15-R-00089_-_Questions_-_102315.pdf

PIID: HSHQDC-15-R-00089/000002 23 Oct 2015

# RFP Section Question Response

(1)

What is the government’s intention behind including the Mentor-Protégé Program requirements in an RFP in which the government is seeking establishment and operation of a conflict-free, objective (e.g., an FFRDC) operational analysis center?

Please note that the requirement related to the DHS Mentor-

Protégé Program has been removed.

(2)

Section L.4 states that “Large businesses are encouraged to participate in the DHS

Mentor-Protégé program for the purpose of providing developmental assistance to eligible small business protégé entities to enhance their capabilities and increase their participation in DHS contracts,” while Section M.4.2 states that “Offerors that are not classified as small businesses will be further evaluated to determine if they possess a signed mentor-protégé agreement from the DHS OSDBU.” Section M.4.2 appears to make participation in the DHS Mentor-Protégé program mandatory, while Section L.4 implies that it is optional. Please clarify what the government means by “will be further evaluated.”

a. Is failure to secure an OSDBU letter grounds for non-compliance?

b. If an OSDBU letter is not required, will a company that participates in

Mentor-Protégé Program be rated more favorably than a company that does not?

Please note that the requirement related to the DHS Mentor-

Protégé Program has been removed.

(3)

FAR 35.017 identified some of the core characteristics of an FFRDC: “The FFRDC is required to conduct its business in a manner befitting its special relationship with the

Government, to operate in the public interest with objectivity and independence, to be free from organizational conflicts of interest, and to have full disclosure of its affairs to the sponsoring agency.” Please clarify how the mentor company can simultaneously establish an on-going relationship with a protégé company to enhance that protégé company’s “participation in DHS contracts,” while maintaining these core characteristics.

Please note that the requirement related to the DHS Mentor-

Protégé Program has been removed.

(4)

Per the DHS OSDBU Mentor-Protégé Application and Template, measurement factor four is “how the mentor’s assistance increased contracting and subcontracting opportunities for the protégé firm.” How does this not violate the FFRDC’s mandate to operate “in the public interest with objectivity and independence [and] to be free from organizational conflicts of interest” (FAR 35.017)?

Please note that the requirement related to the DHS Mentor-

Protégé Program has been removed.

(5)

Assuming that it is not an inherent conflict of interest to have a mentor-protégé relationship, and even if there were organizational conflict of interest measures in place to preclude the protégé from working on task orders where the protégé might have a clear conflict of interest, how does the FFRDC avoid the perception of conflict of interest if the government makes a decision based on the outcome of an FFRDC-conducted study that could possibly impact the protégé’s livelihood?

Please note that the requirement related to the DHS Mentor-

Protégé Program has been removed.

(6) N/A Can a not-for-profit or a non-profit be a mentor in the mentor-protégé program?

Please note that the requirement related to the DHS Mentor-

Protégé Program has been removed.

(7) N/A

In reference to the current solicitation of the subject opportunity, I am interested in whether or not there would be significant OCI restrictions with any current and or future work, throughout DHS, a vendor may have given the acquisition sensitivity of some of the requirements. Any clarification you can provide would be appreciated.

There is the potential for significant OCI restrictions, however, the extent of any potential or actual OCI’s will be considered in detail once the apparent successful offeror is selected.

(8) C.1.3 Section 4 of the Sponsoring Agreement only contains the five focus areas that were The Sponsoring Agreement has been updated to include all

J.1 Section 4 found in the draft RFP. Please confirm that all seven focus areas are included in the

Sponsoring Agreement.

seven (7) of the Focus Areas.

(9) J.1, Section

5.m6.e(6)

The obligations imposed by Clause 5.m are extremely broad, and will likely impact the ability of Offerors to attract Trustee candidates who have the necessary qualifications and experience to serve as FFRDC Trustees. Other agencies have targeted the same risks without imposing the same breadth of restrictions. For example, the Department of Defense (DoD) uses language in the Defense Federal

Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) that more narrowly addresses the risks associated with the FFRDC Trustees serving on the governing boards of third-party entities. Specifically, the DoD uses the following language at DFARS 235.017(a)(2):

“No DoD . . . funds may be obligated or expended to finance activities of a DoD

Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) if a member of its board of directors or trustees simultaneously serves on the board of directors or trustees of a profit-making company under contract to DoD, unless the FFRDC has a

DoD-approved conflict of interest policy for its members . . .” These obligations are generally incorporated into the sponsoring agreements of DoD-sponsored FFRDCs.

1. What is the regulatory or policy standard that serves as the basis for this broad restriction in Clause 5.m?

2. This DFARS language limits the restrictions on Trustees to those serving on the governing boards of for-profit entities, rather than the language in Clause 5.m, which applies to both for-profit and non-profit entities. We note that many of our qualified Trustee candidates also serve on the boards of other non-profit organizations that support government research and analysis, including universities, research laboratories, charitable organizations, FFRDCs, etc. Given that Federal regulations frequently treat these types of non-profit entities operating in the government services market differently than for-profit entities for purposes of risk management, why does

Clause 5.m treat them as equivalent to for-profit entities for purposes of these restrictions?

3. The DFARS restrictions are also limited to Trustees who serve on third-party governing boards under contract to DoD, thereby applying a rational nexus between the risk of inappropriate influence or information leakage by a Trustee to the circumstances most likely to bring that risk to fruition – when that Trustee has a compelling interest in a third party that works with the same agency being supported by the FFRDC. In contrast, Clause 5.m applies to any entity serving in the

“government services market.” Should the term “government services market” be read to apply to any Federal or State agency, regardless of how remote that agency’s interests may be from the work being done by the HSOAC? If so, what is the justification for this expansive application of these restrictions to the “government services market” at large?

4. The DFARS provides greater operational flexibility for FFRDC entities which have undergone the effort of having their conflict of interest policies approved by the appropriate DoD authority. Clause 6.e(6) of the HSOAC FFRDC Sponsoring

Agreement similarly requires that the Offeror maintain a “written, rigorous, corporate-

The restrictions of 5.m. are based on DHS’s experience with its FFRDCs and its MD 143-04. Section 5.m. has been revised to narrow the restriction.

wide, organizational and staff conflict of interest regimen” that is reviewed and approved in writing by DHS, and all related changes to the Offeror’s corporate conflict of interest policy, as well as that of the HSOAC, must be approved in advance by the Contracting Officer. Given the administrative burden that is likely to be created by the overly broad restrictions in Clause 5.m, coupled with the level of supervision already planned for the Offeror’s conflict of interest policies under Clause 6.e(6), why not incorporate the standards of Clause 5.m into the approval criteria for the Offeror’s conflict of interest policy, and then permit the Offeror to proceed according to its policies without the need for the ongoing waiver requests referenced in Clause 5.m?

(10) J.1, Section

5.m

Clause 5.m limits the ability of a member of the Offeror’s Board of Trustees from serving on “panels or committees reasonably related to the HSOAC.”

1. Please confirm whether this restriction is intended to limit the Trustee’s ability to serve on panels or committees of the Offeror’s Board of Trustees, or whether it is intended to limit the Trustee’s ability to serve on Board panels or committees of a non-Offeror “for-profit or non-profit entity that is engaged in providing professional services or research and development in the government services market.”

2. If the former, please clarify what panels or committees of the Offeror’s Board of Trustees would be considered “reasonably related to the HSOAC”?

a. Would a position on the Offeror’s Executive Committee (charged with providing organizational direction on behalf of the Board and advising the Board on broad decisions and business matters) be considered “reasonably related to the

HSOAC” because the HSOAC falls under the broad organizational ambit of the committee?

b. Would a position on the Offeror’s Audit Committee (charged with providing oversight of financial reporting, internal controls, and audits) be considered

“reasonably related to the HSOAC” because the committee reviews HSOAC financial information along with that of the rest of the Offeror organization?

Section 5.m. has been revised to narrow the restriction.

(11) J.3, Sections

10-11

It appears that the body text for Section 10, Cost Estimate, was inadvertently numbered as Section 11. Is this correct?

This has been corrected.

(12) J.3, Section

The TER appears to be an explanation of and a tasking to develop a TEP explaining required documentation expected to be required after the establishment of the

HSOAC.

1. In Section 18, Technical Approach/Analytic Methodology, what types of additional information should be included in the TEP beyond the document explanations already provided in the TER?

2. How does this apply to Table 4 in section 18 ? Completing documentation does not appear to fall into a specific mission area, nor under a particular Focus Area.

3. If Table 4 is applicable to this TER, what basis should the offeror use to estimate mission area and focus area ties for documents intended to capture projects not as yet underway?

1. The offeror must describe their proposed approach to developing the deliverables and the performance of any other work needed for their successful development/updating/delivery in Section 18.

2. & 3. The Government leaves these determinations to the offeror’s judgment in preparing its proposal.

(13) G.5.1

L.6.3

Section L.6.3 indicates that the submission of the Sample Task orders consists of the

“Offeror-completed TER document” and limits the submissions to 12 pages each.

Section G.5 indicates that offerors transform a TER into a Task Execution Plan (TEP)

1. No more than twelve (12) additional pages can be added to each TER document (Please see revision to the table).

“when the FFRDC has incorporated its technical approach as part of the document and submitted it as part of the proposal for a given TO.” It further states that the completed proposal consists of the TEP and detailed cost estimations.

1. Given that Task Orders J.3 and J.4 both exceed 12 pages, does this mean that offerors have 12 ADDITIONAL pages in which to provide their technical approaches to the TERs when developing the TEPs?

2. Would the government confirm that the description of the technical approach for each task is to be included in Section 18 of each TEP?

2. The offeror must outline their proposed technical approach in Section 17 and identify any constraints/assumptions/work dependencies in Section 19. Offeror’s are reminded to review each TER document carefully to ensure they provide a responsive TEP.

(14) J.2, J.3, J.4 –

Section 10

In section 10 of each TER, the government provides a total estimated cost in terms of

STEs. Please confirm that it is the government’s intent that the STE amount will be the sum total of all the offeror’s STEs in the final TEP.

The STE amount included in the TER documents represents the Government’s estimated level of effort for each TER. The offeror’s proposed level of effort may vary from this estimate.

