IAR_Master_List_Bidders_Questions_DJJE-13-RFP-0765_-_for_FBO_03_June_2013.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

03 June 2013

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

DJJE-13-RFP-0765

5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

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

United States Department of Justice Justice Management Division Procurement Services Staff 145 N Street NE Suite 8E:300 Washington, DC 20530

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

DJJE-13-RFP-0765

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

13 May 2013T

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER

NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

[ ] The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers [X ] is extended, [ ] is notextended.

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 Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 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 ACKNOWLEDG- MENT 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.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS,

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

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

TRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

c. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor [ ] is not [X] is required to sign this document and return 1 copies to the issuing office.

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

The Government hereby provides answers to Bidders’ Questions 50 - 57. Changes to the RFP, as a result of answers to Bidders’ Questions, are minor and are hereby provided as change pages with track changes turned on. The proposal due date has been extended to 02 July 2013 at noon, Washington D.C. time.

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

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

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

15C DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

16C. DATE SIGNED

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

PREVIOUS EDITION UNUSABLE

30-105 STANDARD FORM 30 (REV 10-

83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 52.243

Attachment B.4 – Vendor Questions: Government Answers DJJE-13-RFP-0765

No RFP Section RFP Pg. Bidder’s Question DOJ Answer

47 H.12 54 Please clarify how forfeited assets under contractor custody would be classified (e.g., government owned property or otherwise) for purposes of assigning responsibility for damages or losses as outlined in H.12.

The US government maintains authority over all seized and forfeited property transferred to the Contractor. As such, seized assets are considered Government-owned as they relate to H.12. Note that pursuant to H.31, seized assets are not considered Government-furnished property under this contract. The handling and processing of seized assets is discussed in Section C.

48 H.17 58 Will all personnel supporting this contract, including those working internationally to support forfeiture operations in-country, be subject to Public Trust Investigation and Citizenship requirements outlined in section H.17? Or does that just apply to contractor staff working in the U.S.?

Regardless of work location, all contract(or) personnel performing under this contract are subject to the security requirements set forth in H.17. Specific citizenship and residency requirements, along with possible waiver requirements, are discussed in H.17.1.2.2. Further, pursuant to C.3.3, in cases where in-country subject matter experts are required, DOJ will work with the Contractor and other agencies as appropriate to ensure that local nationals, subject matter experts and specialized personnel performing work under this contract meet all necessary security requirements.

49 Section I.2.7

Upon thorough review of the Statement of Work contained in the subject RFP (International Asset Recovery (IAR) Support), we make the assumption that Section I.2.7 (Contractor Personnel in a designated operational area or supporting a Diplomatic or Consular Mission Outside the United States) is not applicable to this program. Please confirm.

Correct. Consider the clause removed.

No RFP Section

RFP Pg. Bidder’s Question DOJ Answer

50 Attachme nt B-1, Tab

RATES-

A1, DOJ

Answer to Question # 7 and 8 n/a In the Questions and Answer document posted to FBO on May 24, DOJ states that the Rates-A1 tab should have one rate for all personnel provided through a given job category.

While the descriptions provided in the Expertise Categories of Attachment B.3 are helpful, the labor rates for personnel required to perform on this contract will vary significantly. A pilot with a college degree and ten years of experience will drive a different labor cost than a project manager with a

The Expertise Categories defined in Attachment (B.3) are designed such that any personnel required by a task order can be classified into one of the existing expertise categories. To assist Offerors, the Government has allowed the Expertise Categories to be bid now requiring a low, mid and high price for each Expertise Category.

This should allow Offerors sufficient latitude to develop a competitive price for each scenario. Please see the college degree and 10 years of experience. In addition, the geographic location where work is to be performed will impact cost. Attachment B.3 provides no ability to adjust price for geographic cost disparities.

Under the current instructions, vendors will be forced to price labor categories to incorporate “worst case scenarios” and other financial risks associated with pricing labor rates without knowledge of what or where activities will be performed. Pricing all labor at these higher rates, without the ability to adjust for Task Order specific circumstances, may result in DOJ paying significantly more for services rendered than they would if some level of flexibility in rate structure was provided.

Given the variability of resources required, would DOJ be open to a vendor providing additional, more granular labor categories than what is presented in Attachment B, Tab RATES-A1? This would allow the vendor to introduce new labor categories to cost effectively address specific requirements of a given Task Order.

updated Pricing Model – Rev 2, paying specific attention to Tab A. The Offeror shall fill in a low, mid and high price for each Expertise Category in Tab A in the Grey Cells. Then, the labor tabs shall be filled in with the price the Offeror has established in Tab A for either the low, mid or high price for the Government identified Labor Category in each pricing scenario. All of the rates established in Tab A will carry forward to the awarded contract. Offerors shall not discount the rates in the scenarios or provide additional labor categories.

51 H.9(c) and Answer to Question

#18

53 DOJ estimates Program Manager hours to be approximately 400 hours per year, or 20% of a full time position. Please provide similar estimates on hours per year for the other 3 Key Personnel positions: Project Manager, Accountant and Quality Control Manager.

The Government roughly estimates the minimum level of effort for these key positions as follows:

Project Manager: 400 hours per year Accountant: 200 hours per year Quality Control Manager: 200 hours per year

52 H.9(c) and Answer to Question

#18

53 Maintaining experienced, qualified key personnel at commitment levels well below full time will be a challenge, limiting the vendor’s ability to assist DOJ with the identification, definition and timely execution of task orders.

Would DOJ consider:

1) increasing the anticipated level of commitment for key personnel resources

2) establishing a funded PMO as the initial Task Order, to allow for a timely ramp up during the Transition Phase and to establish an effective governance model for the life of the contract?

The estimates for key personnel will remain unchanged.

In its technical proposal, the Offeror shall clearly discuss its approach for recruiting and retaining key personnel, and shall demonstrate how it plans to be ready to operate and fulfill a task order at the end of the transition period, as discussed in Sections H.28 and L.8.2.3.1.

53 L.8.1.5 119 In order to determine price reasonableness/realism, the Government is requesting supporting data that shows the direct labor, fringe benefits, general and administrative and indirect costs, profit, escalations factors, etc. This information is normally considered to be company/competition sensitive.

Are the subcontractors allowed to provide this data to the Government via sealed package?

Please have the subcontractor provide the pricing in sealed package to the Offeror/prime such that the Offeror can submit a complete package.

54 I.2.8(f) and

Answer to Question

#5 (Attachme nt B.4)

94 / 1 If the contractor notifies the Government of a potentially unsafe environmental condition at the asset, the parties will agree on a course of action. That said, who is ultimately responsible for the hazardous environmental conditions at the time the USG seizes property in a foreign location and, therefore, any mitigation. What we are trying to determine is:

if any cleanup is required to minimize or mitigate threat to human health or the environment, who is liable for that containment or cleanup? If the contractor is liable, would the costs for this cleanup be reimbursable under the relevant Task Order?

As stated in I.2.8(e), upon agreeing on a course of action to mitigate the effects of an unsafe condition, the contract will be amended if necessary. These contract amendments, if necessary, will include the additional tasks and costs associated with mitigating the unsafe condition.

55 C.5.2 and Answer to Question

#15 (Attachme nt B.4)

15 Would it be possible to get further clarification on the question regarding law firm representation. As most firms that have an international capability represent a vast array of customs and issues…some of which could be against the Government.

“Attorney’s (sic) performing limited task order specific activities on behalf of the US Governmet (sic) will be disqualified from any representation adverse to the US Government."

Perhaps the DOJ had a more reasonable intention, such as requiring disqualification of a firm only with respect to representations adverse to the US that are related to the specific tasks that we would perform under the awarded contract?

Law firms performing limited task order specific activities on behalf of the US Government will be disqualified from any representation adverse to the US Government arising from the particular (i.e. task order specific) matter.

56 Pricing Model

We discovered an error after reviewing the Pricing Model included in Amendment 1. In the worksheet entitled ‘ODCs – B5’, the Total line is not summing all of the above lines.

See the updated Pricing Model – Rev 2. Pay particular attention to the updated requirements of Tab A.

57 Pricing Model

We’ve reviewed the answers and are still unclear as to how we can propose one set of ceiling rates that must then be used, without adjustment, for an undetermined variety of job categories in an unspecified number of foreign countries. This is further complicated by the mix of US, third country and local national labor we must use to effectively perform. A lawyer in the US makes more than a lawyer in the Dominican Republic, yet both potentially fall into the same experience category and would therefore make the same hourly rate. This would result in extremely inflated costs to DOJ for local national labor, which would be paid at US rates.

Alternatively, pricing the ceiling rates at local labor levels would result in unacceptable risk of non-performance to Engility, since we would be unable to afford US or third country expertise when needed on a task order.

Our recommendation is to allow bidders to discount sample task order pricing to account for the realities of the scenario.

Upon award, the successful contractor will then price all subsequent task orders in coordination and concurrence with DOJ. We have this same arrangement on other large IDIQ contracts, and it works well. Given the ambiguity of services needed on this contract, it does not make sense to establish ceiling-level generic experience rates.

See the answer to Number 50.