HSI MAMMOTH QnA 08-02-2024.pdf

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS- 08/02/2024

Solicitation# HSI-MAMMOTH

RE: Statement of Requirements- DHS 4300A, ITAR, SOC 2 Compliance, ISO Certification

The contracting officer (CO) is currently working with DHS & ICE Offices of Chief Information Officer to finalize the security requirements due to industry pushback. The SOC 2 compliance and ISO certification will be stripped out. The CO wants to limit the number of formal revisions to the Statement of Requirements. There will be a revision to the Statement of Requirements in the near future.

Will the Government provide the SF33 for this solicitation?

Yes, this will be provided the week of August 12th to all vendors that plan to submit a proposal.

Are the quantities referencing dollar amounts – a minimum of $20,000 in the base year and maximum of $49million over the life – or are the quantities the per item total that will be purchased? If the quantities are the per item total, where can this information be found?

Per FAR 16, the CO must establish as minimum for the contract. The CO is in possession of a purchase request for $20,000.00. Once an award has been made, the CO will work with the program to develop the initial order of $20,000.00. The Government has self-imposed a $49 million ceiling on the contract.

Under the Classification heading on SAM.gov, the place of performance is listed at Saint Louis, MO. In the Statement of Requirements, it states the primary place of performance is virtual.

Please clarify the SAM.gov reference.

The CO is located in the St. Louis, MO metro area. SAM.gov requires a place of performance for the solicitation. Keep in mind, this requirement is for the entire ICE agency, across all 50 states and Puerto Rico.

In Section L.5, paragraph (b), it states that offerors shall provide a means to demo the online ordering capability, such as providing “dummy logins” for a demo e-commerce platform. Please provide clarification for offerors regarding preparation, presentation for the demo requirement as part of proposal submission. We suggest that live demos be scheduled by the government with offerors following submission of proposals.

The dummy logins are for actual end-users to test the platform. ICE is appreciative of the offer for vendors to provide live demos, however, we would like to “test drive” the platform on our own to determine ease of use.

Is the Government expecting products to be delivered as part of “test” orders from the demo site to evaluate tracking, return, and exchanges, or will this evaluation be based on processes described in the written technical volume?

No, strictly to test how the platform works.

In section 4. Timelines, it says offerors must have an e-commerce platform at proposal submission, and 60 days will be allowed following award to customize the platform for Mammoth. Please advise regarding the expected level of functionality for the platform at proposal submission.

Base functionality is expected at time of award. The Government will not consider pictures/screenshots/videos of the platform as a functional platform. As an example, if the vendor has a platform for a different agency with different product lists, or has made a demo platform of the similar, the vendor may provide access as a means to demonstrate. The Government does not expect the MAMMOTH Product Matrix to be uploaded to the platform at time of proposal—it is end of fiscal year for both sides.

There are items listed on the Matrix that require a prescription to purchase. Will the agency be able to provide the proper paperwork, or should we just notate that on the spreadsheet?

A revised product matrix will be provided the week of August 12th. The items requiring a prescription/pharmacist will be removed, along with a few other minor reductions in scope.

In Section J.3, it states that offerors shall submit three past performance questionnaires. Please clarify whether offerors may submit more than three PPQs.

Please keep it to three PPQs. The source selection team will only review three per vendor.

For reference documents can the references be for profit companies and non-profit organization? Or do they have to be government organizations?

The contracting officer would prefer PPQs from other Government agencies, including state and local governments. However, if those are not available, for/non-profit submissions are welcomed.

In Section L.5.4, paragraph (b) says offerors should provide a list of customers who were asked to complete past performance questionnaires. Please clarify in what proposal volume the list should appear.

Please include in Volume 4- PPQs. This ensure that when the PPQ’s are sent from the customers to the CO that all are accounted for, a la checking email spam folders/issues with firewalls.

The Past Performance Questionnaire states for the customer to send directly to the Contracting Officer. The RFP states Offerors shall submit three completed. Please confirm if the customer should be sending the completed questionnaire as per the instructions on the form, or if the Offeror should be submitting with the RFP response. Will the government delete the requirement of Section L.5.4(a) to describe past performance on all similar contracts held within the last three years which are of similar scope, magnitude and complexity of this contract as they will be described in the PPQs?

Both delivery methods are requested. First, receiving it direct from the customer ensures that it is “in their voice”, while including copies in the proposal package so that all RFP submissions are complete. Additionally, the vendor is required to provide information from its standpoint on contracts that it has supported/been awarded. More, descriptive information usually comes from the voice of the vendor.

Are all products required to be TAA compliant under this contract? As some part numbers listed in the Product Matrix are not TAA compliant, should offerors provide alternates for those items?

The Government has a preference for TAA compliant products, but is aware that certain products and its similar substitutes might only be available from a non-TAA country of origin.

For the product matrix do we need to quote every single line item? If we submit a catalog with substitutes, does every line item need a comparison?

The entire product matrix must be quoted. For substitutions, please note that the product provided in the vendor’s matrix is a substitute. For products with multiple color options, if no color was indicated, assume black, multicam, or OD green as appropriate. There is no need to list out every color in the mfg’s catalog for each line item.

**Some manufacturers have stated that they are shifting from multicam to “Operational Camouflage Pattern (OPC). ICE will accept OCP in place of multicam.

The RFP allows for substitutions for discontinued or product improvements, but there isn’t guidance on how that should be added. Do we replace the information on the spreadsheet, or create a new column with suggested replacements? If substitute items are being proposed, how should these items be notated on the pricing matrix? What additional information would need to be submitted for substitute items, ie product specification sheets? If substitute items are being proposed, how should these items be notated on the pricing matrix?

Same as above, note that product is end of life, and substitute provided. Product spec sheets are not required at time of submission but may be requested by the CO during proposal review.

Can pricing, and 4 year estimated escalation pricing, be completed on a quote work up sheet that shows pricing over the 5 years of the contract?

The base and option year pricing should be provided in a format that is easy to read and comprehend, while also affording ease of comparison of pricing amongst the contract years.

Typically, the pricing has been provided in excel format, columned by product, product code, base year price, option year 1 price…