Attch 19 ITFO Q A.doc

Attachment 19 – Q & A ICE Information Technology Field Operations (ITFO) Questions and Answers Solicitation Number: HSCETC-11-R-00002, Amendment 1

NOTE: Revisions within documents noted below as revised have been bolded, underlined and highlighted for clarity and easy identification.

Question # 1 Multiple questions -Unique Identifier.

RESPONSE: The Unique Identifier has been removed from this requirement. See Addendum 52.212-1 (REV #1), paragraph I.

Question # 2

a. Page 6 of Addendum 52.212-1, 1-9 tabs. The listing of tabs shows 1-9 tabs (with “5” missing) as part of the Executive Summary. Page 7 has instructions for 1-5 tabs as being part of the Executive Summary and Tab 5 (Representation and Certifications) is actually identified as Tab 7 on the previous page. Could you please clarify the tabs needed and reconcile any differences between the two pages?

b. The Chart called “Proposal Page Limits and Content” enumerates exclusions from Volume I Executive Summary. These items do not appear in the Tab 1: Executive Summary contents. Furthermore, Tab 1 includes a list of Tabs 1-4, skips 5, then lists 6-9. This list seems misplaced. Please clarify the content requirements for the Volume I- Executive Summary.

c. Page 7 Tab 4 of Addendum 52.212-1. The requirement is to provide a compliance matrix that includes Instructions and evaluation references. Could the Government provide paragraph numbers for referencing within the two addendums (52-212-1 and 52-212-2)?

d. Reference Page 6– Volume I – Executive Summary. States resumes and commitment letters are not part of page count. However, the directions for Volume I outlined on page 6 and 7 do not show a place holder for the Commitment letters and resumes. On page 7 under Volume II – Management Approach there is reference of putting in Resumes and Commitment letters, as well in the top paragraph on page 8. Please, clarify which volume you wish to have the resumes and commitment letters and indicate if these items will count towards page count.

e. Reference Volume 5 Page 12 of 52.212-1, Tab 1. The sentence of “Offeror’s shall use “the contractor shall” language……” is confusing. We believe this is a sentence inadvertently added when a model contract was requested. This RFP requires addressing requirements and the how you will address them; not building a response for the government to let the contract. Please, clarify the meaning of this sentence.

f. On page one the instructions call for 5 CD copies; on Page 4 instructions call for only 1 electronic copy of DVD-R. Can the government clarify the number of required electronic copies and the rationale for requesting DVD-R instead of CD? Does the DVD-R need to be packed separately in its own envelop with appropriate label?

g. 52.212-1, Page 10 The first sentence reads “The Past Performance volume shall not exceed ten (10) pages total in length excluding the cover page, contract descriptions page or the table of contents.” On page 12 of the instructions, Tab 4 Past Performance Questionnaire and Tab 5 Subcontractor Consent Letters, are required but not excluded from the page count. With several contract questionnaires and several team-mates, combined with the requirements for Tabs 1, 2 and 3, page count of 10 pages cannot be accommodated. Are Tab 4 and Tab 5 excluded from the page count requirements?

RESPONSE: Please see revisions to the Addendum to 52.212-1 (REV1).

Question # 3 Page limitation for Technical Volume Plans. The 30 page limit requirement to provide for 8 plans makes it impossible to truly provide the plan as a delivery. The response would be limited to a synopsis of each plan. For Example – Our standard Quality Control Plan for contracts would have the SLA’s, CDRL’s, inspection and reporting methods, tracking processes, and notification processes and be anywhere from 8 – 10 pages depending on the SLA’s. A transition plan as complex as this particular effort would be a minimum of 8 – 10 pages as well. Request clarification on whether you wish a synopsis of the plans or not. If you wish the entire plan then we recommend no page limit on the total of the plans. This will allow for the full plan according the corporate guidelines and increase detail on the plans.

RESPONSE: Each Offeror presents the proposal that the firm considers to present their best business decision in responding to specific solicitations. See revised Addendum to 52.212-1 (REV1) for revised page limitations.

Question # 4 For the evaluation addendum 52.212-2 there is no evaluation factors for Volume V. Can the Government specify how this volume will be evaluated?

RESPONSE: Evaluation factors for Volume V may be found in revised Addendum 52.212-2 (REV1).

Question # 5 Attachment 10 IDIQ Pricing Table. The key positions of Program Manager, Deputy Program Manager and Subcontracts Program Manager are not included in the Schedule of Supplies and Services. Is it the government’s intent to include these labor categories as priced line items?

RESPONSE: No.

Question # 6 What are the performance measurement criteria for this contract? (i.e. 3 complaints per month, response within 3 hours of telephone call, or 99.97 availability of a string of equipment) SOW C2, C24, and Attachment 15 Is the Customer Satisfaction measurement the complete lack of complaints, i.e. does one complaint mean that the contractor has failed to meet the government's expectations?

RESPONSE: Please see revisions to paragraphs C.18 and C.24 of the SOW (REV1).

Question # 7 Addendum 52.212-1, Page 4 Delivery Instructions Can the documents be hand delivered? If so, what’s the process for hand delivery?

RESPONSE: No Question # 8 SOW C.19.9 Does tracking equipment in DHS ICE Sunflower include all of ITFO IT equipment or just the Computer Room and Wiring Closet spaces?

RESPONSE: Yes - All ITFO equipment, computer room and wiring closet.

Question # 9 SOW 22.5 Will the Government provide a copy of the last GFP Inventory Listing submitted by the Incumbent Contractor?

RESPONSE: No, it will be provided to the awardee after award.

Question # 10 SOW 19.8 Please provide a current copy of the types and versions of hardware.

RESPONSE: Please see Attachment 18 Hardware List.

Question # 11 SOW C.25 Will the Government provide additional space for the oncoming contractor during transition prior to the incumbent’s departure?

RESPONSE: The Government will not be providing additional office space for Offerors other than as identified in the SOW.

Question # 12 Addendum 52.212-1, Page 7, Tab 4. When reading the Instructions for Offerors, there are several SOW paragraphs that are not addressed in the instructions. Do these SOW paragraphs have to be addressed in the proposal response?

RESPONSE: All Offerors should ensure their proposals address all information determined by their firm to be relevant in the SOW, Appendices, Attachments and/or Addendums to present their firms proposed solution/best business decision.

Question # 13 Addendum 52.212-1, Page 4, Last Sentence The normal text font size is limited to 12 point. No mention is made of graphics font styles or sizes. Can we assume that the font type can be altered and text size can be reduced on the graphics?

RESPONSE: Graphics & tables shall be 10 point font or larger.

What version of MS Office should the proposal be submitted in?

RESPONSE: Microsoft Word 2003

Are there margin restrictions on the text?

RESPONSE: Yes, ½” at top, both sides, and bottom

d. Page numbers jump from 1 to 16. It’s also not clear if the total number of pages is 33, 48, or 50. Please clarify RESPONSE: Page numbering for SF 1449 is 1-16 and page numbering for the SOW is 17 – 47. Section A has been renumbered 1 of 1.

Can Arial font be used in table:

RESPONSE: No.

Please remove any page restriction on the price proposal and clarify how offeror is to organize and provide pricing for the contract (Attachment 10) vs. pricing for TO1 (Attachment 13) in Volume VI (offeror and subcontractor pricing data). Page restrictions cannot be reasonably met when the pricing tables alone (SF1449 and TO Proposal, Attachment 13 and ID/IQ tables, Attachment 10) exceed 15 pages before adding BOE , rate/cost detail from offeror, subcontractor pricing and compensation data, and all data to support the evaluation of a reasonable and realistic proposal.

Offerors should see -Addendum to 52.212-1 – Instructions to Offerors (REV1)” Question # 14 Addendum 52.212-2, Page 10, paragraph 5.The reference states that Offeror will provide for evaluation a total compensation plan. Is this total compensation plan to be provided within Volume VI, Price; and if so does it count towards the 15 page limit for that volume?

RESPONSE: Executive Compensation is to be provided under Volume VI – Price, Tab 1. See the revised Addendum to 52.212-1. There is no page limit on Volume VI – Price.

Question # 15 Addendum 52.212-2, Page 10, paragraph 2.The reference states that the offeror’s price proposal, including subcontractors, will be evaluated based on the traceability to the performance of the requirements addressed in the technical and management proposals. Can the Government please clarify what level of subcontracting pricing detail it wishes to see in response to this solicitation; as well as, whether any proprietary subcontractor data that must be submitted directly to the government via a sealed package will count against the 15 page limit of Volume VI? The reference states that offeror will provide for evaluation a total compensation plan. Is this total compensation plan to be provided within Volume VI, Price; and if so does it count towards the 15 page limit for that volume?

RESPONSE: There is no page limit for the Price Volume VI.

Compensation for Professional Employees is to be provided under Volume VI – Price, Tab 1. See the revised Addendum to 52.212-1. The compensation plan for under this volume may be separate from that of the Compensation for Professional Employees IAW the FAR reference, the Offeror is responsible to ensure they have made the applicable determination. The addendums state - Subcontracting pricing shall be provided IAW 52.219-9 and 52.244-2. If the Offeror proposes a teaming arrangement whereby any one subcontractor will perform more than 30% of this requirement, the Offeror shall submit sufficient information to permit evaluation. When an Offeror fails to furnish sufficient data and price information required by the solicitation and sufficient to evaluate the price, the Offeror bears full responsibility for any adverse impact upon the evaluation of its proposal. Offerors shall ensure that the information presented in this volume is consistent and correlates with the information contained in the other proposal volumes.

Question # 16 Multiple questions were asked about Information System Security (ISSO) Support to include but not limited to those below:

What are the in-scope ICE ITFO ISSO Support disaster recovery (DR) requirements?

How is your security log analysis performed and is it to be performed by the ITFO contractor?

What are the ICE ITFO ISSO Support data loss prevention (DLP) requirements? How is DLP performed today and will it be the responsibility of the IFTO contractor?

What are the ICE ITFO contractor ISSO Support certification and accreditation (C&A) requirements and how is C&A performed today?

Please describe the ICE ITFO ISSO Support security incident methodology and is this process to be supported by the ITFO contractor.

RESPONSE: SOW Section C.19.13 “Information System Security (ISSO) Support outlines all duties that will be required of the contractor assisting ISSOs. If the Government requires additional responsibilities that are not already addressed in Section C.19.13 it will be by contract modification.

Question # 17 Do the ticket call numbers represent Tier 1 or only Tier 2 field operations tickets? Assuming the above (Q. 6) are Tier 1 tickets, what percentage are resolved at the desk, i.e., what is the first call resolution rate?

RESPONSE: The Ticket call numbers represent Tier 2. Tier 1 is not the responsibility of ITFO support contractor.

Question # 18 Past Performance Please confirm that Tabs 3, 4 and 5 of the of Volume IV Past Performance are not within the listed 10 page count.

Please confirm the Subcontractor Consent Letter is Attachment 11, not Section L, Attachment 3 as stated in Addendum 52.212.1 Instructions.

Please confirm the Offeror is to complete Part I and II on the Questionnaire and the POC is to complete Section III.

RESPONSE: See “Addendum to 52.212-1 – Instructions to Offerors (Rev1) and Addendum to 52.212-2 Evaluation Commercial Items (REV1) for revisions and revised page limits.

Question # 19 Tab 4, Template for Small Business Subcontracting Plan. (Attachment 12) a. The solicitation specifies the Offeror shall use the ICE Model Plan. Will the government exclude these pages from the Volume II page count?

RESPONSE: Yes – See revised Addendum to 52.212-1 – Instructions to Offerors (REV1) Question # 20 Statement of Work SOW C.17.2 Program Management Plan a. Will the government clarify its request for a communications plan and training plan is part of the CMOP in Volume III and part of the final PMP deliverable referenced in the SOW, section C.17.2?

RESPONSE: See revised paragraph C.17.2 of the SOW (REV1).

Question # 21

a. Technical - …”The logic of the Staffing Plan, how well it correlates with the work requirements to demonstrate an acute understanding of the contract requirements, recruitment and retention of contractor personnel and Key Personnel Resumes.” a. The 52.212.2 Evaluation Criteria defines requirements for the Staffing Plan as part of the technical proposal. Instructions to the Offeror for the Technical Approach appear to omit this plan for Tab 2. Will the government confirm its intent for the Staffing Plan is in the Technical Approach as part of the proposal response?

b. The staffing plan is evaluated in Addendum 52.212-2 Eval – TECHNICAL. However there is no staffing plan requirement among the seven (7) plans in the CMOP. Will the Government add a description of the staffing plan in Volume III – Technical, Tab 2, Addendum 52.212-1?

RESPONSE: See revised Addendums to 52.212-1 (REV 1) and 52.212-2 (REV1) Question # 22 Attachment 16 does not appear in the solicitation document set. Will the government provide or clarify?

RESPONSE: Yes -Attach 16 Draft Quality Assurance Plan provided by Amendment 1 (SF 30)

Question # 23 Addendum 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors Table: "Proposal Page Limits and Contents" Page 6 - According to this table, Volume VI is limited to 15 pages. This stated page limit is not sufficient to cover Attachments 10 & 13 as well as any assumptions, explanations, and justifications of pricing estimates. Will ICE consider no page limit.

The Section shall contain a brief abstract of the volume. Does this Summary Section affect page count?

RESPONSE: See revised Addendum to 52.212-1 (REV 1) and 52.212-2 (REV1) for changes to the page limits and identification of specific page limitations.

Question # 24 On the SF-1449 block 10 the “Unrestricted or” box is checked however the NAIC is 541513 with a size standard of $25M. Due to both the Unrestricted and the listing of a SB NAIC with a size standard is being looked at differently from the Small Business and the Large Business community. Can you please advise if this is a FULL AND OPEN or a 541513/$25M RFP.

RESPONSE: Full and Open. The NAICS home page provides: “NAICS categories do not distinguish between small and large business, or between for-profit and non-profit. The National American Industry Classification System (NAICS) is the standard used by Federal statistical agencies in classifying business establishments for the purpose of collecting, analyzing, and publishing statistical data related to the U.S. business economy,” http//www.census.gov/eos/www/naics It is proper to include a NAICS Code and not be a set aside for small business. The SBA size standard automatically fills in but is not the determining indicator - the checking of the Unrestricted box is the determining identifier.

Question # 25 Vol. III – Technical Approach is not to exceed 30 pages and states “the Offeror’s approach to meeting all of the requirements of Section C.” Vol. III, Tab 2 requires 7 plans (TP, RMRP, COMP, ER/COOP, QCP, SECP, TRNGP) and is not explicitly excluded from the page limitation. In order to comprehensively address all of Section C and provide detailed plans, will the government exclude the plans from the page count?

RESPONSE: See revised Addendum to 52.212-1 (REV 1) and 52.212-2 (REV1) for changes in page limitations.

Question # 26

a. Teaming arrangements and the percentage of work to be performed by teammates are required (in various ways) in Vol. II, Tabs 1, 2 & 4. Will the Government consider consolidating these requirements into Volume II – Management, Tab 2 to prevent redundancy?

b. Page 8 of 17 52.212.1 Instructions Tab 1: The Management Approach shall include, at a minimum: (3) An organizational chart……...a. Should requested copies of teaming or subcontract agreements be included by reference to the Small Business Subcontracting Plan as they are requested in the Tab 4? Or will ICE exclude copies of teaming or subcontractor agreements from the Tab 1 and Volume II page count wherever requested?

RESPONSE: (a) See Tab 3 of Volume II in the revised Addendum 52.212-1 (REV1).

(b) The copies of small business subcontract agreements, (if available for large firms submitting a Small Business Subcontracting Plan) are not the same as teaming/subcontracting agreements. Teaming and/or subcontracts for contract/task order performance may or may not be with a small business and may or may not be part of the Small Business Subcontracting Plan. Subcontract agreements with small businesses are to be included with the Offeror’s submittal - Small Business Subcontracting Plan as a separate requirement from those required in Volume II. See revised Addendum to 52.212-1 (REV 1).

Question # 27 Volume II – Management, Tab 1 instructions state: “(2) Specific Management Plan for the contract and task order(s), including the Offeror’s approach and description of the plans, policies and procedures to be followed in performance of the SOW and relevant sections of Attachment 1 Special Contract Requirements.” Are the plans referred to here the same as the plans in Vol III Tab 2? Also is there a difference between the plans and a description of the plans? Alternatively is the offeror expected to reproduce its response to Vol II Tab 1 in Vol III Tab2?

Volume III states the Offeror”…shall include the Offeror’s approach to meeting all of the requirements of Section C. Included among ‘all of the requirements” of Section C are all of the management tasks that are included in Vol II as well as many sections that are included I the SOW for informational purposes (e.g. General Travel Guidelines). Strict compliance with this requirement will compel bidders to duplicate their management plan in both Vols II and III. And, variations in bidders’ decisions concerning which sections to include will result in evaluation inconsistencies. Will the Government specify exactly which Section C subsections must be addressed in Volume II and which in Volume III?

