HSHQWA-10-R-00001 -Amendment-01.doc

Date: 2/18/2010

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Question #1: Page 42 of the solicitation, it indicates the questions are due January 22, 2010. I believe this is in error and ask that you give us a bit more time to submit our questions.

Answer: It should read as follows: February 22, 2010 Question #2: Item G on page 49 of the SOW indicates that the contractor is responsible for all costs associated with obtaining and renewing security clearances for each employee and that the contractors should factor this cost into its pricing. In order to comply, we request that you provide estimates of the costs, particularly for the 5 posts that require Top Secret clearances, but also for the DHS suitability determinations. Please also advise if it is not your intention for the contractor to be invoiced for the costs of clearances or DHS suitability determinations.

Answer: There is NO actual physical cost in $’s as the Top Secret is done through the DOD system and does not cost the contractor any money but time to have their employees fill out the paperwork. Also, there are no $ costs for putting in paperwork to DHS for suitability determinations on their employees as well, just time for their employees to do the paperwork which should be a condition of their employment from a contractor’s stand point.

Question #3: The number of annual hours on the Form 336 does not appear to correlate to the hours listed in Exhibit 1. For example, in Option Year 1 for Post 10 G 274 (Boise, ID), Form 336 shows 3012 hours, yet Exhibit 1 shows 12 hours, M-F, excluding holidays, which equates to 3,120 annual hours less 120 hours of holidays. That makes the total annual hours for the post 3000. This appears to be true for most of the post hours listing. Can you explain why there is a difference or correct any miscalculations so that we can ensure we are bidding the correct hours?

Answer: An additional hour was added per month as a holdover in case there is a need for additional guard services.

Question #4: On page 35 (Evaluation Criteria) you indicate that one of the evaluation criteria is the extent of participation of small business concerns, yet on page 38 (# 3), it says small disadvantaged business. If a bidder uses a small business subcontractor that is not “disadvantaged” will it still be evaluated in the same way as it would if the subcontractor were both small and disadvantaged?

Answer: See changes in Page 38 & 39, it should be changed from small disadvantage businesses to small business concerns Question #5: Item 3.A. on page 38 (proposal contents) indicates that even small business subcontractors are to fill in the table on page 39 indicating the dollars and percentages of their anticipated use of small businesses on this contract. If this is not accurate, please clarify.

Answer: NO. Only the prime contractors are to fill in the table on Page 39 Question #6: Could you please identify which cities are covered by which CBAs, since the CBAs do not identify this information?

Answer: Please see attached spreadsheet Question #7: SF1149 Option dates should be corrected to reflect 12 months.

Answer: Dates should be corrected as follows:

Performance Period

Please see revised Schedule B

Question #8: The hours on the provided pricing excel file do not match the hours from the B schedule. Total Base Hours and Options without indication of what is TAS and what are regular hours, Answer: The total pricing schedule form and the B schedule has the same estimated total hours of 727,118. Page 2 of SF1149 indicates, the Government intends to award a single IDIQ contract. Therefore, hours (regular, TAS & emergency) are subject to change because they are only estimate to use for evaluation purpose.

Question #9: How many total guards, Are any overhead positions such as Project Manager or Field Supervisor included in the counts.

Answer: Total of 99 guards, from this total includes guard supervisors except Project Manager.