testing, it is specified that Gender-neutral restrooms will be used to accommodate all gender identities; what is the guidance on specimen collectors (as it is stated that 1-3 male and female collectors will be available)? Is it the employee's preference which gender they prefer to observe their specimen collection?
According to EO 14168 it directs federal agencies to treat sex as a binary biological classification and not to recognize gender identity as a separate category. Federal agencies must use “sex” and not “gender identity.” Federal guidance on this issue may change and will be updated as needed.
8.1.3.2, 9.8.2.4 125, 151 In Section 8.1.3.2 the government writes, "Within six (6) months after contract award, the contractor shall submit written proof of IT Security Accreditation to DHS for approval by the DHS Contracting Officer." However, in Section 9.8.2.4, the government indicates the contractor needs to be able to perform all requirements within 90 business days of contract award. Will an interim ATO process be granted?
An interim ATO process may be granted.
4.4.2.6; 5.1 88; 110 & 113-114 The drug testing requirements in the section 5.1 Table "Summary of Pre-Employment Deliverable Timeline" page 113 and in Section 5.1 do not match the timing called out in the Pre-employement drug test scheduling (section 4.4.2.6). Will the Government provide clarification?
This has been modified to state the pre-employment drug test will be scheduled within five (5) business days of the request.
4.3.2.6.2, 4.3.4.2, 5.1 80, 85, 113, 114 Section 4.3 (Pre-Employment Fitness Test – PFT-1) states that the PFT-1 shall be administered within seven (7) or up to fourteen (14) business days of the request, depending on CHHQ responses, and that results shall be transmitted within (1) business day of testing. However, the Deliverables Summary Table in Section 5.1 reflects different overall timelines. Can the Government clarify which timeline governs for scheduling and administration of the PFT-1 for purposes of performance measurement?
This has been modified to state the pre-employment fitness test will be scheduled within ten (10) business days from date of request if "no" answers to CHHQ, or eleven (11) to fourteen (14) business days if "yes" answers to CHHQ.
4.4.3.2.1 93 In lieu of HHS certification for drug test sites, is OSHA certification satisfactory?
No, this is not satisfactory.
9.4.3.1.1 145 In lieu of HHS or DOT certification for drug test collectors, is OSHA certification satisfactory?
No, this is not satifactory.
5.1 113 The Summary of Pre-Employment Deliverable Timelines in Section 5.1 requires "responses to 'daily spreadsheet' within 5 business days of notification of the request." To what is the Daily Spreadsheet referring?
This has been removed.
| 7.1.2.3.1 | 120 | Are there exceptions to mileage in highly rural or underserved areas? The exceptions for rural areas is included in the SOW. For NPD medical examinations, this is handled on a case-by-case basis and requires approval. |
| 3.1.2.19 | 60 | What percentage of requests will be a medical and/or fitness examination and drug testing combination appointment, where the contractor will schedule the medical examination and/or fitness test and the drug test for the same appointment date and facility? |
Although this requirement may need to be used, during the past five fiscal years, we did not have any FFDE requests requiring this combination. CBP/NPD will not require the general examination and drug testing to occur on the same location/day, although this request may be made, depending on the circumstances.
For CBP/HC, the vast majority of our applicants require a combination of pre-employment medical exams, fitness tests, and drug tests.
3.1.2.19 60 We request the government provide an estimate, based on historical data, of the number of appointments that are for medical &/or fitness examination and drug testing combination.
Please see above for NPD's response.
Please see above for HC's response.
8.6.1 127 Is there a CBP-specific IT security awareness training, or is the Offeror's annual compliance training acceptable to meet this requirement? If this is required for subcontractors, is this provided via a CBP site, or will the prime contractor be required to host this training and allow sub-contractors access to our site?
The Offeror's annual compliance training is acceptable at this time.
1.8.3, 2.6.4.3.2 13, 31 In multiple sections in the SOW, mileage is referred to as 60 mile radius (e.g., Section 1.8.3) and 60 highway miles (e.g., Section 2.6.4.3.2). Will the government confirm the expectation?
Please disregard previous reference to "highway" miles.
5.5 115 It is our assumption that candidate-driven appointment prerequistes (e.g., availability for contact, availability for appointments, submission of medical history or supporting medical documentation) will not count against the Contractor's performance timeline requirements. Is this assumption correct?
If the candidate prerequisites are not met, it will not count against the contractor. Required timelines surrounding contact attempts, scheduling, result submission, etc. for the Contractor are outlined throughout the SOW.
5.5 115 If a candidate is not available for an appointment within the required timeline, does the Contractor close the request? For NPD, the contractor should not close the request, unless the request is made from the COR or Nurse Consultant.
For HC pre-employment, yes the Contractor will close the request - as stated in the SOW: If the Contractor is unable to schedule an appointment within the required timeline, the Contractor shall notify the COR within twenty-four (24) hours of making the determination via the Contractor’s automated system.
2.5.1.5 27 SOW 2.5.1.5 requires a Contractor physician to assess Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) requests and issue "a written, comprehensive opinion as to whether the provided information meets the medical criteria for leave under FMLA." It is our understanding that Agency Human Resources (HR)/Legal reviews medical documentation for regulatory compliance and makes eligibility determinations. Please confirm the Contractor physician's role and expectations for FMLA requests.
The contractor physician will make a recommendation based on the requirements in 5 CFR.
4.4.2.6.2, 5.1 88, 114 Section 4.4 states that the drug test will be administered within within seven (7) business days of the request. However, the Deliverables Summary Table in Section 5.1 reflects different overall timelines. Can the Government clarify which timeline governs for scheduling and administration of the PFT-1 for purposes of performance measurement?
This has been modified to state the pre-employment drug test will be scheduled within five (5) business days of the request.
| 5.1 | |
| 9.6.1 | 112, |
| 147 | The Deliverables Table (ref. row beginning with "9.6") specifies the requirement to "Provide documented evidence of training certifications as defined in the revised guidelines for the Contractor’s Medical Review Officer, Laboratory Director, Specimen Collector staff, and Specimen Collections Clinics" with a due date of "with proposal, annually" and a frequency of "once, as requested." Conversely, SOW 9.6.1 requires this evidence "prior to the contract start date" and "annually via secured electronic transmission." Please clarify the due date and frequency of this documented evidence. |
This information is required with the proposal, after award, and annually.
| 5.1 | |
| 9.6.1 | 112, |
| 147 | The Deliverables Table specifies the requirement to "Provide documented evidence of training certifications as defined in the revised guidelines for the Contractor’s Medical Review Officer, Laboratory Director, Specimen Collector staff, and Specimen Collections Clinics" with a due date of "with proposal, annually" and a frequency of "once, as requested." With the potential for thousands of specimen collector staff and specimen collections clinics, this could potentially generate an untenable number of documents for offerors to collect/submit with their proposal and for the Government to review in the evaluation phase. Will the Government consider updating this requirement in the deliverables table to align with 9.6.1 (e.g., to be provided prior to the contract start date), at least for specimen collector staff and specimen collector clinics? |
Please provide document evidence of training certification with the proposal, as stated in the SOW.
| 5.1 | |
| 9.6.1 | 112, |
| 147 | SOW 9.6.1 and 5.1 specify the requirement to "Provide documented evidence of training certifications as defined in the revised guidelines for the Contractor’s Medical Review Officer, Laboratory Director, Specimen Collector staff, and Specimen Collections Clinics." What specific documentation will satisfy this requirement? |
Please refer to the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/10/12/2023-21734/mandatory-guidelines-for-federal-workplace-drug-testing-programs
9.2.1 & 9.3.4.1 139 & 141 The Government identifies key personnel in the 9.2.1 list. There is no reference to the Alternate Laboratory Director listed in Section 9.3.4.1. Is the alternate MRO a Key Personnel, e.g., with resume or CV due at time of proposal submission?
It is acceptable to submit resumes or CVs of alternate key-personnel after the contract has been awarded, prior to the contract start date.
9.2.1 & 9.3.5.1 139 & 142 The Government identifies key personnel in the 9.2.1 list. There is no reference to the Alternate MRO listed in Section 9.3.5.1. Is the alternate MRO a Key Personnel, e.g., with resume or CV due at time of proposal submission?
We do not require the information upon proposal. We would require this information prior to the start of the contract.
