The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
Government Response to RFP Questions
| Offeror: All Offerors |
| Date: 8/13/2026 |
| Item No. |
| RFP Section |
| RFP Page No. |
| Vendor Question |
| ICE Response (For Official Use Only) |
| 1 |
| M |
| 98 |
| Paragraph M.4, Factor 3, Past Performance Evaluation states that "Past Performance will only be assessed on recent and relevant projects exceeding $10,000,000.00 ($10M)." However, the same paragraph also states that "Size is described as projects exceeding $500,000.00." |
In the event an offeror has one project but not all three recent projects exceeding $10 million that were completed within the last three years, as required by Paragraph L.10, Factor 3, will the Government accept projects exceeding $500,000 to satisfy the minimum project submission requirement?
Past performance will be accessed on projects exceeding $25 Million.
| 2 |
| L |
| 93 |
| Paragraph L.10, Factor 4, Management Plan states, “The proposal submission should also include the resume for the Project Manager. Resume will not be included in the page limit.” However, the Key Personnel section on the same page lists several additional positions (e.g., Design of Record, Design Professionals, Superintendent, QA/QC Supervisor). Can the government clarify if resumes are required for these additional positions? And if so, are these resumes also excluded from the page limit? |
| Only the Project Manager and Senior Environmental Professional (Ft. Benning IDIQ) resumes are required for the proposal submission. |
| 3 |
| L |
| 90 |
| Paragraph L.10 limits Factor 4, Management Plan, to five (5) pages. However, the requirements on pages 93–94 include a Management Plan, organizational chart, resumes for multiple key personnel, and a preliminary project schedule. Given the volume of required information, the five-page limitation does not appear sufficient to adequately address all requirements. Would the Government consider either increasing the page limit for Factor 4 or excluding all resumes and the preliminary project schedule from the five-page limitation? |
| The Project Manager resume, Senior Environmental Professional resume (Ft. Benning IDIQ), and the Preliminary Project schedule are not included in the five page limit. No other resumes are required for the proposal submission. |
| 4 |
| B/H |
| 5/30 |
| Section B establishes a $10 billion maximum ordering value for all IDIQs awarded, while Section H, paragraph H.6 states that the cumulative value of all SATOCs under all awarded contracts shall not exceed $300 million over the five-year ordering period. Please clarify the intended program ceiling. |
| The aggregate value of all the IDIQ’s is $10 billion. |
| 5 |
| Sec. L.10, Vol 1 Factor 2 |
| 91 |
| We request clarification regarding the bonding capacity requirement under Volume 1 Factor 2 – Bonding Capacity of the solicitation. The solicitation states that the Offeror must provide a letter from an approved surety demonstrating: A current bonding capacity of at least $10 million per project, and An aggregate bonding capacity of at least $10 billion. |
Please confirm that the required aggregate bonding capacity of $10 billion is correct as stated in the solicitation. We would appreciate confirmation that this value is intentional and not a typographical error.
The aggregate bonding capacity has been reduced to $2 billion.
| 6 |
| Sec. M.4, Factor 1 – EMR Report |
| 97 |
| For an Offeror submitting as a Joint Venture (JV), please confirm whether Factor 1 (EMR Report) may be satisfied by submitting individual, signed EMR letters from each JV partner's respective insurance carrier. |
| Yes |
| 7 |
| L.10 |
| 91 |
| Concerning bonding, The RFP states that “A contractor may only receive up to two (2) awards or two IDIQ awards/sites.” Yet the bonding requirements mandate that the contractor show an aggregate amount of $10 billion. Is this correct? |
| The aggregate bonding capacity has been reduced to $2 billion. |
| 8 |
| Opening Statement |
| 2 |
| The RFP states that “Offerors shall submit price proposals for Task Orders listed below using the specifications and drawings listed in the task order solicitation (SEE attachment L-A).” We see no such attachment in the documents posted on Sam.gov. |
| There is no such attachment. The drawings and specs are in the solicitation. |
| 9 |
| B.2 |
| 4 |
| Section B.2 provides the Pricing Schedule. Can offerors propose for individual CLINS or do offers need to be inclusive of all CLINS? |
| Individual CLINS is acceptable |
| 10 |
| L.10 |
| 90 |
| The opening paragraph for Section L. 10 Proposal Preparation Instructions states that “Proposals shall be separated into three (3) volumes”, however the table provided immediately following this paragraph notes only Volume I and II. Can the government please clarify the correct number of volumes? |
Two volumes
| 11 |
| C.2 |
| 20 |
| Section C. 2 Place of Performance notes that the locations for the CLIN 1 Mega Hub include Aquadilla, PR (MIA), Broadview, IL (CHI), Guantanamo Bay, Huntsville, TX (HOU), Oakdale, LA (NOL), St. Thomas, USVI (MIA), and Honolulu HI. However, Aquadilla and St. Thomas are also identified as the place of performance for CLINs 2 and 8 respectfully. Can the government please clarify if an offerors submission for CLIN 1 should also address the Statements of Work for CLIN 2 (Aquadilla) and CLIN 8 (St. Thomas)? |
Submissions should address CLIN 2 and CLIN 8 also.
| 12 |
| RFP Attachments |
| Attachments A-G |
| Typically, the term scenario refers to a hypothetical example that vendors respond to which is used to demonstrate a vendor’s ability to satisfy requirements. In this solicitation, each “scenario” has a detailed Statement of Work and Attachment L pricing template. Are scenarios illustrative of potential work or specific requirements that the government is looking to contract? |
Scenarios are hypothetical examples.
| 13 |
| M.1; M.5 |
| 96; 102 |
| Section M.1 General states that “A contractor may only receive one award from this solicitation.”. Section M.5 Source Selection Decision stipulates that “Up to nine (9) awards may be made as a result of this solicitation. A contractor may only receive up to two (2) awards or two IDIQ awards/sites.” Can the government please clarify the number of awards a contractor may receive? |
Contractors may receive up to two (2) IDIQ awards.
| 14 |
| L.10; H.6 |
| 91; 30 |
| RFP Section L.10 – Factor 2 – Bonding Capacity stipulates that an “Offeror shall provide a signed letter, from an approved surety, stating the offeror has, as a minimum, both a current bonding capacity for this acquisition of at least $10 million (per project) and at least $10 billion for the aggregate project amount. |
Section H.6 Minimum / Maximum Quantity states that “The maximum amount of work which may be required under this contract is $10,000,000,000.00” and “the total amount of all SATOCs under all contracts awarded under solicitation number 70CMSW26R00000012 shall not exceed $300,000,000.00 for the 5-year period of performance”.
