Amendment_1_Questions_and_Answers_HQ0034-15-R-0075.pdf

Amendment #1 Questions and Answers RFP: HQ0034-15-R-0075, Sign Language Interpreter Services

A1. The solicitation has been revised to include page numbers, see attached.

Q2. It is unclear whether resumes for key personnel are or are not included in the page count for Volume II Technical Approach and Capability. Please clarify whether they are or are not included in the 17-page limit for this volume. If they are included, please consider revising as this is a technical requirement in which the education, skills and experience of key personnel will determine the offerers’ ability to meet the requirement effectively or not. In our experience, resumes for key personnel are rarely included in the page limit of a proposal.

A2. Resumes are not included in the page count for Volume II.

Q3. The offerer is to supply a copy of interpreter certification (e.g. RID or NAD). The following types of documentation are available: Copy of membership card for RID indicating active membership and certification(s) held; a copy of an official letter form RID indicating certificate(s) achieved; a copy of an actual certificate issued by RID (similar to a college diploma); a screenshot of the RID member database indicating interpreter’s active status and certificate(s) held in real time. Please indicate which form of documentation is acceptable, or if the government prefers a different method altogether, please specify the method.

A3. Please provide a copy of an official letter from RID or NAD indicating certificate(s) achieved or a copy of an actual certificate issued by RID or NAD.

Q4. The past performance volume instruction requests two current or past performance references of similar size and scope. Are offerers discouraged from submitting more than two past performance summaries, if they are of similar size and scope?

A4. Please see solicitation and respond accordingly.

Q5. In the section titled ‘CLIN DELIVERY/TASK ORDER MINIMUM/MAXIMUM QUANTITY AND CLIN ORDER VALUE”, the clause text indicated that a minimum and maximum CLIN value will be listed ‘in the following table’ yet in the table that follows, no values are listed. Are these values unknown?

A5. Please see solicitation, FAR 52.216-19 Order Limitations.

Q6. The DD254 indicates that this is a follow-on contract. Please provide historical information available regarding number of hours used per CLIN per period of performance.

A6. Please see revised RFP HQ0034-15-R-0075, attachment IDIQ Task Order History.

Q7. In the DD254 guidance, instruction is given to not bring electronic devices, including cell phones into secure facilities. Since the locations for WHS are often best supported via metro, bus or rail, meaning that contractor personnel would not have a personal vehicle in which to store these electronics, is secure storage available at all sites (phone lockers, laptop lockers, etc.) for contractors to store their devices before entering the secure area?

A7. Yes.

Q8. Please confirm that all visitor access requests (VAR), and passing of security clearances may be processed via JPAS during the phase in period and for all periods of performance.

A8. Yes.

Q9. In order to comply with government security programs, it is often required for contractors to complete security briefings, including indoctrinations, debriefings, IA Awareness briefing, travel threat briefings, and other annual mandatory trainings, such as an instructor-led Counterintelligence briefing. Is it possible for contractor personnel to complete these during an interpreter’s workday whenever possible? Please confirm that the time required to attend these security briefings is billable.

A9. Please see solicitation and respond accordingly.

Q10. When an interpreter is assigned to interpret security briefings either for deaf/hard of hearing employees or for general audience access, will this satisfy the security program requirement to complete the training/briefing or will they still need to attend at another time as a participant rather than as the interpreter?

A10. The Interpreter will need to attend at another time.

Q11. In the PWS section 1.8 SECURITY REQUIREMENTS; it states that ‘the Prime contractor is responsible to flow-down the Secret Facility Clearance’. Is there a presumption for the need to subcontract? If the prime has a valid FCL at or above the level of the DD254 and its primary NAICS code is 541930 with a full complement of cleared and qualified interpreters in house, will the government look less favorably on an offer that does not include any need for subcontracting?

A11. Please see solicitation and respond accordingly.

Q12. Referencing 1.6.8.1 Key Control and 1.6.8.1.1 of the Task Order, these clauses imply that there has been an issue with contractor key control in the past. Has there been a need to charge the contractor for keys or lock replacement in the past? If so, please indicate from historical data, at what total dollar amount were those costs charged to the contractor?

A12. Please see revised PWS Task Order 1.

Q13. Referencing 1.6.1.6 of the Task Order, it is stated that interpreters may provide evaluation services. Without additional details or context, this is out of scope of the interpreter role. Please elaborate on what is meant by ‘evaluation services’.

A13. Please see revised PWS Task Order 1.