9.2.1 & 9.3.6.1 139 & 142 The Government identifies key personnel in the 9.2.1 list. There is no reference to the alternate Lead Reviewing Physician Consultant listed in Section 9.3.6.1. Is the alternate Lead Reviewing Physician Consultant a Key Personnel, e.g., with resume or CV due at time of proposal submission?
We do not require the information upon proposal. We would require this information prior to the start of the contract.
9.2.1 & 9.3.7.1 139 & 143 The Government identifies key personnel in the 9.2.1 list. There is no reference to the Alternate Mental Health Reviewing Consultant listed in Section 9.3.7.1. Is the Alternate Mental Health Reviewing Consultant a Key Personnel, e.g., with resume or CV due at time of proposal submission?
We do not require the information upon proposal. We would require this information prior to the start of the contract.
| 9.2.1 & 9.3.8.1 | 139 & 144 | The Government identifies key personnel in the 9.2.1 list. There is no reference to the Alternate Vision Reviewing Physician listed in Section 9.3.8.1. Is the Alternate Vision Reviewing Physician a Key Personnel, e.g., resume or CV due at time of proposal submission?We do not require the information upon proposal. We would require this information prior to the start of the contract. |
| 9.3 | 140 | We assume that one appropriately qualified individual may be proposed to fill more than one Key Personnel position, e.g., one physician serving as the alternate MRO and the alternate Lead Reviewing Physician Consultant, or one physician serving as the primary Leading Reviewing Physician Consultant and the alternate MRO. Is this assumption correct? |
A person in a Key-Personnel role cannot serve as an alternate for another key or non key role.
9.3.7.2.2 144 Section 9.3 (Key Personnel Qualifications) specifies law enforcement experience for the Mental Health Reviewing Consultant / psychiatric key personnel. Given the operational similarities between federal law enforcement positions and military roles — including evaluation of personnel in safety-sensitive, weapon-bearing, high-risk environments — would the Government consider relevant military behavioral health evaluation experience to be acceptable in lieu of law enforcement experience?
Yes, the SOW has been updated to reflect the acceptability of military experience.
9.8.2.4 151 Per the SOW, "CBP continually orders medical examinations, consultations, and fitness tests without long breaks in ordering; as such, it is imperative that the Contractor be able to perform all requirements in this SOW within ninety (90) business days of contract award. During this transition in period, the incumbent vendor will be performing the required services." Please clarify. Will the incumbent vendor complete all drug testing requests initiated up to Day 90 of the transition period?
Yes, during the transition period the incumbent vendor will perform required services.
9.8.2.3 151 (Note, 9.11.2.13 appears twice in the dRFP). The current penalty structure applies a uniform payment reduction for delays within broad time bands (e.g., 1–30 days late). Given the high-volume, time-sensitive nature of this requirement, would the Government consider a proportional penalty structure (i.e., 97.5% for 1 day, 95% for 2 days… 75% for 30 days, 72.5% for 31 days, etc) that escalates based on duration of delay, thereby incentivizing rapid recovery?
The Government may take this under consideration at a later time.
9.11.2.1.3, 9.11.3.1.12 157, 160 (Note, 9.11.2.13 appears twice in the dRFP). The current penalty structure applies a uniform payment reduction for delays within broad time bands (e.g., 1–30 days late). Given the high-volume, time-sensitive nature of this requirement, would the Government consider a graduated or proportional penalty structure that escalates based on duration of delay, thereby incentivizing rapid recovery?
The Government may take this under consideration at a later time.
9.11.2.1.3, 9.11.3.1.12 157, 160 (Note, 9.11.2.13 appears twice in the dRFP). The current penalty structure applies a uniform payment reduction for delays within broad time bands (e.g., 1–30 days late). Additionally, would the Government consider incorporating a performance incentive mechanism for exceeding requirements to further promote on-time and early delivery in support of mission objectives? Yes, we might consider it depending on the structure.
1.10.1.3, 1.10.3.1, 2.6.7, 3.1.2.12, 4.1.2.5, 4.3.2.4, 4.4.2.4 14, 16, 35, 59, 63, 78, 87 Please provide the estimated annual volumes associated with overseas performance.
Overseas DFWP Drug Testing (Post-Employment)
| Year | Overseas Collections |
| 2021 | 173 |
| 2022 | 53 |
| 2023 | 81 |
| 2024 | 96 |
| 2025 | 222 |
| 2026 | 47 |
| Overall Total | 672 |
| FILE: 2.2.1-++DRAFT+RFP+70B06C26R00000017+DOCUMENT_16Feb2026 | ||
| I.3 | 5 | IDIQ Maximum Value. The contract maximum is stated as “to be determined at award.” Please provide the anticipated ceiling value to support capacity planning and pricing. We estimate a range of $400,000,000 to $600,000,000. |
| II Contract Clauses | 21 | PII Incident – Credit Monitoring Costs (HHSAR 3052.240-73). If the Contractor is directed to provide credit monitoring services following a PII incident: Will such costs be treated as allowable direct costs under the contract? Is any cost ceiling or insurance-based offset contemplated? No. |
| CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS, OR ATTACHMENTS | 60 | Wage Determinations (Attachment 7). When the applicable Wage Determinations will be issued to support final pricing? yes. |
| III.17(j)(3) | 73 | Will the government consider increasing the page count allowance for Volume I to 30 pages, excluding attachments? Not at this time. See updated RFP. |
| III.17(k)(3)ii | 74 | Per the RFP, "Of the 6 presenters, 5 presenters shall be proposed Key Personnel individuals, which must include a Program Manager (PM), the Medical Review Officer (MRO) and a Reviewing Physician Consultant. All of the presentation team must be current employees (or have signed letters of commitment) of the prime Offeror or proposed sub-contractors (No more than 2 presenters may be subcontractors)." Are Alternate KPs considered KPs for the purpose of the oral presentation? yes |
| III.20(c)(3) | 76 | To support the Government’s responsibility determination under FAR 9.104-1, does the Government anticipate requesting documentation or other objective evidence of Offerors’ financial capacity during Phase 1 to substantiate that adequate financial resources are available to sustain performance under the solicitation’s financial risk structure (disincentives, no-show cost risk)? It's possible if the situation warrants such action. |
| III.17(f) | 70 | The number progresses from III.17(e) to III.17(g). Is there a III.17(f)? The RFP has been updated |
| III.17(j)(1)c | 72 | The bullet in this instruction states: "Additionally, outline availability and location of non-key personnel to include: Test Administrators, Examining Physicians, HHS-certified specimen collectors and Emergency Responders." Should this also include "Clinical Consulting Physician" per SOW section 9.2.2.2? Yes |
| III.17(j)(1)c | 72 | The bullet in this instruction states: "Additionally, outline availability and location of non-key personnel to include: Test Administrators, Examining Physicians, HHS-certified specimen collectors and Emergency Responders." We request the government confirm it does not require resumes or CV for these staff. Correct |
| III.17(i) | 71 | Phase I Due Date. The solicitation references a Phase I submission deadline of April 10, 2020. Please confirm the correct submission date (April 10, 2026). The RFP has been updated |
| III.17(i)(3) | 71 | Please clarify that the Cover Page is tailored and specific to the Volume, e.g., with the correct Volume and disclaimer information. Correct |
| III.17(i)(3) | 71 | Please clarify that the same cover letter is used for both Phase 1 volume submittals. Correct |
| III.17(i)(3) | 71 | In III.17(i)(2) the government makes a distinction between the terms cover letter and cover page. In III.17(i)(3) the government provides the in-line header "Cover Page & Table of Contents" and requires that the first page of the proposal is a cover letter, yet instructs offerors to provide a "cover page" that complies with FAR 52.215-1 para (c)(2), which is not typically provided in a letter format. Please clarify if the Government wants a one-page letter (on letterhead) with content aligned with the FAR 52.215-1(c)(2).yes |
| III.17(i)(3) | 71 | The government provides the instruction: "A clear table of contents with page numbers should be included." Please provide clarification that there is no expectation that the table of contents is included in the cover letter. Correct |
| III.17(i)(3) | 71 | The government does not allow hyperlinks across volume. Therefore, we request clarification that the Table of Contents required with each volume is NOT a master Table of Contents for all content within our Phase 1 response (e.g., across volumes).Correct |
| III.17(i)(3) | 71 | Is it the government's intent for the Offeror's "CBP Medical Services -Volume 1-Name.pdf" to include everything from the first page (cover page/letter) through the last page of the attachment 2 in one pdf? Yes |
| III.17(j)(1)(g) | 72 | In SOW section 9.8.2.3, offerors are required to provide a "draft copy of a detailed Transition In Plan at the time of proposal", but there is no attachment identified in the Solicitation instructions for this. Rather the requirement states offerors need to "outline how the Offeror will manage and execute a timely and non-distruptive transition plan". If a draft of our “detailed Transition In Plan” is required we request that this be allowed outside of the page limits as Volume 1 Attachment 3. The RFP has been updated |
