SOL-DOC 75ACF123R00004-Attachment 8 - Draft RFP Questions and Answers.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 30 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Post Release Legal Services
- Solicitation number
- 75ACF23R00004
About this file
This document contains questions and answers related to a draft request for proposal (RFP) for post release legal and related services. The RFP is being issued by the Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families and has a solicitation number of 75ACF23R00004. It seeks to establish multiple indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contracts to provide legal representation and related non-legal services to unaccompanied immigrant children. Key questions addressed scope of work tasks, licensing requirements, security clearance needs, and period of performance. Pricing will be established through firm fixed price and time and materials contract line items defined on task order templates.
View the file
Other files
Show all 30
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
Draft RFP Q&A Attachment 10: Post Release Legal and Related Service (PRLRS) MA-IDIQ Draft RFP Questions and Answers
| Q-ID | Document / Reference | Section | Page | Question | Answer |
| Q-001 | Draft RFP | L.10(a) and M.2.2(d) | 147, 151 | Will the government consider providing Attachment J.# ahead of the final RFP release? Attachment J.# includes the pricing scenario and is referenced on pages 147 and 151 of the draft RFP. “The total evaluated price for the IDIQ is based on the cumulative total from the pricing scenario provided in Attachment J.#.” | Yes, please refer to the draft Solcitation dated Sep 6, 2023. |
| Q-002 | Draft RFP | L.5.3 | 144 | Due to the complexity of the scope of work and requirements, will the Government consider single-spaced pages and extending the page count to 50 pages to allow Offerors the opportunity to fully demonstrate their understanding and approach to the solicitation requirements? | Yes, please refer to Section L of the draft Solcitation dated Sep 6, 2023. |
| Q-003 | Draft RFP | 1.4 Scope | 6-12 | The draft RFP statement of work contains several tasks that could result in duplicated efforts and/or products, unexpected/additional costs, and potential risks in continuity of services if the Government plans to award more than one identical IDIQ Task Order to multiple offerors. These tasks include: |
•Task 1: Needs Assessment.
•Task 5: Recruit, Train, and Retain Legal Servicesand Support Staff.
•Task 7: Organize and Coordinate a Process bywhich ORR-funded Unaccompanied Children’sPrograms, including Post-Release Services, CanMake Referrals.
•Task 8: Organize and Coordinate an OutreachProgram.
•Task 9: Provide and/or Facilitate Learning andDevelopment Trainings.
•Task 10: Provide Reporting to ORR; and •Optional Task 11: Develop a Process to ReportMetrics to ORR.
| In efforts to help minimize any of the mentioned scenarios, would the Government consider an integrated approach where one Offeror would have responsibility for those tasks mentioned above that would yield universal products and/or processes while other Offerors would be responsible for other direct services utilizing those products/processes? | The overarching PRLRS MA-IDIQ contract provides the scope for task orders to be issued under the contract during the ordering period. Request For Task Order Proposals (RFTOPs) will be issued to all MA-IDIQ awardees with a separate and distinct PWS which will specify which specific tasks will be completed under each task order along with the basis for award. Section H.8 of the RFP provides the ordering procedures to be utilized under the resultant MA-IDIQ contract. | |||||
| Q-004 | Draft RFP | B.3 and Task 11 | 3,11 | If multiple IDIQ contracts are awarded, will each initial task order be identical (e.g., each awardee be expected to execute on all 11 tasks (including Optional Task 11, if exercised by ORR)? Or will there be multiple task orders for each task or subset of tasks? | The overarching PRLRS MA-IDIQ contract provides the scope for task orders to be issued under the contract during the ordering period. Request For Task Order Proposals (RFTOPs) will be issued to all MA-IDIQ awardees with a separate and distinct PWS which will specify which specific tasks will be completed under each task order along with the basis for award. Section H.8 of the RFP provides the ordering procedures to be utilized under the resultant MA-IDIQ contract. | |
| Q-005 | Draft RFP | Do the individual legal service providers have to have a case management system in which to track milestones and progress in individual cases? Alternatively, does ORR expect the awardee to have a case management system in which all case data is entered and from which data points can be extracted for reporting? | ||||
| Does this contract have an expectation to enter data into the portal? | No data will be entered into the Portal. The Government is not proscribing a case management system. | |||||
| Q-006 | Draft RFP | F.4 Liquidated Damages | 27 | The language indicates that if the Contractor does not supply or perform the services within the time specified in this contract, liquidated damages will be applied. Other than four time-bound activities (preliminary needs assessment, outreach plan, data input, and transition-out plan), we are unclear of other deliverables or tasks that would be subject to penalties. Can the Government please provide more detail on what triggers the liquidated damages penalty? | The Government intends to apply liquidated damages IAW FAR 52.219-16 "Liquidated Damages - Subcontracting Plan". | |
| Q-007 | Draft RFP | 1.4 Scope - Task 8 | 9 | If multiple IDIQ contracts are awarded, can the Government provide more detail on how the outreach plan to UCs will be handled? Will each contractor have its own outreach plan and materials, or will one contractor provide the outreach plan and materials for all contractors? | The overarching PRLRS MA-IDIQ contract provides the scope for task orders to be issued under the contract during the ordering period. Request For Task Order Proposals (RFTOPs) will be issued to all MA-IDIQ awardees with a separate and distinct PWS which will specify which specific tasks will be completed under each task order along with the basis for award. Section H.8 of the RFP provides the ordering procedures to be utilized under the resultant MA-IDIQ contract. | |
| Q-008 | Draft RFP | 1.4 Scope - Task 7 | 9 | Can the Government consider providing more detail on the expectations for the contractor when a UC moves from one region/location which may be assigned to a contractor to another region/location, which could be assigned to a different contractor? | The government expects a national model so the vendor must account for that. | |
| Q-009 | Draft RFP | F.1 and 2.4 | 26, 13 | On page 26 of the draft RFP, the period of performance is stated as 5 years and 6 months. On page 13 of the draft RFP, it is stated as 5 years. Can the Government please clarify the discrepancy? | The total duration of this contract, including the exercise of any options under this clause (including FAR 52.217-9) shall not exceed 5 years and 6 months. | |
| Q-010 | Draft RFP | C.1.4 | 7-Jun | The draft RFP describes what is not covered by the contract and indicates that service provisions may continue after the child’s 18th birthday until the case is concluded. They provide the conditions under which a case is considered concluded. However, there is not an explicit exit age criteria under which a “child” would be considered an “adult” and ineligible for services under this program. Based on the criteria, a child can enter the program and remain in the program indefinitely (to any age) as long as the criteria are met. | ||
| Will the Government consider additional criterion that “automatically” begins a transition to an adult services if the “child” reaches the age of 21? | No, representation must be initiated before the child is 18 and end when the case is concluded, specified in the contract. | |||||
| Q-011 | Draft RFP | C.2.16 | 17 | The draft RFP indicates that the offeror “shall have personnel on board during the 30-day phase in/phase out periods.” |
Does this apply to key personnel or all staff?
| Does this apply to the IDIQ or the task orders? | Key personnel only. If key personnel change they need to alert government. | ||||
| Q-012 | Draft RFP | L.9(a) and L.6(b) | 146 | Section L.9(a) states, “Offeror shall submit past performance information on three (3) projects of the same scope and magnitude that were completed as a Prime Contractor within the last three (3) years from the solicitation closing date.” |
Experience in Section L.6(b) projects to be completed in the last 5 years.
Will the Government consider the following?
-Past Performance of current projects -Past performance projects submitted arewithin 5 years of the solicitation closing date
| -Past performance projects from a majorsubcontractor of the offeror’s proposal | Please refer to section L of the Final solicitation. | |||||
| Q-013 | Draft RFP | Section B | 4 | Page 4 states that travel expenses will be $125,000 per year with no increase for the additional years. Is this negotiable given projected cost estimates for travel to asylum interviews, custody court hearings, Immigration Court hearings, etc.? | ||
| Can the government clarify who is eligible for travel expenses? | The Contractor may be required to travel during the performance of a task order. Specific travel locations will be defined at the task order level. The Contractor may be authorized travel expenses at rates no higher than the substantive provisions of the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR). All travel requires task order COR approval prior to scheduled travel. All travel will be paid on a Firm Fixed Price basis, unless otherwise specified on the task order. | |||||
| Q-014 | Draft RFP | B.6 (c) | 3 | Can the government clarify why 80,000 cases per year were notated in the 2022 RFI, but only 12,000 cases are projected for the base year in the draft RFP? | 80,000 was outer limit to assess industry's capacity. 12,000 cases are estimated for the award(s) of the initial task orders for legal service during base year of the ordering period. | |
| Q-015 | Draft RFP | C.1.4 Scope | 6 | Page 6 lists “The child receives a final order of removal” as a point when a case can be considered concluded. Can the government clarify whether this encompasses cases that have received appeal denials from the Board of Immigration Appeals and/or their respective Circuit Courts as having a final order of removal? Or, does the government consider an Immigration Judge’s order of removal as a “final order of removal”? | An order of removal is considered final upon the earlier of a determination by the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming such order or the expiration of the period in which the UC is permitted to seek review of such order by the Board of Immigration Appeals. 8 USC 1101(a)(47). | |
| Q-016 | Draft RFP | L.5.7 | 144 | Due to the spacing and page limitations, we respectfully request that the Quality Control Plan (L.8), Subcontracting Plan (L.8), the labor hours and categories by task/sub-task (L.8), and the CPARs (L.9.b) be excluded from the page count and be submitted as appendices. | Yes, please refer to Section L of the draft Solcitation dated Sep 6, 2023. | |
| Q-017 | Draft RFP | B.4 | 3 | Local travel to immigration courts and asylum offices is typically considered as part of the cost of representation. May the government confirm that the NTE travel amount applies only to long-distance travel that may be incurred during representation as well as that required for site visit and training purposes? | Travel within the local area or place of performance to attend meetings, conferences, seminars or perform work shall be considered a cost of doing business and shall not be separately reimbursed as a travel expense. Local area travel is defined as within a 50- mile radius of the primary place(s) of performance. | |
| Q-018 | Draft RFP | B.6 | 4 | For Items No. 0001 “Related (non-legal case) Services” and 0002 “Legal Services,” may the government share how it wants “legal services’ and “non-legal case services” to be defined OR can the offeror propose those distinctions? While work such as outreach, training, capacity-building, reporting to the government and program management services would all be considered “non-legal,” there are some activities that could potentially fall into either category. For example, the supervision of attorneys who are providing representation is required for individual legal services could potentially be considered legal services or related services. Similarly, case management work that paralegals or social workers do in support of the child’s legal case could potentially be viewed under either category. Does the offeror have the ability to propose the appropriate breakdown? | The structure of the RFP has been modified. Please review the final RFP and provide questions no later than the date specified in the RFP. It is envisioned that multiple task orders will be issued for severable (non-legal case services) and non-severable (legal services) under the PRLRS MA-IDIQ contract. | |
| Q-019 | Draft RFP | B.6 | 4 | For Item No. 0002 “Legal Services,” how is the government defining the unit of measure? Is this meant to be one child and all of the legal work related to that’s child case regardless of the number of matters involved or the number of years that a case may take? For example, the government lists several different representation tasks (e.g., immigration court, state court, work authorization requests) which could all relate to a single child, or could potentially be handled in smaller pieces by different organizations. How does the government intend for those distinctions to be accounted for in this “unit of measure”? Or can offerors define the unit of measure in their proposal? Would the government consider a monthly (MO) unit of measure for the “0002, Legal Services” item rather than an “each” (EA) unit of measure? Because the cost of a child’s immigration case can range dramatically, even when children are pursuing the same form of relief, using one fixed price for every case or matter regardless of the length of the case could regularly result in significant overpayment and significant underpayment on individual cases, resulting in the inefficient use of government funds and challenges to the provision of effective counsel, respectively. It also results in decreased accountability for casework and for accurate, ongoing reporting overtime—two issues of critical importance to the government. In addition, the FFP per case model also limits the ability to build capacity at legal services organizations as it does not allow the flexibility necessary to account for, for example, required legal services supervision of attorney work as an organization grows, or required legal support services in terms of case management. Finally, the FFP per case model is challenging for legal services organizations to implement and rely upon for the length of time that unaccompanied children’s cases can take. Using a monthly FFP structure that funds a team of staff to provide representation for a certain number of cases (on an ongoing basis) can better ensure efficiency of government resources and the flexibility necessary to build and maintain capacity for continued work. Such a model would require that pending cases be accounted for each year along with new cases– and has been successful on other federal government contracts for representation at both HHS and DOJ as well as at the state level. | Please refer to Attachment 6 - Executable Task Order 1 pricing sheet. | |
| Q-020 | Draft RFP | 1.1 | 5 | May the government confirm whether an unaccompanied child receiving “know your rights” services or other non-representational legal services may still qualify for representation services under this contract? | Yes, they will still qualify for representation under this contract. | |
| Q-021 | Draft RFP | 1.2 | 5 | It is our understanding that the UC Program Policy Guide is written for youth care providers, and as such includes requirements specific to contractors responsible for the care and custody of children rather than legal services providers. Attorneys have a duty of confidentiality to their clients that cannot be breached through policy guidance. May the government consider removing this section? | The UC Policy Guide explains how ORR implements its work pursuant to its authorities. Not all sections of the Policy Guide are applicable to legal service providers. Only sections of the UC Policy Guide applicable to legal service providers are applicable to work under this contract. | |
| Q-022 | Draft RFP | 1.3 | 6 | May the government confirm that any metrics to be reported to ORR would exclude individual-level client data that is covered by attorney-client privilege? | Yes, other than the reporting metrics specified in the PWS, individual level data that is covered by attorney-client privilege is not required for reporting. However, the contractor must provide information on which cases are being represented, through the L-3 form and retainer. | |
| Q-023 | Draft RFP | 1.4 | 6 | May the government consider removing the requirement that legal representation must be initiated before the unaccompanied child turns 18 years old? In many states, youth are eligible to pursue Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) up until their 21st birthday. Due to capacity challenges in the field, many unaccompanied children turn 18 before they are able to find representation. Once they turn 18, these youth encounter heightened difficulties finding representation as funding for representation of individuals over 18 is extremely limited. Please consider removing this age limit. | The definition of unaccompanied child requires that the child be under the age of 18 years old, so the case must be initiated before then, but representation can continue until the case is concluded, as defined in the PWS. | |
| Q-024 | Draft RFP | 1.4 | 7 | How does the government anticipate handling per-case costs for children who transfer to other jurisdictions? In the case of a child seeking SIJS, there would need to be a completely new state court proceeding in the new jurisdiction, which would entail additional costs not included in the per case amount. May the government consider a transfer to a new jurisdiction a new case? | The Government is purposely not restricting the labor categories that can be proposed in response to this solicitation. However, the Government does not intend to allow additional labor categories under the Base Contract(s); however, it may be permitted by the task order RFTOP on a case-by-case basis, if there is a truly unique requirement not encompassed under the existing labor categories, and the price reasonableness of the proposed labor category and rates, if accepted, will be established by Task Order Contracting Officer, before task order award. | |
| Q-025 | Draft RFP | 1.4 | 7 | Does the government intend for the definition to mean that legal service providers cannot close cases of clients whose cases have been dismissed/terminated through Prosecutorial Discretion and who do not otherwise qualify for another form of immigration relief? How long would the government expect such cases to be kept open at an organization? Additionally, it is not uncommon for ethical conflicts to occasionally arise while representing clients. May the government confirm that legal service providers may terminate representation in situations where an ethical conflict arises? | Attorneys should abide by ethics rules. Yes, they can terminate at dismissal/termination if no other relief is being filed. | |
| Q-026 | Draft RFP | C1 | 8 | Please confirm whether task 3 should only take place in the context of a representational relationship under task 2. | Yes, subject task should only take place in the context of a representational relationship. | |
| Q-027 | Draft RFP | C1 | 8 | Please confirm whether task 4 can take place independently of task 2. For example, Contractor can assist in providing state court applications for a child without also representing them in immigration proceedings (e.g., if the child already has counsel for removal proceedings but the scope of that work does not include state court applications). | It cannot be independent. The contractor must be representing the child in their immigration case. | |
| Q-028 | Draft RFP | 1.5 | 8 | Recruiting, training, mentoring and managing pro bono attorneys comes at a cost to the contractor. May the costs for these services be built into the “non-legal” related costs? | Yes, the costs for the services may be built into the non-legal related costs. | |
| Q-029 | Draft RFP | 1.5 | 8 | Can the government confirm that despite listing this separately, the government expects the "per case" cost to include all of this work? Does the government envision each task representing a different “case”? | The contractor is required to provide its pricing for RFP Attachment 6– Executable Task Order 01 Price. The pricing will consist of FFP, T&M, and ODC CLINs, as specified in Attachment 6, which will result in a hybrid FFP task order with T&M CLINs. | |
| Q-030 | Draft RFP | C1 | 10 | Please clarify how “legal relief eligibility for cases screened in the previous month” should be reported under the universal representation model. Often youth are not able or ready to disclose sensitive facts that give rise to a determination as to relief eligibility during the initial intake phase. As rapport and trust is established, such determinations may change. Any reported relief eligibility during the intake phase is often an inaccurate picture of the child’s case. | We understand the limitations of an initial screening. And this report is in aggregate, so we do not expect individual level data. | |
| Q-031 | Draft RFP | Subsection 11 | 11 | As an optional task, the funding for this project would only be required should the government choose the option, and resources required would depend heavily on the number of existing contractors and subcontractors that would use this system. Budgeting would require knowledge of the number of people who would need to access the system. How does the government anticipate comparing offerors proposals and capacities in this regard? | Fewer than 10 users on the government side. The system would be administered by the contractor. | |
| Q-032 | Draft RFP | 2.9 | 14 | The immigration court allows for any attorney who is barred in any state to represent immigrants in local courts; there is not a requirement that the attorney practice in the same state where they are barred. To expand access to representation for youth in underserved locations, it is common for legal service providers to provide immigration services to youth in states in which they do not have any staff licensed to practice law. In such situations, if a client qualifies for SIJS and needs to pursue state court findings, the organization will either place that portion of the client’s case pro bono or sub-contract with an attorney licensed in the relevant state. The flexibility to allow for this is crucial to expanding representation to youth in traditionally underserved locations. May the government consider removing the state licensing requirement noted above as long as there are adequate quality assurance measures in place to ensure appropriate local representation in state court? | Attorneys should be licensed to practice in the jurisdiction they are appearing in. | |
| Q-033 | Draft RFP | 2.12 | 17 | May the government confirm that offerors can propose other positions not laid out in the key personnel section? While it makes sense for key personnel to be fully dedicated to the contract, there are many economies of scale that could be offered to the government if offerors were able to split other staff-time across related-existing work and the new work under the RFP. | Confirmed. | |
| Q-034 | Draft RFP | 5 | 19 | Please confirm “the work specified herein, contractor personnel will require access to proprietary, privacy protected and/or sensitive data, regular access to HHS-controlled facilities and/or access to HHS information systems” applies to PII maintained by the prime Contractor and does not include routine information necessary for the delivery of services, privileged information, or information intended by the Contract for public consumption. | This is still being determined, will resolved prior to contract award. | |
| Q-035 | Draft RFP | 5 | 19 | The Personnel Security requirements as drafted appear to require a tier 1 to tier 4 level of security clearance for all contractor and subcontractor personnel who perform work under this Contract. Can the government clarify if these provisions are intended to apply to the following classes of individuals for whom these security requirements do not currently apply? a. pro bono attorneys; b. attorneys who primarily handle information subject to privilege; c. individuals processing referrals for representation; d. individuals delivering legal orientation services in person; e. individuals delivering legal orientation services remotely over call center lines; f. paralegals and legal assistants; g. DOJ accredited representatives; h. social workers; i. individuals managing data entry; j. volunteers providing program services; k. individuals primarily handling information for public consumption; l. administrative staff; and m. program management staff responsible for materials, trainings, and technical assistance. n. Acacia employees who have access to low-level datasets and/or database systems o. subcontractor and provider data contacts who have access to low-level datasets and/or database systems p. contractor and subcontractor employees that manage access to database systems In our experience, this process has often taken over 18 months. Multiplied by the number of labor categories and FTEs, this standard would constitute an extreme burden that would create the risk of non-performance during this period required to get cleared. Additionally, we have learned that it is very difficult and burdensome for individuals that are foreign born to get cleared, yet they have the language and cultural skills needed to provide services under the contract, Please consider only including those individuals at the prime Contractor who will require access to an HHS issued PIV card, or information containing PII, which is the current standard. | This is still being determined, will resolved prior to contract award. | |
| Q-036 | Draft RFP | 11 | 19 - 20 | What is the expected timeline for the categorization of information with the ACF security team? | This is still being determined, will resolved prior to contract award. | |
| Q-037 | Draft RFP | 5 | 20 | If the government applies personnel security requirements and public trust investigation requirements broadly without exemptions, there will be a significant delay of services at the contract's commencement due to the length of time that such clearances require. Will the government consider a grace period of 180 days (about 6 months) from award for all personnel to apply for security clearances and a grace period of “until cleared” by the agency for all personnel to meet the clearance requirements? | This is still being determined, will resolved prior to contract award. | |
| Q-038 | Draft RFP | 5 | 20 | This contract includes development/generation of information that is subject to attorney-client privilege. May the Government confirm that the resultant contract will explicitly exclude from the Return of Data requirements those materials protected by attorney-client privilege and information restricted from disclosure by Institutional Review Board protections or other applicable laws? | Yes, the Government confirms that the resultant contract will exclude return of data requirments protected by attorney-client privilege. | |
| Q-039 | Draft RFP | 11 | 22 | Aside from FIPS 199, Does the government have an additional preference or guidance they’d like the offeror to follow precisely for categorizing information or information systems regarding confidentiality, integrity, and availability? | This is still being determined, will resolved prior to contract award. | |
| Q-040 | Draft RFP | E.1.2 | 27 | Can the government confirm that reports can be submitted electronically but in a printable format (e.g., a dashboard that can be exported or emailed as a PDF if necessary). | The contractor shall comply with instruction included in the PWS for submission of all deliverables. | |
| Q-041 | Draft RFP | G(8) | 34 | Local travel required for representation services (e.g., immigration court, asylum office) will be a regular necessity. Can the government confirm that this advanced approval requirement applies only to long-distance travel? | Yes, greater than 50 miles. | |
| Q-042 | Draft RFP | L.9 | 156 | Can the government specify how past performance ratings will be handled if the offeror has past performance with similar projects but does not meet the requirement of 3 completed projects? | Please refer to section L of the Final solicitation. | |
| Q-043 | Draft RFP | General | N/A | There is no clear language specifying that the legal work performed under the contract would be owned by the child client and not the federal government. Would the government consider adding strong and clear language that attorneys are not like any other government contractor and their work is not owned by the government? | This is still being determined, will resolved prior to contract award. | |
| Q-044 | Draft RFP | General | N/A | Can the government confirm that DOJ Accredited Representatives can represent children in immigration court under this contract? | Yes, the Government confirms that DOJ Accredited Representatives can represent childiren in immigration court. | |
| Q-045 | ||||||
| Q-046 | ||||||
| Q-047 | ||||||
| Q-048 | ||||||
| Q-049 | ||||||
| Q-050 | ||||||
| Q-051 | ||||||
| Q-052 | ||||||
| Q-053 | ||||||
| Q-054 | ||||||
| Q-055 | ||||||
| Q-056 | ||||||
| Q-057 | ||||||
| Q-058 | ||||||
| Q-059 | ||||||
| Q-060 | ||||||
| Q-061 | ||||||
| Q-062 | ||||||
| Q-063 | ||||||
| Q-064 | ||||||
| Q-065 | ||||||
| Q-066 | ||||||
| Q-067 | ||||||
| Q-068 | ||||||
| Q-069 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .