# Document Reference Document Reference Section Question / Request for Clarification DHS Response

1 Final Draft RFP Posting on 7- Aug-2026

Section C.4.4 (Foreign Partner Capacity- Building Support)

Section C.4.4 states that the Contractor shall procure materials, supplies, equipment, and vehicles to support DHS foreign assistance-funded activities, and lists 'Site improvements at foreign staging or housing locations (e.g., Los Planes de Gualaca)' among those activities, while the same section states that 'Construction is explicitly excluded.'

Will the Government confirm that the Contractor's responsibility is limited to procuring the materials, supplies, and equipment associated with such site improvements, and that the Contractor is not responsible for performing the physical site improvement work itself? If the Contractor is expected to perform or arrange performance of site improvement work, will the Government clarify how that expectation is reconciled with the construction exclusion?

Correct, the Contractor is only responsible for providing the materials but NOT responsible for conducting the physical site improvement work.

Construction exclusion does not interfere with the scope the contractor is authorized to perform.

2 Final Draft RFP Posting on 7- Aug-2026

Section C.11.2 (Post-Award Instructions Regarding Security Requirements for Non- Classified Contracts/Orders) and Section C.6.3 (Post Award Conference)

Given the personnel suitability and entry-on-duty processing timelines in PWS Section C.11.2, and the Post Award Conference requirement in C.6.3 (no later than five business days after award), will the Government confirm whether a defined transition-in or phase-in period will be established at the IDIQ or task order level? If so, will the Government provide the anticipated duration and clarify whether the Contractor is expected to achieve full operational capability, including cleared and EOD-approved personnel, at contract start, at the initial task order start, or at the conclusion of a defined transition period?

DHS MGMT shall work with DHS Personnel Security Division (PSD) to provide security determinations within the intial week of contract award. The Contractor shall abide by all requsted documentation to be completed in order to allow timely review and clearance by PSD. The Government expects Full Operating Capability (FOC) within 1 month of contract award.

3 Final Draft RFP Posting on 7- Aug-2026

Section C.10 (Government Acceptance Period) and Section E.2 (Inspection)

Section C.10 states that the COR will have 10 business days to review deliverables and make comments, while Section E ('Inspection') states that the Government requires a period not to exceed 30 calendar days for inspection and acceptance and will provide written notification of acceptance or rejection within 30 calendar days. Will the Government reconcile these provisions and confirm the controlling Government review and acceptance period for deliverables?

The Final Solicitation will be updated accordingly to address this question.

4 Final Draft RFP Posting on 7- Aug-2026

Section B.1 (General Description), Section G5 (Order Level Contracting Officer CO)), and Section H.1 (Authorized Users)

Section B.1 (General Description) and PWS Section C.1 state that the contract supports the DHS Office of the Under Secretary for Management, and Section H.1 (Authorized Users) identifies the DHS OPO Contracting Officers and the Office of the Under Secretary of Management as the authorized users, unless delegated authority is given to other DHS Contracting Officers. Section G.5 (Order Level Contracting Officer), however, states that "This is a centralized IDIQ Contract in support of the Office for Strategy, Policy, and Plans" and that no other DHS Component or office is authorized to issue orders.

Will the Government reconcile these provisions and confirm which organization is the sponsoring and authorized ordering activity for this IDIQ, and identify all offices and DHS components authorized to place orders?

The contract supports the DHS Office of the Under Secretary for Management. The Final Solicitation will be updated accordingly to address this question.

5 Final Draft RFP Posting on 7- Aug-2026

Section G.9 (Invoice Preparation and Submission) and Section B.4 (Types of Orders Allowable Under This IDIQ Contract)

Section G.9 (Invoice Preparation and Submission) states that "...The contractor shall attach backup information to the invoices and receiving reports substantiating all costs for services performed." While the same section provides that firm-fixed-price CLINs shall be billed in equal installments at the unit price identified in the CLIN schedule. Section B further describes the contract as providing for firm-fixed-price orders with identified reimbursable line items. Because payment under firm-fixed-price CLINs is based on delivery of the agreed services at the fixed price rather than on incurred costs, will the Government clarify the cost-substantiation expectation for firm-fixed-price CLINs? Specifically, will the Government confirm that cost backup and substantiation apply only to reimbursable line items such as ODCs, travel, and other reimbursable costs, and that firm-fixed-price CLINs require only evidence of delivery and acceptance consistent with RFO FAR 52.212-4?