Given that work authorized under solicitation number 70CMSW26R00000012 is not representative of maximum contract value, do offerors need to submit bonding for the entire aggregate project ($10B) or can offeror’s submit the respective value for the number of projects being offered ($10M/project)?
The total amount of the SATOC’s shall not exceed $10 billion. The aggregate bonding capacity has been reduced to $2 billion.
| 15 |
| RFP Introduction; L.10 |
| 3; 90 |
| RFP p. 3 identifies Ms. Mona Mehta and Ms. Keara Jacobs as the ICE OAQ points of contact. RFP Section L.10 Proposal Preparation Instructions identifies Ms. Mona Mehta and Mr. Daniel Correia at the ICE OAQ points of contact. Can the government please confirm the ICE points of contact? |
Ms. Mona Mehta, Ms. Keara Jacobs and Mr. Daniel Correia.
| 16 |
| Sec. L.10, Vol I: Factor 3 - Past Performance |
| (P. 90 & 97-98) |
| The solicitation states that Attachment I, the Past Performance Questionnaire, is used by ICE to record past performance information, and further states that "offerors are not required to take any action regarding this form." |
Please confirm: once Attachment I is provided, is the offeror (contractor) required to fill out the PPQ form.
The offeror shall send the PPQ to their references to full out and submit.
| 17 |
| Sec. L.10, Vol I: Factor 3 - Past Performance |
| (P. 90 & 97-98) |
| Will ICE accept Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) that were previously completed for prior federal solicitations/submissions as part of this proposal's past performance evaluation, provided they are for relevant/recent efforts. This is usually accepted on federal bids. |
| Yes |
| 18 |
| Aquadilla SHU SOW |
| Page 27, Section 2.10.8-i |
| Please provide the MCS and MCI equipment that the cell manufacturer will provide to control field devices mentioned in this paragraph. |
| This is a design build project and that would be determined during design and coordinated through the Contractor’s cell manufacturer. |
| 19 |
| Aquadilla SHU SOW |
| Page 27, Section 2.10.9 |
| Please provide more detail on “the controls for the valves in all of the cells shall be located in the Control Room” |
Who is providing these control switches?
The contractor shall provide all control switches.
| 20 |
| Appendix J |
| 8 |
| The contractor shall provide and install an eight-hour rated backup battery solution for all ESS hardware. The network switches for this project are 1050watts, which will require a 2U UPS and (7) 2U battery packs, the NVR depending on 30, 45, or 60 days of storage will require a 2U UPS and (10) 2U battery packs, the UPS and Battery Packs will require a full height rack by themselves. Will there be a Generator to back up the IT room and our equipment and if so how much battery backup would be required |
| Yes, the site will have a generator to support the ESS. Battery back-up requirement is 8 hours. |
| 21 |
| Appendix J |
| 10 |
| The ICE written Scope calls for HID Signo 40K keypad readers, the drawing notes on page 19 call for CR to be Identiv uTrust keypad readers. Which should be provided? |
| Card readers removed from revised SOW. See revised 3/7/25 Version 2 SOW. |
| 22 |
| Appendix J |
| 11,14,17 |
| Multiple references to Bldg. 1 Control Center, where is this located? Located within this building, or a remote location? |
| It is a separate building at the SPC. |
| 23 |
| Appendix J |
| 11 |
| Please indicate the location of the existing CCURE 9000 system that the new failover server will be communicating with. |
| Bldg. 1 Main IT room |
| 24 |
| Appendix J |
| 17 |
| The SECURITY SYSTEMS DETAILS-ATTACHMENT (1) |
pages 16, 17, and 18 do not match the drawing on page 19 (example) there are 6 readers called out in the written scope and 8 shown on the drawing, there is an In/Out reader on the Security Office Control Room that is not in the written scope, which should we follow the written scope or the drawing?
Readers removed from revised SOW. See revised 3/7/25 Version 2 SOW and electronic access floorplan
| 25 |
| Appendix J |
| 18 |
| The ICE written Scope calls for (18) Intercoms, but the drawing on page 19 only shows (3). What should we follow, the written scope or the drawing? |
| New SOW has 20 Intercoms and reflects same on floorplan. |
| 26 |
| Appendix J |
| 18 |
| The ICE written Scope calls for (3) Video Monitor Locations, but the drawing on page 19 shows (2). Where is the SHU Control Room located? |
| See Revised SOW and floorplan. |
| 27 |
| Appendix J |
| 18 |
| The ICE written Scope calls for (8) Duress Buttons, but the drawing on page 19 shows (10). What should we follow, the written scope or the drawing? |
| See revised SOW and floorplan |
| 28 |
| Appendix J |
| 18 |
| Is there a requirement that the emergency duress buttons, or any other security devices be monitored off-site by an FPS Mega Center? |
| No. It stays internal |
| 29 |
| Appendix J |
| 19 |
| Recreation yards perimeter door/gates, do these need to be protected with door position switches? |
| Electronic locks |
| 30 |
| Fire Alarm |
| RFI-1 |
| Standard FA system using horns/horn-strobes (or) combined FA/MNS using speakers/speaker-strobes? |
| Horn Strobes |
| 31 |
| Fire Alarm |
| RFI-2 |
| Flex 50s or 100W Amps? If 100W amps are preferred, is backup or no backup required? |
| No Voice System for F/A |
| 32 |
| Fire Alarm |
| RFI-3 |
| Standalone or needs network capabilities? |
| Must be compatible with the existing network and shall be connected via fiber to central control |
| 33 |
| Fire Alarm |
| RFI-4 |
| Is an external communicator needed? If so, please clarify which one? |
| Yes, located in Central Control. Specify one for the system chosen. |
| 34 |
| Fire Alarm |
| RFI-5 |
| Battery requirements? |
| Size battery as per NFPA requirements |
| 35 |
| Fire Alarm |
| RFI-6 |
| Is Class A or Class B required? |
| Class A |
| 36 |
| Fire Alarm |
| RFI-7 |
| “System Record Documents” or “Fire Alarm Documents” for |
the fire alarm document box type?