(15) L.6.3

The second paragraph reads: “In order for the technical volumes (Volumes I and III) and the past performance volume (Volume II) to be evaluated strictly on the merit of the material submitted, NO PRICING OR COST ESTIMATION INFORMATION IS

TO BE

INCLUDED. Resource information, such as labor hours or personnel counts, may be included in the technical volumes to the extent it is relevant.

1. Would DHS please confirm that the mentions of Volumes II and III were inadvertently inverted.

This has been corrected.

(16) L.6.3 The table refers to RFP section C.1.15. Should this reference be C.1.12.3? If not, can you direct us to the proper section?

The reference has been updated.

(17) L.6.3 The table refers to RFP section L.5.1. Should this reference be L.6.1? If not, can you direct us to the proper section?

This has been substantially revised. Please see edits..

(18) L.6.3

The RFP is silent about whether Sections A or K should be submitted.

1. Are either required for proposal submission?

2. If so, should they be included in Volume III?

3. If the SF-33 in Section A should be submitted, should offerors submit the SF-

30’s for amendments, or acknowledge them some other way?

Offerors should review the “Offer” section (Boxes 12. – 18.)

of Standard Form 33, and FAR provision 52.204-8, specifically paragraphs (b)(1) and (d) of that provision, and the entirety of the full text of FAR provision 52.204-7 as incorporated by reference into Section L.1

(19)

L.6.3

L.6.4.2

M.4.2

Section L does not provide the specific placement of the compensation plan in the proposal framework, although Section M.4.2, bullet 2 indicates that it will be evaluated as part of the Management and Transition Approach. Compensation plans can be detailed and lengthy. If included as part of the 50 pages currently allocated for the Management and Transition section, it would limit offerors’ ability to adequately describe their management approaches.

1. Please confirm that the Compensation Plan should be included as part of the

Volume I, Factor 2 submission.

2. Would DHS permit the Compensation plan to be a separate plan and outside the 50 pages currently allocated to the Management and Transition Approach?

Offeror’s should review the changes to Section L made as part of this amendment.

(20) L.6.4.3

The table in L.6.4.3 provides only three pages per past performance citation, however the narrative text in subsection 2 indicates that a one page introductory matrix is also required. The end of subsection 2 states: “Further, offerors should include a list of all relevant DHS on-going contracts or contracts completed for the specified period.”

Subsection 5 provides the minimum list of information that must be provided for past

Offeror’s should review the changes to Section L made as part of this amendment.

performance citations.

1. Please confirm that L.6.4.3(2) takes precedence over the table in L.6.4.3. and that the introductory matrix and DHS contract list are outside the 3 page limit on past performance citations.

2. What specific information should be included in the introductory matrix?

Including all of the information in Subsection 5 could make the table unwieldy.

3. Can the government confirm that the “specified period” for the list of relevant DHS contracts is the three years preceding proposal submission?

4. Please confirm that the intent of the relevant contracts list is to include all relevant contracts with DHS that are either ongoing at the time of proposal submission

(regardless of when started), or were either started during the relevant period, or ended in the relevant period regardless of when they might have started.

5. What specific information should be included for the list of relevant DHS contracts?

(21) M.4.2

The second sentence of Bullet 3 states: “Employees on staff should have experience and be eligible to work with select agents and Offerors should have the ability to process limited background investigations.” Will DHS please explain what are “select agents” in this context?

The phrase “select agents” has been removed.

(22) B.5 Are there any annual limits on the IDIQ maximum funding? There are no annual funding limits established at this time.

(23) B.5

DHS Management Directive 143-04 section VI.E.2 (as posted at http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/foia/mgmt-directive-143-04-establishing-contracting-federally-funded-r-and-d-centers-national-labs.pdf) states that, “DHS reserves the right to establish on an annual basis (and prior to each new fiscal year) a ceiling on the maximum number of STEs for DHS- funded FFRDC work (including work by DHS-sponsored FFRDCs, DHS work by FFRDCs under multiple agency sponsorship agreements, and DHS work by FFRDCs sponsored by other government agencies).”

What is the anticipated ceiling workload annually in STE for the contract?

No ceiling workload has been established for this FFRDC.

(24) B.7

Will the government provide instructions on how offerors are to propose a fee rate? Is there additional guidance on when the contractor should consider proposing a lower fee rate when pricing task orders, or is this intended as a mechanism for offering discounts?

The Government will offer no further guidance regarding offerors proposing a fee rate beyond the limit established at

FAR 15.404-4(c)(4)(i)(A) of 15% of the contract’s estimated cost, excluding fee.

(25) C.1.3.2

Section C.1.3.2 states that “the accuracy of all analytic judgments will be tracked and scored when ground truth becomes available.” Can the Government explain (1) who has the responsibility to track and score these judgments; (2) who will determine

“when ground truth becomes available;” and (3) what methodology will be used for the scoring?

In general, the roles, definitions, responsibilities, and methods for tracking and scoring analytic performance will be defined in the context of each task order. The responsibility for determining the analytic accuracy could be the responsibility of either the Government or the HSOAC FFRDC Contractor.

(26)

C.1.7.1/

C.1.13.2.1/

J3.5.1

The management plan is required to include “Project staffing and resource planning methodologies.” Does this refer to the “Staffing Plan” noted out as a discrete part of the Management Plan noted as a contract-level deliverable (C.1.13.2.1), and also to

Section 5.1 of Attachment J3 (the IDIQ Contract Deliverable Management task order), which states the Management Plan should include “Project staffing and resource planning methodologies, i.e., Staffing Plan?”