Yes, the government confirms that for invoicing, cost backup and substantiation apply only to reimbursable line items such as ODCs, travel, and other reimbursable costs.

6 Final Draft RFP Posting on 7- Aug-2026

Section C.6.5 (Progress Report) and Section B.4 (Types of Orders Allowable Under This IDIQ Contract)

Section C.6.5 (Progress Report) requires the weekly progress report to include a breakdown of labor hours by labor category and all direct costs by line item. Section B provides that task orders will be firm-fixed-price with identified reimbursable line items, and Section G provides that firm-fixed-price CLINs will be billed in equal installments at the fixed unit price. Because firm-fixed-price performance is measured by delivery of the agreed services rather than by labor hours or incurred costs, will the Government clarify the reporting expectation for firm-fixed-price CLINs?

Specifically, will the Government confirm whether the labor-hour and direct-cost breakdowns are required only for time-and-materials, labor-hour, or reimbursable line items, or whether the progress report for firm-fixed-price work may instead focus on technical progress, schedule status, and deliverable completion?

Yes, the government confirms the labor-hour and direct-cost breakdowns are required only for time-and-materials, labor-hour, or reimbursable line items, and the progress report for firm-fixed-price work may focus on technical progress, schedule status, and deliverable completion.

7 Final Draft RFP Posting on 7- Aug-2026

Section B.5 (Materials and Other Direct Costs (ODCs)), Section B.6 (Other Direct Costs (ODC)) and B.7 (Travel)

Section B.5 (Materials and Other Direct Costs (ODCs)) and B.7 (Travel) state that the Contractor shall obtain Task Order COR approval (email acceptable) in advance of ODC purchases and travel events, while Section B.6 (Other Direct Costs (ODC)) states that ODC purchase requests must be coordinated with the Task Order CO to confirm scope and NTE ceiling compliance, and separately provides that OCOs shall make fair-and-reasonable determinations. Given that Section G states the COR has no authority to make commitments or changes affecting price or the NTE ceiling, will the Government clarify the required approval sequence for ODCs and travel, and confirm which authority (Task Order COR, Task Order CO, or OCO) provides the advance approval the Contractor must obtain before incurring costs?

Travel and Other Direct Costs (ODCs) are different types of line items and have different approval processes. The required approval sequence for ODCs and travel at the task order level will be confirmed in the individual task orders at the task order level. All travel will be reimbursed in accordance with Federal Travel Regulations.

8 Final Draft RFP Posting on 7- Aug-2026

Section B.5 (Materials and Other Direct Costs (ODCs)) and Section B.7 (Travel)

Section B provides that OCOs shall determine ODC and material prices fair and reasonable 'prior to task order award,' and separately that OCOs shall determine travel costs fair, reasonable, and allowable 'prior to the Contractor incurring and expensing any travel costs.'

Will the Government clarify at what point the fair-and-reasonable determination is made for ODCs and travel that are not priced at task order award, for example ODCs and travel events identified during performance, and confirm whether Contractor performance may proceed based on Task Order COR advance approval pending the OCO's determination?

Travel and Other Direct Costs (ODCs) are different types of line items and have different approval processes. The required approval sequence for ODCs and travel at the task order level will be confirmed in the individual task orders at the task order level. All travel will be reimbursed in accordance with Federal Travel Regulations.

CSRO II RFP Questions and Answers RFP # 70RDA126R00000008

9 Final Draft RFP Posting on 7- Aug-2026

Section G.8 (Task Order Placement Procedures) and Section B.4 (Type of Orders Allowable Under this IDIQ Contract)

Section G.8 (Task Order Placement Procedures) states that the Contractor shall provide evidence in its Quotation/Proposal that competitive proposals were obtained for pricing offered to the Government. Section B.4 (Types of Orders Allowable Under This IDIQ Contract) provides that all task orders shall be priced in accordance with the Government-provided Pricing Schedule (Attachment 1) and that proposed task order rates shall not exceed the rates established in the IDIQ contract. Will the Government confirm that the requirement to obtain competitive proposals applies only to non-pre-priced items, such as ODCs or added items not contained in Attachment 1, and does not apply to services and labor already competed and priced at the IDIQ level? Further, will the Government establish a minimum response time for Contractor task order proposals that require competitive-proposal evidence under Section G, so that the Contractor has adequate time to obtain competitive pricing for non-pre-priced items? Alternatively, will the Government confirm that expedited task orders will rely on the pre-priced rates established in Attachment 1 to the maximum extent practicable?

Pricing for task orders will be in accordance with the CLINs and pricing established on the IDIQ contract. Section G.8 applies to task order procedures post IDIQ award and therefore do not apply to this solicitation. Task Order requests for proposal will be issued separately.

10 Final Draft RFP Posting on 7- Aug-2026 Section H.2 (Training)

Section H.2 states, in pertinent part, "The Government will not allow costs, nor reimburse costs associated with the Contractor training employees to attain and/or maintain minimum personnel qualification requirements of this IDIQ contract or any Task Order." Could the Government please clarify whether this provision also applies to any DHS-specific training that may not otherwise be available via commercial channels?

The Final Solicitation will be updated accordingly to address this question.

11 Final Draft RFP Posting on 7- Aug-2026 Section L.6 (Evaluation Factors)

Section L.6.1 [Technical Approach (Factor I)] states, in pertinent part, that “[t]he Offeror’s Technical Approach shall demonstrate: Relevant experience…”

However, Section L.6.2 [Demonstrated Prior Experience (Factor II)] separately requires the Quoter to “describe demonstrated prior experience.”

Could the Government please clarify the distinction between the “Relevant Experience” requirement under Factor I and the “Demonstrated Prior Experience” requirement under Factor II? Specifically, how does the Government intend to differentiate its evaluation of experience under these two factors?

Additionally, the Evaluation Ratings for both Factors I and II appear to assess the level of confidence the Government has that “the Quoter understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the requirements of the contract.”

Given the apparent overlap in both the requested experience information and the evaluation criteria, could the Government clarify the distinct objectives and evaluation considerations for Factors I and II?

The Final Solicitation will be updated accordingly to address this question.

12 Final Draft RFP from 7-Aug-

Section C.4.3 (AVR Web Application Development)

Please confirm whether the Government’s intent is to integrate CSRO-specific functionality into the existing CBP Home App, rather than replace the application, as stated in the July 18 PWS.

Additionally, could the Government provide clarification regarding the anticipated CSRO-specific functionality to be integrated into the existing CBP Home App? Specifically, could the Government identify:

•The anticipated CSRO-specific functionality and features to be integrated;

•The organization responsible for ownership and management of the application baseline and its Authority to Operate

(ATO);

•The APIs and integration interfaces that will be Government-furnished;

•The development, test, and production environments that will be Government-furnished; and •The level of source-code access that will be Government-furnished versus developed and maintained by the Contractor.

This information will assist Offerors in developing an accurate technical approach, staffing plan, and cost estimate.

The Final Solicitation will be updated accordingly to address this question.

13 Final Draft RFP from 7-Aug-

Section L.4 (Proposal Preparation and Delivery Instructions) and Section L.4.1 (Volume 1 (Technical)

Section L.4.1 states, “The Offeror may include one (1) cover page, which does not count towards the aforementioned page limitation.” However, Section L.4 states, in pertinent part: “…The only exclusions from the Not-to-Exceed limits are: …Cover Letter…” It further provides:

“Cover Letter

All cover letters are limited to two (2) pages. Each Volume shall include a signed and dated cover letter…Note: Each cover letter submitted shall not contain any pricing or technical information.”

Could the Government please clarify whether the “cover page” referenced in Section L.4.1 and the “cover letter” referenced in Section L.4 are intended to refer to the same document? If they are separate documents, could the Government please clarify the applicable page limitations and submission requirements for each?

The Final Solicitation will be updated accordingly to address this question.

14 Final Draft RFP from 7-Aug- 2026 Section L.7.1 (Price Proposal [Factor III)]

Section L.7.1 states, “The Offeror shall propose fully burdened labor rates for all proposed labor categories and fixed prices for all services proposed on a per employee, per session, or per visit basis. The fully burdened rates are to be based upon the highest qualified employee within a given labor category working in the highest paid area within

CONUS.”

Could the Government please clarify whether this instruction is intended to preclude Offerors from proposing multiple labor levels within a labor category set (e.g., Program Analyst I, Program Analyst II, and Program Analyst III)? For example, should Offerors propose only the highest-level labor category (Program Analyst III) and corresponding fully burdened rate, rather than separate rates for Program Analyst I and Program Analyst II?

The Final Solicitation will be updated accordingly to address this question.

15 Final Draft RFP from 7-Aug-

Section L.6.2 [Prior Experience (Factor

II)]

Section L.6.2 states, “The Quoter shall describe demonstrated prior experience...which shall include at least one instance of demonstrated prior experience from the Prime Contractor’s Subcontractor (if any) in implementing the services referenced in the PWS of a similar scale and complexity.”