Vol III states that the offeror “…shall include the Offeror’s approach to “meeting all of the requirements of Section C.” This section is identical (with the exception of C.21-C.22) to the requirements for Vol V, Tab 1. Attachment 14, page 2 reads: “The Offeror shall provide services in accordance with (IAW) all requirements identified in paragraphs C.2 through C.20,C.23 through C.26 of the base contract Sow…” This will compel bidders to duplicate their technical responses in Volumes III and V. Does the Government expect offerors to duplicate their technical responses in both Volumes III and V?

With the exception of C.21-C.22 this response is, in effect everything that has already been included in Volumes II and III. Does the Government expect the offeror to duplicates its responses from Volumes II and III in Volume V but in only 20 pages? If not, what is the difference between Vol V and Vols II & III? If so, will the government consider increasing the page count of Vol V to 50 so it is comparable to the page limits of II & III combined?

Vol. III – Technical Approach, Tab 2 states, “The CMOP shall describe the Offeror’s overall approach to the ITFO program to include the management and execution of the contract and task order(s) work. The Offeror’s CMOP will be evaluated for its consistency and logic and shall include the following plans which will be incorporated into the resultant award.” This requirement comprises the majority of a customary program management approach, yet it is located in Vol. III – Technical Approach. Vol. II – Management, Tab 1(2) states, “Specific Management Plan for the contract and task order(s), including the Offeror’s approach and description of the plans…” Does the Government expect the content of Vol. II, Tab 1(2) to duplicate the content of Vol. III - Technical, Tab 2? If not, will the Government consider consolidating Vol. II - Management, Tab 1(2) and Vol. III - Technical, Tab 2 and placing them under Vol. II - Management, Tab 1?

Addendum to 52.212-1 – Attachment 14. It appears that the requirement to respond to Section C is repeated in both Volume III and Volume V tab 1. This may require an Offeror to duplicate their section C response. Does the Government want a response to the referenced Section C sections in both of these tabs or only in one of them?

(g) Statement of Work SOW C.17.2 Program Management Plan a. Will the government clarify its request for a communications plan and training plan is part of the CMOP in Volume III and part of the final PMP deliverable referenced in the SOW, section C.17.2?

(h). Vol. III states that the offeror “…shall include the Offeror’s approach to meeting all of the requirements of Section C.” This requirement is identical (with the exception of C.21 – C.22) to the requirement for Vol. V, Tab 1. Attachment 14, page 2 reads: The Offeror shall provide services in accordance with (IAW) all requirements identified in paragraphs C.2 through C.20, C.23 through C.26 of the base contract SOW…This will compel bidders to duplicate their technical responses in Volumes III and V. Does the Government expect offerors to duplicate their technical responses in both Volumes III & V?

(i) Vol. III states that the offeror “…shall include the Offeror’s approach to meeting all of the requirements of Section C.” Included among “all of the requirements” of Section C are all of the management tasks that are included in Vol. II, as well as many sections that are included in the SOW for informational purposes (e.g., C.2 Scope, C.9.1.1 General Travel Guidelines). Strict compliance with this requirement will compel bidders to duplicate their management plan in both Vols. II and III. And, variations in bidders’ decisions concerning which sections to include will result in evaluation inconsistencies. Will the Government specify exactly which Section C subsections must be addressed in Volume II and which in Volume III?

(j) As stated in Objectives, Attachment 14, Vol. V, “The Offeror shall provide services in accordance with (IAW) all requirements identified in paragraphs C.2 through C.20, C.23 through C.26 of the base contract SOW, this TO proposal request and relevant portions of Attachment 1 -Special Contract Requirements.” With the exception of C.21-C.22, this response is, in effect, everything that has already been included in Volumes II and III. Does the Government expect the offeror to duplicate its responses from Volumes II and III in Volume V, but in only 20 pages? If not, what is the difference between Vol. V and Vols. II & III? If so, will the Government consider increasing the page count of Vol. V to 50, so it is comparable to the page limits of II & III combined?

(k) Vol. II, Tab 1(2) states, “Specific Management Plan for the contract and task order(s), including the Offeror’s approach and description of the plans, policies and procedures…” Are the plans referred to here the same as the plans in Vol. III, Tab 2? Also, is there a difference between the plans and a description of the plans? Alternatively, is the offeror expected to reproduce its response to Vol. II, Tab 1 in Vol. III, Tab 2?

RESPONSE: The plans are not duplicated in any volume. The actual plans are in Volume III – Technical. Offerors are NOT limited to the stated plans but should ensure their proposed approach (including plans) addresses all aspects of the requirements and presents their best business decision/proposal.

In Offerors response to Volume I – Management. Offerors should provide a Program Management Plan (PMP) for this specific procurement and task orders. The Offeror’s overall management approach, how the Offeror proposes to manage the base IDIQ and all task orders, describing/referencing the all applicable portion of the Offeror’s PMP to include but not limited to CMOP plans in Volume III and how these plans/’tools’ will be used in the PMP for this procurement.

In Volume V – Task Order #1 – Offerors should provide a proposal that provides a complete and comprehensive response (excluding price) for their proposed solution for TO #1 and correlates it to the SOW, any or all attachments, addendums, the Offeror’s PMP in Volume I, plans proposed in Volume II and other applicable additions, changes, documents, etc to present their best proposed solution.

Offerors should ensure they have addressed the SOW, Attachment 1 -Special Contract Requirements, the Addendums to 52.212-1 and 52.212-2 (REV 1), other attachments, appendices, etc., in their proposal. Each Offeror presents their best business decision/ proposed solution in responding to this solicitation.

Offerors should refer to revised paragraph C.17.2 of the SOW (REV1).

Any revisions to volume contents and or page counts are identified in the revised Addendums to 52.212-1 (REV 1) and 52.212-2 (REV 1).

Question # 28 Attachment 4 – ITFO Labor Category Descriptions lists 5 key personnel, while SOW section C.20.1 lists only 2 keys. Which is correct?

RESPONSE: Attachment 4 (REV1) identifies 2 categories as Key Personnel the other 8 descriptions are provided as applicable for pricing of CLINs XX05. The pricing for the labor categories CLINs XX05 -shall be inserted in Attachment 10 which does not include all 10 labor categories. No separate pricing for PM, Deputy PM or Subcontractor Program Manager is requested. An offer may propose other or additional labor categories in their solution to TO#1. The price for TO#1 proposal should include the PM/DPM. Etc. in the Firm Fixed Price proposal.

Question # 29 The RFP states, “the offeror shall also identify and describe the principal support office…” Is the “principal support office” the same as the Program Management Office (PMO)? If not, please clarify.

RESPONSE: If the Offeror’s principal support and/or the Offeror’s PMO office are the same then yes. The Government will not be providing office space for offerors other than as identified in the SOW.

Question # 30 Is Vol. IV, Tab 3, Organizational Change History excluded from the 10-page limit on Volume IV? RESPONSE: No.

Question # 31 The instructions at the top of Attachment 15: Past Performance Questionnaire, are inconsistent, in several ways, with the instructions in Vol. IV, Tab 4: Past Performance Questionnaire. To reconcile these differences, may the offeror do the following:

Recreate Attachment 15 in a format that can be completed electronically (remove “circle one,” create text boxes, etc.) by the customer POC (this will make the Attachment consistent with the requirement in Tab 4 to complete the form electronically)

Rewrite the instructions at the top of Attachment 15 to direct the POC to complete the form electronically and email it to nancy.maples-remley@dhs.gov, rather than sending it by fax or scanning it before emailing it Include a due date and time (January 28, 2011, 3:00pm) in the Attachment 15 instructions to make it consistent with the due date and time of the proposal.

Remove the fax and scanned email references from the Attachment 15 instructions (these suggest the form is to be filled out manually rather than electronically, as required by Vol. IV, Tab 4)?

Alternatively, will the government issue corrected versions of Vol. IV, Tab 4 and Attachment 15 to make them consistent and clearly indicate the process for completing and submitting the Past Performance Questionnaires?

RESPONSE: Do not rewrite the form. See revised Attachment #15 Past Performance Questionnaire (REV1).

Question # 32 Vol. V, Tab 1 states, “Offeror’s shall use “the contractor shall” language and refrain from the use of language such as “the contractor will” and “as required”. “Contractor shall” language is customarily used to write a SOW, not to respond to one. Will the Government consider removing this sentence? If not, please clarify.

RESPONSE: Please see revisions Addendums to 52.212-1 (REV1) and 52.212-2(REV1).

Question # 33 In SF 1449, CLIN 0001 is listed as 12 months, whereas in Attachment 13, CLIN 0001 is listed as 10 months. Will the Government please correct SF 1449 to match CLIN 0001 in Attachment 13?

RESPONSE: Yes –Amendment 01 (SF30) Question # 34 The instructions indicate that price will not be scored yet it will be evaluated. 52.212.2 page 9-10 indicate price will be “assessed for understanding of the solicitation requirements, sound approach, reasonable/unreasonable pricing”, etc. Further, the evaluation will review data submitted for “compensation for professional employees” (page 10 header). Please clarify the instructions:

(1) Does the government desire a “contract” price proposal to include the SF 1449, and substantiation for the prices/rates for all years as well as a completed Attach 10 (ID/IQ rates)?

(2) Since a basis of estimate (BOE) narrative is required to allow for evaluation of pricing as well as the required data noted in 52.212-2, Compensation of Professional Employees, please clarify where this is to be provided as part of supporting data for the “Contract “ price proposal as well as BOE required for TO1.

RESPONSE: There is no ‘contract price’. No pricing is to be placed on the SF 1449. Pricing is requested on the applicable attachments.

Executive Compensation shall be evaluated IAW the FAR provision. See revisions to the Addendum to 52.212-1 (REV1) and 52.212-2(REV1) and Amendment 01 (SF30) Question # 35 The draft RFP required substantiation that offerors had an adequate accounting system approved by DCAA. The final RFP was missing the section of the RFP that included this requirement in the draft. Does the Government intend to require an approved accounting system and if so will the Government require the contractor to provide a letter or audit report from the Government agency such as DCAA or DCMA to provide proof of adequacy for the contractor’s accounting system at proposal submission?

RESPONSE: No – except for TOs of $20M or more issued on a Labor Hour or T & M basis which is not anticipated for this procurement.

Question # 36 This section states that FFP orders will be issued for CLINS xx01, xx02 and 0005. Did the government mean 0006 (Transition) vs. 0005 ID/IQ rates?

RESPONSE: Yes. Please see Attachment #14 (REV 1), the 1st sentence of the 6th paragraph under OBJECTIVE: “This is a Firm Fixed Price Procurement for CLINs XX01, XX02 and 0006. CLINs XX03 and XX04 are reimbursement CLINs and shall be reimbursed as noted below.”

Question # 37 The solicitation does not explicitly exclude Attachment 10, IDIQ Pricing Table, from the page limit within the price proposal. Will the Government please exclude Attachment 10 from the price proposal page limit?

Attachment 10 – IDIQ Pricing Table only provides enough space to price out the base period and two option years. Will the Government provide additional page count to allow for pricing the base period and all option years?

The current page limit for Vol. VI, Price is not to exceed 15 pages and the SF1449 is 15 pages. Will the SF1449 count towards the page limit within the price proposal?

RESPONSE: Please see Addendum to 52.212-1(REV1) for revisions to Vol VI page limits.

Question # 38 The Offeror shall submit one (1) electronic copy of the prime contractor’s proposal on DVD-R. Does the DVD-R need to be packed separately in its own envelope with appropriate label?

RESPONSE: All proposal materials shall be packaged to ensure arrival of a complete response. See revisions to Addendum to 52.212-1(REV1) Question # 39 While ensuring mail and packages are safe, CRDS screening delays deliveries by one to five days. Does this imply submitting the proposal five days in advance of the due date? Please expand on the submission process.

In delivering the proposal, if the FedEx receipt is dated on or before the due date but actual delivery is delayed due to security at the facility, is the proposal considered delivered on time based on the FedEx receipt?

RESPONSE: See revised Addendum 52.212-1 (REV1).

All mail and packages are now comprehensively screened at DHS’ Consolidated Remote Delivery Site (CRDS) before delivery to ICE headquarters facilities. While ensuring mail and packages are safe, CRDS screening delays deliveries by one to five days. Therefore, in order to meet the due date and time as specified in the RFP, Offerors will need to take the following steps:

Submit its proposal via a delivery service that utilizes a tracking mechanism (i.e., FedEx, UPS, etc.);

Ensure the Mail Stop Code 5750 is included in the address on the label;

Send the tracking number ahead of time to the CRDS at info@crdsmail.com so that they can flag it on the loading dock to ensure that the package gets on the bio sample for the same day and expedite delivery to the Contracting Office; cc: the Contract Specialist on the e-mail; and