Question_Slides_and_Procurement_Timeline_for_DHS_Industry_Day_-_30_Jun_2015.pdf

30 Jun 2015

HSOAC

Questions

June 30, 2015

Section B Questions Referencing Section B of the

Draft RFP

• 4.1 states that the contractor is to submitted “approved” Forward Pricing Rate Agreements to the DHS Contracting Officer as they are approved. Does the lack of an approved Forward Pricing Rate Agreement preclude an entity from submitting a proposal?

Section C Questions Referencing Section C of the

• What is the reason(s) for the refocus on operational analyses?

• What does DHS mean or intend to convey by the term “renewed” competencies?

• Can a For‐Profit entity be a parent institution?

• Can an organization that is currently operating a DHS FFRDC compete for the HSOAC FFRDC contract?

• The section states “The nature of their mission requires that FFRDCs operate in a strategic relationship with their sponsors. FFRDCs and sponsors commit to a stable and long‐term relationship.” (emphasis added) Para 5.1.1 states that “The contract ordering period (COP) is for five (5) years from the date of the award.”

Would the Government consider a COP construct that would allow the contractor to be awarded a much longer COP; say 10‐15 years based on performance, to allow the desired stable and long‐term relationship to be realized. COPs of this nature and duration are not unusual for FFRDCs. We suggest options be added to the procurement to allow multiple 2‐year extensions to the COP for a total COP on the order of at least 10 years.

• This section states “The HSOAC refocuses the existing [HSSAI] FFRDC with comprehensive and renewed competencies in operational analyses…”. Please explain in what areas the HSOAC intends to “refocus” and “renew” HSSAI competencies and why?

• Although the government states in Section C.2.1 that “The HSOAC refocuses the existing Homeland Security Studies and Analysis Institute (HSSAI) FFRDC with comprehensive and renewed core competencies in operational analyses”, operational analysis is listed in Section C.3.2 below the five focus areas. By contrast, it was the first area listed in the Request for Information. If the government intends to refocus on operational analysis, why is it apparently deemphasized in the draft RFP Scope?

• Section C.2.2 states “the FFRDC shall provide recommendations for policy and operational changes, as well as technology insertion concepts, throughout the federal, state, local, tribal, public and private sector organizations that make up the homeland security enterprise.” Additionally, Section 3.2.2. Acknowledgement for Non‐DHS Sponsored Tasks seems to indicate that entities from across the homeland security enterprise, including other federal departments and agencies and state, local, and tribal governments, can sponsor tasks for HSOAC. Is this correct?

• Although the FFRDC client is clearly DHS and other Federal, state, local, tribal, public and private sector organizations are identified as part of the homeland security enterprise, the Scope (3. Scope, pages 5‐9) focuses very largely on only DHS and its components. What is the expected role of the HSOAC in working with the identified pieces of the broader homeland Security enterprise?

• By listing Acquisition Studies first in Section C.3.1.1, does the government envision this focus area as receiving particular emphasis by HSOAC? Doesn’t S&T have substantial internal acquisition capability and aren’t similar services to some of those required here already provided by SEDI? Please clarify the distinction between existing acquisition capabilities and those required from HSOAC.

• The last bullet under Section C.3.1.1 requests “Development of acquisition documentation for DHS Components including: Request for Proposals (RFP), Request for Quote (RFQ), sources sought documents, technical work statements (PWS, SOW, SOO)”, which are typically provided to the government by for profit companies. Does the government want HSOAC to provide these more traditional procurement services?

• Organizational Studies states “Conduct assessments and make recommendations to strengthen DHS Component social relations and influence in politically sensitive subjects…” What is meant by “social relations”?

• In Section C.3.1.4 Regulatory, Doctrine and Policy Studies, the government requires the HSOAC to perform regulatory assessment. Is the emphasis in this focus area more on looking at existing regulatory schemes and recommending ways in which those processes can be improved or in conducting the baseline economic analysis and other burdens under the Administrative Procedures Act and OMB Guidance to assess the total cost(s) of proposed regulations?

• Comment: the DRFP scope, even in para 3.2, does not seem to describe either “comprehensive” or ʺrenewed” competencies in operational analyses.

• Reference paragraph 4.1 S&T FFRDC Program Management Office (PMO) (page 9 of 68) The paragraph states that the PMO will provide support to the FFRDC in reaching across the DHS to secure task orders. Please discuss further how specific task orders will be solicited and secured? What is the role of the HSOAC in reaching out to the breadth of DHS in securing task orders? Since it appears that 95% of the expected work of the FFRDC will be “tactical”, the Contractor’s skill and approach in developing potential work may prove a critical asset.

• Will the management plan be required as an element of the proposal?

• Will a notional research plan be required as part of the proposal?

• Section C.4.3 Research Plan describes how HSOAC priorities are established.

How will this prioritization process relate to the project selection process already used by S&T to select their research portfolio?

• The Core Research Status Report (CRSR) is not listed as a contract or task order deliverable in C.6.2.10 or C.6.2.11. Is it a discrete deliverable? If so, is it due annually or more frequently?

• Section C.4.3.2 states “The work outlined in the Research Plan must not overly benefit one particular organization over another as determined by the FFRDC Advisory Group”. What is the membership and role of the FFRDC Advisory Group

(AG)?

• Can the Government explain what is meant by ʺleveraging, refocusing, or redeveloping work performed for others?“

• Section C.4.3.8 appears to be a fragment. Please clarify

• How does the Government anticipate approving work? Does it intend to approve a fiscal yearʹs worth of task order projects and core research projects at once, or will task order projects and core research projects be approved throughout the fiscal year?

• Reference paragraph 4.4.3 Strategic Projects (page 12 of 68) Please clarify the first sentence of the paragraph. It seems to say that strategic projects will comprise no more than 5% of the total estimated costs of the HSOAC but then, in the later part of the sentence, “tactical portfolio” is referenced. Please quantify the expected percentage of the total estimated costs that will be tactical and what will be strategic.

• Section C.4.4.3.1 states “Strategic projects will comprise no more than five (5) percent of the total estimated costs of the HSOAC’s operator’s tactical project portfolio that is currently under performance.” Why is DHS limiting strategic projects to 5% of the value of tactical projects?

• Can the Government explain the task order award process? For example, does the Government anticipate that tactical projects will be primarily initiated by various DHS organizational elements and submitted to the PMO or primarily initiated by the Contractor? Are DHS organizational elements anticipated to submit FFRDC requirements on an annual basis?

• Reference paragraph 5.1 Contract Ordering Period (page 13 of 68) Reference is made to a 5 year COP. Will the Government consider a longer COP commensurate with the special nature of an FFRDC, the stated long term mission relationship and the practice of other FFRDC contracts? A 3 year Base Period and multiple 2 year options provide a reasonable term for the Contractor to make investments which will ensure the HSOAC success.

• The DFRFP states that “a substantial effort is expected to be deployed on‐site at DHS locations.” Does DHS have an estimate (number or percentage) of how many “on‐site” positions are required and the specific roles for these positions?

• Can the Government define ʺsubstantial effortʺ for staff deployed onsite at DHS locations in terms of the amount of activity or type of activities?

• Are all DHS locations where a substantial Contractor effort is expected to be deployed located in the DC area?

• Field offices to which other staff may be assigned are stated to include Contractor activities. Is there any expectation of assigning Contractor staff to DHS field offices?

• Section C.5.2.1 Place of Performance states “Unless otherwise provided for under a funded project, the FFRDC operator is responsible for providing the necessary space, equipment, support, and technical personnel to establish, set up and manage the FFRDC.” Can contractor FFRDC staff be integrated into its facility with other contractor staff or does the FFRDC staff have to be housed in a separate facility? If a separate facility is required, please define what that means, e.g., solid walls and doors limiting access to FFRDC staff, location on a separate floor of an office building from other contractor staff, or location in a completely physically separate facility.

• Section C.5.2.3 states “The FFRDC operator must provide, at their Washington, D.C. location, a room...” By Washington, D.C. location, does the government mean in the Washington, DC metropolitan area?

• Reference paragraph 5.3 Transition (page 14 of 68) A Transition Plan is appropriate however the Government will need to provide a description (scope, funding status, timeline and deliverables) of the incumbent’s task that are expected to be impacted on the projected start date.

• Does the Government anticipate any overlap between the existing and new FFRDC contracts?

• Will a notional transition plan be required as part of the proposal?

• Re item #1, Will the Government explain how it will determine that the operations transition has been completed?

• Footnote 13 states that “If required, a formal Transition Plan will be required as a deliverable under the Contract at award.” Please clarify under what conditions the Transition Plan would be required and whether or not the Transition Plan needs to be included in the proposal.

• Can the Government explain what is required in the Quality Control Plan (QCP) and Compensation Plan listed under the Management Plan?

Section G Questions Referencing Section G of the

Draft RFP

• Can the Government explain the requirements development and proposal submission process?

• Can the government confirm the assumption that any unilateral task order will be in compliance with the scope, terms and conditions of the master contract?

• Does the FFRDC have the ability to decline work?

• The requirement for a quarterly Task Order Closeout Report is not listed in C.6.2.10 Contract Deliverables. Is this a discrete contract level deliverable?

• Section G.7.1 Audits states “If the HSOAC FFRDC is included in an overall annual audit of their parent company, it will satisfy the annual audit requirement as long as such parent company audit is conducted in accordance with the same requirements and the HSOAC FFRDC is separately identified and accounted for in this audit.” By “separately identified and accounted for” does the government mean as a line item within the audit or a full “audit within an audit”?

• Why limit subcontracting? It severely limits the depth and breadth of the expertise available to service DHS. It forces the Contractor to staff the HSOAC with broadly experienced in‐house generalists who may be flexible in developing specialized insight in a particular subject area but who will require a distinct learning curve to do so. The extent of the “issues” that HSOAC may be called upon to address, the rapidly changing nature of the threats and the urgency of addressing those challenges expertly and quickly argues for a robust source of experts. Since many future threats are unknowable now, the kinds of threat experts are similarly unknowable now. The HSOAC Contractor would be much stronger if they had a detailed Subcontracting Management Plan which clearly described the means they will use to identify, secure and manage the most appropriate talent for any assigned task. We note that there was no such limitation on subcontracting in the prior HS SAI procurement (RFP No. HSHQDC‐09‐R‐00016) and strongly recommend the limitation be removed.

• Reference paragraph G.8 Subcontracting (page 30 of 68) Referencing the percentage of Subcontracting as a percentage of Total expected funding (rather than as a percentage of expected Subcontracting) is a more meaningful way of describing subcontracting plans and comparing the intentions amongst bidders.

The DHS Small Business Goals are based on the total dollars contracted through Small Businesses. A Subcontract Management Plan which makes clear how a bidders plans coincide with the DHS goals should be a part of the evaluation criteria.

• The 2009 RFP and we assume the resulting HSSAI contract made substantial reference to the role of Small Business participation in the HSSAI. The DRFP for the HSOAC limits subcontracting to 5% or less and then places the DHS goals for SB participation on that small percentage (32% of 5% or less). This is hardly in accord with the FAR requirement for SB participation. We recommend that the G.8 restriction be removed completely and that a Subcontract Management Plan be required to express SB participation as a percentage of total cost (Not subcontracted cost).

• Please explain what is meant by ʺTo receive credit for subcontractor capabilities, the prime will need to guarantee that particular types of tasks and required expertise and facilities will be provided by the sub‐contracted partner.ʺ Is this related to the evaluation criteria for the proposal? How does the Government plan to evaluate a guarantee?

• It would be advantageous to the government for the contractor to utilize teammates and other corporate entities as subcontractors to provide or enhance the overall capabilities provided by the FFRDC. What is the intent and purpose of limiting subcontracting to not more than 5% of the total STE for a given year?

We strongly suggest the limitation on subcontracting be eliminate or increased to 50%. What is the current subcontracting limitation on the existing HSSAI contract?

• Assuming the government does not change the restriction on subcontracting, are Joint Ventures an acceptable means to create an organizational entity that can submit a response to the final RFP?

• Do the DHS HQ small business goals in this section represent total goals for all contracted funds? How do they relate to the 5% limitation established?

• Please clarify/confirm that the total subcontract opportunities shall not exceed five percent (5%) of the total STE for a given contract year.

15 Minute Break

Section H Questions Referencing Section H of the

Draft RFP

• H.10.1.b states that the Contractor shall formulate a proposed contingency plan ʺprior to the award of this contract, or at the time of incorporation of this clause into a contract by modification…ʺ Will this contingency plan be required in the proposal?

• As per DoD’s practice; does DHS plan on everyone (analyst and management level) to be automatically badged by S&T?

• Will the Government explain what, if any, security requirements must be met to be eligible to bid on this contract? For example, 4.1 is titled Sensitive Compartmented Information and Facility Clearance Requirement, but no SCI facility requirement is stated.

• Presuming that some sensitive government information will reside on the Contractorʹs servers, will the Government require all Contractor IT personnel who will have administrative access to that information to go through the suitability process?

• Since the Contractor cannot predict when projects will include sensitive government information, will the Government process suitability for a core group of Contractor staff upon contract award?

• Is there a requirement that all proposed key staff have a prior (and active) favorably adjudicated Suitability background investigation prior to award of the FFRDC contract?

• Are Contractor staff who work off‐site in an unclassified status with no access to DHS facilities or IT systems but who do not hold a national security clearance verified through DISCO eligible to obtain Off‐Site Contractor Approval?

• Are Contractor staff who obtain Off‐Site Contractor Approval authorized to see unclassified but sensitive Government information?

Section I Questions Referencing Section I of the

• Clause 52.211‐11 indicates that liquidated damages of $150,000 per day will be applied. This amount seems excessive. Is this number correct?

• Does the Government anticipate that the Contractor IT system will have connectivity to a DHS network or networks on a continuing basis (as implied in I.11.i)?

• What IT security requirements will be required to be addressed in the proposal?

• Does this mean that any Contractor IT or administrative staff who are able to access Contractor IT sites that may house sensitive government information are required to go through suitability?

• This clause suggests that non‐US citizens may be able to work on the contract in some capacity. Would non‐US citizens be eligible for Off‐Site Contractor Approval?

• Can the Government identify which Contractor positions or facilities will be designated as key?

General Questions

• Will the Government be providing an opportunity for industry comment on the planned sections L and M of the solicitation? If so, what is the timeline?

• Please clarify whether the MITRE Corporation, as the HSSEDI FFRDC contractor, will be precluded from bidding on or operating the HSOAC or any other DHS FFRDC.

• Please describe the anticipated organizational conflict of interest restrictions and concerns that will apply to the HSOAC.

• Will there be opportunities for a single individual to serve as a Principal Investigator (PI) for supporting technology transition, unique or strategic initiatives such as working closely with DHS S&T for rapid solutions and needs?

• The 2009 RFP for the HSSAI stated that the “core program” was expected to account for 20% of the total funding of the FFRDC, the balance being task order work. What is the estimated level of total funding for the core component of the

HSOAC?

• The 2009 RFP for the HSSAI made specific mention for the need to augment in‐ house staff of the HSSAI with a “consultative strategy to reach beyond in house staff” and subcontracting arrangements “to provide or enhance proposed capabilities”. We believe these are import tenants in keeping the HSOAC current, flexible and quick to respond to new challenges, yet section G.8 of the DRFP places a limit on subcontracting to not exceed 5% annually. We believe this is a major and unproductive limitation which should be removed.

• An acknowledged limitation of the current HSSAI has been the outreach of the FFRDC, beyond the S&T Directorate and into the other DHS components and even broader Homeland Security Enterprise. Please explain how the HSOAC is intended to interact with all the components of DHS and the broader Homeland Security Enterprise.

• We recommend the HSOAC follow the model from the HSSAI RFP in highlighting the benefit of a Prime offeror’s participation in the DHS Mentor‐Protégé Program.

• We expected to see a better tracking of the DRFP with the DHS 2014‐2018 Strategic Plan, especially the Analytic Agenda presented in the Strategic Plan. Can you explain why there appears to be a difference?

• Cyber security remains a pressing and growing threat. The 2014 Quadrennial Homeland Security Review noted the need for action, yet the DRFP makes little mention of Cyber security. Is cyber security an important element of the HSOAC?

• The 2014 Quadrennial Homeland Security Review noted the enforcement and administration of immigration laws and strengthening national preparedness and resilience as priorities, yet the scope in the DRFP does not clearly address these.

Are they important elements of what HSOAC will be expected to address?

• What is the current FTE level‐of‐effort for the HSSAI and what level‐of‐effort is expected for the HSOAC?

• The June 15 cover letter indicates an anticipated release of the RFP on or about August 2015. Given the extent of questions that you have received and the particularly busy time of the year incurred at the end of the fiscal year, is an end of August still the anticipated RFP release date?

• Do you plan to release a draft sponsoring agreement in advance of the final RFP?

• Do you plan to release draft sections L and M in advance of the final RFP?

• Will the final RFP contain task orders? If so, will they be live or sample task orders?

• MD143‐04 section VI.E.2 states that the US(S&T) will establish a workload annually by STE for each FFRDC . What is the anticipated budget and or workload per year for the contract in either STE and/or dollars as appropriate?

• Is the government planning on specifying staff categories with qualifications and level of effort expected for bidding purposes? If not, how is DHS planning to ensure that competing bids are based on comparable staff?

• Is DHS restricting this procurement to not‐for‐profit organizations? While it might make sense to allow for profit entities to compete for certain procurement operations, such as to operate a highly specialized laboratory in which there are a very small number of potential competitors, there are a comparatively large number of FFRDC operators and other not‐for‐ profit organizations that are FFRDC‐like that provide analytic studies and similar types of support.

• Are contractors that are currently operating FFRDCs within the Department of Homeland Security prohibited from competing for this procurement? The Department should have the benefit of multiple perspectives in crafting solutions to its most pressing problems. It is highly likely that the SEDI and the HSOAC will need to work on simultaneous issues from differing perspectives (CONOP development vs. system design) and having the same FFRDC operator involved in both sides of that transaction (regardless of contractual form) potentially is an “impaired judgment” organizational conflict of interest.

• Does the government anticipate that HSOAC will facilitate implementation and not just produce studies, analyses, and reports?

• Does the government anticipate issuing a management task order to cover management and administrative costs of operating HSOAC? Alternatively, will such costs be covered as a direct portion of all task orders or as part of the indirect charge structure?

• How does HSOAC compare and contrast with HSSAI? What aspects of mission, scope, and capabilities are different? What motivated the change in focus?

• Reference paragraph 2. Background (page 4 of 68) The paragraph discusses the refocusing of the HSSAI yet the Scope of the HSOAC remains largely unchanged.

Paragraph 3.1.1 is added to the scope when comparing the DRFP to the 2009 HSSAI RFP but the remainder of the DRFP remains nearly identical. The wording of 3.1.1 does not reflect the stated “renewed core competencies in operational analysis”.

Please explain the intended difference in the HSOAC and the HSSAI and give examples of how that difference is reflected in a scope change.

• What stage is the HSOAC in?

• Is this industry day for operation management of the already designed or already existing center?

• Is this a pre‐cursor to an upcoming solicitation for the architectural design of a new building? If so, will the design be under a current contract with DHS?

• Will Small Business have the opportunity or be encouraged to respond to this

RFP?

• Will there be opportunities for Other Transaction Agreements or other flexible agreements that provide and enable collaborations with Academia, Federal Labs and other Agencies?

• If Small Businesses do have the capabilities to respond, would there be opportunities to bid as the Prime Contractor?

• What is the current or anticipated STE level‐of‐effort for HSSAI and/or HSOAC?

Please provide information on the roles and responsibilities of each position including a summary of the personnel qualifications by title or labor category.

• When will drafts be available to industry for Section L (Proposal Preparation) and M (Evaluation Criteria) of the RFP? We would like to review and comment on these as soon as possible before the final the RFP. Does DHS expect to release another DRFP before the final? How long will the contractors have for proposal preparation after the release of the final RFP? Does DHS expect the proposal format be similar to the 2009 RFP for HSSAI?

• Are there any specific personnel qualifications for key personnel?

Additional Information

Procurement Timeline

Event Scheduled

Second Draft RFP Released 13 July 2015

Formal RFP Released 31 August 2015

Proposal Submissions Due 30 October 2015

Discussions (if needed) Nov/Dec 2015

Award Jan/Feb 2016

Final Items

• Please pick up a hard copy of the Questions and Answers on your way out.

• All of the information from today, including the briefings, questions and answers will be posted to FedBizOps in the coming days.