| III.17(j)(1)(c) | 72 | The government instructs offerors to outline availability and location of non-key personnel to include: Test Administrators, Examining Physicians, HHS-certified specimen collectors and Emergency Responders. We request that this information be included with our GeoMap Attachment 2 content. Would the government please confirm this is acceptable? That is acceptable |
| III.17(k)(3)(i) | 74 | What is the anticipated time allotment for submission of Vol III, Vol IV and Vol V after the Advisory Notification? TBD |
| III.17(k) | 73-74 | Is there a slide limit for the oral presentation? TBD |
| III.17(k) | 73-74 | Is there an agenda for the oral presentations? TBD |
| III.17(k) | 73-74 | Is there a time limit for the oral presentation? TBD |
| III.17(k)(3)(i) | 73-74 | What is the anticipated time allotment for submission of Vol III, Vol IV and Vol V after the Advisory Notification? TBD |
| III.20(a) | 76 | In which Volume should required contractual fill ins be provided? That would go with the signed SF 1449. |
| III.21 | 77 | Given the expected increase to overall volume, will the Government evaluate offerors’ demonstrated capabilities and experience operating at comparable scale based on projected future volume as part of the Technical and/or Past Performance factors? The Government anticipates evaluating offerors’ demonstrated capabilities in a manner that considers the overall scope, complexity, and magnitude of the requirement. While historical performance at comparable scale may be a relevant consideration, the Government may also consider the relevance, recency, and quality of prior efforts, as well as the offeror’s proposed approach to scaling operations to meet anticipated requirements. The extent to which projected volumes are emphasized will depend on the totality of the evaluation. |
| III.21 | 77 | Given the handling of sensitive medical information and DHS security requirements, will the Government consider enterprise-level cybersecurity infrastructure, independently verified security accreditations, and demonstrated compliance with federal security frameworks (e.g., CMMI level 2.0) as part of the Technical evaluation? The Government recognizes the importance of safeguarding sensitive medical and DHS-related information. As such, the evaluation may consider the extent to which offerors demonstrate appropriate security posture, infrastructure maturity, and compliance with applicable federal standards. However, the specific weight and applicability of enterprise-level cybersecurity capabilities will depend on how they align with the proposed technical approach and the requirements outlined in the solicitation. |
| III.21 | 77 | Given the high-volume, time-sensitive nature of the work and the expectation for automated self-scheduling and dashboard visibility, will the Government evaluate the degree of workflow automation as part of the evaluation criteria under the Technical factor? Given the operational tempo and performance expectations, the Government may consider the degree to which offerors propose efficient, scalable, and technology-enabled solutions, including workflow automation and visibility tools. The evaluation will focus on how effectively such capabilities support mission outcomes and performance objectives. The level of emphasis placed on automation will depend on its demonstrated impact within the proposed solution. |
| III.17(k)(4) | 75 | (Note, this subsection numbering "4)" repeats in the draft RFP.) The Draft RFP references “CLIN”, while the SOW contemplates multiple distinct service categories (examinations, fitness testing, drug testing, consultations, etc.). Please clarify if all services will be ordered strictly in accordance with the unit pricing template (Attachment 4) or if task orders include separately negotiated pricing elements. The RFP now includes Attachment 4. The Government intends for the CLIN structure to provide sufficient flexibility to accommodate the range of services contemplated under the SOW. While multiple service categories are identified, the final ordering structure and pricing methodology will be applied in accordance with the solicitation and any subsequent amendments. The Government reserves the right to determine the most appropriate approach to ensure efficient ordering and contract administration. |
| III.17 | 73 | Phase I Advisory Process. The solicitation states that advisory notifications do not establish a competitive range and that all offerors may proceed to Phase II. Please confirm whether any limitation on Phase II participation is contemplated. The advisory process is intended to provide feedback to offerors regarding the likelihood of competitiveness. While all offerors may proceed, the Government anticipates that only those with a reasonable chance of award will elect to submit full proposals. The Government will not preclude participation; however, offerors are encouraged to consider advisory feedback in determining their level of continued participation. |
| III.17(i) | 71 | Content contained in the anticipated attachments, to be released by amendment will impact offerors proposals (e.g., SB goals, etc. will impact our team and our solution). To promote full and open competition and to ensure the submission of high-quality, fully compliant proposals, we request the Government provide the remaining solicitation amendments (including Small Business, and Pricing templates) with sufficient time for Offerors to fully develop Phase 1 proposal responses. The Government will assess whether adjustments to proposal timelines are warranted based on the nature and materiality of the information provided. |
| III.17(i) | 71 | Content contained in the anticipated attachments, to be released by amendment will impact offerors proposals (e.g., SB goals, etc. will impact our team and our solution). To promote full and open competition and to ensure the submission of high-quality, fully compliant proposals, we request the Government provide a two week extension to allow offerors time to update their solutions in accordance with the content contained in the solicitation requirements/attachments. The Government will assess whether adjustments to proposal timelines are warranted based on the nature and materiality of the information provided. |
| II.57 | 12 | In the KP list, which mirrors the section 9.2.1 KP list the government lists "9.2.1.6 Mental Health Reviewing Consultant". Please clarify that Section III.17(j)(1)(c) lists the correct title: "Mental Health Reviewing Physician Consultant". The Government will review the referenced sections for consistency and will clarify, if necessary, through amendment. Offerors should propose key personnel consistent with the intent of the requirement as currently written, pending any formal updates. |
| II.86 | 49 | Security Adjudication Timing (T4/T5). If required background investigations are pending due to Government processing timelines: Will conditional performance be permitted? How will schedule impacts outside the Contractor’s control be addressed? CBP OPR may allow conditional performance depending on the circumstance |
| FILE: 2.2.1- DRAFT RFP 1449 PAGE 2 NOTES | ||
| Section | Page Number | Question |
| 2 | 1 | Penalties / Performance Consequences. The requirement references “penalties for late or inaccurate deliverables.” Does the Government intend to apply liquidated damages?That is not intended. In the absence of liquidated damages, the Government anticipates assessing contractor performance through established contract administration processes. This may include evaluation against performance standards, surveillance methods, and quality metrics, as well as documentation through Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and other remedies as appropriate. The specific approach will depend on the nature and severity of performance issues and the terms of the contract. |
| 2 | 1 | Penalties / Performance Consequences. If the Government intends to apply liquidated damages, please provide the applicable schedule and calculation methodology. If the Government does not intend to apply liquidated damages, how will the performance impacts be assessed (e.g., invoice offsets, CPARS, etc.)? N/A. |
| 3 | 2, 3 | Per the Required Content bullet under Proposal Submission, "proposals must ... describe quality control and transition plans." Under Additional Requirements, the Transition bullet states, 'Offerors must provide a detailed transition-in plan with their proposal." Is the detailed transition-in plan” to be included in the 25 page count of Volume I, or will the Government allow for it to be submitted as Attachment 3 to Volume I, outside of page count limitations? See updated RFP. It can be submitted as an appendix. |
| 3 | 2, 3 | Per the Required Content bullet under Proposal Submission, "proposals must ... describe quality control and transition plans." Under Additional Requirements, the Quality Control bullet requires "Submission of a draft Quality Control Plan is required within 5 days of award." It is our understanding that a description of the Quality Control Plan --and not the draft Quality Control Plan itself -- is to be included in the 25 page count of Volume I. Is this correct? Correct. |
| 3 | 2, 3 | Per the Required Content bullet under Proposal Submission, "proposals must ... describe quality control and transition plans." Under Additional Requirements, the Quality Control bullet requires "Submission of a draft Quality Control Plan is required within 5 days of award." If the dQCP itself is required, please advise whether a draft Quality Control Plan is to be submitted with Volume I and whether it can be submitted as an Attachment to Volume I, outside of page count limitations. That's not required with the proposal. |
&"Arial"&9&K000000 Leidos Proprietary&1#_x000D_
_x000D_&1#&"Arial"&8&K000000 The information in this document is proprietary to Leidos. It may not be used, reproduced, disclosed, or exported without the written approval of Leidos.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .