Amendment 0004 - RFP - 70RDAD22R00000001 - HSPD-12 TRP.pdf

(x)

70RDAD22R00000001

x x copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted ; or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT

THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted , such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

x

DHS/OPO/DEPT.OPS

Washington DC 20528-0115 Dept. Operations Acquisition Div.

Office of Procurement Operations U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security

Washington DC 20528

70RDAD

Dept. Operations Acquisition Div.

Office of Procurement Operations U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security

DEPT OPS ACQ DIV(70RDAD)

03/08/20220004

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS. IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) is not extended.is extended, Items 8 and 15, and returning

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended , by one of the following methods: (a) By completing

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

FACILITY CODE CODE

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6)CODE 6. ISSUED BY

PAGE OF PAGES

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.3. EFFECTIVE DATE2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

02/22/2022

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority) appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return __________________ copies to the issuing office.

ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

The purpose of this amendment is as follows:

1) Provide the Government’s responses to Clarifying Questions submitted; and

2) Provide the revised Attachment VI - Pricing Template as a result of the Government’s responses to clarifying questions.

No other changes are being made at this time.

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 16C. DATE SIGNED

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

Tanya M. Hill

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

Previous edition unusable

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9 A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect .

TEL: EMAIL: 202-447-5511 tanya.hill@hq.dhs.gov

Questions / Government Responses for

Technology Refresh Project

RFP: 70RDAD22R00000001

70RDAD22R00000001-0004 Page 1 of 6

Question

Applicable

Q&A

No.

Government’s Response

Questions

30, 59, and 82

The following questions have answers that require clarification and further refinement to the Attachment VI pricing template.

• Answer the Government provided in Question #30 states: The Offeror shall expect to reuse the GFE peripherals (fingerprint scanners, etc.) where practicable. CPU/workstations need to be replaced.

• Answer in Question 59 states the enrollment and issuance workstation the Offeror is required to price on

Attachment VI - Pricing Template is made up of a computer, printer, camera, monitor, document scanner, fingerprint scanner, and peripheral (Keyboard, mouse, Pin Pad, SCM reader). The Government is purchasing the workstation and retaining ownership even after the contract expires.

• The Answer in Question 82 states: The Offerors should expect to reuse the GFE peripherals (fingerprint scanners, etc.) where practicable. Core CPU/workstations need to be replaced.

• Attachment IV Pricing Template includes line items for:

o Enrollment & Issuance Workstation (EIWS) o EIWS Maintenance & Support License o EIWS Peripherals (if required)

Offeror’s Clarifying Question: If as stated in Q&A 59 the Enrollment & Issuance Workstation (EIWS includes all the components listed therein (for example line item 34 in Tab 3 of the template), then there is no line item for just the

“Core CPU/workstations” that need to be replaced per Q&A 82. Will the Government confirm our assumption that all line items in the pricing template that refer to “Enrollment & Issuance Workstation (EIWS)” should be for only the

Core CPU/workstations and that any “EIWS Peripherals (if required)” should be priced separately by adding additional line items? If this is not correct, will the Government provide additional clarification as to how to line item price the Core CPU/workstations?

The Attachment VI, Pricing Template has been updated to include a line item labeled “Enrollment & Issuance CPU” to allow vendor to price just the CPU. Enrollment & Issuance

Workstation pricing shall capture the prices of all devices needed for a complete workstation. Vendor should provide additional details explaining their proposal pricing when the intention is to re-use peripherals.

Question 70 states “…

The Government will provide general office furniture (i.e., tables, chairs) and audio-visual equipment to display presentations.”

Offeror’s Clarifying Question: Will the Government confirm Offeror’s will be provided multiple projectors (audio-visual equipment) to display their presentations, if needed and requested in advance?

The Government confirms the facility utilized for the demonstrations will have multiple monitors available to display the vendor’s presentations.

70RDAD22R00000001-0004 Page 2 of 6

Question 44 and 69 requires additional clarification to help us understand how to respond to. In RFP section 4.4.1.2 the Government refers to 3 different HSPD-12 systems/programs: 1) Identity Management System, 2) Government security system, and 3) program as a whole as noted below:

1) demonstrate successful implementation and management of an HSPD-12 Identity Management System …

2) demonstrate the Offeror’s experience in transitioning Government HSPD-12 security systems …

3) demonstrate the Offeror’s prior experience integrating and supporting HSPD-12 programs as a whole

RFP also mentions that responses can be done in aggregate across each past performance.

Offeror’s Clarifying Question: Should Offerors assume these three things are one and the same thing (an HSPD-12 like solution)? If not, will the Government please provide their definition of each so all Offerors respond similarly across their past performances submitted.

Yes. Offerors should assume these three things are one and the same thing. All three of the systems are the same. In addition, the RFP has been revised to further clarify the requirements as follows:

1. Demonstrate you have supported another agency’s HSPD-

12 Program that used your solution (similar in size to DHS)

2. Demonstrate you have transitioned an HSPD-12 solution from an as-built to a system using your solution

3. Demonstrate you have experience integrating and supporting your solution into a HSPD-12/ICAM (System of

Systems) Program as requested in this RFP

Question 109 states “The RFP has been updated to provide the Labor Category Descriptions as Attachment XI. In addition, the Attachment VI – Pricing Template has been updated to remove any duplicative Labor Categories.”

Upon review of the Attachment VI Pricing Template, several labor categories are included in Tabs 3 and 4 (Sample

TO1 and TO2), but not in the IDIQ On- and Offsite pricing (Tabs 1 and 2). These are:

• Change Management Specialist

• IT Program Manager V

• IT Training Manager

• Enterprise Architect

• IT Security Specialist

• IT Senior System Engineer

• Database Specialist II

• Senior Database Management Specialist

• IT Operations Specialist IV

70RDAD22R00000001-0004 Page 3 of 6

Offeror’s Clarifying Question: Will the Government be updating the template to add the labor categories in Tabs 3 and 4 to the Tabs 1 and 2, or are Offeror’s expected to do so with their submission?

Yes. The Government has updated the RFP Attachment VI to incorporate the additional labor categories.

Question 109 states “The RFP has been updated to provide the Labor Category Descriptions as Attachment XI. In addition, the Attachment VI – Pricing Template has been updated to remove any duplicative Labor Categories.”

Offeror’s Clarifying Question:

Upon review of the Labor Category Descriptions as Attachment XI, there are several labor categories that do not have descriptions. These are:

• Change Management Specialist

• IT Program Manager V

• IT Training Manager

• Enterprise Architect

• IT Security Specialist

• IT Senior System Engineer

• Database Specialist II

• Senior Database Management Specialist

• IT Operations Specialist IV

Will the Government be providing those to Offerors?

The RFP has been updated to incorporate descriptions to those labor categories.

Question 46: Please confirm the Government will be provide at least 30 days for Step 3

The estimated submission dates will be approximately 1 to 2 weeks from the issuance of the advisory down-select notice. The ACTUAL submission dates for Factors 2 – 5 will be provided in the advisory down-select notice in accordance with Section 4, Paragraph 4.2 Evaluation and Selection Process.

In the RFP, the Government also advises Offerors need not work on their Step 3 response until after they receive their

Step 2 Advisory down-select decision.

Offeror’s Clarifying Question: Will the Government confirm they will provide Offerors at least 30 days to submit their step 3 submission from the date they received their Step 2 Advisory Down-Select decision?

Offerors will not have at least 30 days to submit their Step 3 submission from the date they receive their Step 2 Advisory

Down-Select Notification.

70RDAD22R00000001-0004 Page 4 of 6

Question 69 states “Vendors need to articulate through examples where the vendor had to phase in multiple applications, systems, services, etc. during a multiyear period in support of a multilayered customer. RFP section

4.4.1.2 states “Your submission may include no more than one example from a subcontractor in implementing enterprise-wide HSPD-12 Technology and Support Services within an organization of a similar size, scope, and complexity as the Department of Homeland Security. the Government refers to 3 different HSPD-12 systems/programs: 1) Identity Management System, 2) Government security system, and 3) program as whole” as shown below in detail:

1) demonstrate successful implementation and management of an HSPD-12 Identity Management System …

2) demonstrate the Offeror’s experience in transitioning Government HSPD-12 security systems …

3) demonstrate the Offeror’s prior experience integrating and supporting HSPD-12 programs as a whole

RFP also mentions that responses can be done in aggregate across each past performance

Offeror’s Clarifying Question: Will the Government confirm that the limitation to Offeror’s only using 1 subcontractor past performance relates to example #1) above and that Offerors can submit more than 1 past performance from a subcontractor, so long as it relates to example #2 or #3 above?

No. The Government cannot confirm. The Offeror may

NOT submit more than one subcontractor past performance.

The past performance for that subcontractor can relate to example 1, 2, or 3.

8*

Page 59, Amendment 2 added requirements and multiple Q&A related to SCIF removal and replacement with

Top Secret Facility

Clearance requirement

Page 59, 3.20.5 Security Requirements state “The contractor must have an active Top Secret Facility Clearance Level granted by Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) and any sub-contractors supporting the effort must be cleared to access DHS classified information up to Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI).

Additionally, the DD254 doesn’t have a flow-down checked for subcontractors.

Offeror’s Clarifying Question: Will the Government confirm that subcontractors that are not being leveraged for work that does not require access to DHS classified TS/SCI information will not need to be cleared to a TS/SCI level?

Will the Government update the solicitation to read “any sub-contractors supporting the effort must be cleared to the level of access commensurate to their role on the program and need to implement, access, or manage infrastructure, program operational systems.

The DD 254 /security requirement is written to allow personnel to support public trust and “up to TS/SCI” depending on their role. The RFP at Section III, paragraph 3.20.5 Security Requirements second paragraph has been revised to read: “The contractor must have an active Top Secret Facility Clearance Level granted by Defense Counterintelligence and Security

Agency (DCSA) and any sub-contractors supporting the effort must be cleared to the level of access commensurate to their role on the program and need to implement, access, or manage infrastructure, program operational systems. Any access required to DHS classified information must be cleared up to Top

Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI).”

RFP: 70RDAD22R00000001

70RDAD22R00000001-0004 Page 5 of 6

Also need to confirm that COTS vendors (e.g. CMS, Enrollment Software, etc.) who may be considered subcontractors to the Offeror, do not need to be cleared to access up to TS/SCI level so long as they are not implementing, accessing, or managing infrastructure, program operational systems.

DHS confirms that COTS vendors who may be considered subcontractors do not need to be cleared to access up to

TS/SCI level if they are only providing COTS products and are not implementing, accessing, or managing infrastructure, program operational systems and/or required to work on a

DHS site or access DHS systems

Amendment 2 added requirements and multiple Q&A related to SCIF removal and replacement with

Top Secret Facility

Clearance requirement; and

Q&A #95

Page 59, 3.20.5 Security Requirements state “The contractor must have an active Top Secret Facility Clearance Level granted by Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) and any sub-contractors supporting the effort must be cleared to access DHS classified information up to Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI).

Additionally, the DD254 doesn’t have a flow-down checked for subcontractors. Additionally, Q&A #95 outlines the clearance level for personnel.

Offeror’s Clarifying Question: Will the Government please confirm that only subcontractors performing work requiring access to classified information up to TS/SCI will need to possess the appropriate clearance?

See Government’s response to Question 8 above.

Amendment 2 added requirements and multiple Q&A related to SCIF removal and replacement with

Top Secret Facility

Clearance requirement; and

Q&A #95

Page 59, 3.20.5 Security Requirements state “The contractor must have an active Top Secret Facility Clearance Level granted by Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) and any sub-contractors supporting the effort must be cleared to access DHS classified information up to Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented

Information (SCI). Additionally, the DD254 doesn’t have a flow-down checked for subcontractors. Additionally, Q&A #95 outlines the clearance level for personnel.

Offeror’s Clarifying Question: To align with multiple RFP requirements, will the Government update the solicitation text from “any sub-contractors supporting the effort must be cleared to access DHS classified information up to Top

Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI).” to read “any sub-contractors supporting the effort must be cleared to the level of access commensurate to their role on the program and need to implement, access, or manage infrastructure, program operational systems.”?

Amendment 2 added requirements and multiple Q&A related to SCIF removal and replacement with

Top Secret Facility

Page 59, 3.20.5 Security Requirements state “The contractor must have an active Top Secret Facility Clearance Level granted by Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) and any sub-contractors supporting the effort must be cleared to access DHS classified information up to Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI).

Additionally, the DD254 doesn’t have a flow-down checked for subcontractors. Additionally, Q&A #95 outlines the clearance level for personnel.

Offeror’s Clarifying Question: Will the Government confirm that COTS vendors (e.g. CMS, Enrollment Software, etc.) who may be considered subcontractors to the Offeror, do not need to be cleared to access up to TS/SCI level so

70RDAD22R00000001-0004 Page 6 of 6

Clearance requirement; and

Q&A #95 long as they are not implementing, accessing, or managing infrastructure, program operational systems?

12 Question 6 Offeror’s Clarifying Question: Are we expecting another Amendment prior to Phase one submittal? Amendment 003 was issued prior to Phase 1 submittal.

13 Question 14 Offeror’s Clarifying Question: Is the Commitment letter outside of the page count of the resumes? Yes. The Commitment letter is outside the page count of the resumes.

14 Questions 30, 59, 82 Offeror’s Clarifying Question: There seems to be a conflict between Answers to Question 30 & 82 and Question 59.

Can the Government clarify if vendors should be pricing all enrollment and issuance equipment as stated in Answer

59 or should Vendors be pricing just CPUs as answered in Question 30 and 82

Offerors should price all equipment their solution cannot reutilize including all CPUs.

See also Government’s response to Question 8 above.

15 Question 56 and 58 Offeror’s Clarifying Question: Answer 56 and Answer 58 seem to be contradictory. Could Government please clarify what Government will be providing in terms of third part integration support? Or was Answer 58 meant to say without DHS or Third party integration support?

The Offeror is responsible for all items listed in task order 1 and 2, the Offeror will receive third party integration support for all task for integration with eIDMS, 16 Question 80 Offeror’s Clarifying Question: Reference Attachment VI Pricing Table Tabs 3 and 4 Task Order 1 and Task Order 2

Kiosk SRIP (if required): In an effort to evaluate a complete solution would Government please provide a quantity of

SRIP stations to evaluate?

Task Order 1 and 2 are not asking for SRIP. The Government is asking the Offeror to provide SRIP pricing on Tab 1 of the pricing sheet. Attachment VI Tabs 3 and 4 have been updated to remove the requirement for pricing of the Kiosk.

17 Question 80 Offeror’s Clarifying Question: Reference Attachment VI Pricing Table Tabs 3 and 4 Task Order 1 and Task Order 2

Identity License, Derived Credential License: In an effort to evaluate a complete solution would Government please provide a quantity of Derived Credentials vendors should price?

Offeror should price their complete solution based on interfacing with 3 Derived credential Vendors that have 7 infrastructures total:

4 separate AirWatch infrastructures

1 separate Blackberry infrastructure

2 separate Intune infrastructures

18 Question 80 Offeror’s Clarifying Question: Reference Attachment VI Pricing Table Tabs 3 and 4 Task Order 1 and Task Order 2

Identity License, Derived Credential License: In an effort to evaluate a complete solution would Government please provide a quantity of PKI Licenses vendors should price? Currently it appears that Government is providing them

GFE.

For the purpose of this evaluation, the Offeror should price their complete solution based on 120,000 Derived Credential

Licenses.

19 Question 20 Offeror’s Clarifying Question: FIPS 201 uses "enrollment" to refer to the activity of an identity account being made or updated and a credential ultimately being issued. NIST SP-800-116-1 (and other related PIV documents) use the term "provisioning" to describe associating a user record with a specific, already existing credential in an access control system. Please clarify whether the term "provisioning" or rather "enrollment" was meant here.

“Provisioning” is the correct term. Also, Offerors should note card/data provisioning only in a Physical Access Control

System.

20 Question 90 Offeror’s Clarifying Question: DHS indicated that a separate PWS is required for the IDIQ and each Sample Task

Order, and that all three (3) are to be submitted in once continuous document. DHS also provided templates for the two (2) Sample Task Orders' PWSs. Could DHS please provide a template for the IDIQ PWS?

The Government is not providing a template of the IDIQ

PWS. Vendors should follow the instructions on page limitations in order to create their PWS.