Please clarify??
| 37 |
| Fire Alarm |
| RFI-8 |
| Locate FACP in Electrical Rm or in Security Control Rm? |
| In the electrical room |
| 38 |
| Fire Alarm |
| RFI-9 |
| Locate annunciator at Entry Vestibule or in Security Control Rm? |
| Control room |
| 39 |
| Fire Alarm |
| RFI-10 |
| Provide a pull station in the Security Control Rm only (or) at all exits? |
| All exits |
| 40 |
| Fire Alarm |
| RFI-11 |
| Is facility Sprinklered? |
| Yes |
| 41 |
| Fire Alarm |
| RFI-12 |
| Are there any HVAC units with 2,000 CFMs or above? |
| This will be determined during the mechanical design. |
| 42 |
| Fire Alarm |
| RFI-13 |
| Are there any required interfaces with HVAC, sprinkler/suppression, generator, a/v system, sound system, egress/emergency lighting, or any other third-party systems? |
| The system will be interconnected with HVAC systems, Sprinkler systems, and generator. |
| 43 |
| Fire Alarm |
| RFI-14 |
| Any door holders and/or relays for door holders required on FA system? |
| No |
| 44 |
| Fire Alarm |
| RFI-15 |
| What is the preferred color/lettering for notification appliance? |
| Standard red and white |
| 45 |
| Fire Alarm |
| RFI-16 |
| Addressable or non-addressable notification appliances? |
| Addressable |
| 46 |
| Fire Alarm |
| RFI-17 |
| Security vandal guard for detectors, institutional covers for pull stations, and wire guards on all devices (or) only for devices located in areas accessible to detainees? |
| In areas accessible by detainees only |
| 47 |
| Fire Alarm |
| RFI-18 |
| Provide outdoor notification on exterior wall near doors at occupied areas only (or) near each entrance/exit door at facility? |
| By each and every exterior door |
| 48 |
| Appendix C: SPC Detention Standards |
| B-13-1 |
Section C. Electronic Security DATED: 01 November 2004 This specification section describes an Electronic Security System that is intended to be fully integrated with several independent security systems.
Upon further review, these independent security systems reference additional Division 13 specifications.
Additionally, the date of this document is concerning, as the Division 13 Electronic Security System specifications appear to be significantly outdated.
Electronic security systems are currently specified under Division 28, and the requirements should be updated to reflect current industry standards and technologies.
Question(s):
Please provide the applicable Division 13 security specifications or the updated Division 28 Electronic Security System specifications for review.
Follow the Appendix J SOW for the ESS requirements.
| 49 |
| Appendix C: SPC Detention Standards |
| RFI-19 |
| What SCADA system is required for a building or facility that is not located directly on the base? |
| N/A |
| 50 |
| Sec L.9, Deadline for Submission of Proposals |
| (P. 88) |
| As Offerors are anticipating RFI responses to be issued by August 14, 2026, we request that the proposal due date be extended by three (3) weeks, to September 4, 2026. This extension will allow us adequate time to review and incorporate any impacts to the Scope of Work resulting from the RFI responses into the proposals. |
| Proposal due date will be extended to August 31, 2026. |
| 51 |
| Cover Letter, Section: H.7 |
| 1;30-32 |
| The Solicitation notes the award of approximately 9 IDIQ contracts, with contractors awarded no more than 2 IDIQ contracts. Will each SACC cover different geographic areas? After the minimum guarantee task orders, how will DHS determine which SACC will be awarded future task orders? |
| Each SACC will cover a different geographical area. The government is not obligated to make awards after the minimum guarantee is met. |
| 52 |
| NA |
| NA |
| Are there any Interagency Support Agreements between DHS/ICE that would hinder vendors’ ability to access performance locations, or require additional coordination to perform work pursuant to the RFP? |
| No |
| 53 |
| Section B.2 – Pricing Schedule |
4-6
| Secure Housing Unit (SHU). Regarding pricing of the SHU sample projects/scenarios identified in the solicitation, is the government requiring offerors to submit complete firm-fixed-price proposals using the provided pricing templates (e.g., Attachment L Task Order pricing template and/or Attachment K IDIQ pricing template) for ALL listed SHU projects/scenarios, or only for a specific project? Please clarify exactly which projects must be priced, how many price volumes or CLINs are required, and how the Government will evaluate price if pricing of multiple scenarios is mandatory. |
| Response? |
| 54 |
| Section H.7(vii) – Bond Requirements |
| 32 |
| Bonding Capacity Thresholds. Please clarify the exact bonding capacity thresholds required under this solicitation. Specifically, what is the minimum single-project bonding capacity and the minimum aggregate bonding capacity that offerors must demonstrate (e.g., is it $10 million per project and $300 million aggregate, $10 billion aggregate, or a different amount)? Please identify the precise section of the RFP or attachment that states these thresholds, confirm whether a current surety letter is required as part of the proposal, and clarify how bonding capacity will be evaluated for joint ventures or contractor team arrangements (Acceptable/Unacceptable). |
| The aggregate bonding capacity has been reduced to $2 billion. |
| 55 |
| Section B.2 – IDIQ Ordering Scope |
| 4-6 |
| To assist industry in evaluating performance and financial risks, please clarify the expected volume and prioritization of task orders over the five-year period, including the relative weighting of various locations for CONUS and OCONUS sites. |
| The total amount of the SATOC’s shall not exceed $10 billion. |
| 56 |
| Section B.2 – Pricing Schedule |
| 5 |
| Of the sample SHU projected priced in the solicitation, which are currently funded versus scenario-based? |
| Viable projects vs Scenario |
| 57 |
| Section H.7 – SATOC Procedures |
| 30-32 |
| What is the Government’s process and timeline for converting scenarios into funded task orders? |
| Scenarios are not guaranteed to be funded task orders. |
| 58 |
| Section B.2 – Ordering Limits |
| 4-6 |
| Will the Government provide an anticipated annual ordering range or historical demand data to assist offerors in assessing cash-flow and bonding exposure? |
| Not at this time |
| 59 |
| Section H.6 – Minimum/Maximum Quantities |
| 30 |
| Will the Government confirm the maximum ordering limitation per IDIQ contract and whether the stated ceiling is per award or aggregate across awards? |
| Aggregate across the awards |
| 60 |
| Section H.7(vii) – Bond Requirements |
| 32 |
| What are the specific performance and payment bond requirements at the IDIQ level versus individual task-order level? How will bonding capacity be evaluated for Joint Ventures or contractor team arrangements? |
| The bonding capacity is required at the IDIQ level and bonds will be required at the Task order level. JV’s/teaming agreements should submit their joint capacity. |
| 32 |
| Will the Government accept bonding from the teaming partners collectively, or must the Prime (or each awardee) demonstrate independent capacity? |
| Prime must demonstrate the acceptable bonding capacity |
| 62 |
| Section L.6 – FAR 52.236‑2 |
| 85 |
| Please confirm whether differing site conditions will be handled under standard FAR differing site conditions clauses, and how risk is allocated under FFP design-build task orders. |
| Correct |
| 63 |
| Section H.5; Section C.12 |
| 30,14 |
| Are there any special insurance or indemnification requirements related to work inside active Service Processing Centers (e.g., perimeter security systems, PREA compliance during construction)? |
| All work and standards are as outlined in the SOW |
| 64 |
| Section C.10; Section H.8–H.10 |
14; 32–36
| What security clearance or suitability investigation requirements apply to contractor personnel working at operational SPCs versus closed or new construction sites? What is the expected timeline for processing, and who bears the cost and schedule risk of delays? |
| All persons supporting the contract must pass a background check which varies by how long they will be working on the project. Some checks will take a few days others may take a few months. These delays cannot be controlled by ICE and must be factored into the proposal timeline. No cost. |
| 65 |
| Section C.10 – Security Requirements |
| 14 |
| How will the Government coordinate contractor access, escorting, and work sequencing to maintain continuous containment and operational capability at active facilities? |
| The contract COR will coordinate access to the site |
| 66 |
| Section C.12 – Security Infrastructure |
| 14-15 |
| What specific requirements apply when modifying or tying into existing perimeter detection systems, fiber-optic fencing, or electronic security systems? Who retains configuration control and liability during the transition? |
| The perimeter detection system is not part of this RFP. The electronic security system is managed by ICE personnel on site. |
| 14 |
| Confirm PREA and detention-standards compliance expectations for construction activities that may temporarily affect housing, movement, or visibility between detainee areas, if applicable to any identified active sites. |
| No contractors should be involved with Detainees or Detainee operations. |
| 68 |
| Section C.15–C.16 – Environmental & NEPA Requirements |
| 15-16 |
| Clarify the contractor’s exact responsibilities and liability for NEPA documentation (Categorical Exclusions, Environmental assessments, etc.), state/local permitting, and cultural-resource compliance, across the CONUS and OCONUS sites. |
| NEPA documentation requirements are only required for the Ft. Benning Classroom project and requirements are outlined in Paragraph 3 of the OFTP Classroom SOW. Contractor’s are responsible for acquiring necessary permits. Any additional NEPA requirements will be outlined for future task orders. |
| 69 |
| Section C.9 – Site Conditions |
| 13-14 |
| Given that the Port Isabel geotechnical report is referenced for multiple projects, how will site-specific subsurface conditions at CONUS or OCONUS sites be addressed if they differ materially? Will the Government furnish additional Geotech data prior to task-order pricing? |
| Assume the Port Isabel geotechnical conditions exist at the sample project sites and price accordingly. Site specific geotechnical conditions will be addressed in future task orders RFPs. |
| 70 |
| Section C.3 – Performance Requirements |
| 7-10 |
| Confirm the applicability and hierarchy of the ICE facility design guide, Performance-Based National Detention Standards, ACA Standards, and any project-specific SHU statements of work. How will design deviations or Government-directed changes be priced and scheduled under FFP task orders? |
| These standards all apply. Any specific questions will be addressed using the RFI process during the design phase. |
| 71 |
| Section C.2 – Period of Performance; Section F |
| 7;23 |
| What is the standard period of performance of SHU-type projects (e.g., the 730-calendar-day reference), and are liquidated damages or other schedule incentives/disincentives contemplated? |
| The period of performance for the SHU is 730 365 calendar days. |
Liquidated damages will apply.
