HSCECR-14-R-00001_Amendment_4.pdf

(x)

HSCECR-14-R-00001

x x 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 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 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.

x

Washington DC 20536 Attn: William Quigley

ICE/DM/DC-DC

801 I Street NW, Suite930 Office of Acquisition Management Immigration and Customs Enforcement ICE/Detent Mngt/Detent Contracts-DC

Washington DC 20536

ICE/DM/DC-DC

801 I Street NW, Suite 910 Office of Acquisition Management Immigration and Customs Enforcement ICE/Detent Mngt/Detent Contracts-DC

06/05/2014000004

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS. IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) is not extended.is extended, Items 8 and 15, and returning

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

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

FACILITY CODE CODE

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code)

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

PAGE OF PAGES

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.3. EFFECTIVE DATE2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

06/05/2014

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

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority) appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return __________________ copies to the issuing office.

ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

THE PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT 000004 TO SOLICITATION HSCECR-14-R-00001 IS AS FOLLOWS:

1) To provide Questions and Answers

2) Revise and Replace Section B to reflect and update to CLIN 0002

3) Provide an updated Attachment No.4 with additional information as it relates to gender population

4) Provide an attachment outlining Participant days by Fiscal Year.

5) Provide an Attachment with Enrollments and Terminations

6) Provide a redacted list of the hired dates for the incumbent.

7) Provide Population Reports from 10/17/13-6/12/14

8) Revise and replace Attachment 6, 2. MONITORING EQUIPMENT: GPS ANKLE BRACELET, b.

Transmitter, iv. Page 3

Continued ...

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

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 16C. DATE SIGNED

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

Previous edition unusable

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.

ITEM NO. SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

NAME OF OFFEROR OR CONTRACTOR

2 78

CONTINUATION SHEET

REFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED PAGE OF

(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)

HSCECR-14-R-00001/000004

9) ICE has remaining questions that it hopes to provide answers to by COB Thursday June 26. This amendment extends the period for Questions to COB Friday June 27. The proposal due date has not been changed as a result of this amendment.

Period of Performance: 09/06/2014 to 09/05/2019

NSN 7540-01-152-8067 OPTIONAL FORM 336 (4-86)

Sponsored by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.110

Questio n

Number

RFP Reference Question/Comment

1. General If the Government requires hard copies of files, where are the files to be kept? The contractor shall hold the hard copies of the files.

2. General

When will the government provide files to the awarded contractors? Files will be transferred during transition and as appropriate.

3.

General Please provide the total number of alerts received over the past year? There were 127,881 alerts in the last 6 months. This works out to roughly 256,000 per year.

4.

General Please provide the average number of alerts received per participant over the past year. Approximately 11.4

5.

General How many persons have absconded in the last year?

FY13 Absconders

Absconders 1,360

Terminations 26,808

Absconder Rate 5.1%

6.

General How many persons have absconded in the last year with an ankle monitor?

FY13 GPS Absconders

Absconders 716

Terminations 8,884

Absconder Rate 8.1%

7.

General How many persons in the ATD program are females by region?

Included in Attachment No.4

8.

General Can the government please advise a break down by area of who is on

AM and who is on telephone monitor? Included in Attachment No.4

9. General

What was the reasoning behind the new structure? Why is it different?

How will it be used? The Government requires more flexibility to monitoring participants as it deems appropriate. Previous ISAP II structure was too inhibiting and mandated reporting levels that were not appropriate for all participants based upon individual circumstances. The Government continues to review and refine the

Number

RFP Reference Question/Comment

ATD program over time and having options allows for data collection and evaluation to ensure that the most appropriate forms of case management, supervision, and technology is used.

10. General

Who will evaluate the technical and price proposals?

The technical proposals will be scored by individuals with knowledge of the program. Price will be evaluated for reasonableness in accordance with one or more price analysis techniques identified in FAR 15.404. The technical team will not have access to the price proposals while scoring the technical submittal.

11. General

Do you anticipate any site-visit? Do you anticipate awarding with/without discussions?

The Government does not anticipate any site visits. The Government reserves the right to award on initial offers without discussion if considered to be in the best interest of the Government. All offerors should submit their best cost and technical proposal in their initial submission. (See Section L)

12. General Will technical evaluators have access to price information?

No. See above

13. General

Will the ranking of proposals that don’t win the award become public?

The Government does not intend on ranking the proposals, however if it does, the rankings will be made public in accordance with FAR 15.506(d).

14. General

A small business category was not addressed in the RFP, is it required?

A successful offeror will be required to submit an approved subcontracting plan in accordance with FAR 19.702.

15. General

Can you provide any information on the percent of weight that will be given to price vs. technical during evaluations?

A trade off process will be used as outlined in FAR 15.101-1. Section M, Paragraph A, Source Selection Process, provides the relative weights of the factors to be used.

16. General How will you score price?

Number

RFP Reference Question/Comment

Price will be evaluated for reasonableness in accordance with one or more price analysis techniques identified in FAR 15.404.

17. General

Are there any pending federal, DHS and/or ICE initiatives that may significantly increase or decrease the use of ISAP III services and, if so, will you please indicate each with an anticipated impact timeline and associated percentage of increased/decrease by technology type? The ATD program is experiencing an influx due to the traffic on the southern land border. The overall impact and end-time for the change is unknown by the Government.

18. General

Will it be possible for the awardee to begin managing detainees in 60 days? The participants in the ATD program are not ‘detainees’ but participants. ATD is not a form of custody. The awardee must be prepared to begin managing participants as soon as they are referred during the transition period. By the end of the transition period, the awardee is expected to have 100% of the participants.

19. General Would you consider more than a 1 day transition or phase-in due to mass migration. The Government is not requiring all participants to be transitioned in 1 day but over the course of the 60 day transition period.

20. General

We have several questions regarding the access to public records:

a. Will proposer names be available following the submission date?

i. If so, how may this be accessed/obtained? The identities of unsuccessful offerors are protected under the Procurement Integrity Act. With limited exceptions, this Act does not apply after the award of the contract or after the procurement has been canceled. They are protected during the source selection process. In sum, the requested information cannot be released at present.

ii. If not, when do proposer names become public record? See Above

b. Will proposer pricing be available following the submission date?

FAR 52.215-1(e) permits withholding of proposal material marked by an offeror as proprietary. There is also a statute providing for the withholding of certain proposals. Specifically, 41 U.S.C. § 4702 prohibits agencies from releasing under the FOIA proposals “submitted by a contractor in response to the requirements of a solicitation for a competitive proposal,” unless that proposal is “set forth or incorporated by reference in a contract.” Certainly, the proposal submittal contains some trade-secret-type information otherwise referred to in the FAR as proprietary information. The DC Circuit's decision, McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 108 F.3D 303, 304 (D.C. Cir. 1999) precludes the release of "constituent" or "line item" prices because it views those prices as trade secrets.

At bottom, unsuccessful offerors’ price proposals are completely protected forever while an awardee’s bottom-line price is not necessarily protected after the award is made. In light of the DC Circuit’s decision, the awardee’s unit price is, however, protected even if it is incorporated into a contract.

Number

RFP Reference Question/Comment

i. If so, how may this be accessed/obtained? The overall evaluated price will be available according to FAR 15.506(d).

ii. If not, when does proposer pricing become public record? The overall evaluated price will be available according to FAR 15.506(d).

c. Will technical solicitation responses be available for review following the award date? See Below

i. If so, how may this be accessed/obtained? See below

ii. If not, when do technical solicitation responses become public record? Unsuccessful offerors’ technical proposals are completely protected forever whereas an awardee’s technical proposal is not necessarily protected if it is incorporated into a contract. If the awardee’s proposal is not incorporated, the proposal may well be protected, especially if it is marked as proprietary or it contains some trade-secret-type information otherwise referred to in the FAR as proprietary information.

d. What is ICE’s preferred method for interested parties to request access to such public records and who is the contact person/contacts details to whom such requests should be submitted? Any request for documents must be submitted through the FOIA process.

www.FOIA.gov

21. General

To enable networking and potential partnering, will you please include a scanned copy of the sign-in sheet from the pre-proposal conference as part of the answers to vendor questions?

The Sign-in sheet was posted with Amendment No. 3

22. General

We have several questions regarding the solicitation schedule: a.

When does ICE anticipate distributing answers to questions?

ICE will post the answers to questions as soon as they are finalized.

b. Will ICE answer in writing all questions received and, if so, by what medium will these questions be distributed/posted (Email?, Posting on FedBizOps? Other?) All questions and answers will be posted as part of an amendment on FedBizOps.

23.

Reference Section L, Item B, “Section II – Past Performance,” Section 4, page 108, Section in Entirety: Please confirm that offerors may submit a Past Performance Questionnaire to DHS, should the offeror hold a current contract with the agency. Offerors may submit a Past Performance Questionnaire to DHS.

24.

Page 105 of Section L, states ” Sub-factor 2 – Operations Plans:

The Offeror must submit all of the plans listed in this section. They will be incorporated into the contract.” For the entire Technical Section, we have been allotted a total of 60 pages for 12 plans. However, for example, a contract compliant Emergency Readiness Plan and Continuity of Operations Plan would normally be at least 100 pages for a contract of this size. This 100 pages far exceeds the 60 page limit for the Technical Section which requests 12 individual plans.

Would the government consider revising the RFP text to say that “Full plans will be required if the contract is awarded.”? The Government http://www.foia.gov/

Number

RFP Reference Question/Comment feels that an adequate response can be generated within the page limits that have been provided. Section M Evaluation Factors for Award Paragraph A Source Selection Process, lists the order of importance for the plans required in the technical sections.

25.

Section M on page

The RFP states that the ER/COOP will be evaluated based on many things including the “comprehensiveness of the COOP”. If our contract complaint ER/COOP for a program of this size is normally at least 100 pages according to our Risk Management SMEs, would the government consider allowing more than the 60 pages for a total of 11 plans? The Government feels that an adequate response can be generated within the page limits that have been provided. Section M Evaluation Factors for Award Paragraph A Source Selection Process, lists the order of importance for the plans required in the technical sections.

26.

Section B – CLIN 0004.

The CLIN for Orientation / Enrollment says that the unit “EA” represents a Participant Day. However, is it correct that this line item will be billable one time only for each new participant enrolled in the ISAP program? Please confirm that this item will be billed once per participant, not for each Participant Day. Correct. Once per participant.

27.

Section B – CLIN 0004: Orientation / enrollment.

Will this CLIN be used only for participants enrolled in the full service program (visits, case management, etc.)? Or does it apply to people who may receive fewer contractor services but do need to be enrolled in the program (for example, someone at a T-site receiving only Alert Management or Court Tracking, or someone in the Technology only program). Although Section 6.6 refers to all of the three types of service(C, G and T), the effort required to perform an enrollment varies considerably. Please clarify whether this CLIN should be used for all enrollments, and if the proposed rate should be the same regardless of the enrollment type. Orientation/Enrollment CLIN will only be used at those locations where the participant is assigned to a C or G-site. Participants assigned to T-site reporting will not be eligible for O/E as it requires contractor presence. In those locations where C/G and T co-exists, O/E will only be available to those participants assigned as C or G.

28.

Section B – Item number 0004 Orientation/Enrollme nt:

The estimated quantity of 31,800 units, each says to bill a participant day. Would the government please clarify whether we should bill one day for each orientation/enrollment, which is equivalent of a charge per orientation/enrollment? There will only be a one-time O/E charge per C or G assigned participant. The total projects a maximum amount of C/G enrollments over the course of the contract year.

Number

RFP Reference Question/Comment

29. Section B Quantities.

Although it is a minor difference, please note that the estimated quantity of Participant Days in CLIN 0002 (20, 958,300) is not equal to the sum of the Participant Days in CLINs 0002A and 0002B (20,969,302). We assume that these numbers should be the same.

Correct. The number should be 20,969,302.

30.

SOW- Section 1.0, (pg 23).

Paragraph 3 states that “ATD participants are mandated to use some form of technology, either GPS or Telephonic Reporting”. It is our understanding that under ISAP II some participants may have been enrolled and supervised but not subject to either technology. Is it ICE’s intention to have ALL participants comply with this requirement under the ISAP III contract? All participants enrolled under ISAP III will be required to have a form of technology. There may be extraordinary circumstances in which the Government will not require tech but that will an extremely rare exception. Those participants in ISAP II without technology will be required to be assigned tech unless there is a change in circumstance or a compliance issue.

31.

SOW- Section 1.0, (pg 23).

Paragraph 4 states that one program category is “a single contractor working at a government office (G-site)”. However, Attachment 4 (ATD Location Overview) shows at least one G-site (Marlton, NJ – 260 FS participants) that has more full service participants than one Case Specialist could handle. Is Marlton actually a Full Service site?

Also, is there a specific cap on the number of Participants that can be enrolled at a G-site? Will there be any situations where a G-site would have more than one Case Specialist, or more than 100 assigned participants? Marlton is a C-site. G-site cap is 100 participants. No, G-sites will not be authorized more than 100 participants or have more than one CS. If more than 100 participants start reporting to a G-site location, it could adversely affect the rest of the Government’s ability to work the non-detained docket, etc.

32.

SOW – Section 5.0 (pg 29).

This section states that “Contractor will not permit legal counsel to attend face to face meetings between Participant and their Case Specialist”. The contractor will be required to explain and enforce this contractual provision to participants and attorneys. Will ICE support the contractor by supplying the legal basis for this policy? This is a matter of historical practice. The contractors are not making subjective decisions nor do they control any facet/stage of proceedings against the participant. The CS is also not a Government employee or law enforcement officer. If local legal counsel has any questions, comments, or concerns, they must be referred to the Government officers in the field.

Number

RFP Reference Question/Comment

33.

SOW Section 6.7.1 – Contractor Office Sites, items o and q.

These two paragraphs specify requirements for minimum staffing levels. Paragraph q states that there can be no more than 100 participants per Case Specialist, and paragraph o states that a third Case Specialist is required if the participant count reaches 151. This would suggest that the ratio cannot exceed 75 participants per Case Specialist. These two instructions appear to be contradictory. Can you please clarify the government’s intention? No more than 100 per case specialist. Third case specialist should be required at 201, not 151.

34.

SOW Section 6.3 - Alert Management (pg 36).

Point iii says “This” will be checked at each office visit. However, it is not clear what “This” refers to – there doesn’t appear to be anything that needs to be checked during a visit. Please clarify. ‘This’ refers to court tracking/case check for EOIR, BIA, PACER, etc.

35.

SOW Section 6.5 Technology (pg. 36).

The RFP states that “there will only be one (1) type of GPS service”.

We are uncertain about this reference. Is this a reference to the current contract that called for both an active and passive mode of GPS service? Correct. The Government does not see a necessity for active vs passive data collection.

36.

SOW Section 6.7.1 - ERO Office locations.

The RFP states that Contractor offices must be located within 10 miles of the ERO office. However, the RFP does not include the addresses of the 33 ERO offices that require nearby contractor offices. For planning purposes and to ensure that the contractor selects an office site within the required 10 mile distance of ERO, will the Government please provide a list showing the current addresses of the 33 ERO offices?

For Security reasons a list of the 33 offices will be provided to any prospective offeror that emails the Contracting Officer requesting such information.

37.

SOW Section 6.1.c.iii (pg. 31).

This section of the RFP stipulates that “A Case Specialist…will perform the following actions within 24 hours (end of the next business day) after referral from ERO.” These two deadlines could be very different – for example, for an enrollment that takes place on a Friday afternoon. Could you please clarify the language on the required timeframe for these actions? Language to be understood as having the actions completed within the next business day. Friday enrollments have until Monday COB for completion.

38.

SOW 6.9.2 -

Transition and Contractor

The RFP says no one can “perform duties under this contract” until training is completed. We assume this refers to Program Managers, Case Specialists and Administrators who will be working directly with

Number

RFP Reference Question/Comment certification (pg. 40). participants once service commences. However, please confirm that other contractor employees may assist with the 60 day transition process as long as they have appropriate clearances. Correct.

39.

SOW Section 6.9 – Training (pg 40-42).

Will the Government please confirm that the following understanding of the initial training requirements is correct: Administrative staff must receive 20 hours of initial training, Case Specialists must receive 21 hours of initial training, and Program Managers will have 45 hours of initial training. Confirmed.

40.

SOW Section 6.9.4 - Training for Administrative Staff.

The RFP specifies that administrative staff should receive 20 hours of initial training. Does the Government have any specific requirements as to the content of this 20 hours of initial training? The Government does not have specific requirements to those 20 hours of initial training.

41.

SOW Section 6.9 – Training.

It is unclear in Section 6.9.5.a whether the Case Specialists will require annual refresher training. Can the Government please clarify this requirement? If refresher training is required of Case Specialists, can the Government please provide the number of hours and required subject areas for this refresher training? Government specific training provided on disc is required annually (6.9.5.f). Other training requirements do not require annual refresher training.

42.

SOW Section 6.9 – Training.

Can the Government please confirm that the required annual refresher training for supervisors consists only of the 24 hours of the specialized supervisory training (listed in 6.9.5.c)? Confirmed.

43.

SOW Section 6.9 – Training.

In Section 6.9.4, the Government states that administrative staff “shall be given annual refresher training consisting of the mandatory training each subsequent year of employment.” Can the Government please clarify what it means when it references “mandatory training”? Does this reference the mandatory training listed for the Case Specialists (listed in 6.9.5.b), or does this reference the ICE mandatory training discussed in 6.9.5.e-f? 6.9.5.e-f

44.

SOW Section 6.9 – Refresher Training for Case Specialists (pg 41).

The RFP makes specific mention of annual refresher training requirements for Administrative personnel (21 hours – same as mandatory training) and Supervisors (“24 hours of general management training during …each subsequent year of employment.”). However, there is no apparent specification of required annual refresher training for Case Specialists. Could you please clarify your expectation in this area? Case specialists have

Number

RFP Reference Question/Comment refresher training requirements.

45. SOW Section 6.9

Do the case specialists have to be a full time employee or can there be more case specialists with lighter case loads. They of course would still have to be available 24/7. The Government would prefer that the CS be Full time employee so that we do not have to worry about scheduling from outside employment, potential conflicts of interest, or anything of that nature which could significantly negatively affect operations.

46.

Place of Performance – (F.3, pg 55).

The RFP states that the list of locations in Attachment 4 is subject to change at any time. Section H.4 provides a more detailed procedure for opening new ISAP offices. A new office will require the contractor to incur substantial cost. Is ICE anticipating opening additional C-sites? Is it intended that there will be a mechanism for the contractor to invoice for the costs associated with opening a new office? Or should the contractor include any provision for the costs of a new office in its proposed price? The Government anticipates opening C, G, and T-sites in the future based upon funding availability, operational capability, and programmatic need. The contractor should not bill separately to open an office nor provide an increase to the Contract Management CLIN. The possibility of opening new offices is part of the requirement.

47.

Period of Performance.

If award is delayed past the intended date of September 6th, will the base year still be 2 months transition plus 10 months of operational performance? For example, if the contract is awarded on November 1, will the base year run from 11/1/14 through 10/31/15, with operational performance commencing on February 1, 2015? The base period of performance will be a sixty (60) day transition followed by 10 months of full performance regardless of when award is made.

48.

Base Year Pricing Methodology.

Schedule B (and several other sections) are clear that the base year is intended to run from 6 September 2014 through 5 September 2015, and that the base year will include a 60 day transition period and ten month operational period. However, Schedule B (CLIN 0001) shows an estimated quantity of 12 months for Contract Management (rather than 10). Is it intended that the contractor would invoice for Contract Management for all 12 months of the base year, including the transition period? Please clarify.

The contract management CLIN 00001 should be ten months. This has been correct on the revised Section B which was posted in Amendment No. 3

Number

RFP Reference Question/Comment

49.

Section L – Past Performance (page 106).

The second paragraph of this section states that references may include either government agencies or the private sector. The RFP states that the first part of the past performance proposal “shall include the following information in the following format.” It goes on to list a very specific format in points a-j that seems to assume a reference from a federal client. Given this, is it acceptable to modify the format in a-j based on applicability to the contract referenced?

Yes, for contracts with private companies a modified format is acceptable.

50.

Section L – Proposal Instructions (pg 104).

May a font size of less than 12pt be used for graphics and charts provided it is clear and easy to read? Approved. Must be legible unassisted by vision augmenting means.

51.

Section L - Proposal submission (pg 103).

Please confirm that the total proposal submission should be a total of 25 binders: 5 separate volumes with 5 copies of each (1 original and 4 copies). As was discussed at the pre-proposal conference, the Government would prefer 5 separate binders (marked one (1) original and four (4) copies) containing the entire submittal. It is important that sections are clearly labeled within the binders so that the pricing section may be easily identified and removed for the technical evaluation. For more information regarding the format and labeling for the proposal submittal please review Section L, b. File Packaging.

52.

Section L – Price (pg 109).

The RFP states that the offeror shall include a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel in the price section “in sufficient detail to permit evaluation of the proposed prices”. Page 104 also requires the offeror to submit by email “the proposal price section in Microsoft Excel with viewable calculations”. Can you provide some further explanation of the desired content and format of this spreadsheet? What level of detail is the government seeking? The content should provide enough detailed information so that the Government can assess the projected prices to make a reasonableness determination on the proposed pricing. As was discussed at the pre-proposal conference, if possible, please submit an electronic copy of the entire proposal.

53.

Section L – Past Performance.

The RFP instructions do not make any specific mention about how the past performance of major subcontractors should be handled. Page 107 notes that the past performance of subcontractors will be taken into account for contractors “with no relevant past performance”, but there is no language that states how subcontractor past performance will be evaluated for prime contractors that do have relevant past performance. We assume that the government is interested in evaluating the performance of major subcontractors in either case.

Number

RFP Reference Question/Comment

Can you please clarify whether offerors with relevant experience should also provide past performance references for their major subcontractors. Should these references be counted as part of the minimum 3, maximum 10 count? The offerors should submit evaluations that are relevant to the essence of the ISAP III contract.

Offerors should only submit past performance references for subcontractors performing more than 30% of the work. The references will count as part of the maximum 10.

54.

Section M – Facilities Plan (pg 119).

The requirement for metal detectors and security personnel was removed via an amendment in the ISAP II RFP. Please clarify if these items are required under ISAP III. This is no longer required under ISAP III. See Amendment No. 3

55.

Attachment 3 – ATD Participant Enrollment Form.

The form contains a checkbox for all potential services except “Case Management” (CLIN 0003). Is this because this is assumed that anyone being enrolled must receive case management? How will participants who are subject to telephonic reporting only be treated?

Should case management be billed for them? Generally, can you please clarify how and when the “case management” CLIN is applicable and should be used by the contractor. Case management services are for those participants that will be assigned to some level of a C or G-site. A service that would be covered under case management services would be appropriate referrals, assistance with travel documents, etc. For any participant that is assigned OV, HV, or both is assumed to have case management as well.

56.

Section M – Transition Plan (page 117).

In the list of Transition Plan elements that need to be addressed in the proposal, the RFP asks the offeror to describe how it will “handle influx/transition from other ATD program(s).” There is no mention in the RFP of other ATD programs. Can you please clarify what is meant by this? The offerors are being asked, as part of the transition plan, to describe how they propose to perform the transition as well as handle day-to-day operations.

57.

Section M – Transition Plan (pg.

117).

This section refers to plans for database transition, case management transition, and historical data transition. Each of these key tasks depends on accessing data that resides in the systems of the incumbent contractor. Will the government require the incumbent contractor to cooperatively provide this data to the incoming contractor? Is there a specific number of days after award when the Government will require the incumbent contractor to provide this data to populate the new case management system? The incumbent will be required to turn over the data as soon as possible as it belongs to

Number

RFP Reference Question/Comment the Government.

58.

Section M – Transition (pg. 117).

The RFP states that the offeror should describe how it will provide for “simultaneous execution of day-to-day operations during transition.” Is the Government suggesting that the ISAP transition can be a rolling one rather than occurring on a single day? Generally, can you please provide further explanation of the desired timing of transition activities and whether the actual transfer of participants to the new contractor should occur on some sort of rolling schedule? The Government does not expect the transition to take place in a single day as it would be logistically and operationally extreme for the Government, contractor, and the participants. The transition of participants is expected to be phased, orderly, and minimally disruptive. A transition similar to that for ISAP II will likely be preferred.

59.

Section M – Transition Plan.

The RFP makes reference to the offeror’s transition plan and discusses how the contractor must “recreate or receive documentation and/or forms from incumbent and/or ERO.” Given that recreating documents is much more time-consuming and burdensome than simple receipt of documents, is the Government able to provide an estimate as to how much documentation the offeror will have to recreate? The intent is to have the information/documentation turned over electronically (data records) and physical working folders will be turned over as well. Recreation of records is not intended for one contractor to re-create records that already exist unless in extreme circumstances. This is mainly about turning over information and the winning contractor to be able to use the information/upload into their systems, etc.

60.

Oral presentation by offerors.

Does the government intend to conduct oral presentations by offerors as part of the evaluation process?

The Government does not intend to utilize oral presentations at this time.

61.

Attachment 6 (pg. 9)

- Use of cell phones for Telephonic Voice Recognition system.

Section 11.h states that Participants are prohibited from using mobile phones to access the telephonic voice reporting system. It is our understanding that this option is currently being utilized by some local ERO offices on the ISAP II contract. Would you please clarify if this practice will be prohibited in all instances, or will this depend on the local ERO office? Use of mobile phones for telephonic voice reporting is authorized.

62.

ERO locations supported by

Attachment 4 lists 33 ERO offices where a contractor office is required to provide full service. Do any of the larger ERO metropolitan areas

Number

RFP Reference Question/Comment multiple contractor offices.

(such as New York or Los Angeles) require more than one contractor office site to ensure that participants can reasonably get to the contractor office for office visits? New York has separate office locations as a matter of how they do business. Los Angeles was similarly situated before being broken up into LOS, Santa Ana, and San Bernardino. Having multiple locations is not necessarily required.

The Government is more concerned about compliance with the contractor, Government requirements, and transitional stability.

63.

ICE’s Role in the Transition Process.

For transition planning purposes, it is important for all parties to have a realistic understanding of the role that ICE intends to play during the transition period. Can you please clarify which party (ERO, the incumbent contractor, or the new contractor) will be responsible for the following actions during the transition period:

• Provide the new contractor with a full list of current participants? Incumbent.

• Engage with the incumbent contractor to ensure that case management data and all historical data (hard copy and electronic) is smoothly transferred to the new contractor?

Incumbent, new contractor, ICE as needed.

• Notify all participants of the change in contractor and office location? New contractor.

• Schedule participants to come to the new contractor’s office for their initial appointment with the new contractor? New contractor.

• Remove the current GPS devices (or schedule them to be removed by the current contractor) prior to sending participants to their first appointment with the new contractor?

Incumbent to remove their own devices. New contractor to attach their own devices for FS. ICE to assist with T device receipt/replace.

64.

Conversion to New ISAP III Pricing Structure.

The pricing for the ISAP III contract will give ERO much greater flexibility in selecting a menu of services tailored to individual needs.

Does ICE intend to change the current program of some participants during the transition period (for instance, alter the number of home/office visits currently being performed for some participants)? If so, will ICE inform participants of any changes prior to their initial meeting with the new contractor? Participant services will not be changed as a matter of course during the transition. Alteration of services will be based upon ERO decisions based upon a case-by-case review based upon changes in circumstances, failure to comply, etc.

65. Section L, “The proposal due date is July 10, 2014 at 4:00 PM EST.”

a. ICE’s responses to questions are essential, directly relate to our

Number

RFP Reference Question/Comment

INSTRUCTIONS TO

OFFERORS,

SPECIAL NOTES

TO OFFERORS

proposal preparation and thus, upon receipt of ICE’s answers, these require integration into proposer’s business cases and proposals.

Please also note that leading vendors commonly ship proposals two days in advance to mitigate the potential for delays in shipment/delivery. These points made, will ICE please provide any necessary extension of the proposal due date to allow at least two (2) weeks from ICE’s distribution of ICE’s final answers to vendor questions until the proposal due date? The government is not extending the proposal response date at this time.

b. When is the anticipated intent to award and/or award date?

The current targeted award date will be sometime at the end of August with the transition beginning in early September.

c. Will all proposers be simultaneously advised of the intent to award and, if so, by what method (Email?, Posting on FedBizOps? Other?)

Notice to unsuccessful offerors will be provided in accordance with

FAR 15.503.

d. F.1 Term of Contract calls out “60-day transition period” and F.2 Period of Performance calls out “Base Period - September 6, 2014 through September 5, 2015.” The information provided in this section was intended as an estimate only. The base period of performance will be a sixty day transition followed by a 10 month full performance period.

Additionally

e. When are services anticipated to be fully transitioned to the new contract/contractor? The Services are expected to be fully transitioned by the end of the sixty day period.

66.

H.5.9

INFORMATION

TECHNOLOGY

May we please have a copy of “DHS IT Security Program Publication DHS MD 4300.Pub.” included with the answers to vendor questions? It is available at the following link:

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/foia/mgmt_directive_4300a_policy_ v8.pdf

67.

Section L, INSTRUCTIONS TO

OFFERORS,

SPECIAL NOTES

TO OFFERORS,

item 5

“The Government intends to award a fixed price requirements contract to a single awardee.” We have several questions here:

a. Is this indicative of “a single awardee” in each specified technology type or “a single awardee” for all specified technology types? There can be only one contract awardee for all types.

b. ICE is the single largest monitoring contract. Other large/demanding programs worldwide have all historically maintained multiple contractors as means of ensuring program viability, fostering ongoing competition and delivery of “choice” to end users, including but not limited to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, United Kingdom Ministry of Justice, United Kingdom Home Office, State of Florida, State of Washington/WSCANASPO, and others.

Acknowledging that these services required are the most rapidly diversifying segments of the offender supervision market place, will ICE please amend this solicitation to allow for a multiple award and identify a regional approach for multiple contractors? The contract will not be amended to allow for the approach outlined in the question.

Number

RFP Reference Question/Comment

c. If not, will you please define in detail the general reasoning behind ICE limiting this award to a single national contractor? This may be the largest contract of its type in the world. It is critical that there is one chain of command to work with the Government and one message that will not get lost between competing contractors. There must be consistency across all programs.

68.

Section L, INSTRUCTIONS TO

OFFERORS,

SPECIAL NOTES

TO OFFERORS,

item 7.A.c

“Page Count.” Additionally, “B. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS” “Offerors who propose to use subcontractors shall provide the same information as is required for the prime offeror in accordance with FAR 52.215-1.” So as to NOT discriminate against proposals with prime/subcontractor approaches, will you please confirm that subcontractor information will NOT count against the page limits?

The Subcontractor information will not count towards the page limits.

69.

Section L, INSTRUCTIONS TO

OFFERORS,

SPECIAL NOTES

TO OFFERORS,

item 7.B “(4) Past Performance Questionnaire.”

“The POC's shall be instructed to electronically complete Part III of the questionnaire and e-mail the entire questionnaire…” The questionnaire is a non-editable PDF – To enable the required electronic completion/submission, will you please include an editable MSWord version of the questionnaire with the answers to vendor questions?

A word copy of the Past Performance Questionnaire was posted along with Amendment No. 3.

70.

Section M:

Evaluation Factors for Award

“The Government will make an award to the offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government, price and other factors considered” and “Factors 1, and 2, when combined, are significantly more important than price.”

a. Approximately what percentage of the overall award will be based on price? A trade off process will be used as outlined in FAR 15.101-

1. Section M, Paragraph A, Source Selection Process, provides the relative weights of the factors to be used.

b. Are price/business proposals evaluated by the same or different evaluation committee members? The technical evaluation panel and the cost evaluation panel will contain different members.

c. Are evaluation committee members who score technical proposal elements apprised of pricing/business proposals in advance of scoring technical proposal elements? No.

71.

Attachment 6, 2.

MONITORING

EQUIPMENT: GPS

ANKLE

BRACELET, b.

Transmitter, iv.

Monitoring Unit / Transmitter, calls out

“1. The Contractor shall provide a monitoring unit that is capable of receiving Global Positioning System, Cellular, and Wi-Fi signals from a participant-worn transmitter, and transmits data on the Participant's monitoring status and locations to a central monitoring system/facility operated by the Contractor.” As presently written this requirement is needlessly restrictive as no known deliverable GPS system utilizes “Wi-Fi” - Will ICE please amend this requirement as follows to enable acceptance and evaluation of the latest GPS systems? “iv. Monitoring Unit / Transmitter 1. The Contractor shall provide a monitoring unit that is capable of receiving Global Positioning System, Cellular, and/or Wi-Fi

Number

RFP Reference Question/Comment signals from a participant-worn transmitter, and transmits data on the Participant's monitoring status and locations to a central monitoring system/facility operated by the Contractor.” Similar question asked and answered in Amendment No.3. Further, language should not exclude the possibility of future technology.

72.

Attachment 6, 2.

MONITORING

EQUIPMENT: GPS

ANKLE BRACELET,

b. Transmitter, iv.

Monitoring Unit / Transmitter

“3. Monitoring Unit Installation - Prior to the end of the Enrollment/Orientation with the participant (refer to the ATD SOW)…” Will you please include a complete copy of the “ATD SOW” with the answers to vendor questions? This refers to the requirements of installation as described by the Enrollment/Orientation section in the SOW for ISAP III. This is not referring to a separate document.

73.

Attachment 6, 2.

MONITORING

EQUIPMENT: GPS

ANKLE BRACELET,

b. Transmitter, iv.

Monitoring Unit / Transmitter, “3. …Monitoring Unit Installation…Equipment that requires component installation in the Participant's residence must be installed and operational within eighteen (18) hours of intake…” Will ICE please reasonably amend this to read, as follows? “…installed and operational within eighteen (18)twenty-four (24) business hours of intake”? This should conform with initial residence verification. The 24 business hours is to account for weekends/long weekends, not to allow for a participant to be enrolled on a Monday and then have a residence verification/installation completed by Thursday. Language should be changed to indicate that installation should be completed by the end of the next business day.

74.

MONITORING

EQUIPMENT: GPS

ANKLE BRACELET,

b. Transmitter, iv.

Monitoring Unit / Transmitter

“6. The Contractor shall provide all necessary tools to install, adjust, and remove the monitoring unit and transmitter in the event that ERO needs to perform these tasks. At a minimum, one tool set shall be provided to each ERO ATD Field Officer.” To enable proposers to budget this cost in advance as part of proposed pricing, will you please define the approximate number of “ERO ATD Field Officers” who require tools? This only applies if special tools are required such as a pronged driver bit. Two special tool sets per location will suffice as ERO officers may work in rotating shifts that will make transitioning special tool sets challenging. Language to be amended to say ‘If the equipment requires special tools, the Contractor shall provide all necessary tools to install, adjust, and remove the monitoring unit and transmitter in the event that ERO needs to perform these tasks. At a minimum, two special tool sets shall be provided to each ERO location.’

75.

MONITORING

EQUIPMENT: GPS

ANKLE BRACELET,

c. Spares and Maintenance

“i. The Contractor shall maintain a sufficient inventory of GPS Ankle Bracelets /Monitoring Equipment to complete installations within 18 hours of intake; broken parts and replacement parts within 24 hours and supporting special operations. The Contractor shall maintain the inventory in good operating condition and arrange for prompt repair and replacement to meet the demands of the Program.”

a. Will ICE please reasonably amend this to read as follows? “i. The Contractor shall maintain a sufficient inventory of GPS Ankle

Number

RFP Reference Question/Comment

Bracelets / Monitoring Equipment to complete installations within 18 twenty-four (24) business hours of intake; broken parts and replacement parts within 24 hours and supporting special operations.

The Contractor shall maintain the inventory in good operating condition and arrange for prompt repair and replacement to meet the demands of the Program.” Language modified to indicate that the contractor shall maintain sufficient inventory to complete installation by the end of the next business day. Potentially 3 – 5 business days after enrollment and technology assignment is not acceptable.

b. To enable contractors to budget accordingly, what percentage of onsite spare equipment at ICE offices does ICE require to be included within the price CLINs? Answered in a previous question: 5 or 10% of current GPS population, whichever is higher.

c. What was the volume of lost, damaged & stolen equipment of GPS bracelets over the past year for the incumbent contact? (Please note:

If ICE OAQ does not have this data, your incumbent contractors do and is required under contract to provide it to you with this data upon request – If necessary to obtain it, will you please request it from your incumbent contactor(s) and provide it in response to this question so as to establish a level playing field/visibility to all prospective proposers?) This is not a requirement under the prior contract. The Government does not maintain this information. The incumbent does not track this information as it relates to this specific contract.

d. What was the volume of lost, damaged & stolen equipment of GPS “Signal Range Extenders” over the past year for the incumbent contact? (Please note: If ICE OAQ does not have this data, your incumbent contractors do and is required under contract to provide it to you with this data upon request – If necessary to obtain it, will you please request it from your incumbent contactor(s) and provide it in response to this question so as to establish a level playing field/visibility to all prospective proposers) This is not a requirement under the prior contract. The Government does not maintain this information. The incumbent does not track this information as it relates to this specific contract.

e. Are participants violated…