Q14. In section 3.4 of the Task Order, there is a phrase ‘historical files needed to help the ASL interpreter describe work standards to employees with a reasonable accommodation’. Without further context or details, this seems to mean that the contract interpreter has other duties apart from providing interpreting between individuals who use spoken English and individuals who use ASL to communicate. This appears to be within the work role of an EEO specialist/Reasonable Accommodation specialist and not a sign language interpreter. Please explain what the expectation is for a contract interpreter to describe work standards to employees with a reasonable accommodation.

A14. Please see revised PWS Task Order 1.

Q15. The Task Order states that the interpreter is to provide basic administrative support when not actively engaged in interpreting. This is highly non-standard in our field, particularly in a classified environment and it is our professional recommendation as specialists in this field, that the government remove or revise this as part of the job description as it will cause interpreters not to want to accept assignments for the WHS since truly no other classified contract that we have ever seen has such a requirement. It would be very much within the scope of appropriate expectation for a contract interpreter to maintain records of interpreter requests, to use any downtime for preparation for other assignments, familiarize themselves with organization structure, policy, vernacular, jargon, create additional resources for team or ad hoc interpreters including reference materials and prep materials, coordinate the need for ad hoc interpreters for special events, interpret phone calls for deaf employees, and even create and maintain reports regarding contract performance. It appears that the Government is creating what we in the field would call a multiple role position, which, while common for a civil servant employee interpreter, is highly irregular for a contract interpreter.

We strongly encourage the government to remove this as part of the contractor work role and review RID’s Standard Practice Paper on Multiple Roles. The full text of this SSP is available on the RID website under the Resources tab. Specifically, refer to the following clause:

In multiple role positions, conflicts can arise between the interpreting role and other job requirements. In general, the NAD-RID Code of Professional Conduct (CPC) guides interpreters to avoid role conflicts, as exemplified by CPC tenet 3.3: “Avoid performing dual or conflicting roles in multidisciplinary (e.g. educational or mental health teams) or other settings." The best time to deal with potential role conflicts is before they occur. When developing a job description for a multiple role position, consideration should be given to the interpreting responsibilities as well as any other employment requirements.

A15. Please see revised PWS Task Order 1.

Q16. What is the duration of the HRD Town Hall meetings (5.1.1)?

A16. Please see revised PWS Task Order 1.

Q17. When quoting pricing for ad-hoc requests such as 5.4 SECDEF, 25 events at three hours each, is it presumed that the daily onsite interpreter will go to team with the ad-hoc interpreter since two interpreters would be required for a continuous assignment two hours in length or greater, or is the expectation that the contractor will send two distinct ad-hoc interpreters to team for each of those twenty five assignments for three hours?

A17. The SECDEF events are separate tasking from the daily on-site interpreter requirement and will require two distinct ad-hoc interpreters to team for the assignments.

The daily interpreter is still required to show up and provide support to the two primary customers in HRD.

Q18. Would the government consider revising the CLIN structure for the Task Order to use hours as units, rather than months or lots, for clarity and ease of evaluating proposals on an even and fair basis? It’s possible that any offerer other than an incumbent would possibly misjudge or miscalculate the number of hours needed or the intent of the government in terms of which assignments are teamed and which are not, and thus could skew the resulting price proposals making fair evaluation impossible. Do we assume that all ad hoc assignments are teamed with another ad hoc interpreter? For example, in 5.2.1 and 5.2.2, is it possible that two deaf employees would attend the same session for the classes and thus reduce the number of hours needed for ad-hoc services? Is it possible that only an incumbent would know something like this? It seems that the government’s goal is to measure whether a vendor can meet the requirement effectively and not whether a vendor can come up with the correct number of hours needed based on statements with incomplete or missing information and misleading descriptions. Further, how would a vendor know how long an interpreter may be needed after a ceremony (page 11 of 19 first line) and thus how could they quote accurately for that as a LOT unit? Additionally, the cost would vary greatly for an assignment, which required two interpreters for three hours versus an assignment that required two interpreters for four hours (Page 10 of 19: Public Service Recognition Week). An addition one hour per interpreter may or may not be needed for those events. Its very possible that one vendor may calculate based on two interpreters for three hours and another bid on two interpreters for four hours? If this happens, how would the government determine the lowest price or best value if we say that the hourly rate used in both calculations is the same? This begs the question, how can an offerer submit accurate pricing for consideration when the quantity itself is in question or unclear? It is standard and expected that the quantity of such items be unknown in the field of interpreting. This is why all of the CLIN structures we have seen thus far, use an HOURLY unit and not a PER LOT or PER MONTH unit of measure.

Structuring a CLIN with an HOURLY unit would allow for all offerers to submit standard pricing so that the evaluators would clearly be able to determine the lowest price or best value.

With a total per lot for each CLIN, how will the government know the assumptions behind the price in order to determine which is truly the best value or truly lowest price? One offerer may have a lower hourly rate while a higher number of hours in their calculation. It is entirely possible to have a FFP IDIQ with Multiple Awards and use a CLIN structure of Daily onsite services cost per hour and Ad Hoc interpreter cost per hour. It is strongly recommended that the government specifically state the exact number of hours they are requesting for each CLIN so that every offerer has the same chance to respond with a relevant offer.

A18. Please see solicitation and respond accordingly. Please see revised PWS Task Order 1.

Q19. In Section 1.6.1 of Task Order 1, you mention that three copies of a comprehensive Quality Control Plan (QCP) are to be submitted to the KO and COR within 30 days after contract award; however, under the Technical Exhibit 2: Deliverables Schedule, you mention that the QCP is due within 90 days of contract award. Please clarify whether this is due within 30 days or within 90 days of award.

A19. Please see revised PWS Task Order 1.

Q20. From 1.6.17 in Task Order 1: Is it expected that the contractor team, during the phase-in period, undergo a badging process upon award to comply with the requirement for unescorted access at the Pentagon? Just clarifying that it is not the expectation of the Government that the contractor will have previously obtained CAC and/or badge for Pentagon access. Please advise.

A20. Please see solicitation and respond accordingly. Please see revised PWS Task Order 1.

Q21. From 1.6.18 in Task Order 1: It is industry standard that the customer must notify the contractor no less than two business days prior to the start of a confirmed assignment in order for a cancellation to be considered timely, and thus not billable to the customer. The solicitation lists one business day as the timely cancellation period. This is non-standard across industry.

Will the government consider revising the solicitation in order to align with standard practice for timely/untimely cancellation? Please advise.

A21. . Please see revised PWS Task Order 1, attached.

Q22. Is it anticipated that this effort will also require the need for CDI (Certified Deaf Interpreters) for close vision/deaf blind consumers?

A22. No.

Q23. Is there an incumbent contractor for this effort? If so, who is the incumbent vendor?

A23. Yes, the incumbent is TCS Interpreting, Inc.

Q24. Have CDI services been utilized in the past? If so, for how many hours per year?

A24. No.

Q25. Is there any special consideration for small business offerer with SBA 8(a) certification and EDWOSB certification?

A25. Please see solicitation and respond accordingly.

Q26. Will assigned or visitor parking be available to the contractor for the required work locations, such as the Pentagon or the Mark Center? Specifically, at Mark Center, if Visitor Parking is not available for a contractor who is driving, there are limited alternatives in the area.

Will the contractor be able to work with site security or other points of contact to obtain visitor parking on an as needed or regular basis.

A26. Parking for Contracotrs at the Mark Center is not provided.

Q27. If parking includes a daily cost to park, will the Government reimburse the contractor for this expense? For example, at Mark Center, paid parking if available offsite. Would parking cost be reimbursed by the government if Visitor Parking is not offered?

A27. Parking fees are an allowable cost.

Q28. Would you consider doing and a 8(a) sole source for this solicitation?

A28. Please see solicitation and respond accordingly.

Q29. How many ASL interpreters do you need where and how long? What qualifications? Thank you. Can I submit the proposal by email? What must be included in the proposal?

A29. Please see solicitation and respond accordingly.

Q30. I am trying to fill out the DD254 as it is required for me to have Secret Clearance at the time of submitting my RFP proposal for SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETER SERVICES HQ0034-15-R-0075. I was told that I need sponsorship and I must be awarded first from your agency if selected then I can request Secret Clearance. The RFP is conflicting with the sponsorship requirement and processing. I spoke with Crystal Poblador. She said I must be awarded first then do Sponsorship form from your agency then get secret clearance. Can you help and clarify? I don't want to disqualify myself if the process is conflicting or I misunderstand? I want to be sure that I am doing it right?

A30. Please see solicitation and respond accordingly.

Q31. Our firm does not have the below:

The Contractor must have a Secret Facility Clearance from the Defense Security Service (DSS) at the time of proposal submission.

However, we do have interpreters that do have Top Secret Clearance. Would not having the first part eliminate us from applying for this bid?

A31. Please see solicitation and respond accordingly.