SAI final questions and comments 12_23_08.pdf

Subject: Draft RFP HSHQDC-09-R-00016, Comments and Questions

1. Eligibility to Bid.

Reference: Section H.6(h), on page 33, states that “Current or existing FFRDC operating entities, shall not operate more than one DHS FFRDCs or participate as a substantial partner or sub-contractor to another DHS FFRDC.”

Comment: Since the existing Homeland Security Institute (HSI) is not identical to the proposed Homeland Security Studies and Analysis Institute (HS SAI), it would appear that the entity currently operating the HSI is ineligible to bid on this RFP. Is this the Government’s intent? If not, we suggest that following language be inserted: “However, nothing in this section shall be interpreted to mean that the entity currently operating the Homeland Security Institute (HSI), which is currently scheduled to sunset in April 2009, is ineligible to bid on this RFP or operate the HS SAI.”

Response: It was certainly not our intention to exclude the operators of the current HSI, which is terminated by law on 25 April 2009, from this competition. The previously issued addendums have resolved this error.

2. Subcontracting Plan.

Reference: Section L.10.3 Instructions for Tab K, on page 77, indicate that, as a goal, 40% of all planned subcontracting dollars are expected to be allocated to Small Businesses (SBs). Section M.8.2, on pages 85-6, indicates that the offeror’s proposed percentages will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Not-Acceptable basis.

Comment: The RFP is not clear as to whether the proposed efforts of a “teaming arrangement member” (section L.10.3(e)(3), on page 79) will be considered part of the “subcontracting dollars” against which this percentage is applied. Clearly, the Government intends to allow teaming arrangements that include a “substantial partner”

(cf. section H.6 on page 33, and several other references throughout the RFP).

However, designating the planned efforts of such a teaming arrangement member as “subcontracting dollars” would discourage offerors from any course other than a) teaming only with SBs; or, alternatively, b) restricting the offeror’s “broad-based consultative strategy” (section C.4 on page 9) primarily to those “experts in industry, academia, and the non-profit sector” who are available through SBs. Is this the Government’s intent? If not, we suggest that the table in Section L.10.3 Instructions for Tab K, on page 77, include a footnote indicating that “for the purposes of this section, ‘subcontracting dollars’ do not include dollars planned to be allocated to a substantial partner or teaming arrangement member.”

Response: The small business goals provided in the solicitation are goals, not requirements. In consideration of proposed small business subcontracting plans, any questions about the goals will be resolved in accordance with the applicable small business regulations. Teaming arrangements may take various forms, based upon subcontracting and otherwise. Subcontracting goals generally reflect the dollars awarded to a small business versus subcontracted dollars.

3. Evaluation of Representative Task Orders

12/23/2008 5:19:59 PM 1

Reference: Section M.6.2(7), on page 85, states that the evaluation of the representative task orders will consider “Proposed cost including labor, travel and other direct costs which should indicate use of consultants as subject matter experts, and if applicable appropriate control over critical development testing, and the development of innovative and competitive program acquisition strategies.”

Comments: This language appears to be inconsistent with section L.10, on page 67, and section L.10.1, on page 68, both of which state that “NO PRICE INFORMATION IS TO BE INCLUDED IN VOLUME I…” We suggest that section M.6.2(7) be changed to read: “The basis for the labor categories and estimated hours proposed, travel requirements (if different from those identified in the representative Statement of Objectives), and other direct costs if applicable; and the appropriateness of any consultants proposed as subject matter experts.”

Response: It is desired to see information related to the particular task orders to evaluate the labor category allocations across the tasks from a technical perspective.

Section M.6.2(7) has been revised to remove cost information.

4. Is RFP HSHQDC-09-R-00016 posted on FBO on Friday, Nov 28th at 1:27 pm the final RFP for the DHS SAI FFRDC?

Response: Three amendments previously have been posted to the RFP on FBO. As a result of these Q&As, a fourth RFP amendment will be posted. Contractors should be checking FBO daily. Contractors who are registered on FBO receive alerts when amendments are posted.

5. Does this RFP posted on Friday, Nov 28th at 1:27 pm reflect the answers to any questions that were due at 4:00 pm on Friday, Nov 28th to the draft SAI RFP (HSHQDC- 08-R-00087) that was released Wednesday, Nov 26th?

Response: No questions were submitted in response to the draft RFP.

6. In the FBO record the response date for RFP HSHQDC-09-R-00016 is shown as Jan 2, 2009. In the RFP document (SF 33) the due date for the response is Mon, Dec 22, 2008. Please clarify.

Response: DHS determines it is in its best interest to extend the proposal deadline to noon Monday, January 5, 2009.

7. Publication controls. Publication and public dissemination controls come up in several places in this solicitation (D-3, D-4, F.5.1(b), and in the Management Directive and Sponsoring Agreement). Generally, these references emphasize the need for a pre-review process and prior written approval before reports or results are released, but the guiding principles of the process are not discussed in any specificity. We understand that much of what an FFRDC produces cannot be released to the public, either because it is security-sensitive, business-sensitive, or because it was intended as a confidential communication with the sponsor. But we also believe that it is in the best interests of the public, the sponsor and the FFRDC that publication permissions not be withheld as a form of editorial control over FFRDC findings. We believe language such as the following would offer an important clarification to the sponsoring agreement and the RFP: “The intent of this pre-review is to correct errors of fact, and to prevent release of security

12/23/2008 5:19:59 PM 2

sensitive or business sensitive information. Permission to publish will not be unreasonably withheld.” In addition, this modification would reinforce the sponsor’s intent to establish a credible, independent, and objective FFRDC.

Response: The publications controls in the solicitation must remain as stated.

8. Parent company restrictions. The Sponsoring Agreement limits the acceptable non- FFRDC work performed by HSSAI’s parent company in ways that would appear to exclude an organization like the [Company name omitted], which does work for foreign governments as well as some work for for-profit companies. Specifically, 9.b.2 restricts non-FFRDC work to that which is “in the national interest, such as addressing economic, social or governmental issues,” and 9.b.5 prohibits work that exclusively benefits a for-profit company. [Company name omitted] and our DoD FFRDC sponsors are sensitive to the importance of avoiding any real or apparent conflicts of interest in this work, so we routinely review all foreign and commercial work with DoD on behalf of all the FFRDC sponsors in regularly scheduled meetings between our Executive Vice President and the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Currently, section 9.b of the Sponsoring Agreement does not allow for any such accommodation. We recommend that the language be modified to allow foreign and commercial non-FFRDC work, subject to criteria to be worked out between the parent company and DHS, and subject to the regular review and approval by DHS of ongoing work by the parent company.

Response: Offerors may propose any mitigation or avoidance strategies to address any potential organizational conflicts of interest.

9. Unilateral assignment of tasks and prices. Section G.3(c) of the draft solicitation states “The contracting officer has the right to issue tasks unilaterally and with no consultation with the contractor. When tasks are issued unilaterally, the contractor shall initiate performance and supply its proposal to the contracting officer for evaluation unless the contracting officer provides other instructions.” Similarly, G.3(k)(5) gives the CO the right to declare the price paid for tasks that are unilaterally issued. These conditions, without greater specification or clarification of when and how they might be invoked, ask offerors to put themselves in an untenable position. We believe these conditions will be unacceptable to all offerors.

Response: DHS expects and intends to use the bilateral task order issuance process outlined in G.3(k) whenever possible. If, however, a situation were to emerge that would not allow for that process, the contracting officer could unilaterally issue a task.

Disagreements would be subject to the Contract Disputes Act.

10. IR&D. The solicitation makes no reference to an Independent Research and Development program (IR&D). IR&D is used by other FFRDCs to engage in self-directed exploratory, method building, or other substantive work consistent with the overall mission of the FFRDC and the general interests of the agency but for which there may be no immediate sponsor. It provides the FFRDC with the ability to engage in a small but meaningful program of truly independent research, and to develop or maintain capabilities that it believes will benefit the sponsor and the nation. Although the Sponsoring Agreement notes that independent research activities will be subject to DHS-wide guidance on independent research and development activities (sec. 5.k), it is unclear whether this is specifically authorizing an IR&D program, or merely providing guidance on how core research funds may be used. Moreover, there is no indication in

12/23/2008 5:19:59 PM 3

the cost proposal forms that a line item for IR&D costs is contemplated. We recommend including an IR&D program, which will strengthen HSSAI and improve its value to the Department.

Response: None (There are no plans for an IR&D program)

11. Timelines. The draft RFP suggests that proposals will be due on December 29, 2008. Requiring responses in 30 days or less over the holiday season creates special challenges for all offerors, and could result in the government receiving proposals that do not accurately reflect the strengths of the offerors. Apart from the internal organizational challenges created by this timeline, we are especially concerned about the feasibility of securing past performance reviews from sponsor organizations over the holidays. We urge you to either postpone the solicitation or increase the response window to 45 days.

Response: See #6.

12. Hard Copies of Proposal Required

SF-33 states that five (5) hard copies of the proposal must be submitted.

Section L-9 requires one hard copy.

Response: Five (5) hard copies are the correct number for submission. Section L-9 shall be amended.

13. Reference: RFP Attachment J-8 Past Performance Questionnaire

Attachment J-8, provided by the Government as a PDF document, is not able to be completed within Adobe Acrobat. When a user “clicks” within the document to begin completing answers, the cursor jumps to another location in the document.

We respectfully request that the Government provide an MS Word 2003 version of Attachment J-8 that we may provide to clients to complete and return to DHS as instructed.

Response: Evaluators can always fill out the form by hand and provide a scanned pdf file and sent electronically as specified.

14. Reference: RFP Section L, Paragraph(s) L.9, Page(s) 66 Section L.9 specifies “The font (typewritten or printed letters) shall be 11-point Arial.”

May we use a larger size of the Arial font for section headings?

Response: Yes

15. Reference: RFP Section _L_, Paragraph(s) _L.9_, Page(s) _67_

The chart on page 67 that outlines the information required to be submitted for each Volume and Tab lists Tabs A through G for Volume I. The reference for Volume I/Tab B contains three rows – “Factor 1: Management Approach,” “E-Verify Participation,” and “Security Requirements.” Does the Government require separate tabs for each of these

12/23/2008 5:19:59 PM 4

three items (3 tabs for Tab B), or does the Government required 1 tab for Tab B that is labeled “Factor 1: Management Approach, E-Verify Participation, Security Requirements”?

Response: E-Verify has been moved to Volume 3 in a previous amendment. A tab for each individual factor is fine but not required. “Security requirements” is removed from Volume 1, Tab B and is located in Volume 3, Tab J.

16. Reference: RFP Section L, Paragraph(s) L.10.3, Page(s) 77

The table on page 77 for the RFP for the Small Business Plan is as follows:

Small Business (SB) – 40% Small Disadvantaged Businesses (SDB) – 5% Women-Owned Small Businesses (WOSB) – 5% Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) – 3% Veteran-Owned Small Business (included in SDVOSB) – 3% HUBZone – 3%

Is the requirement to have 3% SDVOSB and 3% VOSB? Or, as you've indicated, the 3% VOSB is "included in SDVOSB"?

Is the total percentage for the small business plan 40% (with 16–19% distributed across the SDB-WOSB-SDVOSB-VOSB-HUBZone categories), or is it 56% (if SDVOSB and VOSB are treated as one 3% category?), or is it 59% if SDVOSB and VOSB are each 3%?

Does DHS require that the prime contractor allocate 40% (or 56% or 59% depending on the interpretation of the table on page 77 of the RFP) of the TOTAL contract dollars to small businesses?

Or, is the allocation of 40%/56%/59% for small businesses only for that portion of the contract that is planned to be subcontracted? For example, if the prime has a large business partner and the prime anticipates requiring 80% of the resources to manage and staff the SAI FFRDC, is it acceptable to DHS to have a small business plan submitted for the remaining 20% of available work that could be subcontracted out to small businesses and have the small business allocation apply to that 20%?

Response: The small business goals provided in the solicitation are goals, not requirements. In consideration of proposed small business subcontracting plans, any questions about the goals will be resolved in accordance with the applicable small business regulations. The small business goal is inclusive of other categories.

17. Reference: RFP Section L, Paragraph(s) L.5 and L.5.2 Page(s) 64-65.

L.5. Submission Instructions and Late Submissions states that “Due to security restrictions proposals will be accepted only through the U.S.

Postal Service, DHL, FEDEX, or UPS. HAND DELIVERIES OF PROPOSALS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED”…and… “No deliveries will be accepted at any other DHS location.

HAND DELIVERY OF PROPOSALS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.”

L.5.2 Late Submissions states that “As used in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) provision covering "Late proposals and revisions," the term "mail" does not include

12/23/2008 5:19:59 PM 5

materials sent by means of express delivery services other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail Next Day Service-Post Office to Addressee. Proposals submitted by means of express delivery services other than the U.S. Postal Service Express Mail Next Day Service

- Post Office to Addressee will be considered the same as hand carried submissions.”

This seems to state that since “hand carried submissions” are not allowed, that we may not use any other delivery mechanism besides the U.S. Postal Service. Please confirm that deliveries via DHL, FEDEX, or UPS will be accepted if they are delivered to the address specified for submission by the date and time required for submission

Response: As stated in Section L.5 Due to security restrictions proposals will be accepted only through the U.S. Postal Service, DHL, FEDEX or UPS.

18. Reference: RFP Section L, Paragraph 10.1, Tab D, Tab E, Tab F, Tab G, Page 71-72

Tabs D, E, F, and G each contain a requirement to include a Task Execution Plan and refer the offeror to Section G.3(j)(2). Section G.3(j)(2) does not exist in the RFP. Does the Government mean to refer to G.3(k)(2) in Tabs D, E, F, and G?

Response: The correct reference is G.3(k)(2). Amendment 4 to the solicitation makes this correction.

19. Reference: RFP Section L, Paragraph 10.1, Page 78

Reference: RFP Section M, Paragraph M.4, page 81 and Section M, Paragraph M.8.2, It appears that in order to satisfy this requirement, following the evaluation criterion referenced in the corresponding paragraph of Section M, the offeror must not only produce a proposal to participate in the Mentor-Protégé Program, but must also receive a signed letter of approval from DHS that approves the offer. Is this the intent of the RFP, since the offeror would have to wait for a signed approval letter from DHS before submitting the proposal?

This appears burdensome, particularly given the time (36 days) allowed for proposal preparation for submission because the offeror could be penalized for a delay at DHS that is beyond the offeror’s control.

Such a requirement would seem to favor offerors who already have major contracts with DHS and already have such an approved program. Please advise if an “unacceptable” evaluation on this point, occasioned by the lack of a signed letter from DHS, would result in an “unacceptable” rating for the entire Small Business Participation evaluation criterion, and would an “unacceptable” rating for the Small Business criterion result in automatic rejection of the offeror’s proposal?

Response: The discussion at L.10 of the solicitation, discussing the DHS Mentor- Protégé program is altered to read:

This solicitation contains a clause regarding participation in the DHS Mentor-Protégé Program. (See I.16). See Section M for a discussion of the evaluation.

12/23/2008 5:19:59 PM 6

20. Reference: RFP Section M, Paragraph M.6.2, Page 84 Reference: Section C, Paragraph C.5, Pages 10-11

In Section C, where the annual preparation of the research plan is discussed, it is required that the plan be “based on a clear understanding of the government’s requirements, as determined by direction” from various DHS officials and surrogates.

Since no such direction yet exists for preparation of the corresponding Representative Task Order dealing with the Core Research Plan, is the offeror free to suggest areas of core research that appear vital and proper to the offeror?

Response: It is the intent of this “Core Research Plan, Representative Task Order #1 (RFP Section J-3)” requirement for the Offeror to propose it’s ideas on the most vital and proper research efforts.

21. Reference: RFP Section M, Paragraph M.6.1, Page 83

Is it intended that the offeror be familiar with “existing homeland security operational systems and platforms” in the sense of understanding commercial hardware and software of the type currently being used by DHS, or does this mean that the offeror must know what specific systems and platforms are in current use across DHS (a difficult situation for those not already working within DHS’ environment)? If the latter, will DHS provide a list of such systems and platforms to the offeror.

Response: DHS desires that offerors be familiar with the missions of DHS components.

M.6.1.5 is intended to evaluate general knowledge and experience relating to operational systems, platforms, and related missions of DHS components. As noted at M.6.1.5, the evaluation of this element will take into account that general knowledge and the offeror’s ability to find efficient solutions across DHS components research and development and experimental prototype efforts, including such things as consideration of commercial off-the-shelf software and hardware. Demonstration of successfully confronting similar issues in complex organizations with mission diversity may be valuable.

22. Reference: RFP Section C, Paragraph C.1, Pages 5-6

Is the Homeland Security Studies and Analysis Institute to be established under 6 U.S.C.

185 by this RFP a different entity from the Homeland Security Institute already in existence and mandated by Congress under 6 U.S.C 192?

Response: Yes. The Homeland Security Institute terminates by law on April 25, 2009.

23. RFP Section F, Paragraph F.5.1.b, Page 18 Reference: RFP Appendix J-3, Paragraph 3.7, Page 5

Section F includes the phrase, “a robust inclusion of comments from subject matter experts within the federal government.” Underlining is by this offeror.

Attachment J-3 includes the phrase, “a robust inclusion of comments for subject matter experts within the federal government.” Underlining is by this offeror. This language is also used in Attachments J-4, J-5, and J-6.

12/23/2008 5:19:59 PM 7

Is this difference deliberate? Please clarify.

Response: The correct wording for both references is “from.”

24. We think the 22 day period between RFP release and proposal submission deadline is extremely ambitious for a contract value of $330 million. Your telephone number was omitted from block 10 of the standard form 33.

Response: See #6.

25. Paragraph C4 indicates that 20 percent of institute funding will be dedicated to core program. What portion of this work is classified? What is the level of classification?

How many staff years are currently being allocated to this core program work by the incumbent?

Response: There is no current incumbent. However the HSSAI FFRDC is intended to provide some of the “core” capability formerly conducted by the Homeland Security Institute (HSI), which is terminated by law on 25 April 2009. We anticipate that “core” funding may be classified up to “Top Secret”; but may generally be “FOUO” or unclassified research.

26. Paragraph C9 requires the contractor to have a facility clearance and the ability to store classified material. It does not specify if all or any of the contractor personnel will need SCIF work space at the contractor location? Do you intend for the contractor to provide SCIF working space? If so, how much space is required to manage ongoing work at contract award?

Response: Limited SCIF access will be provided by S&T and other sponsors, as needed. The offeror is encouraged to have SCIF facilities for occasional work and storage of materials.

27. Paragraph C1 requires the contractor to provide analytic support for operational testing. It also implies that DHS will have a Systems Engineering FFRDC, which we understand to be a separate activity from the Studies and Analysis activity that is articulated in the Statement of Objectives for this solicitation. Paragraph F6 requires the respondent to this solicitation to provide a list of operational test and evaluation facilities including points of contact, addresses, capabilities, and ownership. Please clarify the responsibilities anticipated for respondents to this solicitation for operational test and evaluation. It is difficult to develop a list of T&E facilities without more specific information about the testing requirements. Test and evaluation resources are usually articulated by a program manager in the test and evaluation master plan for a specific activity. We will need more specific articulation of testing requirements in order to provide a list of testing facilities that are adequate to meet the requirements.

Response: Offerors need not have access to any test and evaluation facilities upon contract award. The last sentence of F.6 requires the contractor to create and maintain, under the contract, such a list for reference by DHS components in issuing tasks for test and evaluation.

28. Paragraph L5 indicates the due date for proposals is January 2, 2009. The SF-33 block 9 indicates the due date is Dec 22, 2008. Which due date is correct?

Response: See #6.

12/23/2008 5:19:59 PM 8

29. Reference: RFP HSHQDC-09-R-00016, Attachments J-1 through J-14, all sections, all pages

We respectfully request that the Government provide a revised copy of the RFP and supporting fourteen Section J attachments that have changes to the original RFP and supporting Section J attachments marked with change bars or other industry-standard method to clearly identify the revised (added/deleted) text.

Response: Please refer to each RFP amendment’s SF-30, which identifies the changes made, as well as the Q&As. No track changes versions of the RFP are available.

30. Reference: RFP Attachments J-3, J-4, J-5 and J-6

Does DHS have a common anticipated date of award to use with the representative Task Orders? Establishing a common date would provide DHS more accurate price comparisons between offerors.

Response: The four sample tasks are included only for purposes of evaluation of proposals. Actual tasks will be issued as needed upon award of the contract.

31. Reference: RFP Attachment J-3, pages 1-2

There appears to be a missing paragraph in the SOO at the end of page 1.

For now, there is no logical transition/connection between the un-bulleted, indented list at the top of page 2 and the last sentence in the last paragraph on page 1.

Response: The SOO is complete. There is no missing paragraph.

32. Reference: RFP Attachment J-3 SOO, HSSAI 2009 Core Research Plan

Are we to assume that there is an existing Core Research Plan for CY2008 (some tasks will flow into CY2009) that will be available as GFI?

Response: This question does not apply to the solicitation. It raises a matter of contract administration.

33. Reference: Section B, Paragraph B.6, page 4

The contracting estimates paragraph states that Task Order funding will be stable at approximately 360,000 hours in the base year and in each of the option years. Later in Paragraph C.4, it states that the “core” program is expected to be maintained at roughly 20% of the Institute funding.

Does the 360,000 hours of Task Order funding include the “core” program?

Response: The 360,000 hours of Task Order funding includes the core program.

34. Reference: Section G, Paragraph G.6, page 29

The RFP specifies that local travel will not be reimbursed.

12/23/2008 5:19:59 PM 9

Will reimbursement of staff be allowed, for example, for Metro travel to and from the sponsor and for parking at the downtown sponsor location?

Response: See G.6. This question does not apply to the solicitation. It raises a matter of contract administration.

35. Reference: Section L, Paragraph L.10.3, Tabs C, D, E, F, and G, page 75

Volume III, Tabs C, D, E, F, and G call for a complete cost/price proposal for the overall technical effort and each of the Representative Task Orders including Section B.

Does each of the Representative Task Order responses (Tabs D, E, F, and G) require all five tables in Attachment J-10, a completed Section B, and a copy of the latest DCAA audit of incurred costs?

Response: No.

36. Reference: Attachment J.10.2 – Proposed Staffing Chart

Does this attachment require all of the individual names and rates included in the proposed effort or does it require a summary by labor category?

If a listing of individual names is required, is masking the names acceptable – e.g., Employee 1, Employee 2… as opposed to Jane Doe, John Doe…?

What is the distinction between Forward Pricing rates to 1st year with escalation factors(s) and Labor rates for 1st year?

Are the rates in the chart the baseline salary rates, or should they be fully burdened?

Response: The offeror may modify the Attachment J.10 but it is requested that minimal changes be made. Please respond to your cost proposal in accordance with Volume III Cost /Price Proposal

37. Reference: Section L, Paragraph L.10.3, Tab K, page 78 The Subcontracting Plan requires a copy of our FY 2004 SF-294 and SF-295 subcontracting reports.

Does the offeror want the latest filed reports or only those for FY 2004?

Response: The latest reports, i.e., FY2008, are requested. Amendment 4 corrects this.

38. Reference: Section L, Paragraph L.10.1, Volume I – TAB C, item 3), page 69 Section M, Paragraph M.6.1, item 3., page 82

Attachment J-7 Section, Paragraph, page (page # not included by contractor)

The proposal requires the Offeror to provide staff non-disclosure agreements. Such agreements are normally between the Offeror company and individual employees, and the U.S. Government is not a signatory.

12/23/2008 5:19:59 PM 10

Attachment J-7, DHS Form 11000-6, is a non-disclosure form between individual Contractor employees, consultants, and contractors and the U.S.

Government. When would such a form be used?

Response: The form is to grant the contractor conditional access to sensitive information.

39. Reference: RFP HSHQDC-09-R-00016 submitted 10 Dec 2008

Reference Section M, Paragraph M.6.2 “Evaluation of Representative Task Orders,”

M.6.2 states that the work breakdown structure, program management plan, and quality management plan for task orders 1, 2, 3, and 4 will be also be reviewed and evaluated.

Will the Task Execution Plan for each task order also be evaluated?

Response: The Task Execution Plan (5 page limit) that will be evaluated should articulate a summary work breakdown structure, program management plan, and quality management plan. Amendment 4 corrects this.

40. Section B.5 Paragraph 1, Page 3 Fixed-fee percentage of the contract is TBD as stated on Page 3 of the solicitation.

Attachment J-10 (Cost Summary) requires the calculation of Fixed Fee Costs. Should Attachment J-10 (Cost Summary) be submitted without the calculation of Fixed Fee costs?

Response: The offeror is expected to propose the fixed fee and their basis for requesting the fee.

41. Section C.9, Paragraph 1, Page 13 “To qualify as a responsible contractor, the Offeror shall possess, or acquire prior to contract award, a facility clearance and safeguarding capability equal to the highest classification stated on the Contract Security Classification Specification (DD Form 254) attached to this solicitation.” There is no classification stated on the DD Form 254 attached to this solicitation. The DD 254 attached to this solicitation is not applicable to this RFP.

Response: The highest classification/access level for task orders under this contract is Top Secret, SCI.

42. H.10.1, Paragraph 1, Page 36 To qualify as a responsible contractor, the Offeror shall possess, or acquire prior to contract award, a facility clearance and safeguarding capability equal to the highest classification stated on the Contract Security Classification Specification (DD Form 254) attached to this solicitation and in accordance with Section H of this contract.” There is no classification stated on the DD Form 254 attached to this solicitation. The DD 254 attached to this solicitation is not applicable to this RFP.

Response: See #41

12/23/2008 5:19:59 PM 11

43. Section L.5, Paragraph 1, Page 66 Can offeror submit its proposals using two separate carriers, to include the US Postal Service, to ensure delivery by January 2, 2009, 12 noon deadline?

Response: See #17. Please note the proposal deadline in #6.

44. Section L.7, Paragraph 2, Page 67 Sections States proposals should be cross-indexed as appropriate. Is there additional guidance on cross indexed expectation/definition?

Response: Ensure that your proposal is indexed or cross indexed as there is no additional guidance

45. Section L.9, Paragraph, Page 68 Is Volume II, Past Performance considered part of management/technical approach and should it therefore be submitted with the management technical approach in electronic “pdf” format?

Response: Past Performance should be submitted as a stand alone Volume II.

46. Section L.9, Paragraph 2, Page 68 Please confirm Management/Technical Approach is due only in electronic format. Please define electronic format - CD?

Response: The Management and Technical Approach are required to be submitted in 5 hard copies and electronic CD format.

47. Section L.9, Paragraph 3, Page 68 Should page numbers run consecutively across the entire document? Are they to run consecutively within each Volume? Should they be numbered within each Volume by section/tabs (I-1, I-2)?

Response: Page numbers should run consecutively by volume.

48. Section L.9, Paragraph 3, Page 68 Is use of double columns permitted? Are call out boxes permitted?

Response: The use of double columns and call out boxes are permitted.

49. Section L.10.1, Paragraph 2, Page 71 Volume I, Tab B asks the offeror to demonstrate through representative resumes of dedicated staff significant technical management experience for proposed managers in the DC area. Volume I, Tab B asks offeror to provide resumes of key technical personnel with demonstrated experience. Is the expectation that offeror addresses staff/experience through a narrative in these sections and offers resumes only once? Under which tab should resumes be located? If they are located in their own tab, that would bring tab count up to eight (8) in Management and Technical Approach?

Response: Amendment 4 adds resumes as a separate Tab H.

50. Section L10.2, Paragraph 3, Page 74

12/23/2008 5:19:59 PM 12

Past Performance – In Volume I, Tab C, it calls for 3 contract references and 3 major subcontract references; In Volume II, it calls for 3 contract task/order and subcontract summaries – 3 total or 6 total?

Response: Provide three contract references and three subcontract references.

51. Section L10.3, Paragraph 1, 1st bullet, Page 77 The list of requirements for Volume III – Cost/Price Proposal, includes a “completed Section B.” Section B cannot be completed without the identification of the Fixed Fee.

Section B.5 states “the fixed-fee percentage of this contract is TBD.” Given the fixed-fee percentage for this contract is undetermined, and Section B cannot be completed without the fixed-fee, should contractors disregard the requirement for a completed Section B as outlined on Page 69 of the RFP?

Response: The offeror is expected to propose the fixed fee and their basis for requesting the fee. See #40.

52. Section L10.3, Paragraph 1, 3rd bullet, Page 77 How should ODC’s be addressed?

Response: Other Direct Cost should be addressed as applicable.

53. M.8.3, Paragraph 1, Page 89 Paragraph is incomplete

Response: An amendment has been made to the RFP to complete the paragraph.

54. Attachment J.1 Sponsoring Agreement, Paragraph 2, Page 89 The Sponsoring Agreement refers to a Directive dated April 25, 2007; however, the J-14 attachment document is dated 05/25/2007 (which is the same date that was on the one it replaced). Is there a 143-04 directive dated 4/27/2007?

Response: The sponsoring agreement should not be dated until time of contract award.

The Management Directive 0143-04 (J-14) is dated April 25, 2007.

55. General Question Upon award, what are timeline expectations for Interim Operation Capability and for attaining Full Operating Capability?

Response: Full operational capability is desired at contract award.

56. General Question Is there an expectation that the contractor will need to be prepared upon award to submit a full proposal(s) to execute the sample task orders?

Response: The four sample tasks are included only for purposes of evaluation of proposals. However, upon contract award DHS expects to provide tasks for which the contractor will prepare Task Execution Plans, leading to formal task issuance.

57. I was wondering if there was an estimate as to when the solicitation for this requirement may be released? Do you suspect the 1st Quarter of Calendar Year 2009?

12/23/2008 5:19:59 PM 13

Response: The RFP was released November 28, 2008.

58. Also is there any chance of getting the incumbent information for this requirement and if so could you provide the incumbent contractor's name, the contract number, award date, and award amount? Any information is greatly appreciated.

Response: There is no incumbent. This is a new FFRDC.

59. This e-mail contains questions pertaining to the above-cited Request For Proposals (RFP) regarding Homeland Security Studies and Analysis Institute Federally Funded Research and Development Center. It also serves as a request for the Contracting Officer to consider extending the period of time for responding to the RFP by about 15 days from January 2, 2009. A second amendment to the solicitation was released on or about December 9, 2008, and a third amendment was released on or about December 10, 2008. Moreover, it is possible that another amendment may be released on or after December 15, 2008, containing responses to contractor questions. Under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 14.208(c), no award shall be made on the invitation unless such amendment has been issued in sufficient time to permit all prospective bidders to consider such information in submitting or modifying their bids. Given the information in the amendments released within 30 days of the deadline to respond, including changes to the request for proposals document, and also considering the two national holidays that occur just prior to the response submission date, an extension of the time to respond may insure the government receives more accurate contractor proposals.

Response: See #6.

60. When does the government expect to announce an award?

Response: The intended award date is February 10, 2009.

61. What is the estimated performance start date?

Response: The intended start of performance is February 10, 2009.

62. When is the latest date a contractor will be permitted to complete the formation of an identifiable separate operating unit of a parent organization that will conduct the contract work.

Response: The formation of any separate operating unit must be complete as of award of the contract.

63. Reference: RFP Section L, Paragraph L.10.2, Page 74. Regarding past performance, the RFP states, “[i]n order for the proposal to be evaluated strictly on the merit of the material submitted, NO PRICE INFORMATION IS TO BE INCLUDED IN VOLUME II.” (Emphasis in original.) Please confirm that the statement “no price information is to be included” applies only to price information responsive to the RFP and does not pertain to past performance price information.

Response: By “price information” the solicitation means that no proposed costs relating to this solicitation should be discussed in the Volume II.

12/23/2008 5:19:59 PM 14

64. Reference: RFP Section L, Paragraphs L.5 and L.5.2, Page 64. The last paragraph of section L.5 states “[d]ue to security restrictions proposals will be accepted only through the U.S. Postal Service, DHL, FEDEX, or UPS. HAND DELIVERIES OF PROPOSALS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.” (Emphasis in original.) However, paragraph L.5.2 states “[p]roposals submitted by means of express delivery services other than the U.S. Postal Service Express Mail Next Day Service - Post Office to Addressee will be considered the same as hand carried submissions.” Please clarify if proposals delivered before the proposal due date via DHL, FEDEX, and UPS will be accepted as a timely submission.

Response: A proposal submitted before the due date is a timely submission.

12/23/2008 5:19:59 PM 15