Attachment 9 - Question Submission Form_CO responses.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 65 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Request For Proposal - Application Support Center (ASC) USCIS Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- Final_RFP_ASC_USCIS_28Dec2022
About this file
This Request for Proposal from the Department of Homeland Security's United States Citizenship and Immigration Services seeks Application Support Center services. Offerors must provide staffing, facilities management, and operations support across 81 standalone and 49 co-located ASC locations to process immigration and citizenship applications. Key requirements include staffing a minimum of 800 personnel, overseeing 81 lease agreements, and maintaining quality standards such as a productivity rate of six applicants processed per hour. Offerors must submit pricing spreadsheets by 10 January 2023 for evaluation. The incumbent contractor will fully transition the program to the new awardee by 31 March 2024.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 50
Request For Proposal - Application Support Center (ASC) USCIS has more files on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1 Attachment 9 U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) Application Support Centers (ASC)
70SBUR23R00000004
Industry Questions and Comments Regarding ASC Re-compete Should any answers to the below questions conflict with the Request for Proposal (RFP), the RFP will take precedence.
| Question Number | Attachment Number Section Number | Page Number Paragraph | Questions and Comments | Government Response | |
| 1 | ASC_RFP_70SBUR23R00000004 | ||||
| Sec. ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS – COMMERCIAL ITEMS, No. 3 Proposal Instructions | Pg. 61 | ||||
| Para. 1 | Would the Government confirm that Offerors must include Cover Letter, SF 1449, Compliance Matrix (Attachment 8), and Assumptions and Constraints documentation will each volume? | Offerors shall include cover letter, SF1449, Compliance Matrix, and Assumptions/Constraints separately from Volumes 1 and 2. Offerors are NOT to add these to Volumes 1 or 2. | |||
| 2 | ASC_RFP_70SBUR23R00000004 | ||||
| Sec. ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS – COMMERCIAL ITEMS, No. 3 Proposal Instructions | Pg. 61 | ||||
| Para. 1 | Would the Government clarify the information Offerors should include in the "Assumptions and Constraints" section? | The Assumptions and Constraints section has been deleted. Please see Amendment 1. | |||
| 3 | Attachment 1_PWS | ||||
| Section 4.2.3 Procurement/Logistics Management for Facilities and Equipment | Pg. C-13 | ||||
| Para. 2 | Would the Government confirm the Contractor will be required to supply, at its own expense, "refrigerators, microwaves, and other kitchen appliance and utensils necessary to stock the staff break room" only at SA facilities? | Please see PWS Task 4.2.3 for updated information | |||
| 4 | Attachment 1_PWS | ||||
| Attachment C ASC Mobile Routes/Part-Time ASCs Domestic and US Territories | Pg. C-53 | ||||
| Para. 1 | Would the Government provide forecasted estimates for staffing and operations (duration) at the "Anchorage, Juneau, Bethel, Ketchikan, Dutch Harbor, Nome, Kodiak and Fairbanks, Alaska" ASCs? | Anchorage is a full time ASC. Nome is longer active and has been removed from the PWS. All other sites would be a mobile route for two people for one week's duration. Monday and Friday are travel days, applicant processing would occur Tuesday through Thursday. | |||
| 5 | Attachment 1_PWS Section 4.1 Biometrics Capture and Identity Verification | Pg. C-5 Para. 3 | Could the Government please clarify if additional machines will be provided as the higher volume bands increase with insufficent machine capacity to support. For example, if the number of applicants outweigh the machine capacity, would additional machines be provided? | If required, the Government and contractor would work to identify additional machine capacity for the higher volume bands. These would be provided as GFP. | |
| 6 | Attachment_6_-_ASC_Pricing_Sheet.xlsx | Tabs CLIN X001/X009 | Position titles - Please clarify that the positions Program Manager, On-Site Program Manager and Assistant On-Site Program Manager refer to the Corporate Program Manager, Project Manager and Assistant Project Manager respectively as identified in Section 5.1 of the PWS. | Key Personnel titles have been changed to match exact titles under Section 5.1 of PWS | |
| 7 | Attachment_6_-_ASC_Pricing_Sheet.xlsx | Tabs CLIN X001/X009 | The Procurement Specialist position is not reflected in CLINs X001 and X009. Please confirm that offerors should include this Key Personnel role in the pricing for these CLINs. | Confirmed that this should be reflected in the Key Personnel | |
| 8 | Attachment_6_-_ASC_Pricing_Sheet.xlsx | Tabs CLIN X001/X009 | Regarding the position titles for Regional Managers, recommend updating the template to reflect a line item for each of the (4) Regional Managers instead of (1) line item for all 4. | The Government accepts this recommendation and update has been made | |
| 9 | Attachment_6_-_ASC_Pricing_Sheet.xlsx | CLIN X004 | For Receptionist positions that are CBA applicable, please update CLIN x004 to account for the escalated direct labor expected in the Option Period. | Within the CBA no known escalated DL rates are given after 1 April 2023. Offerors shall utilize CBA applicable rates outlined in Attachment 3 for the base year, but no escalation shall be accounted for in the subsequent option years. | |
| 10 | ASC RFP_70SBUR23R00000004 | pg 69/77 | Per the instruction that 'Offerors shall provide a build-up of all proposed SCLS and Collective Bargaining Agreement labor rates.' |
| Are the Subcontractors expected to submit sealed packages for their SCLS and CBA labor rates? Please provide appropriate instructions. | Instructions have been added into solicitation. Subcontractors are not required to provided separate packages, but may do so at their own discretion | ||||
| 11 | Attachment 3_CBA | N/A | Please confirm all available and applicable CBAs to this Contract are provided in the Final RFP. | Confirmed. The CO received and reviewed all active CBAs under the current contract | |
| 12 | Attachment_6_-_ASC_Pricing_Sheet.xlsx | Tabs CLIN X003, Columns H, R, AB, AL, AV | The formula for Applicants per hour is incorrect, in the file it is currently Hours per Applicant. | This has been corrected to the following formula: =IFERROR(Monthly Max/Bio-Tech Hours, 0) | |
| 13 | Attachment_6_-_ASC_Pricing_Sheet.xlsx | Tabs CLIN X003 and Summary | As the Government has only provided one set of banded pricing, should we enter the Bio-Tech hours in Columns I, S, AC, AM, AW as a monthly amount? |
| If so, please update the Summary tab to reflect 9 months for the Base Period and 12 months for the Option Years. | Yes, this should be a monthly amount. Title for Columns I, S, AC, AM, AW changed to reflect this. The Price summary formulas under column K have been corrected to 9 months | ||||
| 14 | ASC RFP_70SBUR23R00000004 | Pg 62 | To ensure consistency of information from the Offerors, please provide a format or template the government would like to see used for the Excel version. | The Government provided formatting and information instructions under page 69. We will only ask for unlocked Excel spreadsheets to better understand an offerors formulas and narratives in how their BOE was constructed. How an offeror creates their BOE is up to them, as long as they provide enough information for the Government to understand their BOE and how it relatesd back to the pricing proposal/technical proposal IAW with the instructions | |
| 15 | Attachment_6_-_ASC_Pricing_Sheet.xlsx | Tabs CLIN X004/005 | As the volumes of applicants increase into the higher bands, it seems that the need for adding receptionist hours (especially to the sites with no assigned receptionist) and supplementing Site Supervisor hours (Assistant Site Supervisors) would increase. |
Given that the contractors do not know what the historical volumes are at each location, we are unable to validate that the given number of Receptionists and Site Supervisors would be adequate to support normal operations (e.g. for the Boston site - if the volumes increase to the AE band Monthly Max of 21,166 applicants - an average of 1000 applicants a day may call for additional receptionist hours). There is no place to add this labor across bands in the template.
| We recommend that the Government add a column in CLIN X003 for these variable Receptionist and Site Supervisor hours. | The Government would like to clarify that Receptionist and Site Supervisors are for hours up to Volume Band AC. The Government understands that if volume increases to the point of Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) and requires additional staffing for FFP labor categories such as CLINS X004 and X005, a bilaterial modification to increase FTEs would be negotiated and awarded between the Government and Awardee, if needed. | ||||
| 16 | Attachment_6_-_ASC_Pricing_Sheet.xlsx | Price Summary | Please review the formulas in column K for Base Period CLIN AB to AE. The formula is not pulling in the correct weighting %. | This has been corrected for all of Column K | |
| 17 | Attachment_6_-_ASC_Pricing_Sheet.xlsx | Price Summary / CLIN X003 | The Price per Applicant in column I of the Price Summary is currently pulling in the average Applicants Processed Per Hour in tab CLIN X003 (Columns H, R, AB, AL and AV) instead of a Price per Applicant. |
We recommend one of two options:
Option 1 – Add an additional column in tab CLIN X003 to calculate the Price Per Applicant rate (based on the difference in max volumes for each band) and link that into the tab Price Summary column I.
| Option 2 - Rename column I to pull in Total District price per month per band from tab CLIN X003 – columns K, U, AE, AO and AY. | Please see response to Question 12 | |||
| 18 | Attachment_6_-_ASC_Pricing_Sheet.xlsx | CLIN X003 | CLIN X003 is requesting only Base Year rates for Biometric Technicians. Though SCLS has no escalation to the Direct Labor in the Option periods, the CBA includes annual escalation. |
| How are Offerors to respond with the CBA applicable positions that include escalated Direct Labor rate in the Option Periods? Will CLIN X003 be updated to include price for OP1-OP4? | CBA rates do not go beyong 1 April 2023 for any applicable CBA site. Offerors are not to account for escalation in the option periods. Any change in CBA or SCLS rates would be addressed with each option period | |||
| 19 | Attachment_6_-_ASC_Pricing_Sheet.xlsx | CLIN X001 | In tab CLIN X001, column N – Option 1 - Proposed Price is not calculating off of the Option 1 Price Per Hour in column M. |
| We recommend changing the formula in column N to column M times column K. | This has been corrected to the recommended formula | ||||
| 20 | Attachment_6_-_ASC_Pricing_Sheet.xlsx | Instructions and Summary Tab | The Instructions state, "The Total AWARDED Price shall be all CLINs (base + optional through Volume Bands AC)", but in the Summary tab, the calculation for the awarded price is using the percentage based evaluated price, not the full price if all sites operate at Band AC. Should the awarded price be 100% of Band AA, AB and AC prices? | No, the weighting (column J of price summary tab) is the estimated time spent in this volume during the period of performance, not a % of price per volume. The weights for AA-AE will only be used in calculating the total evaluated prices. The awarded price for each site is built off of the total volume bands AA through AC. | |
| 21 | ASC_RFP_70SBUR23R00000004.docx | Pg 66, Section II – Past Performance (Factor 3) | In the instructions for the past performance in Section II it states "(iii) To be considered relevant, each past performance reference must 1) have been performed within the last 5 years prior to the date of issuance of the solicitation, 2) meet the relevancy requirements in Group A or Group B and 3) be performed by the either the prime offeror or major subcontractor:". |
| We recommend that the requirement be to "meet the relevancy requirements in Group A and/or Group B" to address a Past Performance that meets both criteria. | The Government accepts recommendation and has made the change to page 66 | |||
| 22 | ASC_RFP_70SBUR23R00000004.docx | Pg 69, Section IV – Price (Factor 5) | BOE requirements state, “Provide information as described in FAR 15.404-3(b)”. |
| Given the amount of information that may be addressed, which can vary depending on team size, we recommend offerors be allowed to submit subcontractor price analysis as part of a separate file and/or excluded from the BOE page limit. | The Government is not requesting subcontractor price analysis to be submitted. | ||||
| 23 | ASC_RFP_70SBUR23R00000004.docx | Pg 61-62 and 70, Section IV – Price (Factor 5) | Please clarify if the 25 page limited BOE content is limited to the items stated on page 69, and that any additional narrative explaining pricing methodologies, price/cost rationale, and other stated Price requirements are to be included in Section IV – Price narrative which there is no page limit according to the last bullet in Section IV (page 70). | No price narrative is permitted as part of Attachment 6. The BOE page limit has been updated to 50 pages. Offerors are permitted to explain their BOE via narrative and/or numbers in the BOE within the BOE page limits. | |
| 24 | ASC RFP_70SBUR23R00000004 | p 8/77 | Far clause 52.222-55, Minimum Wages for Contractor Workers Under Executive Order 14026 (JAN 2022). |
| Please confirm the minimum rate all Offerors should use per EO 14026 is $15/hour. | Offerors shall pay the rates required considering all applicable regulations, laws, etc. included in this solicitation | |||
| 25 | ASC RFP_70SBUR23R00000004 | Pg 61 | The instructions state, "The following information will be included in each volume: |
Cover Letter 2 Pages SF 1449, Compliance Matrix (Attachment 8) No Limit Assumptions and Constraints No Limit"
| We recommend including the SF 1449 only in the Volume II Business Proposal. | Please see response to Question 1 | ||||
| 26 | Attachment_6_-_ASC_Pricing_Sheet.xlsx | CLIN X003 | The formula summing up the Total District does not look to be pulling in the correct cells. Please review the Total District Totals starting in row 41/District 13 and below for CLIN AA-AE. | These have been corrected | |
| 27 | Attachment_6_-_ASC_Pricing_Sheet.xlsx | Price Summary | Please review District 14 CLIN AA. It looks to be pulling from row 45 vs 46 from CLIN x0003. | This has been corrected to Row 46 | |
| 28 | ASC RFP_70SBUR23R00000004 | N/A | Please confirm 8 point Times New Roman font or larger is acceptable for the BOE. | Confirmed. Clarification added into instructions on page 69 | |
| 29 | Attachment 6 (Pricing Sheet) | Pricing Summary Tab | The AD band is missing the weight multiplier in the calculations in column K, and the formula treats the base period like it is 12 months instead of 9. Is the correct formula for the Base Period the following: max applicants for band (column H) * price per applicant (column I) * 9 * weight (column J)? | This has been corrected for all of Column K | |
| 30 | Attachment 6 (Pricing Sheet) | Pricing Summary Tab | The AB and AC bands appear to be multiplying by incorrect weight row. Should the correct formula for the Base Period multiply by the weight in the same row: =+(H7*I7)*9*J7? The Option Years would reflect 12 months instead of 9. | This has been corrected to 12 months | |
| 31 | Attachment 6 (Pricing Sheet) | Pricing Summary Tab | Are the "Price Per Applicant" cells in Column I intended to pull data from the "Applicants Processed per hour" columns on the CLIN x003 tab. The hidden columns are not used for any purpose. | The price per applicant cells in Column I pull data from the correct columns on CLIN X003 tab. Hidden columns are not used for any purpose. Additionally, the title for Column H and subsequent columns has been revised to Price Per Applicant to remove confusion | |
| 32 | Attachment 6 (Pricing Sheet) | CLIN x003 and Pricing Summary | It appears likely that the Government intended to pull data from the hidden columns L, V, AF, AP and AZ (Unit Price) on the CLIN X003 tab for Column I on the Pricing Summary tab. However, the unit price calculations themselves on CLIN X003 appear to be incorrect. Assuming the Government wishes to calculate the TEP based on max quantities for each band, the correct formula for unit price per district and band would be the sum of monthly prices for all sites in a given district divided by the sum of max quantities for all sites in a district. For example, for District AA, CLIN AA, the calculation would be k18/g18 rather than the formula that is in there now. | See response to Question 31 | |
| 33 | Attachment 6 (Pricing Sheet) | CLIN x001 Tab | Missing the Procurement Specialist in the list of Key Personnel IAW the PWS. | See response to Question 6 | |
| 34 | Attachment 6 (Pricing Sheet) | CLIN x001 Tab | Column N formula is pulling the Price Per Hour from the Base Period in Column I. Should the correct formula reference Column M in the formula? | See response to Question 19 | |
| 35 | Attachment 6 (Pricing Sheet) | CLIN x001 Tab | Cell N6 appears to double count the provided price per hour. Please correct the formula to be consistent with the other formulas in column N. | See response to Question 19 | |
| 36 | Attachment 6 (Pricing Sheet) | CLIN x003 Tab | Are offerors supposed to put Biotech hours that would accomplish the maximum applicants per band? If so, will the Gov’t clarify the instructions for offerors. Without clarification, offerors may input hours to accomplish some level of applicants below the max which would artificially lower their price. | Please see revised instructions Tab in Attachment 6. It has been revised to clarify instructions for X003 | |
| 37 | Attachment 6 (Pricing Sheet) | CLIN x008 | Where do we include the 3 quotes that we need to provide? Do we include them as copy/paste into an Excel tab of the BOE or in the Attachment 6? | CLIN 0008 instructions have been removed. The Government provided the T&M ceiling on the SF1449. Offerors shall not be required to provide any quotes for CLIN 0008 until such time that the CLIN would be exercised after award. The TEP under Q109 of the Price Summary Tab has also been corrected to remove CLIN 0008 from the TEP | |
| 38 | Attachment 6 (Pricing Sheet) | Pricing Summary Tab | CLIN x005 is pulling the wrong data into the Price Summary sheet. It incorrectly references the Base Period value which disregards the increase in hours during the subsequent OYs. Correct formula should reference the CLIN x005 tab cells K136-N136. | This has been corrected to reference K136 and every subsequent cell for option periods | |
| 39 | Attachment 6 (Pricing Sheet) and SF1449 | CLIN 009 and SF1449 | If an offeror proposes an accelerated transition schedule (i.e. faster than 90 days), how will the Government adjust the remaining CLINs (x001-x5, x007)? | No adjustments will be made. | |
| 40 | Attachment 6 (Pricing Sheet) | CLIN x003 Tab | The formulas in Column K under CLIN x003 calculate based on 9 months instead of 12. For example, should the formulas be corrected to multiply by 9 instead of 12: =+(H7*I7)*9*J7? | See response to Question 13 | |
| 41 | Attachment 6 (Pricing Sheet) | CLIN x003 Tab | Should the formulas in Column L under CLIN x003 calculate based on 12 months once the Column K formulas are corrected? | These have been corrected to 12 months | |
| 42 | Attachment 6 (Pricing Sheet) | General | How will billing work? Will it reflect the formulas provided on the Price Summary Tab? On the previously provided Draft Pricing Sheet, it was clear which amounts offerors would invoice. | Invoicing instructions have been added into Section 14.15 of the PWS. | |
| 43 | Attachment 6 (Pricing Sheet) | General | Assume for a given month that the applicant quantity falls in the middle of the AC band for a district, can the Government please provide a monthly invoice calculation example? | See updated Section 14.15 of PWS | |
| 44 | Attachment 6 (Pricing Sheet) | General | Assume for a given month that the applicant quantity falls in the middle of the AA band for a district, can the Government please provide a monthly invoice calculation example? | Since Volume Band AA is FFP and not Fixed Price Per Applicant, the contractor would invoice for the full amount of Volume Band AA | |
| 45 | Attachment 6 (Pricing Sheet) | General | Please explain why the formula for calculating TEP for the AA bands under CLIN X003 changed so drastically between the draft and the final RFP without any change to the assigned weights. Will billing instructions change based on the revision to the calculation of the TEP under the AA bands in CLIN X003? | The billing instructions have been provided in PWS Section 14.15. See response to Question 44 | |
| 46 | Attachment 6 (Pricing Sheet) and RFP Instructions | Page 69 | The Government provides the following instruction: "The sum of the CLIN totals from Attachment 6 shall be placed in the SF1449." Please clarify what the Government means by the CLIN totals. Is this the Total Evaluated Price or Awarded Price? Which cell/block on the SF1449 should the offeror fill out with this information? | Under the Price Summary Tab, the Awarded Total for all CLINs is Q112. For each CLIN the awarded totals will be Column K, L, M, N, and O, Rows 2, 3, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, and 107 Unit prices start at cell I113. | |
| 47 | Attachment 6 (Pricing Sheet) and RFP Instructions | Page 69 | The Government provides the following instruction: "The sum of the CLIN totals from Attachment 6 shall be placed in the SF1449." Does the Government mean that the unit prices and associated totals by CLIN, by year be filled in on the SF1449? If yes, recommend that the Government revise the Pricing Sheet to clearly identify which values should be used. For example, in CLIN x001, offerors provide a price per hour for different LCATs but the SF1449 unit is listed as months. There is no cell that calculates a monthly amount for CLIN x001. The same issue is present for CLINs x002, x003, x004, and x005. | Attachment 6 has been updated to calculate monthly price for CLINs X001, 2, 4, 5, and 9 | |
| 48 | Attachment 6 (Pricing Sheet) | CLIN x003 Tab | The formulas for summing the district totals on the CLIN X003 tab are incorrect for mutliple districts and bands (see cells p41 and p46 as examples). Please correct subtotal formulas. | This has been corrected | |
| 49 | Attachment 6 (Pricing Sheet) | Price Summary Tab and CLIN x005 Tab | CLIN x005 appears to be pulling the wrong data into the Price Summary sheet. It incorrectly references the Base Period value which disregards the increase in hours during the subsequent OYs. Should the corrected formula reference the CLIN x005 tab cells K136-N136? | See response to question 38 | |
| 50 | ASC_RFP_70SBUR00000004.docx, Proposal Preparation Instructions, Section IV (Price) | Page 69, paragraph 1 | The Government specifically references CLINs x001, x003, and x005 for the BOE. Did the Government intend for offerors to address CLINs x002, x004, and x007 as well? | Yes. This has been added to the instructions on Page 69. Additionally the revised pricing spreadsheet has been provided to provide flexibility for offerors | |
| 51 | ASC_RFP_70SBUR00000004.docx, Proposal Preparation Instructions, Section IV (Price) | Page 69, paragraph 1 | The BOE instructions tell offerors to "provide information as described in FAR 15.404-3(b)." Are offerors supposed to type this information into the Excel workbook? We recommend the Government allow for a Price Volume appendix with no page limit to include the required FAR 15.404-3(b) information. By including this information in the BOE, the Government may not get an adequate explanation of an offeror's BOE. | With regard to FAR 15.404-3(b) only numbers shall be provided in Attachment 6 and all narratives shall be placed in the BOE | |
| 52 | ASC_RFP_70SBUR00000004.docx, Proposal Preparation Instructions, Section IV (Price) | Page 69, paragraph 2 | Is the "build-up of all proposed SCLS and Collective Bargaining Agreement labor rates" included as part of the BOE, Attachment 6, or is this an entirely seprate Excel workbook? The "build-up" is described in a separate paragraph from the BOE, so this leads offerors to believe that it is a separate file. | Attachment 6. This has been clarified on Page 69 | |
| 53 | ASC_RFP_70SBUR00000004.docx, Proposal Preparation Instructions, Section IV (Price) | Page 70 | Where shall offerors include "evidence of an adequate accounting system"? Offerors are only given 25 pages for the BOE and Attachment 6 in the instructions. Is this intended to be an appendix to the Price Volume? | This will be an appendix to attachment 6. This has been clarified on page 70 | |
| 54 | ASC_RFP_70SBUR00000004.docx, Proposal Preparation Instructions, Section IV (Price) | Page 70, paragraph 2 | On page 70, the Government includes the instruction: "Page limit: No limit." What is this in reference to? The instructions (page 62) provide a 25 page-limit for the BOE and unlimited for the Attachment 6 Excel workbook. | This has been clarified to be the Excel Sheet for Attachment 6 | |
| 55 | ASC_RFP_70SBUR00000004.docx | Page 63 | |||
| Para - 1st bullet | The statement provided, "Oral Presentations shall be submitted as a Microsoft PowerPoint Presentation" does not include any font or page size requirements. We assume a any legible font that meets the size requirement (12 pt for text and 8 pt or larger for tables, charts, graphs, figures, illustrations or flow charts as outlined in Table 1 second row, item 4) on page 61 of the RFP is acceptable. Is this a correct assumption? For page size, will the government accept the standard wide-screen PowerPoint slide size (13.333 inches by 7.5 inches) recognizing that when printed on standard letter size paper, the font will automatically be reduced to fit the page and the electronic file will be used for font and page size compliance? | That is a correct assumption. The Government will accept standard PowerPoint slide size. | |||
| 56 | ASC_RFP_70SBUR00000004.docx | N/A | The RFP does not provide any guidance on what may be brought into the Oral Presentation by the Offeror. We assume that our Oral Presentation participants my bring copies of the slide deck (both hard copies and electronic copy on USB drive), presenter notes, blank note pads and pens for use during Problem Statement review and solution development, and the RFP are allowed? | That is a correct assumption. The Government will be utilizing MicroSoft Teams to present to non-local participants. Offerors may bring anything required (presenter notes, note pads, pens, etc.) that will facilitate their oral presentation. | |
| 57 | ASC_RFP_70SBUR00000004.docx | N/A | The RFP does not provide any guidance on equipment or materials that the government will provide for the Orals Presentation. Will the government please clarify that a projector and laptop for the Presentation will be provided and that the PowerPoint will be loaded on the Laptop for the Offeror Presentation? If the Offeror is to provide all equipment, please provide guidance on what is acceptable. | Offerors are requested to bring their laptops. The presenter will be invited to the Microsoft Teams session for the Oral Presentation so they may present. Offerors will need to bring a mobile hotspot to present, as the facility network is protected. In the event of technical issues for an offeror, the CO/CS will present via their laptop on an offerors behalf. The 30 minutes prior to presentation at 9AM shall be spent ensuring there are no technical issues for the offeror. Additional instructions have been added to clarify | |
| 58 | ASC_RFP_70SBUR00000004.docx | N/A | The RFP does not provide any guidance on supplies that will be provided for the Problem Statement Debrief development and format. Please clarify what, if any, (i.e., flipcharts, whiteboards, or other materials) will be provided? | The Government will only be providing copies of the Problem Statements. Offerors may bring any supplies needed to help them come up with their solution. Debriefs will be done orally and recorded for proposal purposes | |
| 59 | ASC_RFP_70SBUR00000004.docx | N/A | If the Offeror is to bring in their own materials, what is acceptable? Are we allowed to show the government any materials such as our notes and are we able to develop the debrief on flipcharts? | Any materials are acceptable. Written notes are not required, as the evaluation of the oral presentations and problem statement solutions will be recorded. Collection of any written notes will not be required | |
| 60 | ASC_RFP_70SBUR00000004.docx | page 61; second table, 5th row, right column, 2nd bullet | The Page Limit instructions for the presentation states that "spacing slides" are not included in the page count. Please clarify that this refers to slides used as transitions between topics and these slides will not be evaluated since they are not included in the 50 slide limit. | Correct, transition slides between topics will not be evaluated and do not count towards the limit | |
| 61 | ASC_RFP_70SBUR00000004.docx | page 64, Subfactor 2 - Two Problem Statements, item (a) and (b) | In "Subfactor 2 - Two Problem Statements" items (a) and (b), the instructions state, "Offerors shall be afforded 30 minutes to review and provide a solution ..." then states per the specified times for each Problem Statement, "...the offeror shall begin a NTE 15-minute oral debrief of its proposed solution...". Please clarify that "provide a solution" in the first reference in each segment should be "develop a solution" since each is afforded a 15 minute oral debrief of its proposed solution. | Correct, the 30 minutes of time is to develop a solution. This has been corrected on Page 64 | |
| 62 | ASC_RFP_70SBUR00000004.docx | N/A | The RFP does not provide any guidance on how the offeror's PowerPoint slides will be run. Please clarify if a member of the presentation team will need to click through slides on a computer or if a remote will be provided for presenters. | A member of the presentation team will need to click through the slides | |
| 63 | ASC_RFP_70SBUR00000004.docx, Subfactor 1.k | Final RFP page 73 | What detail or proof does the Government require from offerors in order to evaluate the "adequacy and sufficiency" of their Staffing Plan? | The Government encourages offerors to provide enough detailed evidence that would help evaluators properly determine the adequacy and sufficiency of their proposed plan. | |
| 64 | ASC_RFP_70SBUR00000004.docx, Section II (Past Performance) and Factor 3 (Past Performance) | Page 67, paragraph 1 and Page 75 | The Government provides the following instruction for Past Performance: "The Government desires at least one past performance reference from each Group, but it is not required." Should offerors interpret this to mean that having a single reference that covers both Groups A and B will contribute to a higher confidence level in accordance with the Evaluation Criteria? | If an offeror has single reference that covers both A and B it could contribute to a higher confidence level, but it will depend of the recency/relevancy and the specifics of the contents of the past performance provided in the proposal. | |
| 65 | ASC_RFP_70SBUR00000004.docx, Section II (Past Performance) and Factor 3 (Past Performance) | Page 67, paragraph 1 and Page 75 | The Government provides the following instruction for Past Performance: "The Government desires at least one past performance reference from each Group, but it is not required." Should offerors interpret this to mean that having a reference for Group A and a reference for Group B will lead to an increased confidence rating over an offeror with only Group A references? | See response to Question 64 | |
| 66 | Final RFP Instructions to Offerors, Section 3, Table 1 | Final RFP page 61 | Note 2 in Table 1 requires proposal to be submitted in Word/Excel. Will the Government accept the non-pricing proposal submissions in PDF format, in order to preserve the integrity and stability of the submitted files? | Yes. This has been added to Note 2 of Table 1 | |
| 67 | Final RFP Evaluation Criteria - Factor 1, Subfacto 1.i Organization / Training | Final RFP page 73 | Subfactor 1.i indicates that offerors will be evaluated on whether they outlined "their proposed training program and deployment of 800+ staff members across a wide geographic area". Will the Government confirm that the "deployment of 800+ staff members" applies to deployment of the training program across the staff? | This is confirmed | |
| 68 | Final RFP Instructions to Offerors, Section 3, Section 1 Corporate Experience (Factor 2) and Evaluation Factors - Factor 2 | Final RFP pages 65 and 74 | Under Group A for corporate experience, the instructions to offerors make it very clear that Group A requires relevant experience in all four aspects i through iv of Group A. This is indicated by use of the word "and" after each requirement. When those four requirements are listed in the evaluation factors section on page 74, the word "and" is missing, leaving it open to interpretation as to whether all four elements are required for a corporate experience reference to be considered relevant. Will the Government amend the language in the evaluation to include the word "and" after each of the first three requirements to make it clear that experience is required in all four areas? | The Government agrees. This has been added | |
| 69 | Final RFP Evaluation Criteria - Factor 6 (Mentor-Protege) Program Participation | Final RFP page 77 | The table at the bottom of page 77 indicates that an offeror's proposal will be acceptable under Factor 6 if it has a signed mentor-protege agreement letter or makes a statement that it does not have one. Whether an offeror makes a statement or not, is it not more logical that an offeror that has such a letter should be considered "acceptable" and that an offeror who does not have such a letter should be consisdered "neutral"? Since Factor 6 is considered one of the best value trade-off factors, surely an offeror that has such a letter should be given more evaluation credit than one that does not, regardless of whether the latter makes an affirmative statement or not. Will the Government amend the rating table for Factor 6 to clarify that an offeror that has a mentor-protege agreement letter will be considered acceptable and one that does not will only be considered neutral? | The Government shall not amend the rating table | |
| 70 | ASC_RFP_70SBUR00000004.docx, Section III, Small Business Factor | Page 67 | Is Offeror correct as a response to this section of the RFP, “recent and relevant Summary Subcontracting Reports from eSRS” submitting the Summary Subcontract Report (SSR) for the Department of Homeland Security? The most recent reporting period ended 30 September 2022. | An offeror will need to submit ALL recent and relevant eSRS reports within the last 5 years of the date of the solicitation (28 Dec 2017 to 28 Dec 2022). Submitted eSRS reports for FY22 will be accepted | |
| 71 | ASC_RFP_70SBUR00000004.docx, Section III, Small Business Factor | Page 67 | Can USCIS provide clarification as to what is considered “relevant” as the recent has been clearly defined as “within the last 5 years of issuance of this solicitation"? | Please see Amendment 1 for details | |
| 72 | ASC_RFP_70SBUR00000004.docx, Section III, Small Business Factor | Page 67 | Understanding that the breadth and width of an Offerors organization supporting multiple agencies and contracts of varying degreesof relevancy, would the Government consider limiting the POC information to the Offererors relevant SSRs? | Please see Amendment 1 for details | |
| 73 | Attachment 6 Pricing Sheet | CLIN x003, columns H, R, AL, | Suggest that column H on Column X003 tab (applicants processed per hour) should be yellow, allowing offeror to input value. Would expect Bio-Tech hours to be calculated based on application quantities and Applicants processed per hour rather than the inverse as it is currently set up. | Government will not allow for edits under Column H and corresponding columns in other volume bands. See response to Question 12 with regards to formula | |
| 74 | 70SBUR23R00000004.pdf SF 1449 | CLIN 0003 AB thru AE (ppg 3-4) | The units for SubCLINs x003 AB thru x003 AE are listed as "Lot" on the SF1449. Should this unit be "Each? | Please see Amendment 1 for details | |
| 75 | 70SBUR23R00000004.pdf SF 1449 | CLIN 0003 AB thru AE (ppg 3-4) | SubCLINs 0003 AB thru 0003 AE are listed as FFP and Fixed-Price-per-applicant with pricing as per Attachment 6, but Attachment 6 does not make it clear that these CLINs are partially FFP. Please clarify which aspects of x003AB-AE are FFP. | For CLINs X003, subCLIN AA is to be filled at a FP monthly rate while AB-AE are to be billed on the fixed price per applicant rate for those applicants above the max in AA | |
| 76 | ASC_RFP_70SBUR00000004.docx, Section II (Past Performance) and Factor 3 (Past Performance) | Page 66 and Page 75 | Must the referenced Past Performance be that of the prime offeror or a major subcontractor acting as a Prime Contractor? If this is not required, then if the referenced Past Performance is as acting as a Prime Contractor, will that be evaluated to more significantly increase overall confidence in the offeror's past performance than if the referenced Past Performance is not as acting as a Prime Contractor? | See Amendment 1 for Details | |
| 77 | Attachment 7 PP Reference Form | pg 2 | The form includes a final Yes/No question that states "If reference is for a subcontractor, is the subcontract 10% or more of the overall proposed value of work on the ASC contract." Please clarify what is meant by "is the subcontract 10% or more of the overall proposed value of the work on the ASC contract". |
| Is the Government asking whether the referenced PP contract had a value of 10% or more of what the Offeror is proposing for this ASC proposal? Or, if the referenced PP contract was performed by a proposed major subcontractor on this Offeror's ASC bid, are you asking whether that major subcontractor is proposed to perform more than 10% of the value of the proposed ASC support? | If the referenced past performance contract was performed by a major subcontractor, the major subcontractor must be proposed to perform more than 10% of the proposed value of the ASC contract | ||||
| 78 | ASC_RFP_70SBUR23R00000004.docx | Pg 8, Paragraph c, item 7 | The RFP cites Executive Order 14206 (Jan 2022); which dictates specific Federal minimum wages that are, at times, above current Wage Determination hourly rates for specific locations. Is it the Government intent that all contractors abide by Executive Order 14206 and include pricing based on the federal minimum wage when the Wage Determination rate is less? | This is correct, all offerors are to adhere to EO142026 | |
| 79 | 70SBUR23R00000004.pdf / Attachment_6_-_ASC_Pricing_Sheet.xlsx | 70SBUR23R00000004, Pg 3/Attachment 6, Price Summary tab | 70SBUR23R00000004.pdf, pg 3 states the PoP for CLIN 0003 (and subsequent SubCLINs AA - AE) is listed as 1 July 2023 - 31 March 2024, which is only 9 months, yet in Attachment_6_-_ASC_Pricing_Sheet.xlsx, the formulas for CLIN 0003 Base Period calculate pricing for 12 months. Will the Government please clarify? | Please see response to Question 13 | |
| 80 | Attachment 6 | Price Summary tab | The formulas for SubCLINs AB - AD in the Base Period (K7:K9, K13:K15, K19:K21 ) appear to calculate the weighting utilizing the incorrect subclin percentage. Can the Government please review and adjust these formulas? | These have been corrected | |
| 81 | Attachment 6 | Price Summary tab | The Formula in cell K24 of the "Pricing Summary" tab points to cell K45 on "CLIN X003" tab, which appears to be in error. Can the Government please review and adjust the cell formula to reference cell K46 on the "CLIN X003" tab? | This has been corrected to reference K46 | |
| 82 | Attachment 6 | CLIN X001 tab | The On-Site Program Manager and Assistant On-Site Program Manager listed in column A are not positions specifically called out in the PWS. Was the Governments intent to reference Project Manager and Assistant Project Manager instead of On-Site Program Manager and Assistant On-Site Program Manager? | Please see response to Question 6 | |
| 83 | Attachment 6 | CLIN X007 tab | The formulas in cells B15:B18 calculate total price for Option Years 1-4 by referencing $H$12, which is the total price for the Base Year. The Base Year only includes a total of 9 months, whereas, the Option Years include 12 months. The formulas, as is, understates the total price for each Option Year by 3 months. Will the Government please review and correct? | The Government has removed these formulas under B15:B18 and made them yellow to allow offerors to input the proposed price per Option Period | |
| 84 | Attachment 6 | CLIN X007 tab | The formulas in cell B15-B19 link to the total price for the 9 month Base Period in cell H12. This link causes the individual Option Periods to total 9 months only. Can the Government please review and correct? | Please see response to Question 83 | |
| 85 | Attachment 6 | CLIN X007 tab | The formula in cell C15, which calculates "Price Per Month" for Option Year 1, takes the total price and divides it by 9. Is the Government intent to divide the total price by 12 months in the Option Year? | No, this has been corrected to 12 months | |
| 86 | Attachment 6 | CLIN X007 tab | The formula in C19, which calculates "Price Per Month" for FAR 52.217-8 (6 months) , takes the total price and divides it by 12. Is the Government intent to divide the total price by 6 months in the Option Year? | It is the Governments intent to take Option Year 4 and divide it by 2 to get the evaluated price for 52.217-8, then divide that number by 6 months to get a per month price. | |
| 87 | ASC_RFP_70SBUR00000004.docx, Part IV, Evaluation, Factor 1 Management, Staffing, and Retention | ppg 73-74 | The rating table for Factor 1, which is the most important of the evaluation factors, lists only a three-scale rating approach for Overall Confidence (High, Some, Low). As this is the most heavily weighted evaluation factor, and has multiple sub-factors defined, it would be to the Government's benefit to rate this factor using a more graduated rating approach. For example, such as the approach used for Factor 3, which provides 5 levels of confidence ratings. As the current approach leaves limited delineation between offerors on the most important evaluated factor, would the Government consider using a ratings approach for Factor 1 that includes 5 levels of confidence ratings? | The Government gave this consideration, but decided instead chose to utilize the three tier approach. | |
| 88 | Attachment 6 | General | The pricing sheet asks for a site specific price per applicant on the clin x003 tab, but on the price summary tab, it takes a weighted price for the district as a whole in order to calculate an offeror's TEP. Does that mean that when we invoice we will be billing site-specific rates or district specific rates by band? | The awarded contractor will use district Rates in billing for CLIN X003. Please see revised invoicing instructions in PWS 14.15 | |
| 89 | Attachment 6 | General | Are offerors to assume that CLIN x003 amounts in Column I (e.g., bands AA-AE) are what will be invoiced monthly versus the amounts provided on the CLIN X003 tab? | Offerors are to invoice FFP CLINs by the schedule in the SF1449 (i.e. per month). Invoicing instructions for the Volume Bands are now listed in the PWS Section 14.15 | |
| 90 | Attachment 6 | General | How are offerors to determine what will be invoiced monthly for the FFP CLINs? There is no calculation included in the Pricing Sheet. | See response to Question 89 | |
| 91 | ASC_RFP_70SBUR00000004.docx, Part IV, Evaluation, Factor 1 Management, Staffing, and Retention | ppg 73-74 | As evaluation Factor 1 includes multiple subfactors, can the Government clarify how each aspect of Factor 1 will be evaluated as "increasing" or "decreasing" the Overall Confidence in the proposed approach? | Each subfactor will be evaluated against the ASC requirement and how sound the proposed approach is, IAW with the Overall Confidence Rating descriptions under page 74 | |
| 92 | General | N/A | USCIS states that it wants to gain operational efficiencies and the contract may require additional services to be performed. Further, it states that the contractor has to be responsive to legislative changes that impact the ASCs. To what extent will the agency allow for new technologies, process enhancements, and other innovations to be used/tested in order to gain operational efficiencies or meet other mission or congressional requirements? How does the government plan to evaluate these factors? | The agency encourages new technologies, process improvements, and innovations to meet the mission. These will be evaluated underneath Factor 1, Subfactor 1 and have been added into the stated criteria | |
| 93 | General | N/A | Given the extensive changes from the multiple previous drafts (RFI, 2 draft RFPs) to the final RFP, please extend the proposal due date by at least 30 days for adequate time to respond. | At this time the Government will not consider an extension. However, the Government reserves the right to extend at a later date if needed | |
| 94 | 70SBUR23R00000004 | N/A | What’s the significance of the Mar 31, 2024 and subsequent option period POP END? Why not just make the Base Period a full 12-months, and align OP POP ENDs accordingly? As is this is not a full 5 yr contract. | The contract is based on the end date of the current contract of 31 March 2023. In the event that an offeror other than the incumbent wins this award there will need to be a 90 day transition to allow for the awardee and incumbent to properly transition accordingly. | |
| 95 | 70SBUR23R00000004 | N/A | Can USCIS provide details as to why the NAICS code 541513 Computer Facilities Mgmt applies to this effort? This is not a technical support service. We recommend NAICS code 561611 - Investigation and Personal Background Check Services - which specifically includes Fingerprinting Services https://www.naics.com/naics-code-description/?code=561611&v=2022 | While this NAICS could fit, NAICS 541513 has been determined by the CO to be the most applicable NAICS as ASCs are considered data processing facilities | |
| 96 | RFP; Proposal Instructions | 61 of 77 | Please confirm if the 'Cover Letter, SF 1449, Compliance Matrix, and Assumptions and Constraints' are to be provided as a separate file OR within Volume I? | Please see response to Question 1 | |
| 97 | RFP; Proposal Instructions | 61 of 77 | In Table 1, #2 states proposals shall be submitted using MS Office including Word (.docx), Excel (.xlxs). |
| Can USCIS confirm it is permissible to submit Subfactor 1 (Oral Presentation) in MS PowerPoint? | Yes, the Oral Presentations shall be in MS Powerpoint | |||
| 98 | RFP; Proposal Instructions | 61 of 77 | In Table 1, #5 states margin requirements (1 inch margin from page edge and 3/4 inch side margins). |
| Can USCIS confirm these requirements pertain to the MS Word document and do not apply to the PowerPoint slides? | Confirmed that they do not apply to the Powerpoint | |||||||
| 99 | RFP; | Subfactor 1 – Management Approach, Key Personnel, and Staffing & Retention Plan Oral Presentation | 61 of 77 | Would USCIS consider allowing additional slides for the oral presentation, given the large amount of information to be provided within 50 slides? | The Government is amenable to this suggestion and shall increase the slide limitation to 75 slides | |||
| 100 | RFP; | Subfactor 1 – Management Approach, Key Personnel, and Staffing & Retention Plan Oral Presentation | 62 of 77 | Given the fact that the Oral Presentation instructions list 12 sub-bullets (A-L) with specific requirements for each, can USCIS confirm that the presentation slides should pull in PWS references, as applicable, but not focus on covering every PWS element? | The offeror will only be required to cover items listed in the stated evaluation criteria, however the Government will not require an offeror pulls in PWS references, but it is highly encouraged to easily trace back the presented solution to the actual requirements in the PWS and the evaluation criteria | |||
| 101 | RFP; Subfactor 2 - Two Problem Statements | 64 of 77 | Will the government consider providing advance notice of Problem Statement topics, if not specific questions, ahead of oral presentation to allow vendors to have some level of preparedness for the problem statement briefings, given the limited prep time during the oral presentation day? | The Government is amenable to this suggestion. Language has been added that Topics will be provided with the Oral Presentation Teams Meeting invite | ||||
| 102 | RFP; Section I – Corporate Experience | 65 of 77 | The RFP currently calls for offerors to provide generic labor and facility management experience. Does the government plan to consider more specialized corporate experience supporting federal and state enrollment programs that require identity verification and biometric collection of applicants? If so, how does the government plan to evaluate experience supporting enrollment programs with identity verification and biometric collection requirements? | The Government plans to evaluate as stated in the RFP | ||||
| 103 | RFP; Section I – Corporate Experience (Factor 2) | 65 of 77 | The current corporate experience/past performance groups are very restrictive and favor the incumbent because they do not allow offerors to include similar labor or facility management experience supporting state governments. Would the government consider making the requirements for each group "or" statements as included in the draft RFP to allow more even competition among bidders? | There is no restriction on experience providing support to state Governments | ||||
| 104 | RFP; Section II – Past Performance (Factor 3) | 66 of 77 | Please clarify what is considered to be equivalent to a CPAR for Federal and SLED contracts. Not all federal customers use CPARS and state and local customers do not. We recommend allowing a PPQ for those projects that do not have CPARS. | Many commercial contractors do past performance reports for Major Subcontractors. Similarly, State and Local agency contracts will also issue equivalent past performance reports for contractors. Many contractors will also issue past performance reports at the request of the subcontractor. | ||||
| 105 | RFP; Section II – Past Performance (Factor 3) | 66 of 77 | There appears to be a contradiction in requirements in 'Group A' of the Past Performance section. At first, the requirement states ...'across two or more time zones' but then further down, Group A is defined as 'across all U.S. time zones'...Can USCIS update the RFP with the accurate requirement? |
Group A: Managing at least 800 staff (managing non-exempt employees, recruiting/hiring a large labor force, retaining a large labor force, training a large labor force), across two or more time zones for at least 10 locations over the last 5 years, and at least $40M in labor management experience annually in the last 5 years,
| For past performance to be deemed relevant, the relevancy requirements in Group A must be met or the relevancy requirements in Group B must be met, (e.g. Offeror has managed 800+ staff across all U.S. time zones for at least 10 locations and has $40M in labor management experience over the last 5 years OR has $20M in facilities management experience). The Government desires at least one past performance reference from each Group, but it is not required. | This has been corrected on page 67 to "two or more" |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .