HSCEEC09R00005Amend03.pdf

NSN 7540-01-152-8070 STANDARD FROM 30 (REV. 10-

83) PREVIOUS EDITION UNUSABLE Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 DFR) 53.243

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1 6

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

0003 July 16, 2009

6. ISSUED BY CODE GI000 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6)

Federal Protective Service 701 Market Street, Suite 400 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Attn: J. Clemens, (215) 521-2255, josh.clemens@dhs.gov

8. NAME AND ADD

RESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State, and ZIP Code)

(√ ) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

HSCEEC-09-R-00005

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

June 23, 2009

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers X Is extended, is not extended.

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; of (c) By separate letter of 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.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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

(√) A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER NO.

IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

See Page 2

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

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

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 16C. DATE SIGNED

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer) mailto:josh.clemens@dhs.gov�

A. The hour and date specified for receipt of offers is hereby extended to July 24, 2009 at 14:00 Eastern Time.

B. FAR 52.212-2 is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:

FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Items (Jan 1999)(Tailored)

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. In addition to price, the following technical evaluation factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

Past Performance Staffing Plan Socio-Economic Plan

The technical evaluation factor of Past Performance is considered more important than the Staffing Plan technical evaluation factor. The Socio-Economic Plan is considered significantly less important than the Staffing Plan technical evaluation factor. When combined, the technical evaluation factors of Past Performance, Staffing Plan, and Socio-Economic Plan are considered significantly more important than Price.

The Government reserves the right to obtain information for use in the evaluation of past performance from any and all sources including sources outside of the Government. Offerors lacking relevant past performance history will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The Government will consider the quality of an offeror’s past performance. This consideration is separate and distinct from the Contracting Officer’s responsibility determination. The assessment of the offeror’s relevant past performance will be used as a means of evaluating the relative capability of the offeror and other competitors to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP. In determining the rating for the relevant past performance evaluation factor, the Government will give greater consideration to the contracts which the Government feels are most relevant to the RFP.

The Government reserves the right to award the contract to other than the lowest priced offeror.

Efficient Competition: Offerors are advised that the Government may not evaluate the technical proposals of all offerors under this RFP.

The Government will first review the total evaluated price of all proposals received. The technical proposals of those offerors whose pricing is determined by the Contracting Officer to be most competitive may be reviewed prior to, or instead of, other technical proposals received. Based on the initial review of these technical proposals, the Government may not evaluate the technical proposals of other offerors, whose total evaluated pricing was higher than that of one already evaluated and already assigned the highest possible technical rating. This would occur when the Contracting Officer determines that any possible technical superiority of an unevaluated (and higher priced) technical proposal, over (a lower priced) one that was already evaluated and assigned the highest possible technical rating, would not warrant the additional price premium.

(b) Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(c) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offeror’s specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

C. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

D. Exhibits 2F and 3F are hereby added (see attached).

E. Please be advised at this point and time any further questions in response to this solicitation may or may not be answered due to the proximity of the closing date.

F. The following questions and answers are hereby provided for informational purposes only:

42) The text of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Clause 52.212-2, as tailored for this RFP, states that, for proposal evaluation, the Government may establish a price “breakpoint” prior to any technical evaluations, and only evaluate proposals with prices at/below the breakpoint. However, this clause also states that the price evaluation factor is significantly less important than the combined non-price factors. The establishment of such a price breakpoint prior to technical evaluations conflicts with the RFP’s stated low importance of price as an evaluation factor. This is inconsistent with the “best value” proposal evaluation process contemplated in the RFP, and may unfairly eliminate offerors from consideration. It is also inconsistent with the proposal evaluation techniques specified in the FAR.

The RFP states that contract award(s) will be made on a “best value” basis. Therefore, proposals are to be evaluated in accordance with the procedures specified under FAR Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, rather than the procedures specified under FAR Part 14, Sealed Bidding (FAR Part 13, Simplified Acquisition Procedures, does not apply, since the anticipated value of this contract is over the Simplified Acquisition Threshold). FAR Part 15 strongly encourages contracting officers to maximize competition between offerors, by establishing a competitive range (also referred to as a “best value continuum”) that does not unfairly eliminate offerors too early in the proposal evaluation process, and conducting discussions (negotiations) with as many offerors as can be reasonably accommodated, thereby giving each offeror constructive and substantive feedback to allow them adequate opportunity to respond to the Government’s concerns and improve their proposals. Since the RFP states that up to five contract awards are contemplated, it is particularly important that an adequate number of offerors with a reasonable chance for contract award be included in the competitive range.

It is logical to assume that the competitive range would be established using the stated proposal evaluation criteria.

It is also logical to assume that these criteria would be applied in accordance with their stated relative strengths.

Using the least important factor first arbitrarily limits the size of the competitive range, and unfairly deprives the eliminated offerors of an opportunity to address (perceived) proposal weaknesses based on price that may be easily correctable, or are based on simple misinterpretation of the Government’s requirements as stated in the RFP. Until an offeror is given the opportunity to respond to the Government’s concerns (which may result in significant changes to proposed prices), and/or provide the rationale for their proposed prices, there is no way to ensure that their removal from the competitive range due to price considerations is truly based on either that offeror’s failure to understand the RFP requirements or their unwillingness to propose truly competitive prices.

If one or more offerors are excluded from the competitive range due to the establishment of an arbitrary price breakpoint without prior evaluation of any non-price factors, or are not awarded a contract due to a failure of the Government to engage in meaningful price discussions with offerors prior to award (including the opportunity to submit final proposal revisions), it is extremely likely that such offeror(s) would have adequate and justifiable grounds to lodge either pre- or post-award protests against DHS’s proposal evaluations.

In order to avoid the likelihood of such protests, and to comply with the letter and the spirit of FAR Part 15, we strongly suggest that the Government review the stated evaluation criteria and proposal evaluation process, and change them as necessary to provide a “level playing field” for evaluation of proposals. The first step would be to clearly delineate whether contract award(s) will be made on a “low-price, technically-compliant” basis or a “best value” basis.

If award(s) will be to low-price, technically compliant offeror(s), then it is clearly disclosed up-front that non-award based on price factors alone would occur, and such non-award(s) are consistent with the stated proposal evaluation criteria.

If the award(s) are truly made on a best value basis, then the proposal evaluation process must be revised to be in accordance with this. Such revisions would include the evaluation of all proposals received in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria, giving the proper weight and emphasis to each evaluation criterion. This would allow establishment of a competitive range that is established in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria.

Meaningful discussions (negotiations) with all offerors with a reasonable chance for contract award would then be initiated, and offerors would be provided an opportunity to freely discuss their proposal rationale, and respond to any Government-identified weaknesses in their proposals, including both technical and price factors. At the conclusion of discussions, all offerors remaining in the competitive range would be given the opportunity to submit final proposal revisions, which would incorporate the results of the discussions.

Using the approaches and techniques outlined above will reduce the possibility of one or more protests from disappointed offerors, improve the quality of proposals submitted, and allow the Government to truly make the best decision regarding contract award(s), based on fair and reasonable evaluation of all proposals received.

Answer: See paragraph B of this amendment which revises the applicable citation. There are a couple of issues to address in this response. First, this question seems to assume that the Government intends to enter into discussions prior to award and repeatedly makes use of the term competitive range. Offerors are directed to the provision at FAR 52.212-1(g), whereby offerors are put on notice that the Government fully intends to award without discussions and that the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint.

Second, our process of limiting the number of proposals to achieve an efficient competition meets the evaluation of price requirements at 41 U.S.C. § 253a(c)(1)(B) (1994); FAR 15.304 (c)(1); S.J. Thomas Co., B-283192, Oct. 20, 1999, 99-2 CPD ¶73 at 3.

Third, your attention is directed to GAO decision Arc-Tech, Inc., B-400325.3, Feb. 19, 2009 which states in part:

“We also recognize that an agency has the discretion to exclude a technically acceptable proposal that is not among the most highly rated proposals where it determines that the number of most highly rated proposals that might otherwise be included in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted (provided that the solicitation notifies offerors, as the RFP here did, that the competitive range might be limited for purposes of efficiency).”

To elaborate on the process, prior to excluding a vendor for efficiency, the vendors’ technical proposal, although not evaluated, will be viewed “in its’ best light” meaning that the technical proposal is viewed as if it received a rating of “low risk”. When viewed in their best light from a technical standpoint, the Government may, for efficiency’s sake, elect not to evaluate the technical proposal if their proposed price is higher than the prices submitted by other offerors. The agency will still perform a technical evaluation on the initial group of lowest priced offers to determine whether any of those offers are assigned the highest possible technical rating (low risk).

If any of these lower priced offers are assigned the highest possible technical rating, the Contracting Officer will make a determination that any possible technical superiority of an unevaluated (and higher priced) technical proposal would not warrant the additional price premium. Conversely, if the technical evaluation of the initially evaluated lower priced offers does not result in acceptable technical ratings, the Contracting Officer will proceed with a technical evaluation of the remaining offers to identify the offer that presents the lowest risk in terms of the technical evaluation criteria and associated pricing. As our stated intention is to select up to five vendors for awards, the Contracting Officer shall ensure that a sufficient number of proposals are reviewed; assuming that the efficiency language is even invoked.

43) The RFP requires submission of a Socio-Economic Plan (Small/Disadvantaged Business Subcontracting Plan) with proposals. Such a Plan typically requires five to ten pages. If the Plan is included in the 15-page limit for Technical Proposals, this does not leave enough pages for offerors to include all the other proposal requirements. Please confirm that the SB/SDB Plan is not included in the 15-page proposal limit, or increase the page limitation to at least 25 pages, to provide offerors enough space to provide all required information.

Answer: The solicitation is clear on its face. The subcontracting plan (see FAR 52.219-9) is not required with the proposal and differs from the Socio-Economic Plan Technical Evaluation Factor (see pages 57-58 of the RFP).