Yes, this refers to the Staffing Plan that is included in the overall HSOAC FFRDC Management Plan.

(27) C.1.7.1

C.1.7.1 indicates the Management plan should describe how the FFRDC Operator will promote the FFRDC within DHS as a resource, but C.1.7.3 states that the DHS PMO is the only entity allowed to disseminate materials describing the FFRDC capabilities.

Will the Government clarify how it envisions the FFRDC operator to promote the

FFRDC given this limitation?

The bullet on promoting the FFRDC has been removed from the RFP.

(28) C.1.7.1

This section states that the Compensation Plan must include “employees at all organizational levels, whether classified as professional employees or not.” However, section L.3 (a) (p. 85) requires offerors to submit "a total compensation plan setting forth salaries and fringe benefits proposed for the professional employees who will work under the contract." Can the Government clarify whether the Compensation

Plan must include all employees or only those classified as professional employees?

An explanatory section has been added to L.6.4.2.1.

(29) C.1.7.3

Are the informational materials to be developed by the contractor a contract-level deliverable? They are not listed in the deliverables tables in C.1.13.2.1, but they are listed as a deliverable in the TER Plan IDIQ Contract Deliverable Management

(attachment J3).

The informational materials are a deliverable under the

Attachment J.3. TER.

(30) C.1.12.7.1 (c) The format for the CSR is stated to be “as specified in Section J,” but there is no such reference in Section J. Will the Government provide?

This will be provided and established upon award.

(31) C.1.12.7.2 Does the quarterly IP report include assertions of copyright by the FFRDC operator?

The IP report will include copyrighted materials. The FFRDC operator will not assert its copyright on items first produced under the FFRDC contract.

(32) C.1.13.2 (e)

The format for cover letters for deliverables is said to be in Section J, but there is no clearly identified corresponding reference document. Will the Government clarify which sections in J are meant to be the templates?

This will be provided and established upon award.

(33) C.1.13.2.1

Staffing Plan is listed as a requirement under the Management Plan on the contract level deliverables chart, but is not listed explicitly in C.1.7.1 Management Plan requirements. Will the Government explain what is required in the staffing plan? For example, is the Government expecting named individuals to execute task orders?

The Staffing Plan must set forth enough information for the

Government to evaluate the Offeror’s “staffing approach to determine the Offeror’s capacity to fulfill the requirements of the Statement of Work and maintain operational continuity.”

This does not require that the level of detail be so fine as to identify named individuals unless such granular detail is part of the offeror’s staffing methodology. However, the plan must set forth enough details on the offeror’s staffing methodology to allow for a rigorous evaluation. Due to the variety of potential sound approaches, DHS cannot provide further guidance.

(34) C.1.13.2.2

Section J is referenced for the templates for a Project Management Plan and a Task

Order Status Report (task order deliverables 2 and 3), but no corresponding templates were provided in Section J. Will the Government provide?

This will be provided and established upon award.

(35) E.2.1/

E.2.2

E.2.1 states the IDIQ CO or authorized representative will evaluate each deliverable to determine acceptability; E.2.2 states the CO for the task order or authorized representative will evaluate each deliverable. Does this mean that in some cases, deliverables will be evaluated by more than one CO or authorized representative?

Sections revised to clarify.

(36) G.5.1.1 The “mandatory template” referenced in this section is not included as a separate attachment in Section J. Are we to interpret that the TERs provided as attachments J2

The TERs included in the RFP are examples of the mandatory

TER template.

and J3 are examples of this template?

(37) G.5.3

This section describes the task order process as it is to be conducted through submission of a TEP. Would the government please clarify the criteria used to evaluate TEPs and the process to award a task based on a TEP?

Under the resulting contract, typically the technical acceptability of the contractor’s TEP will be based on negotiation rather than strict evaluation criteria.

(38) G.8.(a)/

C.1.13.2.1

We do not see a requirement for a subcontracting plan in the RFP. C.1.13.2.1 lists such a plan as a contract-level deliverable due “as requested by S&T CO.” Will the

Government confirm that a subcontracting plan is not required as part of the proposal?

Per FAR 52.219-9, “Small Business Subcontracting Plan,” included in the RFP with its Alternate II, a Small Business

Subcontracting Plan is required to be submitted with initial proposals.

(39) H.11.1

Will the HSOAC operator be required to provide SCI workspace and processing and storage of SCI material, or will the SCI work be conducted at the government site? If the HSOAC operator is to provide the work space, will the Government consider allowing work in an offeror’s existing SCIF(s) under a memorandum of agreement between existing FFRDCs hosted by the offeror and DHS, or will DHS require a stand-alone SCIF?

If off-site work requires access to classified information, then the contractor will be required to provide appropriate workspace, i.e., a SCIF. Co-use agreements for existing offeror

SCIFs, or SCIFs at other Government agency’s installations may be acceptable subject to DHS review and approval.

(40) H.11.2/

H.11.3

Several forms in these two sections are listed as contained in Section J, but are not included. Will the Government provide?

Required forms will be provided upon award.

(41) H.13

Paragraph (b) states that the contractor formulates the proposed contingency plan prior to the award of this contract or at the time of incorporation of this clause into a contract by modification. This plan is not listed as a contract deliverable in section

C.1.13.2.1 or mentioned elsewhere in the solicitation. Will the Government confirm that the plan is not required as part of the proposal submission?

The plan is not required until award.

(42) I.9

Footnote 14 states that the government is considering a deviation to the Rights in Data

– General clause referenced in this section, which would be executed by amendment of the RFP. Will the government clarify what, if any, deviation is being considered?

RFP amendment 000002 includes the deviated clause.

(43) I.14

In its earlier answer to Question 70 (Questions, page 11), the government stated, “final

OCOI and personal conflict of interest restriction regime is still under development[.]”

Is section I.14 the “regime” referenced in the government’s response to Question 70?

If not, when will the referenced “regime” be made available? Will the “regime” be a part of the final contract?

RFP amendment 000002 includes the deviated clause.

(44) I.14

Footnote 15 states that the Government is considering a deviation to the Organization

Conflict of Interest clause referenced in this section, which would be executed by amendment of the RFP. Will the government clarify what if any changes to this section, which are mentioned in this footnote, are being considered?

RFP amendment 000002 includes the deviated clause.

(45) I.15

Footnote 16 states that the Government is considering a deviation to the Organization

Conflict of Interest clause referenced in this section, which would be executed by amendment of the RFP. Will the government clarify what if any changes to this section, which are mentioned in this footnote, are being considered?

RFP amendment 000002 includes the deviated clause.

(46) L.2 (c)(2) By the “first page of the proposal,” does the Government mean the first page of the

Cover Letter in Volume I required by section L.6.3 (p. 89)?

Please see revisions to the Volume I table.

(47) L.3

Section L.3 (a) (p. 85) states that "offerors will submit a total compensation plan setting forth salaries and fringe benefits proposed for the professional employees who will work under the contract;" this seems to suggest that salary information for all proposed personnel is required. However, section L.3.(b) (p. 85) refers to "salary rates

Salary information for all positions intended to provide support under the HSOAC must be included . Offerors are reminded of the executive compensation reporting requirements present at FAR clause 52.204-10, “Reporting or ranges." Will the Government advise whether it is looking for salary information on named individuals, or whether salary ranges for those individuals' positions will be acceptable?

Executive Compensation and First-Tier Subcontract Award.”

(48) L.3

Since J-6 will include labor rates, is the compensation plan intended to focus on compensation structure and methodology -- such as components of compensation and justification of compensation levels --rather than tables of compensation rates for specific labor categories?

The compensation plan must adhere to the requirements of the

FAR provision and provide sufficient detail for evaluation under the technical Factor 2 and the realism analysis under

Factor 4. Given this, the Compensation Plan must include both types of information mentioned in this question i.e., compensation structure and methodology, as well as tables of compensation rates.

(49) L.6.1 This section requires the offeror to submit a “detailed breakout of…proposed profit/fee.” Please provide instructions for what to submit for this requirement.

See newly included section on the Basis of Estimate.

(50) L.6.2 Do volume title pages or tabs between sections of a volume count against the page limits?

Title pages for proposal volumes are not counted against the page limits.

(51) L.6.2 Should the pages in each section within a volume be numbered individually, or should all pages in the volume be numbered sequentially?

This is an item for the offeror to consider.

(52) L.6.2 Is a Table of Contents and/or Glossary required for each volume? If so, do the volumes’ Tables of Contents count against the volume page limits?

Please see revisions to Section L.

(53) L.6.3 Can proposal volumes I and II cross-reference each other? Can the Task Order

Proposals reference other sections of Volumes I and/or II?

This is within the offeror’s discretion; offeror’s are further advised to review the proposal preparation instructions carefully.

(54) L.6.3 Is a compliance matrix required in addition to the Proposal Checklist?

The Proposal Checklist must be completed and included in the proposal. Additional matrices are subject to the offeror’s judgment to the extent they are relevant to the proposal’s content.

(55) L.6.3 Will the Cover Letter or Executive Summary in Volume I be evaluated? If so, under what evaluation factors?

These will not be considered in the evaluation and should not include material to be evaluated. Please see revisions to

Section L.

(56) L.6.3

Should the statement, “In order for the technical volumes (Volumes I and III) and the past performance volume (Volume II) to be evaluated strictly on the merits of the material submitted, no pricing or cost estimation information is to be included” be modified to read “…for the technical volume (Volume I)…”?

This has been changed.

(57) L.6.3 The total minimum file count on the chart on pp. 89-90 is 14. Will the government explain how 14 is derived? It is not clear from the chart.

The chart has been revised.

(58) L.6.4.3

The chart on pp. 90-91 lists Completed Questionnaires as part of Volume II. Since questionnaires are to be submitted directly by the respondents, will the Government confirm that it will add the completed questionnaires to Volume II?

The completed questionnaires are considered part of the

Volume II requirements.

(59) M.3 Will the Government explain what “data obtained from other sources” it may use to conduct proposal evaluation and how that data will be weighted?

This refers only to evaluation of offeror past performance, which the Past Performance evaluation factor mentions. This statement as cited in the question has been revised to clarify.

(60) M.4.1/

M4.2

Will the evaluation subfactors for Factor 1 be applied only to the content of the Factor

1 and Sample Task Order sections of Volume I, or will the Government also take into account relevant content in the Factor 2 section of Volume I?

The evaluation factors do not contain subfactors. The areas mentioned in each evaluation factor will be evaluated under that factor only.

(61) M.4.1

Factor 1 includes elements that are usually considered a part of the management approach, such as maintaining operational continuity, retaining or backfilling staff to mitigate risk, and key personnel, who presumably encompass the management team.

In addition, per section C.1.13.2.1, the staffing plan is a requirement under the management plan. Will the Government clarify whether the offerors’ approaches to staffing, including Staffing Plans, will be evaluated under Factor 1 or Factor 2?

Please see revisions to the evaluation criteria regarding this question.

(62) M.4.1

Factor 1 includes the extent to which resumes of proposed key personnel demonstrate abilities to perform the tasks described in the Statement of Work, suggesting the

Government is expecting that key personnel will have the substantive qualifications to perform the work as well as manage the work. The Government’s previous answer to a question (Question 100) stated that it is expected that key personnel will be identified based on their role within the HSOAC, rather than their technical qualifications. Can the Government clarify whether it expects proposed key personnel to be management personnel or substantive experts, or both?

This is subject to the offeror’s discretion. Please see the revisions made to Section L.

(63) M.4.1 Will the Government explain how it defines “representative resumes” versus “resumes for specific personnel?”

Please see the revisions made to Section L.

(64) M.4.1

The evaluation criteria “The extent to which the Offeror’s staffing plan demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to accomplish each aspect of the requirements of the Statement of

Work” and “provide a cross functional team that collectively possess the knowledge in all functional areas and the ability to successfully accomplish the required tasks” suggest the Staffing Plan should be presented in the Factor 1 section of the proposal, but C.1.13.2.1 notes the staffing plan is a requirement under the management plan.

Please clarify where the Staffing Plan should be presented and under which Factor it will be evaluated.

Please see the revisions made to Section L.

(65) M.4.1

The evaluation criteria “The extent to which the Offeror’s staffing plan demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to accomplish each aspect of the requirements of the Statement of

Work” and “provide a cross functional team that collectively possess the knowledge in all functional areas and the ability to successfully accomplish the required tasks” suggest the Government is expecting to see a detailed staffing plan identifying technical specialists who would be responsible for executing work under specific task orders. Will the Government expect resumes for such proposed individuals if they are not designated as key personnel? If so, can the Government provide a general estimate of the maximum number of resumes you would like?

An explanatory section on key personnel has been added and other related revisions have been made to Section L.

(66) M.4.1 Will the Government provide a resume template? The Government will not be providing a resume template.

(67) M.4.1

The three task orders are to be evaluated under Factor 1, but one—the IDIQ Contract

Deliverable Management outlined in attachment J3—is management-focused. Can the Government clarify under which Factors each of the task orders will be evaluated?

Please see the revised table for Volume I.

(68) M.4.1

The evaluation criteria for the technical approach to the task orders include the extent to which “the technical approach to the three (3) representative task orders demonstrates a solid understanding of the Government’s needs, innovative solutions, and sound program/project management in compliance with the proposed

Management Plan.” Does this mean that management factors will be evaluated under

Factor 1, not Factor 2?

The plans themselves and the approaches laid-out therein will be evaluated under Factor 2. Factor 1 considers the application of the approaches outlined in the plans to the work proposed.

(69) M.4.2

One evaluation factor for the Compensation Plan is that it reflects a sound understanding of the contract requirements. Does this refer to the types of positions and salary ranges anticipated for the contract or the specific individuals, with their salaries, proposed to work on the contract?

Both. The compensation plan should be comprehensive as required by the RFP.

(70) M.4.2 This section states that employees should be eligible to work with select agents. Can the Government explain what this means?

This has been removed and the RFP section revised.

(71) M.4.2

Factor 2 includes recruitment and retention of staff, “as stated in the Compensation and Staffing Plans,” and the staffing plan is contained in the Management Plan per

C.1.13.2.1. However, issues relating directly to staffing are a substantial portion of the Factor 1 criteria. Can the Government clarify where in the proposal the staffing plan should be submitted and under which factor it will be evaluated?

Please see the revisions to Section L.

(72) M.4.4

This section states that the “IDIQ cost proposal must respond to all CLINs included in

Section B.” However, the RFP provides no information on estimated breakout between CLIN 001 and 002 projects or on the estimated total volume of projects other than the IDIQ maximum value of $500,290,011. Please provide further instructions as to how the offeror is to be responsive in estimating prices for all CLINs included in

Section B.

Please refer to Section C.1.10.1.

(73) M.5 Can the Government provide the relative order of importance for the evaluation subfactors listed under each Factor?

There are no evaluation subfactors.

(74) N/A

The RFP does not require any discussion of security issues in the proposal. Can the

Government confirm that there are no security-related evaluation criteria other than the suitability subfactor in Factor 2?

There are no evaluation subfactors and only the portion of

Factor 2 that relates to suitability.

(75) J-1

4.a

Will the topic areas listed in the Scope of Work be expanded to include R&D Studies and Innovation and Technology Acceleration as described in section C.1.3.6?

This has been revised.

(76) J-1

5.j

Does the ability to augment in-house research staff with other technical and analytic resources apply to resources outside the parent organization?

This has been revised to read as follows:

j. Subject to the requirements set forth in this Section, the

HSOAC may augment its in-house research staff with other technical and analytic resources for work on user problems, the scope of which requires temporary access to specialized expertise that is not available within the FFRDC or the Parent

Organization.

(77) J-1

5.h

For work that meets conditions in Section 9, does the government view the HSOAC as a resource to be available to federal, state, local, tribal, and foreign governments and non-profit organizations within the Homeland Security Enterprise?

Yes. Please see Section C.1.2.1 and footnote 4.

(78) J-1

6.e.6

Can the government clarify that the requirement in this section for changes to the COI regimen to be approved by the CO only refers to changes in the COI policy that are material/substantive and/or that directly impact DHS and does not refer to less significant changes (for example, reordering of material or editing changes to improve readability)?

This covers all changes.

(79) J-1

9.b.1

Will the government consider revising this clause to read:

“May not operate another DHS FFRDC or compete with any non-FFRDC in response to a DHS request for proposals.”

This will not be revised and is a matter of DHS policy regarding DHS-sponsored FFRDCs.

(80) J-1

9.b.2

Will the government consider revising this clause to read:

“May not compete in response to a DHS Broad Agency Announcement or DHS

Funding Opportunity Announcement without the written consent of the Contracting

Officer and Primary Sponsor.”

This will not be revised and is a matter of DHS policy regarding DHS-sponsored FFRDCs.

(81) J-1

9.b.3

Will the government clarify whether the term DHS FFRDC contractor in the first sentence of this clause refers to another DHS FFRDC or to the parent organization operating another DHS FFRDC?

Is this clause intended to prohibit subcontracts associated with FFRDCs operated for other Federal agencies (e.g. DoD, Treasury, or Department of Health and Human

Services) between parent organizations that both operate DHS FFRDCs? For example, may the parent organization of a DHS FFRDC enter into a subcontract with a parent organization of another DHS FFRDC, if the subcontract between the parent organizations is related to operation of an FFRDC operated for an agency other than

DHS?

This refers to another contractor operating a DHS FFRDC.

This prohibition stands regardless of exigent circumstances.

Offerors are advised that this prohibition may be waived by the Contracting Officer per the clause.

(82) J-2, J-3, J-4

Per section G.5.2 of the RFP (p. 39), the process for task order proposals is that the

FFRDC outlines its technical approach to accomplishing the TER objectives by editing the document and filling out those sections marked for completion, then retitle the TER as a Task Execution Plan and incorporate it into its proposal submission.

Given the 12-page limit for task order proposals, how are bidders to follow the guidance in section G.5.2 and submit a proposal within the page limit since the TERs are already 12 and 13 pages long?

Please see the revised table for Volume I of the proposal.

(83) J-2, J-3, J-4 Are there specific evaluation criteria for task orders? Please see the revised table for Volume I of the proposal.

(84) J-2, J-3, J-4 Will the Government confirm that the task orders will be evaluated only under Factor

1, not Factor 2, per section M.4.1?

Please see the revised table for Volume I of the proposal.

(85) J-2, J-3, J-4

Can the Government advise what type of staffing plan is required for task order proposals, if it is considered a part of the technical approach/analytic methodology, and whether resumes for proposed staff are required? If resumes are required, do they count against the page limits?

There is not explicit requirement for a task order-level staffing plan. However, the offeror should ensure that any process/methodology outlined in the Staffing Plan and

Management Plan is clearly and consistently followed in the technical approach to the sample task orders.

(86) J-2, J-3, J-4

Does the Government anticipate awarding HSOAC Sample Task Orders 1, 2, and 3

(i.e. attachments J-2, J-3, and J-4) beginning in Year 1 and annually thereafter?

Not all of the sample task orders provided will be awarded in year 1 of the resulting contract. The Government will meet the minimum guarantee as specified upon contract award.

(87) J-2 and J-3

Should budgeted costs submitted in the proposal for Task orders 2 & 3 (J-3 and J-4) include a 5% indirect charge to be allocated to strategic/core projects?

The strategic project allocation amount should only be included in the cost proposal for sample Task Order 3. Please see revisions to Section L.6.3.3.

(88)

J-2 and J-4

C.1.10.1

Is it still the Government’s intention to fund the Core strategic research portfolio for

HSOAC through a 5% charge against tactical task order awards? Yes.

(89) J-2

In view of the detailed explanation of the tasks and how they should be accomplished provided in the TER, can the Government provide guidance on what elements of a technical approach it is seeking?

DHS acknowledges that the task explanation is rather detailed, yet the offeror is free to propose its own approach to accomplishing the work and outline constraints and assumptions that may impinge on task performance.

(90) J-2

Can the Government confirm that this task order is limited to the process of developing, maintaining, and reporting on the Core Research Plan and does not include research projects to be executed under that plan?

Correct. The TER included in the RFP does not involve actual execution of the tasks/projects to be outlined in the Core

Research Plan.

(91) J-2

5.2-3

When will the HSOAC receive the advanced research concepts recommended by the

S&T PMO and the S&T Homeland Security Advisory Group (HSAG), as the HSOAC must review these by 75 days after award?

This will be dependent on the HSAG’s meeting schedule. The

FFRDC will not be held responsible for delays caused by the

HSAG’s schedule.

(92) J-2

Can the Government explain what it means by “anticipated resource requirements”? This refers to resources required by the FFRDC for successful task execution.

(93) J-2

Is the contractor permitted to propose travel on this task order, or are trips and work-days associated with travel both intended to be zero?

Offerors may propose travel if directly necessary to accomplish work.

(94)

J-2

The TER appears to indicate that no work under this task order will be classified, only unclassified, sensitive but unclassified, and FOUO. However, the parenthetical comment following “Classification Guide” leaves open the possibility for classified work. Can the Government clarify whether classified work may be done under this task order?

The section referenced on “Classification Guide” is part of the

TER/TEP template language. No classified work is anticipated under this project.

(95) J-3

2-5

Can the Government explain what it is looking for in the technical approach/analytic methodology related to these tasks, which are management tasks?

The offeror must outline their approach to performing the tasks outlined in the TER document.

(96) J-3

Is the contractor permitted to propose travel on this task order or are trips and work-days associated with travel both intended to be zero?

Offerors may propose travel if directly necessary to accomplish work.

(97) J-3

Can the Government explain what it means by “anticipated resource requirements”? This refers to resources required by the FFRDC for successful task execution.

(98) J-4

In view of the detailed explanation of the tasks and how they should be accomplished provided in the TER, can the Government provide guidance on what elements of a technical approach it is seeking?

DHS acknowledges that the task explanation is rather detailed, yet the offeror is free to propose its own approach to accomplishing the work and outline constraints and assumptions that may impinge on task performance.

(99) J-4

5.1.1

The requirement that the POC engage with partners (internal and external to S&T) to maintain situational awareness on the developing context of policy issues relevant to

DHS authorities and responsibilities" is far-reaching in scope and carries cost implications. Does the Government consider this to be a discrete subtask that should be priced?

Offerors must provide all relevant costing and pricing information they determine necessary for successful task performance.

(100) J-4

5.1.1

By "engage with partners," does the Government mean any/all components of the

Homeland Security Enterprise?

Yes.

(101) J-4

5.1.2

The language refers to three example subtask initiation sheets provided as an example. Will the Government provide those sheets?

These will not be provided until the task is awarded subsequent to the award of the IDIQ contract.

(102) J-4

5.1.2

A strategic planning document appears to be required for rapid response subtasks. Can the Government explain how the HSOAC would develop such a document given the very short deadlines for a “Rapid Response Task”, which are to be completed within 3 days?

The methods employed would be dependent on the nature of the specific analytic task and the offeror’s value proposition to the Government as stated in its proposal.

(103) J-4

5.1.2

For very rapid and rapid responses, will the HSOAC be required to provide a subtask execution plan prior to executing the work?

No.

(104) J-4

Can the Government explain what it means by anticipated resource requirements? This refers to resources required by the FFRDC for successful task execution.

(105) J-4 Are the number of trips, workdays, and locations fixed, or may the Contractor propose Offerors may propose travel if directly necessary to

7 a different amount and locations for travel? accomplish work.

(106) J-6.I

Does the direct labor exclude all fringe and indirect costs, thereby reflecting only the salary for each labor category?

Direct labor rates should be completely unburdened. Indirect rates (including fringe) should be reflected in accordance with the offeror’s approved accounting procedures.

(107) J-6-I Can offeror provide rates per year for the 5 years of the contract, or are they to be one rate good for all 5 years?

The rates must be good for all five (5) years of the resulting

Contract.

(108) J-6-I

Will the government consider an IR&D rate as part of the indirect costs? If so, will

IR&D require an advance agreement per DHS MD 143-04?

The Government will not consider establishing a separate

IR&D rate for the HSOAC contract; offerors must comply with the requirements of CAS 420 regarding IR&D costs.

While the DHS MD 143-04 makes advance agreements optional, DHS does not anticipate any advance agreements for the HSOAC.

(109) J-6-I

If needed at a later date, will the offeror be able to introduce additional labor categories that are not included in the proposal?

There is the potential for such discussions if the inclusion of additional labor categories is determined to be in the interests of the Government. Offerors are cautioned that their proposal submitted must present a complete picture of how the offeror intends to operate the HSOAC FFRDC on behalf of DHS.

(110) L.6.4.2

Will the government consider revising the instructions so that attachment J.5 is moved to Volume III? If so, will the government allow the offeror to include a Volume I proposal checklist, based on the evaluation requirements for Factors 1 and 2 (RFP sections M.4.1 and M.4.2)?

Please see revisions to Section L. Offerors are not prohibited from including other checklists or graphics in their proposals provided such information is directly related to the content of the proposal.

(111) L.6.3

The "Section Contains" column for Volume III includes "Basis of Estimate (See

L.5.1)” Section L.5.1 does not reference BOE instructions. Please provide instructions for addressing basis of estimate for Volume III.

Information regarding the preparation of the BOE has been included in the RFP. This information is of a general nature, and the Government will not provide further direction in its preparation acknowledging that there are multiple valid approaches to the preparation of the BOE and the offeror’s estimate(s).

(112) L.6.3 and

M.4.1

Since…