This language appears ambiguous because it requires at least one instance of prior experience from a subcontractor, while simultaneously qualifying the requirement with “if any.” To clarify the intent and avoid confusion regarding whether subcontractor experience is mandatory, we recommend removing the phrase “shall include at least one” or otherwise revising the sentence to clearly state whether subcontractor experience is required when a subcontractor is proposed. In the event that a Subcontractor past performance is submitted it may be useful for the Government to consider also requiring a copy of an executed Teaming Agreement.

The Final Solicitation will be updated accordingly to address this question.

Final Draft RFP L.6.2 - Demonstrated Prior Experience

(Factor II) Page 48 As past experience is listed as a weighted evaluation factor , would the government prefer a past performance volume separate from the Technical Volume with its own defining page count and reference requirements? Past performance is not being evaluated. The Final Solicitation will be updated accordingly to address this question.

SAM.gov listing Would the Government consider switching to NAICS code 561599 - All Other Travel Arrangement and Reservation Services, or something similar? 561599 better enompasses the nuances of CSRO. NAICS code 481211 is specific to "Nonscheduled Chartered Passenger Air Transportation," however the scope of this proposed requirement involves more broad travel arrangements: recruitment, commercial airline ticket purchases, foreign staging facilities, translators, app software, etc.

The NAICS code will remain the same.

18 Draft RFP

RFP L.6.2, page 48 According to L.6.2 of the Final Draft CSRO RFP, through prior experience from contracts/Task Orders (no more than four) performed within the last five (5) years, the Quoter shall describe prior experience in implementing the services referenced in the PWS of a similar scale and complexity.

Please confirm that the contract/Task Order references that Offerors (Prime Offeror and subcontractors) submit may collectively demonstrate performance of an effort of similar scale and complexity. Otherwise, requiring that each contract/Task Order demonstrate this experience will severely limit competition and the Government's options.

The Final Solicitation will be updated accordingly to address this question.

19 Draft RFP

RFP L.6.2, page 48 According to L.6.2 of the Final Draft CSRO RFP, through prior experience from contracts/Task Orders (no more than four) performed within the last five (5) years, the Quoter shall describe prior experience in implementing the services referenced in the PWS of a similar scale and complexity.

We recommend that the Government extend the recency window for past performance from five (5) to eight (8) years from the date the final RFP is published. Doing so will allow other very capable companies with relevant experience to participate in this solicitation, providing the Government additional options and solutions to choose from.

The Final Solicitation will be updated accordingly to address this question.

20 Draft RFP

RFP L.7.1, page 48 According to L.7.1, the Offeror shall propose fully burdened labor rates for all proposed labor categories and fixed prices for all services proposed on a per employee, per session, or per visit basis. It also states in Section L.7.1 that the Offeror shall use the Attachment 1 - Pricing Schedule when submitting proposed prices.

Please clarify how Attachment 1, the pricing instructions, and Scenario 1 align. In its current configuration, Attachment 1 does not align with the pricing instructions. For example, where shall the Offeror price the fully burdened labor categories? Are we correct in assuming that Attachment 1 is for IDIQ pricing and the Offeror shall submit a separate pricing file for the Scenario?

The Final Solicitation will be updated accordingly to address this question.

21 Draft RFP

RFP L.7.1, page 48 According to L.7.1, the Government will provide a Scenario which the Offeror must price. The Pricing Scenario will then serve as the evaluated price for purpose of this competition.

We recommend that the Government publish the Scenario as soon as possible.The earlier the scenario is published, the more refined and competitive pricing the Government will receive.

The Final Solicitation will be updated accordingly to address this question.

22 Draft RFP L.4.1, page 37 Will the Government confirm that the 11-point font does not apply to headers/footers, callout boxes, graphics/tables, and graphics/table captions and that 10-point or smaller is allowed, provided that it is legible?

Yes, provided that headers/footers, callout boxes, graphics/tables, and graphics/table captions don't use a font smaller than 10 point.

23 Draft RFP

Section C.4.1, Assisted Voluntary Return (AVR) Support Services, pp. 6-8;

paragraph beginning “The Contractor shall execute AVR workflows...” and subsection “Intensive Case Management - Detained Populations.”

Section C.4.1 states that placement on a List of Authorized Travelers (LAT) authorizes the Contractor to provide the full set of AVR support services, including intensive case management, for detained and non-detained individuals.

However, the detailed Intensive Case Management requirements are specifically identified for detained populations.