44) Once contract award(s) is/are made, and task requirements are established, is it the Government’s intention to issue competitive RFPs for each task to all contractors holding awards, requesting them to submit task proposals which will then be evaluated to determine which one will receive the task order (as stated in Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 16.505(b)(1))? If this is not the anticipated process for awarding task orders, please provide details on how they will be handled.

Answer: The solicitation is clear on its face. Task orders will be issued in accordance with FAR 16.505 (see page 1 of the RFP).

45) Assuming the process in the prior question will be used to award task orders, will all contractors holding awards be required to submit proposals for all task RFPs, or can they “opt-out” of any particular task RFP?

Answers: Contractors may not be able to quote on all requirements under this contract. That said, repeated failure to quote requirements under this contract would be noted on the contractor’s past performance evaluation.

46) Contractors must have authority to submit personnel for FPS certification, typically by holding a valid contract that requires FPS-certified guards. Will award of this contract provide the contractor this authority to submit personnel for certification? In particular, will the authority allow the contractor to submit personnel in advance of receiving a task order (in anticipation of receiving one)?

Answer: Yes. However, Contractors are reminded that any costs associated with this certification will not be reimbursed as a separate line item. All such costs, if any, shall be included in the Contractors overhead pool.

Furthermore, Contractors are reminded that there is no guarantee, other than the minimum guarantee, that they will be awarded any task orders under this contract.

47) The RFP requires all personnel to receive and pass a physical examination every three years. However, to meet the respirator requirement, there is a requirement to be examined and certified every year. Please correct this discrepancy.

Answer: The solicitation is clear on its face.

48) Who provides the respirator training, the contractor or the Government?

Answer: If there is any training related to the respirators, it shall be provided by the contractor and factored into its proposed hourly rates.

49) The make/model of the respirators is not specified in the RFP. The training requirements will vary, depending on the make/model that will be used. Therefore, offerors cannot know what the required training hours are until a task RFP containing the specification is issued. Please provide guidance to offerors on how this should be estimated.

Answer: The solicitation is clear on its face. Pursuant to section 15.2.2 (D) of the Statement of Work, contractors shall provide: “Disposable particulate respirators meeting N95 standards as established by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).” It is not the Government’s intention to pick a specific respirator, but rather, the selection of the respirator would be at the contractor’s discretion. Any training associated with a specific respirator would be the responsibility of the contractor. Also, see answer to question #48.

50) The RFP states that Top Secret clearances may be required on a specific task order. However, the RFP does not contain any CLINs for TS-cleared staff. There may be cost differences between Secret-cleared personnel and TS-cleared personnel, since TS positions may be paid at a higher rate. Please revise the price schedule to allow offerors to propose separate hourly billing rates for each clearance level.

Answer: It is not anticipated that Top Secret clearances will be required on task orders.

51) Who will sponsor any required TS-cleared personnel for their Single Scope Background Investigations (SSBIs)? Will this contract sponsor them, certifying “need to know” and providing TS billets?

Answer: See answer to question #50.

52) Given the number and nature of questions submitted, they will have a significant effect on the preparation of offeror proposals. We therefore request that the Government extend the proposal submission deadline to allow offerors at least two weeks between the date that all questions are answered and the submission of proposals.

Answer: The date for receipt of proposals is extended under this Amendment. That being said, the Government has provided ample time to offerors to prepare their submission and the vast majority of the questions answered to date could easily have been ascertained by simply reading the solicitation.

G) All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

EXHIBIT 2F

CONTRACTOR FURNISHED PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT

1. Facility: All facilities covered by this Contract/Task Orders

2. Personal Protective Equipment: Contractor Furnished Equipment Items

The Contractor shall maintain a stock of the following personal protective equipment items for each guard, post and location covered by this contract in quantities sufficient to furnish all productive and supervisory security guards performing on the Contract with equipment for a two week period. The Contractor shall maintain all equipment in a ready and usable condition and replenish stock as necessary to ensure a two week supply is available at all times.

3. Supplementary Equipment Requirements:

Equipment Item Description / Color QTY

N95 Mask Filtering Face Piece Respirator * Gloves Medical Examination Gloves * Eyewear Blood and Air Borne Protection * Hand Sanitizer Alcohol-Based *

• As appropriate to supply each contract guard this equipment for at least two weeks in performance of their duties. Disposable continuous wear items such as masks and gloves should be replaced over the course of a guard shift as recommended by the manufacturer to ensure maximum effectiveness of the item.

EXHIBIT 3F

GOVERNMENT FURNISHED PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT

1. Facility:

2. Personal Protective Equipment: Contractor Furnished Equipment Items

The Government may furnish the following personal protective equipment items for each guard, post, or location as indicated to all productive and supervisor security guards performing on the Contract. The Contractor shall maintain all equipment in a ready and usable condition.

3. Supplementary Equipment Requirements:

Equipment Item Description / Color QTY N95 Mask Filtering Face Piece Respirator 0 Gloves Medical Examination Gloves 0 Eyewear Blood and Air Borne Protection 0 Hand Sanitizer Alcohol-Based 0