Attachment G - STENS RFP Q and A Spreadsheet_Amend 0001_20221201.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 36 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 70RSAT23R00000004
View the file
Other files
Show all 11
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Instructions
| STENS RFP Questions/Comments | ||
| Instructions: | ||
| 1. Please use this template when providing comments or questions regarding this solitiation – only electronic submittals will be accepted | ||
| 2. Provide reference to the specific item and page relating to each comment as shown on the tab | ||
| 3. DO NOT provide the name of your organization, or contact info on this template in order to keep this feedback anonymous | ||
| 4. Add additional worksheets (rows and pages), as needed, based on existing formatting | ||
| Note 1: | If a conflict occurs between the solicitation and these Questions/Comments, the solicitation takes precedence. | |
| Note 2: | This spreadsheet contains questions and comments collected during the draft RFP and the DHS responses. Offerors should consider this information when preparing their proposals. Offerors should use the "Final RFP Questions - Comments" tab for the Final RFP questions and comments. |
DRAFT RFP Questions - Comments
| Question/ Comment # | Section or Reference | Page # | Offeror Comment / Question | DHS Response |
| 1 | 70RSAT22R00000022 Sections B-M Draft 20220930 | 32 of 101 | As Plum Island deals with Foreign Animal Diseases, the most qualified individuals to inform the scientific and technical decontamination requirements are often from outside of the United States. Past experience in contracting at Plum Island has allowed for these individuals to provide direct professional services and onsite support as needed. As this vehicle would be anticipated to pose a reduced risk due to the end of active science programs and biorepository volume of BSAT materials and that there is not a substantial scope element requiring "access or assist in the development, operation, management or maintenance of DHS IT systems", it is hoped that this allowance would be feasible on this contract vehicle. |
Could the government please confirm that these individuals will be considered for use across the breadth of the contract scope of services, with the caveat of proper security vetting and that DHS IT access will not be available? If so, please consider striking or modifying the second and third sentences from H.2.3 regarding employment on the contract as shown below:
Contract Section H.2.3 “The use of non-U.S. citizens, including Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs), is not permitted in the performance of this contract for any position that involves access to or development of any DHS IT system. DHS shall consider only U.S. Citizens and LPRs for employment on this contract. DHS shall not approve LPRs for employment on this contract in any position that requires the LPR to access or assist in the development, operation, management or maintenance of DHS IT systems.” The language shown in the comment with "strike-through" has been deleted.
In addition, the final sentence from this section has been deleted. All Contractor employees performing work under this contract must be U.S. Citizens.
| 2 | 70RSAT22R00000022 Sections B-M Draft 20220930 | 85 of 101 | Past performance: Given the nature of many federal multi-year efforts for the delivery of a cohesive initiative to be divided across multiple contract vehicles and occasionally transitioned across offices or agencies, it is recommended that RFP requirements in the SOW, Section B document, and PPQ form be modified from “three contracts completed within the past 5 years” to “three programs completed within the past 5 years” and that the associated references PPQ requirement remain at 1 per program (as opposed to for each and every contract). | This section has been modified to allow offerors flexibility in providing past performance information, whether it be by Program (if there have been multiple contracts supporting a single Program) or by Contract. Offerors should provide proper context in their proposal with regard to the information they provide. |
| 3 | 70RSAT22R00000022 Sections B-M Draft 20220930 | 85 of 101 | Please clarify that the requirement to “include the following information for each contract or subcontract listed……” with ten data elements is required for only the 3 past performance programs/contracts completed that require references PPQ. The requirement of all ten data elements for "ALL CONTRACTS currently being performed" and for past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel, etc. would inhibit use of confidential client projects and is not likely feasible for predecessor company or older projects, much of which is highly relevant and applicable to the unique technical expectations of this contract scope. If not removed for these sections, please consider the addition of "as available" or other mitigating guidance. | The following clarification has been added "Include the following information for each Program, Contract or Subcontract listed, as available. If certain information requested below is deemed client confidential and can not be provided, this should be noted accordingly." |