| 72 |
| Section C.8 – Project Schedule Requirements |
| 13-14 |
| Will the Government allow concurrent design and construction or require 100% design completion before construction start on task orders? |
| The 100% design must be approved by the Government prior to start of construction. There will be an NTP for design and a separate NTP for construction. |
| 73 |
| Section L – Past Performance & Evaluation |
| 82-90 |
| Will ICE evaluate the relevant past performance of major subcontractors, joint-venture members, predecessor entities, and key personnel performing critical portions of the requirement? May Team Contractor/ submit an integrated performance record when each party's role, capacity delivered, NDS 2025 compliance, schedule, and outcomes are clearly documented? |
| The prime contractor’s past performance will be considered as well as teaming partners. |
| 74 |
| Section B.2 – Award Limitation |
| 1 |
| Confirm that no single offeror (including members of a joint venture or contractor team arrangement) may receive more than two IDIQ awards, and clarify how this restriction is applied when multiple entities form a single offeror entity. |
| Single offeror/firm will not receive more than two IDIQ awards. |
| 75 |
| Section L – OCI Requirements |
| 86-87 |
| Are there any restrictions on the division of work (design vs. Construction, CONUS vs. OCONUS) between teaming partners that would affect evaluation or post-award administration? |
| No. All resumes for key personnel must be approved upon award. |
| 76 |
| Section C.1–C.3 – General Performance Requirements |
| 20-21 |
| What unique logistics, labor, licensing, import, or security requirements apply to performance at the potential OCONUS locations? |
| If the location is an island, concerns would include sourcing materials as well as specialized labor market. |
| 20-21 |
| Will the Government provide any host-nation or territorial support (utilities, access roads, force protection coordination) at OCONUS sites, or is the contractor solely responsible? |
| Contractor is solely responsible. |
| 78 |
| Section H.8–H.10 – Security Requirements |
| 32-36 |
| Are there any known restrictions on foreign national labor or material sourcing at the OCONUS locations that offerors should be aware of? |
| Each individual employed under the contract shall be a citizen of the United States of America, or an alien who has been lawfully admitted for permanent residence as evidenced by a Permanent Resident Card. Contractors shall identify in their proposals, the names and citizenship of all non-U.S. citizens proposed to work under the contract. |
| 79 |
| RFP L/M; SAM.gov Notice |
| N/A |
| Will ICE confirm that past-performance relevance will be evaluated based on similarity of scope, size, scale, complexity, security, schedule, and NDS 2025 outcomes, rather than the NAICS code assigned to the prior contract, and that NDS 2025-compliant temporary or modular detention facilities performed under NAICS codes other than 236220 will be considered relevant? |
| All past performance should be under NAICS 236220 |
| 80 |
| Section C.3 |
| 1-5 |
| Will ICE accept and provide evaluation credit for proven prefabricated, permanent-modular, pre-engineered, and cold-formed-steel construction methods when an offeror demonstrates compliance with NDS 2025 and all applicable ICE design, security, life-safety, durability, commissioning, and lifecycle requirements, together with an accelerated CPM schedule? |
| The design must be in accordance with the concept drawings, SOW, and all applicable standards. |
| 81 |
| Section C.1, C.3; RFP B/L |
| 1, 5; N/A |
| Would ICE consider awarding or assigning more than two sites to a contractor/team that demonstrates aggregate bonding capacity, concurrent program management, accelerated schedules, and ownership or contractual control of deployable construction assets? For urgent requirements, may documented asset readiness support any lawful limited-competition or exception determination? |
| No more than two sites will be awarded to a contractor. |
| 82 |
| RFP L - Q&A / Site Visits |
| N/A |
| How will ICE receive and answer material questions arising during subsequent task-order site visits that are not addressed in the current Q&A? Will each affected requirement receive a written question period, and will written amendments or Q&A take precedence over oral statements? |
| It will be handled at the task order level. |
| 83 |
| Section C.3 |
| 1-5 |
| For each task order, will ICE identify whether the required facility is permanent, relocatable, temporary, or interim; its required design life, foundation type, expansion or relocation expectations, and end-of-use disposition? What approval process and timeline will apply to modular/CFS equivalencies and alternate materials? |
ICE may provide either key performance requirements and concept drawings or a 35% design for future task orders. All buildings are permanent unless stated otherwise and will be design build, with ICE approval of final design before construction. Timelines must be in accordance with the stated period of performance.
| 84 |
| Section C.3 |
| 1-5 |
| What is the order of precedence among the task-order Section, ICE Facility Design Guide, NDS 2025, SPC Detention Construction Standards, ACA criteria, NFPA 101, and applicable state/local codes, and which edition will control when the documents conflict? |
| The most stringent standard applies. All codes should be latest edition at time of contract award. Any specific questions will be addressed using the RFI process during the design phase. |
| 85 |
| Section C.8; C.16 |
| 8; 10-12 |
| Will task orders permit early design releases, advance material procurement, offsite fabrication during design review, phased site work, incremental commissioning, and beneficial occupancy by secure functional area? How will ICE evaluate, and credit verified schedule reductions enabled by those methods? |
| No. No construction will begin prior to approval of 100% design and issuance of NTP for construction. |
| 86 |
| Section C.7; C.9 |
| 8 |
| For each site, what surveys, geotechnical reports, utility capacity/condition information, environmental determinations, as-builts, security-system drawings, easements, and permitting status will be Government-furnished? How will differing site conditions or inaccurate Government data be treated under firm-fixed-price task orders? |
| The SOW of each task order provides known information for each site and addresses these concerns individually. See response to question 62. |
| 87 |
| Section C.10; Security Req. |
| 9; 15-21 |
| What access windows, escort ratios, background-vetting lead times, workhour and outage restrictions, laydown/staging areas, and detainee-operation constraints should offerors include? Will Government-caused access, badging, escort, approval, or operational delays entitle the contractor to appropriate schedule and price relief? |
All persons supporting the contract must pass a background check which varies by how long they will be working on the project. Some checks will take a few days others may take a few months. These delays cannot be controlled by ICE and must be factored into the proposal timeline.
| 88 |
| Section C.3; C.9 |
| 1-5; 8 |
| Where permanent utility capacity or tie-ins constrain schedule, may offerors propose code-compliant interim or enduring self-contained power, water, wastewater, hygiene, cooling, fire-protection, and communications systems, with a defined Government approval, commissioning, and transition path? |
| This can be determined on a case by case basis, but the Contractor will be allowed extra time to the period of performance for any delays deemed outside their control. |
| 89 |
| Section C.11-C.14; C.18; Security / Privacy / SCRM / AI |
| 9-10; 12-13; 15-34 |
| Which Kahua, BIM, LEED, commissioning, data/API, Section 508, cybersecurity, privacy, SCRM, and AI requirements apply to every task order versus only when specifically invoked? Which AI clause controls, and may approved Contractor/ tools exchange non-sensitive data through documented interfaces? |
| All requirements as included in the SOW are applicable. |
| 90 |
| Section C.8; RFP B |
| 8; N/A |
| How will ICE address escalation in structural steel, electrical gear, HVAC equipment, tariffs, freight, and remote/OCONUS logistics over the five-year ordering period? Will task orders provide indexation or other relief for Government-caused delays beyond bid validity while recognizing materials already owned or contractually controlled? |
| Will be addressed at the task order level. |
| 91 |
| Section C.11 |
| 14 |
| In PWS Section C.11 the government states they will be using Kahua software for project management of construction projects. Is the expectation that the contractor (and its teaming partners) utilizes the same software solution? |
| Yes |
| 92 |
| RFP Section: B.1 – Supplies/Services to Be Provided; Section: C.2 – Place of Performance |
| 4,20-21 |
| The Solicitation states, "Any SATOC approved to be awarded under this IDIQ will be negotiated and administered by the requesting ICE SATOC Contracting Office." Will each SACC be aligned to the geographic area a contracting office covers? |
| Will be addressed at the task order level |
| 93 |
| Section: B.2 – Pricing Schedule |
| 5 |
| Are offerors required to submit technical solutions and/or pricing for all CLINs? May an offeror submit a proposal for a particular CLIN? |
Technical solutions are required
| 94 |
| Section: C.2 – Period of Performance; RFP Section: H.7 – SATOC Procedures |
| 7,30-32 |
| The Solicitation states, "Each individual SATOC issued under this contract will include its own specific period of performance and schedule, which will be defined in the SATOC documentation. SATOC durations may vary depending on the scope and complexity of the work." As an IDIQ contract, will additional task orders be issued on each SATOC beyond the specific requirements listed in the solicitation? |
| Yes |
| 95 |
| Section: C.2 – Place of Performance |
| 20-21 |
| The Solicitation states, "The principal place of performance under this contract will be cited in each SATOC issued under the SACC." Will the government state the performance area for each SATOC as part of the solicitation? |
| The locations are provided in the RFP |
| 96 |
| Section: H.6 – Minimum / Maximum Quantity |
| 30 |
| The Solicitation states, "the total amount of all SATOCs under all contracts awarded under solicitation number 70CMSW26R00000012 shall not exceed $300,000,000.00 for the 5-year period of performance." Is $300,000,000.00 the maximum quantity for each SATOC? If a contractor may only be awarded two SATOCs, and each SATOC has a maximum quantity of $300,000,000.00, is the maximum value any contractor could be awarded $600,000,000.00? Would the government consider lowering the bond requirement to $600,000,000.00? |
| The total amount of SATOCs will not exceed $10 Billion |
| 97 |
| C.2, Place of Performance |
| 20 |
| The solicitation identifies one "Mega Hub DC" IDIQ covering Aguadilla, Broadview, Guantanamo Bay, Huntsville, Oakdale, St. Thomas, and Honolulu. Please clarify whether one contractor will receive the IDIQ covering all listed Mega Hub locations and whether that contractor must maintain the organizational, bonding, licensing, and subcontractor capacity necessary to support all listed locations concurrently. |
| One contractor will receive the IDIQ covering all listed Mega Hub locations and must maintain the organizational, bonding, licensing, and subcontractor capacity necessary to support all listed locations concurrently. |
| 98 |
| L.10 |
| 90 |
| Section L.10 states that “Proposals shall be separated into three (3) volumes”; however, the proposal-content table identifies only Volume I and Volume II. Can the Government please clarify |
| Volume 1 and Volume II |
| 99 |
| L.10 |
| 90 |
| Section L.10 instructs offerors to identify the email subject line as Solicitation No. 70CMSW25R00000012, while the solicitation number appearing throughout the RFP is 70CMSW26R00000012. Please confirm the correct solicitation number to use in the proposal submission email subject line. |
| 70CMSW26R00000012 |
| 100 |
| Cover Letter; L.10 |
| 2-3; 90 |
| The cover letter states that “Price exhibits will be provided in Microsoft Excel with working formulas and that offerors shall return the Price Volume in Microsoft Word format”, while Section L.10 permits Word, Excel, PDF, or a combination thereof. Please confirm whether completed Attachments K and L must be submitted as unlocked Microsoft Excel files with working formulas together with a separate Word or PDF price narrative. |
| Attachments K and L must be submitted as unlocked Microsoft Excel files with working formulas together with a separate Word or PDF price narrative. |
| 101 |
| L.10, Volume II; M.4, Factor 6 |
| 95; 102 |
| Volume II states that the evaluated price will include the base IDIQ, scenario projects, and Port Isabel, but it does not state that Fort Benning will be included. Can the Government clarify if Fort Benning will be included in the total evaluated price? |
| Fort Benning will be included in the total evaluated price |
| 102 |
| B.2; H.7; L.10, Volume II |
| 5; 30-32; 95 |
| Please clarify whether the scenario prices are binding firm-fixed prices that may be incorporated into initial SATOC awards or are requested solely for IDIQ price-evaluation purposes. |
| Solely for IDIQ price-evaluation purposes |
| 103 |
| L.10, Volume II |
| 90 |
| Section L.10 lists the requirement for Volume II, to include an Attachment K for IDIQ and Attachment L for Scenarios and Port Isabel Pricing. Can the Government please confirm that it requires one separate Attachment K for IDIQ and one separate Attachment L for Task Orders which would encompass all sites(Total of 2 excel files)? |
| Correct; total of 2 excel files. |
| 104 |
| L.10, Volume II |
| 90 |
| Section L.10 provides a narrative limit of four pages "with each attachment." Please confirm whether offerors may submit one four-page narrative for Attachment K and one four-page narrative for Attachment L, or whether a separate four-page narrative is required for each individual scenario or project contained in Attachment L. |
| One 4 page narrative for Attachment K and one for 4 page narrative for Attachment L |
| 105 |
| OFTP_Classroom_SOW_Final_7_6_2026 |
| 34 |
| Reference to Appendix C, D, E for Architectural Plan Deviations, Site Plan Deviations, and Cubby/Locker Combo Details have not been released as an attachment to this solicitation. Will you be providing those documents? |
| Yes |
| What is expected distance from outside of the building for utilities to extend, for utility companies to tie into? Typically, 5’ or 10’. Can Government clarify. |
| Electrical power will connect to the transfer switch located at the generator which will be located outside the secure perimeter. All other utilities are ICE owned |
| 107 |
| M.1 vs M.5 / Cover |
| M.1 ~p.96; M.5 ~p.99; Cover p.1 |
| Award count: M.1 says 'a contractor may only receive one award'; cover letter & M.5 allow up to two IDIQs per contractor. Which governs? |
| Up to Two IDIQ’s per contractor. |
| 108 |
| L.10 F2; M.4; H.6 |
| L.10 ~p.92; M.4 ~p.98; H.6 ~p.31 |
| Bonding: Please confirm the intended AGGREGATE bonding capacity. The $10 billion figure as written (L.10 Factor 2 / M.4) appears inconsistent with the $300 million all-SATOC cap in H.6. |
| The aggregate bonding capacity has been reduced to $2 billion. |
| 109 |
| B.2; H.6 |
| B.2 p.6; H.6 ~p.31 |
| Ceiling: Please confirm the effective program maximum. B.2 and H.6 state $10 billion, while H.6 also states a $300 million cap on the total of all SATOCs under all contracts. Which controls? |
| Aggregate SATOC ceiling is $10 billion. |
| 110 |
| M.4 F3 |
| ~p.98 |
| Past performance size threshold: The relevancy definition states ‘exceeding $500,000’, but the same factor states past performance is ‘only assessed on projects exceeding $10,000,000’. Which threshold governs? |
| The size threshold is $25 Million |
| 111 |
| M.4 F3 |
| ~p.98 |
| Complexity definition reads ‘Single subcontractors in Single engineering disciplines… Single contractual efforts performed concurrently.’ Should this read ‘multiple’ rather than ‘single’? |
| Single is accurate |
| 112 |
| L.10 |
| ~p.91 |
| L.10 states proposals shall be separated into three (3) volumes but lists only Volumes I and II. Please confirm the structure and content of Volume III (e.g., representations & certifications). |
| Two Volumes |
| 113 |
| L.6; L.10 Vol II; B.2 |
| L.6 p.85; L.10 ~p.94; B.2 p.4 |
| Ft. Benning: This location is referenced as a viable project with a scheduled site visit, but no CLIN or pricing attachment exists for it. Is Ft. Benning pricing required, and if so, on which attachment should it be submitted? |
| Ft. Benning pricing is required and should be submitted using the pricing template. |
| 114 |
| L.10 F1; M.4 |
| L.10 ~p.92; M.4 ~p.98 |
| EMR: Please confirm the requirement is an Experience Modification Rate (EMR) of 1.0 OR LESS for each of the last three (3) years. The phrase ‘1.0 or less (>1.0)’ appears to contain a typographical error. |
| 1.0 or LESS |
| 115 |
| H.8 |
| ~p.34 |
| Facility clearance: H.8 requires access to Classified National Security Information (DD Form 254 / NISPOM). Is a Facility Clearance (FCL) required at proposal submission or IDIQ award, or only for specific SATOCs that require it? |
| That level is not required on this project |
| 116 |
| L.9 / L.10 F3 |
| ~p.90–91 |
| Past performance page limit: A limit of 2 pages per example with a 10-page total implies 5 examples, but the maximum allowed is 3 projects. Does the Design-Build narrative count within the 10-page total? |
| It does |
| 117 |
| Cover; L.6 |
| Cover p.2; L.6 p.85 |
| Site visit attendees: The cover letter allows a maximum of three (3) attendees per prime; L.6 limits attendance to two (2). Which applies? |
| Site visits are completed |
| 118 |
| L.10; Cover |
| L.10 ~p.91; Cover p.1 |
| The email subject-line instruction cites Solicitation No. 70CMSW25R00000012, while the cover letter cites 70CMSW26R00000012. Please confirm the correct solicitation number. |
| 70CMSW26R00000012 |
| 119 |
| Cover; B.2 |
| Cover p.1; B.2 p.4 |
| Competition basis: The cover letter states ‘large business only’, while B.2 states ‘full and open unrestricted.’ Please confirm the basis of competition. |
| Large businesses only |
| 120 |
| L.10 / M.4 F5 |
| L.10 ~p.94; M.4 ~p.98 |
| Small business subcontracting: The DHS FY26 figures are labeled PRIME contracting goals. Please confirm the percentages apply to subcontracted dollars for the Factor 5 subcontracting plan. |
| Confirmed |
| 121 |
| Cover; J |
| Cover p.2; J ~p.59 |
| The cover letter references awarding ‘Task Order 1-12’ while Attachments A–H cover 8 projects. Please confirm the number of initial task orders. |
| 9 projects including Ft. Benning |
| 122 |
| Attachment L |
| Attach. L (Estimate Summary tab, cells G10/H10) |
| Attachment L template: On the ‘Estimate Summary’ tab, the Concrete row’s Material and Equipment cells (G10, H10) reference the ‘02 - Existing Conditions’ sheet instead of ‘03 - Concrete’, understating Concrete totals. In addition, the division sheets contain no arithmetic formulas. Please confirm offerors may add totaling formulas and/or correct these references. |
| Confirmed |
| 123 |
| Attachments K & L; L.10 |
| Attach. K p.1–2; Attach. L; L.10 ~p.94 |
| Attachment L has no rows for overhead, profit, bond, insurance, escalation, or contingency; Attachment K CLIN 2001A separately proposes a G&A %. Please confirm all markups (other than the K-2001A G&A) are to be included in the Attachment L Labor/Material/Equipment unit rates, and clarify how the 2001A G&A percentage will be applied in task-order pricing. |
| All markups are to be included. Contractor may add/correct the attachment. |
| 124 |
| Solicitation C.4 |
| C.4 p.11; L.10 ~p.93; M.4 ~p.98; + SOW Key Personnel |
| Please clarify the required Designer of Record structure. Is the Government requiring one overall Designer of Record who is a Professional Engineer licensed in the project state, together with separate registered discipline professionals, or may the Architect of Record and Engineering Designers of Record share responsibility for their respective disciplines? Please also confirm whether each sealing professional must be licensed in the project jurisdiction. |
| The Government requires one overall Designer of Record who is a Professional Engineer licensed in the project state, together with separate registered discipline professionals. Each sealing professional must be licensed in the project jurisdiction. |
| 125 |
| Batavia SOW §2.9.3 (Power – standby generator) & §2.2.8 (Site Utilities – natural gas); Appendix C ; ICE Facility Design Guide (per Sol. C.3) |
| SOW §2.9.3 (per-site); Appendix C |
| Please confirm that the task-order requirement for one natural-gas standby generator supersedes the redundancy and generation-level guidance contained in Appendix C and the ICE Facility Design Guide. Please identify the required resilience/generation level, required emergency and standby loads, required fuel-duration criteria, and whether HVAC serving detainee housing must be supported by standby power. |
Confirmed. The engine generators must be sized to serve approximately 150% of the design load and to run at a maximum of 60 percent to 80 percent of the rated capacity after the effect of the inrush current declines. When sizing the generators, the initial voltage drop on generator output due to starting currents of loads must not exceed 15%. HVAC for the SHU must be supported by standby power. The natural gas generator will be connected directly to a natural gas line.
| 126 |
| N/A |
| N/A |
| Amendment 0001 extends the proposal due date. The revised solicitation dated 12 August 2026 states proposals are due 24 August 2026 at 2:00 p.m. EST, while Government Q&A No. 50 states the proposal due date will be extended to 31 August 2026. Please confirm the controlling proposal due date and time and issue conforming solicitation/offer documents. |
| 127 |
| N/A |
| N/A |
| Government Q&A No. 16 states that offerors shall send the Past Performance Questionnaire to their references for completion and submission, and revised Section J continues to identify Attachment I as the Past Performance Questionnaire. Attachment I was not included as a separate file in the Amendment 0001 package. Please provide Attachment I and confirm whether one completed PPQ is required for each submitted past performance example, the required submission email address, and the deadline for reference submission. |
| 128 |
| N/A |
| N/A |
| Government Q&A Nos. 2 and 3 clarify that only the Project Manager and Senior Environmental Professional resumes are required at proposal submission; however, Factor 4 continues to require a Certificate of Availability for “Key Personnel positions,” and the revised solicitation identifies the Project Manager, Senior Environmental Professional, Designer of Record, Registered Design Professionals, Superintendent, and Quality Control Manager as Key Personnel. Please confirm whether Certificates of Availability are required at proposal submission for all listed Key Personnel or only for the two positions whose resumes are required. |
| 129 |
| N/A |
| N/A |
| Revised Section J identifies Attachment J, Model Individual Subcontracting Plan (31 pages), and Factor 5 remains limited to 18 pages; however, Attachment J was not included as a separate file in the Amendment 0001 package. Please provide Attachment J and confirm whether offerors must complete the Government model in full and whether the completed model is excluded from the 18-page Factor 5 limitation or must be reformatted to fit within 18 pages. |
| 130 |
| N/A |
| N/A |
| Factor 4 requires a Preliminary Project Schedule demonstrating understanding of “the project,” while the revised Ft. Benning SOW separately includes reduced-period and acceleration options requiring an additional one-page narrative and accelerated preliminary project schedule as part of the technical evaluation. Please confirm which project or projects the Factor 4 Preliminary Project Schedule must address; whether an acceleration response is required for Ft. Benning; and where the acceleration narrative and schedule are to be submitted and whether they are excluded from Factor 4’s five-page limitation. |
| 131 |
| N/A |
| N/A |
| Revised Section M.4 continues to apply confidence-rating definitions to Factors 4 and 5 that are based on the offeror’s “relevant past performance,” rather than the content of the Management Plan and Small Business Subcontracting Plan. Please confirm the evaluation basis for Factors 4 and 5 and provide corrected confidence-rating definitions aligned to the criteria being evaluated. |
L (pgs 94-95)
Section L notes a preliminary project schedule. Do offerors assume this should be provided for BOTH of the viable projects (Pt. Isabel and Ft. Benning)?
| 133 |
| Section L, Section M, Revised SOW H1, Revised SOW H2 |
| L (pgs 94-95); M (pg 101); H1 (pgs 1-2); H2 (pg 1-2) |
| Section L notes a preliminary project schedule. Section M provides evaluation for an Option 2 accelerated schedule, and each SOW also introduces another Option 1 project schedule with reduced timelines. Please confirm that offerors should provide 1) and Original, 2) Option 1, and 3) Option 2 schedules for EACH of the viable projects? And if so, please provide instructions conformed in Section L and updated Section M with evaluation criteria for all options. |
| Section L, Section M, Revised SOW H1, Revised SOW H2 |
| L (pgs 94-95); M (pg 101); H1 (pgs 1-2); H2 (pg 1-2) |
Files point to an original and then Options 1 and 2 reduced schedule timelines for projects. The pricing template does not provide any location by which to price these optional schedules. Please advise how offerors are to provide pricing for these optional schedules if they are to be evaluated?