INK Amendment no 1 - Questions and Answers.doc

Security Ink and Field Evaluation Readers

U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services

Office of Security and Integrity RFP No. HSSCCG-10-R-00032

Amendment No. 1

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

1. Can we confirm the proposal due date? The due date was not posted on the cover page at Federal Business Opportunities.

Response: The due date and time for proposals including Past Performance Questionnaires is September 15, 2010 at 300PM ET.

2. Attachment A, Specifications page 24, No. 1.b., what is meant by chemical forensic marker? Are the microscopic forensic marker and the chemical forensic marker to be mutually exclusive?

Response:

a) The chemical forensic marker should not be identifiable via a microscope.

b) The microscopic forensic marker and the chemical forensic marker are two independent markers and are mutually exclusive.

3. Attachment A, Specifications page 24, No. 6, is shelf life designated for liquid form or after it has been applied to the substrate?

Response: The term “shelf life” applies to the liquid form of the security ink upon placement within 3oz. cylindrical bottle.

4. Attachment A, Specifications page 24, No. 3, No. 7 and No. 11 seem to contradict between resistance versus sensitivity. Is the agency seeking fastness when applied or solvent sensitivity?

Response:

Some paper is designed with inherent chemical properties expected to resist alteration by a solvent. Specification No. 7 denotes that the security ink must be able to penetrate the substrates of such specialized paper.

Specification No. 11 denotes that the ink, once on paper, must be resistant to alteration by chemicals and solvents generally used for fraudulent purposes.

5. Attachment A Specifications page 24, Container Type No. 1 We can comply with the container type requirement for 3oz. cylindrical plastic bottles, but would the agency consider use of a 4oz. bottle as is currently used for the CBP stamp ink?

Response: 3oz. bottles are the only acceptable containers for the ink.

6. Attachment A, Specifications page 24 No. 1.a. Please confirm the interpretation of what a third-level security feature is? Is this a marker for field-evaluation or a marker or a forensic lab analysis?

Response:

Requirement No. 8 explains what is expected in a second level security feature. 2 independent third level security features are explained in Requirements 1a and 1b.

The term “third-level security feature” denotes one characteristic of the ink that will allow field evaluation to denote the ink belongs to USCIS.

The ink will also visibly denote that the ink is DHS security ink under high magnification. It will not denote being USCIS security ink under high magnification.

7. Attachment A, Specifications page 26, Field Evaluation Reader, Is the field evaluation reader for use only with the USCIS solution or will it be required to read other US government stamp inks?

Response: The Field Evaluation Reader will be used only to identify USCIS security ink. This requirement for ink and readers is only for USCIS and does not encompass any needs from other DHS components.

8. Attachment A, Specifications page 24. Can more than one ink be offered with variable options which increase security levels with optional enhancements?

Response: USCIS is seeking a single ink formula that is able to meet all stated requirements.

9. Attachment A, Specifications page 24, Should the solution offered here correlate with other DHS stamp inks currently in use?

Response: This security ink should not correlate with other DHS stamp inks currently in use.

10. Section V, Proposal Evaluation factors/Criteria page 49. Can you provide more detail on your evaluation tactics and methodology, as well as any point system used? Will proposals that do not precisely meet specifications listed in this RFP, particularly in the area of physical security, be accepted if they have met other similar and arguably higher security agency requirements?

Response:

a) Section V, Proposal Evaluation, is on page 41. We do not use a point system. SECTION V, part 4, page 40, Basis of Award describes the Best Value Trade Off analysis. The best value trade off process for USCIS means that Factors are scored using an adjectival rating (not numerical) system. Factors 1 and 2 will each will be summarized with an adjective. Factor 3, Price, does not have an adjectival rating.

For example, some but not all adjectives such as Outstanding, Acceptable and Unacceptable are derived from an analysis of the offeror’s strengths, weaknesses, and risks based on an analysis of each offeror’s proposal for Factors 1 and 2. For Factor 1, Technical Capability, offerors should address the Specific Tasks 1-5, Section I, Part 4, on page 8, and subsequent Parts 5 – 11, including Attachment A. Factor 2, Past Performance will be assigned an adjective as listed on page 43 based on responses to Past Performance questionnaires for references provided, and any available information as discussed on page 39.

b) Solicitation requirements for physical security are the minimum required. Offerors may propose to exceed solicitation requirements. Offeror’s shall certify with their proposal that they meet or exceed physical security requirements. Physical security requirements shall be in place by the beginning of production. USCIS reserves the right to inspect and approve an awardees’ physical security requirements before production begins.

11. Section V, Proposal Evaluation Factors/Criteria page 49. Can you address the evaluation methodology and weighting between technical proposal and the business proposal?

Response:

Section V, Proposal Evaluation, is on page 41. USCIS will utilize a trade-off process between price and non-price factors to allow USCIS to accept other than the lowest priced proposal, or other than the highest technically rated Offeror. Neither the lowest price nor the highest technical rating will be the definitive-determining factor in making an award. As such, the Government may reject any or all offers if such action is in the best interest of the Government, and the Government may accept an offer that is not the lowest price. As non-price factors become more equal, price becomes more important.

Factors (1, 2 and 3) are listed in the solicitation at the top of page 41, SECION V, part 5. Evaluation Factors/Criteria. Factors 1, 2, and 3 are listed in descending order of importance. Factor 1, Technical Capability, is the most important factor and Factor 3, Price, is the least important. Non-price Factors 1 and 2 (Past Performance) when combined are significantly more important than price. Factor 1, contains subfactors.