Please clarify the required case-management workflow and scope of services for non-detained LAT participants, including the activities expected between initial outreach/readiness assessment and ticketing, travel-document issuance, airport coordination, and departure.

The Final Solicitation will be updated accordingly to address this question.

24 Draft RFP Sections C.4.1 and C.4.3, pp. 6 and 9;

LAT authorization paragraph and AVR Web Application Development.

Please clarify the relationship between an individual’s submission or registration through CBP Home and placement on a List of Authorized Travelers (LAT). Does a CBP Home submission itself establish an authorized status for CSRO operational processing, or is separate DHS authorization required before the Contractor may provide participant-specific AVR services? If separate authorization is required, what confirmation or documentation is expected to be provided to the participant for use during subsequent processing and departure coordination?

The List of Authorized Travelers (LAT) is the vetted list at increments of 250 individuals received during the prior 24 hours. CBP Home submission does NOT constitute as an authorized traveler. ICE conducts vetting against the successfully enrolled CBP Home submissions to validate eligibility for receipt of Project Homecoming benefits.

Throught the received LATs the Contractor will be empowered to conduct outreach coordination with the enrollees to coordinate all functions of return. The process of submitting the LAT to the Contractor is the authroization to engage into logistics to faciliate the return with all indviduals received.

25 Draft RFP

Section C.4.1, pp. 6-8; Commercial Ticketing, Resettlement Stipend Processing, and Escort/Witnessed Departure Services; Section C.4.8, p. 11, Measures of Effectiveness.

The PWS requires Contractor-arranged ticketing and departure verification but does not state whether use of Contractor-procured transportation is a prerequisite to CSRO case completion, departure verification, or stipend eligibility for an otherwise authorized participant. Please clarify whether independently arranged transportation may be recognized within CSRO and, if so, the required process for pre-departure coordination, departure verification, case closure, and any remaining Government-authorized incentive or stipend processing.

Contractor procured transportation (ie, Uber, Lyft, Commercial Tickets) is NOT a pre-requisite for CSRO case completion. As discussed at the Industry Event, enrollees may elect to procure their own tickets and depart the United States, validating through CBP Home they have returned. The vendor will be responsible coordinating Stipend issuance and collection with the departed enrollee.

26 Draft RFP

Section C.4.3, p. 9, AVR Web Application Development; Section C.4.11,

p. 12, Future Codification of Standards and Timelines; Attachment 1, p. 5, Help Desk / User Support Specialist.

Attachment 1 anticipates a Help Desk / User Support Specialist, while Section C.4.3 requires participant communication and traveler engagement and Section C.4.11 references future social-media escalation protocols. Please clarify the intended scope of end-user support under CSRO, including application/status inquiries, technical issue escalation, and participant-reported operational problems. Will Task Orders establish response or resolution standards and define whether authorized trusted community channels may serve as escalation or referral points?

The Final Solicitation will be updated accordingly to address this question.

27 Draft RFP Section L.6.2, p. 49, Demonstrated Prior Experience.

Section L.6.2 permits demonstrated prior experience from a Prime Contractor’s subcontractor and requires experience implementing PWS services of similar scale and complexity. For a subcontractor proposed to perform a specialized portion of the PWS, will DHS evaluate the scale and complexity of that subcontractor’s prior experience against its proposed scope of work or against the overall CSRO requirement?

The Final Solicitation will be updated accordingly to address this question.

28 Draft RFP

Sections G.7-G.8, pp. 24-25, Award of Orders and Task Order Placement Procedures; Section L.6.2, p. 49, Demonstrated Prior Experience.

Given the worldwide scope of performance and the use of individual Task Orders for specific services and places of performance, may the IDIQ awardee add specialized regional or country-specific subcontractors at the Task Order level after IDIQ award, subject to applicable subcontracting and Government approval requirements, or must all material subcontractors be identified at the IDIQ proposal stage?

Individual task order requirements will be specified at the task order level.

29 8/12/2026 - Industry Day Event Industry Event Are there small business or subcontracting goals? The Final Solicitation will be updated accordingly to address this question.

30 8/12/2026 - Industry Day Event Industry Event Why was CSRO BPA GS33F0025V-70CDCR24A00000001 terminated for convenience and a stop work order issued? The referenced contract vehicle was not awarded by the Office of Procurement Operations.

31 8/12/2026 - Industry Day Event Industry Event Is this replacing Delivery Order 70RDA225FR0000018 or in addition to this current award? This is a recompete of Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Contract 70RDA22500000008

Questions