Responses to Offerors Questions.pdf

Attachment A

DJMS-12-R-0020 A001

Responses to Offerors Questions

1. Section C.5 provides in relevant part “Ensure all contractor employees perform all duties and requirements of this contract…”

Are there minimum requirements for the Contract Manager to visit any of the judicial facilities in the circuit they are managing?

Response: There are no minimum requirements for the Contract Manager to visit any of the judicial facilities but rather is at the discretion of the vendor.

2. Section C-11 (4) provides “Be able to read, write, and speak the English language fluently and any other language determined to be necessary by the U.S. Marshal of the district were the services are to be performed.”

Please identify specific languages other than English that may be required within the Circuits.

Response: None

3. Will they be providing us with an outline of what we need to address in these blocks of instruction? i.e. Emergency Procedures, Occupant Emergency Plan.

Response: Yes

4. In addition to this the do the incumbent CSOs need to go through the Phase 1 orientation?

Response: No. Phase I is a one-time requirement for all CSOs.

5. Minimum CSO Training Standards are described in Section C.13 of the RFP.

LCSO Training are not provided, are they the same as CSO?

Response: LCSO shall receive the same training as required for CSOs.

Do the incumbent CSOs need to go through the Phase 1 orientation?

Response: No, Phase I is a requirement for all new hires before they assume duties as a

CSO.

What are the training topics, duration, frequency, and location(s) for the LCSO Training requirement?

Response: LCSO shall receive the same training as required for CSOs.

Responses to Offerors Questions

6. Online Learning Management System LMS, C13.6.2.1

What is the current system in place? Is an outside training service currently being used to perform or provide this online LMS training?

Response: There is no LMS currently in place. This is a new requirement.

7. The CSO Medical Standards and Procedures requirements are described in Section C.9 of the RFP; and the provision require the CSO Contractor to assume responsibility for the implementation of the program, including qualifying a large number of physicians under the terms of the program; and ensuring that no CSO performs duties unless they are medically qualified. In the RFP, the USMS provides direction as the requirements of the medical qualification program, but does not provide offerors with any guidance regarding the number and scope of “follow-up consultations” that the USMS will require of CSOs.

The Department of Labor has ruled repeatedly that these follow-ups are “job requirements” and must be paid for by the contractor. Offerors need this information to be able to include realistic costs to cover the substantial expense of these exams and the staffing required toadminister the program. There is significant risk of performance difficulties if the staffing and funding for the consultations is not included in the pricing.

Please provide offerors with data that accurately describes the quantity and scope of the medical follow-up consultation required by USMS on a regular basis, including the number and types of follow-up consultations routinely required.

Response: This varies greatly by an individual’s health and is not required by USMS but rather the Federal Occupational Health (FOH) doctor in order to make a final determination. Typical follow-up medical exams/consultations include hearing exams, diabetes (90 day blood sugar logs), and surgical records (orthopedic, etc.).

8. Section C.11.2 provides in relevant part, “The Contractor shall ensure that all CSOs and other personnel who are working on this contract have passed the background investigation process in accordance with Section C.8. Government’s Background Investigation Procedures, unless the Chief, Office of Court Security, grants an interim approval.”

What is the length for processing an interim background approval?

Response: Time varies on an interim background approval as it is cannot be granted without both a medical and background interim approval together.

How often are the interim approvals granted?

Response: Interim approvals are granted on a case by case basis depending on the needs of the district.

Responses to Offerors Questions

9. C.13.2 entitled “CSO Orientation (Phase II)” provides in relevant part “The Government will reimburse travel expenses, on a “one time only” basis, for each CSO who is eligible to attend and who actually attends the CSO Orientation in its entirety.” This section also provides “The Government shall also reimburse the Contractor up to eight hours at the basic contract rate for each day that the CSO attends the orientation session.”

Depending on the Circuit and location of the CSO scheduled to attend Phase II Orientation travel time will be required, sometimes more than eight hours.

Will the government reimburse the contractor for CSO travel time to and from the CSO Orientation?

Response: Yes

If so, will the government reimburse the contractor for travel hours exceeding eight hours in a single day?

Response: No

10. Section C.19.1 provides in relevant part “The Contractor must use the Government’s furnished equipment…”

What types of weapons will be provided?

Response: Glock and Semi-Automatic

Will the Government provide clearing barrels?

Response: No

Will the Government provide maintenance supplies, cleaning, and repair materials?

Response: No

Will the Government provide gunsmith service?

11. Section C.19.7 entitled “Firearms” provides in relevant part “Furthermore, the

Government reserves the right to change the type of firearm as deemed necessary at any time during the performance period of the contract.” (Rick)

Will the Government reimburse the contractor for any additional training costs and training equipment associated with a change in firearm?

12. Section C.13.4.1 provides in relevant part “The U.S. Marshal may authorize CSOs assigned to their district to carry Oleoresin Capsicum Aerosol (OC Spray) devices. If

Responses to Offerors Questions such authorization is granted by the U.S. Marshal, the Contractor must ensure that the CSO receiving the OC Spray device successfully completes the certification requirements developed by the United States Marshals Service’s Academy…”

Is the time the CSO may need to complete this certification billable time to the USMS?

13. Section J, Attachment 4B entitled “USMS Directive 2-1 E.1, Less-Than-Lethal Devices” mentions expandable batons, stun guns, stun belt/band-it, and projectile stun guns.

However, these items are not mentioned in the section discussing government or contractor provided property.

Response: The only Less than Lethal Device authorized for CSO use is Oleoresin Capsicum (OC) Spray (see section C.26.10 of the SOW). Training procedures are outlined in C.26.10.

Will the government provide these items? If not, please provide the models, quantities, and locations where the contractor must provide them.

Response: The government will supply the OC Spray to be carried (when authorized).

In addition, what are the hours and frequency of training required for the less-than-lethal devices mentioned above?

Response: See SOW section C.26.10

Will the USMS Training Academy continue to provide this training for contract employees?

Response: The USMS will provide the training, when required.

Will the Government pay the CSOs for the hours when they are engaged in training?

Response: Yes

How many contractor employees per location will be required to complete the Less- Than-Lethal Program?

Response: Unknown. Not every district has an OC Spray requirement.

Will the Government provide all required weapons safes and storage containers for less-than-lethal weapons?

Responses to Offerors Questions

14. Can the offeror assume that all incumbent officers meet the clearance, medical, and training standards required in the RFP?

Yes, however, the exceptions are applicants in-process (not yet working) and incumbents removed from duty/medically suspended at the time of the contract award. (Marti)

15. Will the Government provide computers for each facility? If so, how many? Will they have internet access?

Response: No. This is contractor’s responsibility.

16. Will the Government provide phone lines, copiers, and fax machines for scheduling, timekeeping, and administration use?

Response: No. This is contractor’s responsibility.

17. Can the Government provide a list of how many, if any, vacant positions there are in each circuit and their locations?

Response: Yes, the Central District of Illinois currently has 0 vacant positions and the Northern District of Florida has 2.5 vacancies (1.5 vacancies in Gainesville; 1 vacancy in Pensacola).

18. Are there any anticipated major expansions involving enhancements to the contract that the Government is aware of at this time that would cause a substantial change in the numbers of CSOs required? For example, are there any known program enhancements, pilot programs or districts with facilities going to 24-hour coverage?

Response: No. There are no major renovations or new courthouses expected within FY 12 or 13. Neither district/facility is being added to the Perimeter Pilot Program or converting to 24-hour coverage.

19. What is the average time that it is currently taking to fill a vacancy following submission of a replacement candidate to the USMS and FOH for review?

Response: The time varies greatly depending on medical issues or background investigation issue resolution.

20. Since its implementation in 2001, the current CSO Medical Standards policy, and the resulting disqualifications of CSOs for medical reasons has been a source of contention with CSOs and their unions. Lawsuits have been filed against the USMS and the contractors are also named as defendants in each suit as they are the employers. These actions by CSOs, usually under the ADA, continue to be filed every year. In order to allow offerors to realistically price their proposals, please provide data from which it will be possible to accurately estimate a realistic cost for legal actions arising from CSO medical disqualifications by the USMS.

Responses to Offerors Questions

Response: The Office of Court Security cannot provide an estimate as to cost for legal actions arising from CSO medical disqualifications but rather can provide that the number of medically disqualified CSOs for applicants and incumbents are as follows:

FY2010 – 15 disqualified, FY2011 – 24 disqualified, and FY2012 to present - 8 disqualified. These numbers are across all twelve circuits and include applicant and incumbents.

21. Section B.1 (b)(2) provides in relevant part “For LCSOs or CSOs who have started work less than four months prior to the start of contract performance, the Contractor is not entitled to the start-up cost.”

Please clarify that this sentence is in reference to the December 31, uniform issuance described under Section C.18.3.1.2 and does not literally mean that the Contractor is not entitled to startup costs for personnel hired during the months of September through December each year.

Response: Clarification: A CSO who begins employment and receives start-up less than four months before the beginning of a new contract period will not receive start-up funding on October 1. This prevents start-up being funded “twice” in a 16 month period.

22. Please indicate by circuit the number of positions added in the past twelve months as program enhancements?

Response: Neither

23. The pricing template instructions #7 indicates, “Only electronic formatted email responses will be accepted adhering to the due date provided in the cover letter. Offeror may need to provide multiple e-mails if the attachments become too large.”

Are you requesting an email submission for the Pricing Template in addition to including it in the Business Proposal hard copy and CD-ROM submission as indicated in Section L.8?

Response: This paragraph has been deleted from the pricing template.

24. Attachment 1(C) PART 2 OF 2, N-FL COST SUMMARY SHEETS lists location 100 N.

Palafox Street, Pensacola, FL, as “ closed”, but our understanding from our site visit is that it has re-opened and is an operational courthouse. Should the zero (0) in the “Total # of Startups” column be corrected to read “6”?

The locations for Circuit 11 (Northern FL) do not agree between the Price Summary Sheet (J.1.C) and the Pricing Template (J.1.D). Will a revision be issued? Should pricing be calculated for the 2 temporarily closed locations?

Responses to Offerors Questions

Response: The price summary sheet has been corrected and replaced in its entirety.

Through analysis and review by the Management Support Branch and the Applications and Qualifications Branch, the facility at 100 N. Palafox Street, Pensacola, FL is not closed and has been authorized start-up cost for 8 CSO personnel at this facility.

25. Insurance Coverage H.4. Please confirm that required limits are accurately stated.

Carol/Cheata

Response: Yes. These limits are required for all CSO contracts including the 8(a) program.