| 4 | Attachment B - STENS SOW 09-28-2022 and Attachment A- STENS Cost template R3.1 (08-22-2022); 70RSAT22R00000022 SF33 Draft 20220928 | SOW page 12 and Cost Template | Consider providing an allowance for "third party laboratory services" be provided for use within this CLIN. As scope element 5.1 requires a collaborative approval process with DHS Personnel and NYSDEC, as well as the expulsion of laboratories currently in use by the O&M contractor (not identified in the RFP), it is not feasible to establish teaming commitments and negotiated rates for services as part of the proposal development and therefore procurement at market rates will be required after award following completion of task 5.1 (with potential for changes and renegotiation during the course of the vehicle if the O&M contractor laboratory changes and creates conflict.) If approval within New York State is required, combined with the small business subcontracting goals, a limited pool of qualified competition is likely. | The SOW (page 5) and the cost template ('BOE' Tab) have been corrected to be consistent in stating that "Assume processing of ~2,700 biological and chemical indicators each year during the (10) year period of performance, for sampling and verification/validation activities in B257, B102, B101, and B111. Note: This is based on an estimate of the density of samples based on facility square footage. It is expected that level of effort for this activity will vary over the period of performance (i.e., this is assumed as an average for the level of effort)." |
Under Task 5 in the SOW (page 12), and in the cost template ('BOE' Tab), the scoping assumptions state "Per Task 1, it is assumed that ~2,700 samples are taken each year. It is assumed that 10% (duplicate) are sent to the third-party laboratory for testing." As requested, DHS has included a plug-in number in the cost template for subcontracting to an independent third-party laboratory for analysis of ~270 samples per year, such that offerors do not need to estimate this cost.
5 Attachment B - STENS SOW 09-28-2022 and Attachment A- STENS Cost template R3.1 (08-22-2022); 70RSAT22R00000022 SF33 Draft 20220928 SOW and BOE tab Guidance informing the Basis of Estimate: Given the long duration of the contract vehicle and sequential nature of the work to be performed where early planning/scientific evaluations will inform the outyear execution, please clarify government’s intent for outyear cost estimating against each CLIN. Should the estimate be:
Option A - Wholly developed on the basis of contractor’s assumptions with respect to their Management and Technical Approach in the absence of all available data or Option B - Will the government provide estimated quantities to inform the Level of Effort for all or some of the CLINs?
If Option A, please clarify the proposed evaluation criteria and weighting on cost components to be informed by rates, overall cost or a blend of both? In addition, how will the overall proposed cost inform that contract ceiling capacity (per year and overall)?
Associated items to be addressed include alignment between the scope and estimate spreadsheet. Please clarify that all CLINS are anticipated to be active (or available) for all contract years, for example:
• Item 1003 Option Year 1 Task 3 is the last entry for Task 3 in the Solicitation, Offer and Award doc o Tasks 2 and 3 show a mix of activities being conducted in specific Quarters and FY ( including Q4 FY22 that needs to be updated) and assumptions do not match the Solicitation, Offer and Award items.
• Item 8004, Option year 8 Task 4 is the last entry for Task 4 in the Solicitation, Offer and Award doc Option A ... Offerors should provide estimates with clearly stated assumptions, based on their Technical and Management approach.
As noted on page 99 of "70RSAT22R00000022 Sections B-M Draft 20220930" the non-cost/price factors (Factors 1, 2, 3, 4) when combined are significantly more important than the cost/price factor. To clarify, this is not a task order contract and there is not a defined contract ceiling capacity per year or overall.
The cost template has been updated to clearly identify that
- Task 3 "Design and Execution of Applied Scientific Activities to Enable Biocontainment Facility Decontamination" occurs only in years 1 & 2, and
- Task 4 "Facility Modification Engineering, Planning and Implementation" occurs only in years 1-9.
In addition, all cost template assumptions and dates have been updated to show award in Q2, FY23 and performance through Q2, FY33.
| 6 | 70RSAT22R00000022 Sections B-M Draft 20220930 | 88 of 101 | Volume V Cost Template. Consider modifying the cost template to remove business confidential information including, fringe, overhead & G&A. It is recommended that labor categories tab allow for a burdened rate (base rate, fringe, overhead, and G&A) plus fee for each contract year with unique labor categories for each subcontractor. All remaining cost template tabs could then refer to the consolidated labor categories/rates tab, simplifying alignment with technical approach. If required for review, it is recommended that the fringe, overhead & G&A be submitted by each subcontractor confidentially directly to the client. |
| The instructions in the cost template have been modified to identify that "For subcontracted labor, the offeror may provide fully burdened labor rates, rather than providing details regarding fringe, overhead, G&A and fee; however, this detailed information will need to be provided for all subcontracts directly to the Contracting Officer as part of the proposal." |
Also, the 'BOE' Tab has been updated to gray out the cells for overhead, fringe, G&A, and fee for the line item "Small Business Participation Cost". As noted in the instructions and quoted above, offerors may use a similar approach in the cost template for any subcontracted labor (i.e., utilizing fully burdened rates for subcontracted labor in the 'BOE' Tab). However, offerors should clearly identify in those line items that the labor is proposed as subcontracted labor (e.g., Sr. Scientist (subcontractor)).
| 7 | 70RSAT22R00000022 Sections B-M Draft 20220930 | 19 and 26 of 101 | B.2.0 Travel Costs (pg. 19) and F.3.0 Place of performance (pg. 26). "The work site shall be considered the Washington DC metropolitan area or the location of the Contractors Personnel, whichever is within the 50 -Mile radius". Should the work site be considered Washington DC and /or Plum Island? | The work site is Plum Island. Description of the worksite has been corrected on page 19 to be consistent with page 26. "Local travel will not be reimbursed within a 50-mile radius of the worksite. For purposes of local travel only, the worksite shall be considered Plum Island, NY." |
| 8 | Attachment B - STENS SOW 09-28-2022 | 4 | Please clarify the DHS responsibilities associated with the mobile lab, including: |
• Facility ownership and liability
• Upkeep, repairs and maintenance (outside of maintaining a clean work environment)
• Equipment replacement and certifications as needed (is calibration a contractor requirement?)
• Procurement of additional equipment if deemed necessary to increase throughput during peak periods.
• Consumables (PPE, supplies, etc.), utilities and waste disposal in mobile lab
• Providing/buying BI/CI's DHS is responsible for:
• Facility ownership and liability
• Upkeep, repairs and maintenance (outside of maintaining a clean work environment)
• Equipment replacement and certifications as needed (is calibration a contractor requirement?)
• Procurement of additional equipment if deemed necessary to increase throughput during peak periods.
• Utilities and waste disposal for the mobile lab
The STENS contractor will be responsible for:
• Consumables (PPE, supplies, etc.)
• Providing/buying BI/CI's
However, the cost template includes a plug-in numbers for contractor estimates of materials and supplies for the mobile lab, such that offerors do not need to estimate this cost "Note: Accounts for costs associated with test kits, PPE, reagents, and other lab supplies. Test kits: Sample density for testing is assumed to be 10 for every 100 square feet, or roughly 27,000 samples total (2,700 per year on average). With a pack of 50 SCBIs estimated to be ~$220, total test kit costs are estimated to be $12,000 per year. Other lab supplies: estimated at $1,000 a month. ODC markup estimated at 4%."
9 Attachment B - STENS SOW 09-28-2022 7 Please clarify:
A) Subtask 2.6: Is DHS requesting the development of five (5) different scientific evaluations or studies for decontamination and validation technologies that will be published as one document or five (5) different publications focusing on each scientific evaluation or study separately?
B) Subtask 2.7: Is DHS requesting that a minimum of five (5) different and separate scientific evaluations or studies for decontamination and validation technologies under subtasks 2.1 through 2.3 be developed that will be presented to Regulators for down-selection? The scoping assumptions included in the SOW are intended to provide clarification of scope for offerors, such that all offerors have a common set of assumptions for level of effort for various tasks for estimating staffing and costs.
A) Assume development of a single report to DHS for five (5) different scientific evaluations. Assume these five (5) evaluations would be published separately in peer-reviewed journals.
B) As noted above, the scoping assumptions identify five (5) scientific evaluations in order to simply provide a common understanding of level of effort for all offerors. Once the STENS contract is awarded, DHS (along with the STENS contractor) can revise the scope if needed if it is different than five (5) evaluations. However, for the purpose of the proposal and cost estimate, assume results from the five (5) scientific studies will be presented with recommendations for the down-select of decontamination & validation technologies to DHS/PIADC and then presented to Regulators.
Please note, as described in Section L, for the purposes of a responding to this RFP, describing the Technical Approach for Task 3 (directly aligned with Tasks 2.6 and 2.7) is a conceptual task, intended to demonstrate the offeror’s capability to conceive and execute a scientific plan of study, and to apply results into practice. Upon award, a more refined and specific scientific work plan will be developed in conjunction with DHS Federal and contracting personnel.
10 Attachment B - STENS SOW 09-28-2022 15 Please confirm that all relevant documentation will be made available upon award, including:
• Regulator guidance, variances or allowed deviations, agreements, and relevant communications to inform expectations
• Documentation regarding historic facility usage and science programs to inform scientific evaluations for decontamination methodologies and sampling and validation methodologies for ongoing operations.
• Applicable site procedures, safety and health plans, biosafety plans, chemical hygiene plans, and other relevant procedures and protocols to ensure consistency and compliance in future developed plans.
• Available facility and utility as-builts in electronic form as available and access to historic plans and drawings
| • Current available validation and decontamination plans (in-progress and/or final) for Buildings 102 and 257. | Yes, all of the identified documentation will be provided upon contract award. | |||
| 11 | 70RSAT22R00000022 Sections B-M Draft 20220930 | 31 of 101 | H.2.2 Background Investigation. Forms including the NDA need to be submitted 30 days before the start date of the contract. The NDA was included in the solicitations package. |
Is there a requirement to submit the NDA prior to an award (i.e., during the proposal process)?
| Will all forms be provided with the final RFP for review that need to be signed upon award? | The sentence on page 31 has been modified to read as follows "Prospective Contractor employees shall submit the following completed forms to the Security Office through the COR for identified Key Personnel no more than 10 days after contract award and no later than 30 days prior to entry on duty of any other employees, whether a replacement, addition, subcontractor employee, or vendor." | |||
| 12 | 70RSAT22R00000022 Sections B-M Draft 20220930 | 36 of 101 | Regarding page 36 of 101, section (e), Authority to Operate (ATO): Please clarify that: |
A. The current scope does not anticipate the awardee to establish or operate a government IT system that requires an ATO and that our non-ATO system is sufficient to store shared project data at the FOUO level within the terms of the NDA.
B. Any awardee personnel requiring access to the existing government IT systems shall be provided a PIV card and government computer once cleared in accordance with DHS IT security requirements. A) The ATO requirement under Section (e) does not apply to the scope of this procurement.
B) Correct
| 13 | 70RSAT22R00000022 Sections B-M Draft 20220930 | 81 of 101 | Please confirm that 0.5" margins all around are acceptable and that other standard 12pt fonts are allowable. | This section has been updated as follows: "All Offerors’ submittals shall be in electronic format in Adobe PDF or Microsoft Products version 2019 or later (MS Office: Excel, Word, PowerPoint, etc.) only using 8.5” x 11” Letter format with 12 pt Times New Roman font and 1” margins all around for the proposal text. 11”x17” pages may be used for tables, charts, graphics, figures, and schedule. (Each 11”x17” page shall count as two (2) equivalent 8.5”x11” pages of the allowable page count.) Tables, charts, graphics, figures, and schedule must not be less than 10pt font and used only to enhance the evaluators’ understanding and shall not be used to circumvent the intended page limitations." |
| 14 | 70RSAT22R00000022 Sections B-M Draft 20220930 | 82 and 86 of 101 | Pages 82 and 86 have conflicting information. On Page 82, format and page Limitations for the proposal indicates that Past Performance Questionnaires received after the proposal submission will not be considered. On page 86, it says that late surveys may be considered. Please clarify. | The following language on page 83 has been deleted for consistency with the language on page 86: "Any questionnaires submitted after the proposal closing date and time will not be considered." |
| 15 | 70RSAT22R00000022 Sections B-M Draft 20220930 | 82 of 101 | Can you confirm that cover pages will also be excluded from the page count? | Added "Cover page for each Volume" to the list of items excluded from the page count. Please note that "cover page" is not in reference to the "cover letter". The "cover letter" does have an allowable number of pages. |
| 16 | 70RSAT22R00000022 Sections B-M Draft 20220930 | 83 of 101 | Volume I : Cover Letter. Is there an issue with including Total Proposed cost, fee, and total price in the cover letter? Typically that is only included in a cost volume on other government proposals. | Volume I will not be shared with the evaluation team and therefore there is no issue. |
| 17 | 70RSAT22R00000022 Sections B-M Draft 20220930 | 84 of 101 | Attachments to Volume II. Request that 11x17 page sizes be allowable throughout for organizational graphics and tables , with each one accounting for 2 equivalent 8.5x11 pages of the allowable count. At a minimum, allowance of 11x17 for the schedule and other attachments outside of the page count, to improve formatting and readability for the reviewers, is highly recommended. Flexibility with format and font would all also better accommodate scheduling software outputs. | |
| This section has been updated as follows: "All Offerors’ submittals shall be in electronic format in Adobe PDF or Microsoft Products version 2019 or later (MS Office: Excel, Word, PowerPoint, etc.) only using 8.5” x 11” Letter format with 12 pt Times New Roman font and 1” margins all around for the proposal text. 11”x17” pages may be used for tables, charts, graphics, figures, and schedule. (Each 11”x17” page shall count as two (2) equivalent 8.5”x11” pages of the allowable page count.) Tables, charts, graphics, figures, and schedule must not be less than 10pt font and used only to enhance the evaluators’ understanding and shall not be used to circumvent the intended page limitations." | ||||
| 18 | 70RSAT22R00000022 Sections B-M Draft 20220930 | 85 of 101 | In addition to the requested PPQs, can we attach CPARS for similar contracts listed in our Volume III submittal? Can you confirm that CPARS would be excluded from the page count? | CPARS shall not be submitted as part of the proposal. |
| 19 | 70RSAT22R00000022 Sections B-M Draft 20220930 | 97 of 101 | Recommend modifying the Evaluation Criteria for the Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be on a pass-fail basis of “Complies” or “Does Not Comply”. | The evaluation criteria for the Small Business Subcontracting Plan Factor has been modified to be a "Satisfactory" or "Unsatisfactory" rating. |
| 20 | Task 1 | 4 | The RFQ discusses processing of samples from various structures, but not the collection of those samples. Will awardee be expected to perform sampling activities in B257? If so, will awardee have input in sampling method(s) used / develop sampling methods? | Physical sampling will be performed by another contractor. |
The STENS contractor will have input regarding the sampling method(s) used and the plans developed for B101 and B111. (DHS is already currently developing the sampling plans for B257 and B102.)
| 21 | Task 2 | 6 | Other than bid awardee, how will other SMEs be selected to participate in Decon & Validation Planning? | The STENS contractor will provide their own SMEs for support; government SMEs shall be selected by DHS. |
| 22 | Task 2 | 7 | Why is the B102 decontamination plan being developed separately from B101 & B111? What if B102 plan is found to need modifications before decontamination activities can begin? Will those potential revisions fall under the scope of this RFQ? | B102 is a separate building that is no longer in use. If any changes to the existing B102 decontamination plan are required, the government reserves the right to address potential changes as they see fit. For the purpose of this proposal and cost estimate, offerors should not assume changes to the plan will be required. |
| 23 | Task 2 | 7 | We strongly recommend that the Scope also includes exploring the relationship between decontamination activities as it relates to future insurability of the facilities undergoing decontamination | This question is related to potential public sale of the PIADC property and is not relevant to the scope of the STENS contract. |
| 24 | Task 3.2.4 | 9 | What is the make, model, and capacity of the chlorine dioxide generator? What generation method does it utilize (i.e. 2 precursor, 3 precursor, aqueous or gas generation methods?) Is there also equipment to validate the operating parameters of the decontamination devices are being met as specified by the device manufacturers? Do the approvals for use of these devices include porous and nonporous surfaces? | The chlorine dioxide generator is noted as equipment available for scientific activities. Scientific activities shall be performed (under Task 3) to verify efficacy of different decontamination/validation approaches for various substrates. Further information is not relevant to offerors' proposals. However, as identified in the SOW, "the responder should identify any additional equipment needed as envisioned for planned scientific activities, which DHS should provide to the contractor as Government Furnished Equipment." |
| 25 | Task 3 S.A.s | 10 | We recommend increasing the number of substrate surfaces to at least 6 to better represent all different types of surfaces throughout buildings 101 and 111, as well as developing analog "dirty" substrate coupons in order to assess the efficacy of the decontamination method in the presence of dust, latent organic material, dirt, etc. Awardee should also be required to validate efficacy with positive and negative control and field blank coupons. All coupons should be placed in at least duplicate for statistical assurance of decontamination efficacy. Additionally, awardee should also be required to demonstrate that the organism(s) selected as surrogates can survive potential shipping/transportation to third party lab. | It is noted in response to question #9, that the scoping assumptions identify five (5) scientific evaluations in order to simply provide a common understanding of level of effort for all offerors. And, that once the STENS contract is awarded, DHS (along with the STENS contractor) can revise the scope if needed if it is different than five (5) evaluations. However, for the purpose of the proposal and cost estimate, assume that five (5) scientific studies will be performed. |
Recommendations for the five (5) evaluations or recommendations for more or less than five (5) evaluations, as well as key discussion points raised in this comment, should be included in the proposal to demonstrate the offeror's understanding of the technical scope.
| 26 | 5.1 | 15 | What will happen in the event that B257 is found to require decontamination? Will plan development for B257 fall under the scope of this RFQ? | This is dependent upon results from execution of the B257 Sampling Plan. If further decontamination is required, the government reserves the right to address this at that time. For the purpose of this proposal and cost estimate, offerors should not assume further decontamination of B257 will be required. |
| 27 | SOW Task 1 Assumptions | 5 | Will the government provide an assumption or a timeline when the mobile laboratory must be ready for sampling operations? The RFP makes clear that basic laboratory equipment will be made available, and that any proposed analytical equipment as GFP will take time to procure and deliver, and any CAP supplies, this should factor into the offeror's proposed schedule. | The mobile lab will be operational prior to STENS contract award. If additional equipment is identified by the STENS contractor, this will be provided by the government in a timely manner. As identified in the SOW, the responder should identify any additional equipment needed as envisioned for planned scientific activities, which DHS will provide to the contractor as Government Furnished Equipment. |
| 28 | SOW 6.2 and 6.3 | 18 and 19 | Sections 6.2 and 6.3 list required standards that must be complied with/adhered to (e.g. ISO 9001, 19011, 14001, 35001, and 45001). Does this require certification or just programs designed to comply with these standards? If registration/certification is not required but is desirable to the Government this could be added to the Management Approach evaluation criteria to better value those offers that exceed requirements. Further, ISO 17025 should be considered as highly applicable to operation of the mobile laboratory (Task 1). | DHS does not require certification to all of these standards. However, offerors should describe their management approach for adhering to these standards (as well as recommended additional standards) in the performance of their work under STENS. |
| 29 | B.1.0 - CONTRACT TYPE | 1 | The intent of this procurement as identified in the scope of work is to support DHS in "the decontamination and closure of facility biocontainment structures and associated areas." Consequently, would the Government consider changing the NAICS code for this procurement to NAICS code 562910 for Environmental Remediation Services. NAICS 562910 was established for procurements "engaged primarily in furnishing a range of services for the remediation of a contaminated environment to an acceptable condition." | No change. The NAICS code referenced in this comment is more specific to the executer of the Terminal Decontamination work, as opposed to the planner (STENS). |
| 30 | SOW Section 1.2 - Facility Description | 2 | The Scope of Work (SOW) reports that PIADC is in the process of decommissioning Building 102 and has begun development of a decontamination plan for this building. Could the Government identify any contractors supporting the PIADC in developing the decontamination plan and/or currently supporting the decontamination of Building 102. | The terminal decontamination plan for B102 has been developed. No further information will be provided until award of the STENS contract. |
| 31 | ||||
| 22 | ||||
| 23 | ||||
| 24 | ||||
| 25 | ||||
| 26 |
Page &P of &N
Final RFP Questions - Comments
| Question/ Comment # | Section or Reference | Page # | Offeror Comment / Question | DHS Response |
| 1 | L.2.0 | 77 of 96 | The RFP states that Standard Form 33 must be completed and submitted. It then states to submit the proposal in five separate volumes, each included as their own file. Should the Standard Form 33 be included in one of those volumes, or included as a sixth seperate file? | The RFP has been revised to clarify in Section L2.0 the requirement for inclusion of Volume V, the completed SF33 form. |
| 2 | SF 33 - Item 9 | 1 of 96 | The due date is listed as December 19th. We request an extension to December 23rd. | With a draft SOW and PIADC Site Visit provided to Industry in June and a draft RFP provided to Industry in September, the Government believes ample time has been provided for Industry to respond to this solicitation. No changes will be made to the proposal due date. |
| 3 | H.4.0 | 38 of 96 | Who completes the Privacy Threshold Analysis? Is this DHS or the contractor? | As stated in the RFP, the contractor may be required to support the Government in the completion of the PTA. To clarify, this is not part of the proposal, but may be required upon award of the solicitation. |
| 4 | H.2.1 | 24 of 96 | Please confirm that NIST SP 800-171 “Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information in Nonfederal Systems and Organizations“ is an acceptable standard in lieu of NIST SP 800-53 for instances where the contractor will be required to handle Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) on contractor systems maintained by the contractor. | No. The RFP is specific as to the requirement for "Contractors shall have an independent third party validate the security and privacy controls in place for the system(s). The independent third party shall review and analyze the SA package, and report on technical, operational, and management level deficiencies as outlined in NIST Special Publication 800-53 Security and Privacy Controls for Federal Information Systems and Organizations. The Contractor shall address all deficiencies before submitting the SA package to the Government for acceptance." |
| 5 | H.2.1 | 24 of 96 | Can DHS identify the presence and types of sensitive information the contractor may be encountering. In the event the contract will required to encounter/create sensitive information, should the contractor assume this information remain on DHS’ system, the contractors, or both. | Sensitive information will include documentation labeled by the Government as "For Official Use Only (FOUO)", "Pre-decisional", and "Procurement Sensitive". The contractor shall assume this information will remain on DHS IT Systems. |
| 6 | Attachment E, List of Equipment | 1 | Will DHS confirm that data connectivity/access will be provided from the two GFE mobile laboratory workstations to a central server to permit networking? Will internet access be provided? | The GFE laboratory workstations will provide access to the DHS SciTech network, housed on PIADC servers, as well as general internet access. |
| 7 | Attachment B, Task 1.3 | 4 | Will DHS permit the contractor to conduct either remote or on-site administration/maintenance of approved COTS software used for data management at the mobile lab? | Yes. And, this approach should be described in the contractor's proposal. |
| 8 | Small Business Subcontracting Plan/Participation | 77 and 87 of 96 | The RFP requests a plan compliant with FAR 19.704. These plans increase in length based on the complexity and duration of the project. We do not believe it is possible to provide a compliant plan as well as 2 Individual Subcontracting Reports (ISRs) within the current page limitation. We recommend removal of the page limit for Volume IV. | Agreed. Page limit for Volume IV is revised to have no page limit. |
| 9 | Section M.2.1, Factor 5 Cost/ Price | 94 | To assist the Government technical team in evaluating the realism of proposed costs we recommend requiring offerors provide a separate document reflecting only the proposed labor mix, hours, travel, and ODCs. | Agreed. The additional required document is added to the instructions in Section L. |
| 10 | Section B.1.0 | 13 of 96 | Per the RFP 70RSAT23R00000004, Section B.1.0 on page 13, it appears that proposers are limited to NAICS Code 541620. In our experience, this code is not typical for similar activities nor encompasses the professional services needed to address the breadth of scope that DHS requires. Would DHS accept alternative NAICS codes including 562910 Remediation Services and/or 541715 Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Nanotechnology and Biotechnology)? | NAICS 541620 is being used to describe the preponderance of work for this requirement. Because this is a full and open competition, the use of this NAICS code does not preclude offerors or offeror's subcontractors/teammates who have not previously worked under this code from proposing on this work. Also, the narrative explanation of past performance work will be primarily evaluated by DHS to determine relevance. |
Page &P of &N
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .