Answers_to_Questions_Consolidated_List_070314.docx

HSSCCG-14-R-00027

Amendment 00001 Answers to Questions

Section I – SF 1449/Continuation Page

1. Reference – SF1449, page 2: Please confirm that the reference to facility clearance should be page 125 of 162 not 136 of 178.

USCIS Response: USCIS Response: Confirmed. SF1449, page 2 should be page 125 of 162.

2. Reference – Page 9, Paragraph A: Under the pricing section, the RFP requires that we provide ‘total amounts only’ on the SF1449 for each CLIN. Do you want these numbers represented in whole numbers only or up to 2 decimal places as specified on page 127, Section IV, Paragraph B?

USCIS Response: The total amounts only on the SF1449 for each CLIN should be up to 2 decimal places rather than rounded to whole numbers only.

3. Reference – Page 2: The period of performance for CLIN 0001 Transition states “12/1/2014 to 11/30/2015).” As the transition should only be for 60 days, can the Government confirm that the correct date should be 12/1/2014 to 1/31/2015?

USCIS Response: The correct date for transition should be 12/01/14 to 1/31/15.

Should the Base Year period have a start date of 2/1 versus 12/1 to incorporate the 60 day Transition?

USCIS Response: The correct date for the base period of full performance should be 2/01/15 – 11/30/15.

Section I (PWS):

1. Reference - In General Requirements section 4.1.13: A rolling average is outlined that defines the contractor obligation limitation for meeting timely performance requirements at 25% over the previous 20 day average. However, there is no cap listed on the potential daily volume that the contractor would need to budget and plan against. Due to the potential long term growth of the rolling average, will a hard cap be established for the contractor’s obligation in meeting timely performance requirements?

USCIS Response: A hard cap will not be established because volume is subject to the fluctuation of public filing.

2. Reference - In General Requirements section 4.1.14: A rolling average is outlined that defines the contractor obligation limitation for meeting timely performance requirements at 50% over the previous 20 day average. However, there is no cap listed on the potential daily volume that the contractor would need to budget and plan against. Due to the potential long term growth of the rolling average, will a hard cap be established for the contractor’s obligation in meeting timely performance requirements?

USCIS Response: See response to question # 1 in this section.

3. Reference - In 2.0 Background: It states “Currently, USCIS adjudicates approximately 4 million applications and petitions…USCIS estimates that application/petition receipt levels could increase or decrease from 0.2 million to 2 million forms per year over the next five years.” The magnitude of the potential increase in number of forms to process over the life of the contract could obligate the contractor to budget staffing levels at unnecessarily high levels in the option years to mitigate the risk on potential growth. Will USCIS consider clarifying a firm number rather than a range for proposal purposes?

USCIS Response: Vendors shall propose based on the estimated volumes provided on the Schedule of Services spreadsheets. USCIS provided annual workload data for FY 2010-2013 and monthly workload data for October through May of 2014 as part of the Attachment 8.6 GFI.

4. Reference - In section 4.2 Correspondence Management Support Requirements: Numerous legacy systems processes are given the designation of “Remains w/Reduced Volume”. The bidder has no quantifiable way of appropriately determining the level of effort or number of workers necessary to complete an unknown volume on a given task. Will USCIS please clarify a quantifiable metric for the bidder to use in determining the level of effort needed to satisfy the reduced volume?

USCIS Response: The designation “Remains w/Reduced Volume” is meant to illustrate the impact on an individual form when it transitions to the paperless ELIS system. The estimated volumes provided on the Schedule of Services spreadsheets reflect our cumulative estimate of the transition of forms into ELIS over the lifetime of this contract.

5. Reference - In section 4.2 Correspondence Management Support Requirements: Numerous legacy systems processes are given the designation of “Remains w/Reduced Volume”. The bidder has no quantifiable way of appropriately determining the time period of decay for volume. It is not apparent if the reduction will occur gradually throughout the period of performance or at discrete points. Will USCIS please clarify a quantifiable metric for the bidder to use in determining the rate of volume decay needed to satisfy the labor staffing capacity?

USCIS Response: See response to question # 4 in this section.

6. Reference - In section 4.3 Data Collection Support Requirements: Numerous legacy systems processes are given the designation of “Remains w/Reduced Volume”. The bidder has no quantifiable way of appropriately determining the level of effort or number of workers necessary to complete an unknown volume on a given task. Will USCIS please clarify a quantifiable metric for the bidder to use in determining the level of effort needed to satisfy the reduced volume?

USCIS Response: See response to question # 4 in this section.

7. Reference - In section 4.3 Data Collection Support Requirements: Numerous legacy systems processes are given the designation of “Remains w/Reduced Volume”. The bidder has no quantifiable way of appropriately determining the time period of decay for volume. It is not apparent if the reduction will occur gradually throughout the period of performance or at discrete points. Will USCIS please clarify a quantifiable metric for the bidder to use in determining the rate of volume decay needed to satisfy the labor staffing capacity?

USCIS Response: See response to question # 4 in this section.

8. Reference - In section 4.5 File Operations Support: Numerous legacy systems processes are given the designation of “Remains w/Reduced Volume”. The bidder has no quantifiable way of appropriately determining the level of effort or number of workers necessary to complete an unknown volume on a given task. Will USCIS please clarify a quantifiable metric for the bidder to use in determining the level of effort needed to satisfy the reduced volume?

USCIS Response: See response to question # 4 in this section.

9. Reference - In section 4.5 File Operations Support: Numerous legacy systems processes are given the designation of “Remains w/Reduced Volume”. The bidder has no quantifiable way of appropriately determining the time period of decay for volume. It is not apparent if the reduction will occur gradually throughout the period of performance or at discrete points. Will USCIS please clarify a quantifiable metric for the bidder to use in determining the rate of volume decay needed to satisfy the labor staffing capacity?

USCIS Response: See response to question # 4 in this section.

10. Reference - In section 7.0 Schedule of Monetary Disincentives – Data Collection: The magnitude of the potential fees incurred each month will cause bidders to significantly overstaff each system to reduce the risk of not meeting the 11:30 PM close of work day standard due to the highly variable quantity of forms to process throughout the contract period years. Will USCIS consider reducing the punitive damages the bidder is liable for in the section?

USCIS Response: USCIS will retain the minimal monetary disincentives that have already been established in the RFP and have been in place for several years.

11. Reference - PWS, Paragraph 4.9 Key Personnel, Page 38 of 162: Please clarify the list of key personnel for this effort. This section identifies Program Manager, Site Managers, Quality Manager, and Transition Manager. However, on page 111 of 162, the solicitation identifies key personnel for this effort as Program Manager, Site Managers, Quality Manager, Assistant Managers of any designation, and Transition Manager.

USCIS Response: Key Personnel include Program Manager, Site Managers, Quality Manager, and Transition Manager as designated on the PWS. Page 111 will be corrected in the RFP amendment.

12. Reference - SECTION I SF 1499/SOLICITATION, B. Performance Work Statement (PWS), 6.3 Performance Requirements Summary (PRS), page 83: Are all the six elements of this standard counted as equal factors in determining the AQL percentage? Additionally, we recommend this PR be measured by random sampling, consistent with other PRs such as 4.3.3, or indicate how the AQL will be determined if it is measured by period observation and complaints.

USCIS Response: Yes, all six elements of the quality standard are weighted equally in determining the overall earned AQL percentage. Which means the audit result of each quality standard element is factored into the overall AQL average for the PR; and if the overall AQL average is below 99.00%, the AQL was not met. AQL is measured with periodic observations.

13. Reference – Page 38, Para B.4.7: The transition requires that the Offeror perform “Rapid creation and submittal of security clearance packages via E-QIP.” Will incumbent personnel be required to complete security packages again or does this only apply to new hires to this contract?

USCIS Response: All transfer of “active” contractors will only need to complete the Position Designation Determination (PDD), CODE Sheet, and 11000-6 Non-Disclosure Form to receive Entry on Duty notice. New hires will require a complete security package.

14. Reference – Page 38, Para B.4.8: The PWS requires transparency into SCOSS related travel (included in FFP CLIN) and cost of facilities used outside the service center as if these charges are ODCS, billable to the contract. Does the government expect to allow these costs as ODCs? If not, what is the purpose of reporting financial information included in an FFP CLIN?

USCIS Response: The last bullet and sub-bullet requesting for vendor capability to provide cost data was deleted from Section 4.8 Program Management of the PWS.

15. Reference – Page 39, Para 4.9.1 and 4.9.2: In both minimum educational requirements, the RFP states “USCIS will allow a Project Management Professional (PMP) certified by the Project Management Institute (PMI) in lieu of the educational requirements. Please clarify whether USCIS is saying that if our proposed Program Manager or Site Manager(s) have a PMP, the BS degree is NOT required?

USCIS Response: Correct, a PMP Certification will be allowed in lieu of a BS degree.

In addition, will the government consider allowing 3 years of general work experience to be substituted for a 4 year course of study in accordance with industry standards and cited at www.federaljobs.net/education-substitution.htm?

USCIS Response: Experience and education requirements are specified in PWS section 4.9 Key Personnel.

16. Reference – Section 5.2.2 – 5.2.3, Page 44, 57, and 69: The table on page 44 in section 5.2.2 lists 9 reports for CSC and 6 reports for VSC. However, in the specific subsections they list different numbers of reports. In section 5.2.3.2 on page 57 it says “8 Reports/Databases” for CSC. In section 5.2.3.4 on page 69, it says “3 Reports/Databases” for VSC.

Which is correct—the reports in the table on page 44 or the reports in the individual sections?

USCIS Response: The table on page 44 is correct. Please note that some reports listed on that table are applicable to more than one Service Center. The number of reports within each section (5.2.3.1-5.2.3.4) refers to the number of specific sample reports/databases provided within those sections. Some systems/databases are applicable for more than one Service Center which are referenced in the actual description of the reports/database. For example, the H1B CAP Report sample is provided within the VSC section, but this report is also maintained at CSC. Same applicable reports are not repeated in each section.

17. Reference – Page 9 B. Performance Work Statement (PWS) beginning on page 11 6.3 Performance Requirements Summary (PRS), pages 71-90: Are all the six elements of this standard counted as equal factors in determining the AQL percentage? Additionally, we recommend this PR be measured by random sampling, consistent with other PRs, such as 4.3.3, or indicate how the AQL will be determined if it is measured by period observation and complaints.

USCIS Response: See response to Question # 12 in this section.

18. Reference - PWS, Paragraph 3 – General Scope of Work, 3.3 page 15: Will the government confirm a physical A-File will be created for immigrant visa packets at the TSC? If so, is there adequate storage space to handle the government’s estimated approximately 40,000 monthly packets being created? Will they be handled the same as all other A-File creations?

USCIS Response: At present physical A-files are created at TSC for IV packets. These A-files are not stored permanently at TSC but are trucked periodically to the National Records Center when no longer needed at TSC. The storage at TSC is adequate for this process.

19. Reference - PWS, Para 4 – Contractor Task Requirements, 4.1.23 page 18: Will the government confirm the task 4.1.23, requirement to send separate invoices to FDNS COR, which was on the draft RFP is removed?

USCIS Response: Correct; 4.1.23 was removed. Reference RFP Section G. Special Contract Requirements, Invoicing Instructions starting on page 111.

20. Reference - Para 3.0 General Scope of work, Page 13: Per the description for the Texas Service Center (TSC), Dallas, Texas 3.0 General Scope of work, page 13, “This Service Center is currently located in three buildings. Two buildings are located together in Dallas and one building is located approximately 18 miles away.” For tax purposes, will the government please provide the name of the municipality the “18 mile away” building is located?

USCIS Response: The building located at 8001 N Stemmons Fwy Dallas, TX 75247-4101 US is located approximately 18 miles away from building located at 4141 N Saint Augustine Rd Dallas, TX 75227-4818 US.

21. Reference - Section 4.9: states “The Program Manager, Site Managers, Quality Manager, and Transition Manager positions listed below are considered key personnel….”, followed by detailed description of the minimum experience and minimum education required for each of these key personnel positions. However on Page 111, under HSAR 3052.215-70 KEY PERSONNEL OR FACILITIES, it states: “The Key Personnel under this Contract shall include at a minimum: 1. Program Manager; 2. Quality Assurance Manager; 3. Site Managers; 4. Assistant Managers of any designation; 5. Transition Manager” Please confirm that “Assistant Managers” are NOT “key personnel.”

USCIS Response: See response to question # 11 in this section.

22. Reference – Section 1.0 Introduction, Page 12: that “USCIS is looking for processes that result in improved efficient, accurate, and timely performance…”. Is USCIS looking for processes to supplement or to replace existing ones?

USCIS Response: USCIS will consider new processes that result in improved efficient, accurate, and timely performance of these records management and support services.

23. Reference - PWS Section 4.1.7: Does the government have a system to assist with maintain accounting of 45-day supply consumables? If yes, what is the system? Or can the contractor use any method approved by the government?

USCIS Response: No. The contractor monitors their own usage.

24. Reference – Forms and Fees Available in USCIS ELIS, Page 15, Section 3.3: The TSC IV packets (OS155a and I-864) for ELIS are described as requiring data collection support with an average monthly volume of 40,000 which annualizes to 480,000 (960,00 to include both forms) . Page 3 of Attachment 8.4 identifies the number of fields in ELIS Procedures for the OS-155A and the I-864. In the Schedule of Services for the TSC the Tiers for Data entry are defined as Tier1 being 1-25 Fields and Tier 2 being over 25 Fields. The volumes for these tiers in the Schedule of Services does not support the volume of Visa packets identified in the PWS, Section 3.3, Page 15. Please clarify where you want the TSC ELIS Visa packets (OS155a and I-864) to be proposed. Is ELIS at TSC a data collection (FUP) function or file operations (LH) function? If you intend this work to be priced in data collection are the Tiers to be those dictated by the Fields identified on page 3 of attachment 8.4 or are these forms to be considered tier 2 as defined on page 1 of the attachment 8.4?

USCIS Response: ELIS IV processing is a file operation performed under CLIN 0006.

Section II – Terms and Conditions

1. Reference – Page 111, Para F.HSAR 3052.215-70: The Key Personnel listed in this section total 5 positions (Program Manager, Quality Assurance Manager, Site Managers, Assistant Site Managers of any designation, and Transition Manager); however, in Section I, page 39, there are descriptions for only 4 labor categories (Program Manager, Site Managers (USCIS Service Centers), Quality Manager, and Transition Manager). Please clarify what positions are considered key, and if the Assistant Site Manager is considered as key, please provide a description which includes the Minimum/General Experience and Minimum Education as provided for the other four labor categories.

USCIS Response: Key Personnel include Program Manager, Site Managers, Quality Manager, and Transition Manager as designated on the PWS. Page 111 will be corrected in the RFP amendment.

2. Reference – F. HSAR Clauses Incorporated in Full Text, Page 111: “4. Assistant Managers of any designation” are listed as Key Personnel here but not listed in section 4.9 Key Personnel on page 38.

Should we assume Assistant Managers are Key but do not have any Minimum/General Experience or Minimum Education requirements?

USCIS Response: See response to question # 1 in this section. Assistant Managers is not a designated Key Personnel requirement of this RFP.

3. Reference - Section II.G, Page 114: Reference FAR Clause 52.219-27 requiring that 50% of the cost of personnel for contract performance will be spend for employees of the concern or employees of other service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns. However, under the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, SBA regulation 13 C.F.R. 125.6(a)(1) has been revised to capture the 50% of the total amount paid to the small business concerns, not the cost of the contract incurred for personnel by the small business concern. Please confirm that the contract will correspond to the new requirement as dictated by the 2013 NDAA.

USCIS Response: The FAR has not yet been amended to reflect this revision of the clause cited in the inquiry, therefore the stated FAR Clause (52.219-27) with its terms and conditions will remain in effect for this requirement.

Section III - List of documents, Exhibits and Other Attachments

1. Reference – Page 116 of 162: Would the Government please provide all of the Attachments listed in this section?

USCIS Response: All documents have been posted to FBO.

2. Reference - On Page, 116 Section III List of Documents, Exhibits and Other Attachments refers to the Nebraska WD as WD 2005-2325, Rev 13, 6/19/13 (NE) however the WD Schedule provided on FBO.gov is WD 2005-2323, Rev 14, 6/19/13. Would you mind clarifying which is correct.

USCIS Response: The correct WD is 2005-2325, Rev 13, 6/19/13 (NE).

Section IV - Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offerors

1. Reference - Paragraph 1.6 Volume II – Business Proposal, sub-paragraph B Section B Price Information (Factor 2) – Instructions, Page 127 of 162:

a. Is the Government requesting the offeror and each of its subcontractors provide a complete breakdown of proposed SCA labor rates?

USCIS Response: No.

b. Does the Government require the offeror and each of its subcontractors to provide a complete breakdown of its proposed Exempt labor rates?

USCIS Response: No.

c. The Government states that the offeror shall price the option periods by assuming that the minimal WD hourly wage and fringe benefits established by the DOL will apply to the option periods and will be subject to Equitable Adjustments. Please confirm that the offeror is permitted to propose escalation to the Exempt labor category rates as well as to the proposed FFP CLINs since they will not be subject to the Equitable Adjustments.

USCIS Response: Offerors are only permitted to escalate exempt wage rates and any Other Direct Costs. In accordance with the RFP, FFP and FUP CLINs shall not be escalated nor will they be allowed renegotiation. No contract price adjustments will be made outside of the FAR requirement of 22.1012-3.

d. What additional detailed pricing information is required in addition to the information included within Attachment C (Group A or Group B)?

USCIS Response: No additional information is required.

2. Reference - 6.2 Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)], and Section IV, Part B, Para 1.5 (Volume I, Technical Proposal), 1.5.1 (Technical - Factor 1), Sub header 3, Section 6.2 -- pg 71 of 162: Please confirm that our QCP is in response to the government-provided QASP referenced in Section 6.2.

USCIS Response: The Contractor’s Quality Control Plan (QCP) is not a response to the Government QASP but is the section of your technical proposal detailing your quality control process that is incorporated into the contract upon award. The QASP is an internal Government document that details how surveillance will be performed on the contract.

3. Reference - 1.5.1 Technical - (Factor 1), A. Subfactor 1 - Operational Approach, page 122: Does the Work Breakdown Structure required under 1. Concept of Operations, Item G, need to be at the 4th level as indicated in PWS Section 5.1.10? If so, would the Government consider removing it from the page count as a 4th level WBS could be 5 pages in length?

USCIS Response: The WBS must be done to the 4th level. The Work Breakdown Structure will be exempted from the 50 page limit of the Technical Proposal.

4. Reference - B. Section B Price Information Instructions/Factor 2 Price (Evaluation), page 127/129: Per instructions we recognize attachment C as baseline pricing requirements for submission. Does the government require additional pricing details by labor category bid as a separate price submission, and if so, are standard cost pools of base rate, fringe, overhead, G&A, and Fee percent’s/dollars requested?

USCIS Response: No additional information is required. Attachment C, Schedule of Services, Excel spreadsheets, TAB LH-Base, requires a fully burdened labor rate for each labor classification for each prime and subcontractor for only the labor hour CLINs.

If required, is there a naming convention for Price Detail submission file?

USCIS Response: There is no specific naming convention.

5. Reference – B.1.3 Proposal Instructions, page 121, 2 under Page Limit column: Will the Government consider excluding the maximum 15 page count for the Quality Control Plan from total page count?

USCIS Response: The page limit will remain as required from the RFP.

6. Reference – Page 118, 119, 120, 127, Para B.1.2, B.1.3, B.1.6.B: The RFP requires a hard copy submission of the proposal and further states “NO FAX OR EMAILED SUBMISSIONS WILL BE ALLOWED.” Section IV, page 120, paragraph B.1.3 states “Subcontractor pricing (emailed directly to the Contracting Officer if containing proprietary information).” Page 127 states “Major subcontractors or team members may submit proprietary information directly to the Contracting Officer kristie.nestle@dhs.gov and the Contract Specialist Gale Bonnett at Gale.C.Bonnett@uscis.dhs.gov. Can the subcontractor pricing information be delivered in a sealed envelope and included with the delivery of the Prime’s hard copy proposal? Should Kristie’s email address include uscis.dhs.gov similar to Gale’s?

USCIS Response: Major subcontractors or team members may submit proprietary information directly to the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist OR the subcontractor pricing information can be delivered in a sealed envelope and included with the delivery of the Prime contractor’s hard copy proposal. The correct email address is Kristie.nestle@uscis.dhs.gov however the dhs.gov email address works as well.

7. Reference – Page 122, Para B.1.5: In the second paragraph, the RFP states “For ease of evaluation, please bold the subfactor section and the number and letter associated with each items for (i.e.) “A. Operational Approach, 1. Concept of Operations, (a) Describe Concept of Operations”. In other words, reference the RFP sections as they are addressed.”

Due to the considerable length of this requirement would you consider adding 10 additional pages for a total of 60-pages?

USCIS Response: The page limit will remain as required from the RFP.

8. Reference – Page 125, Para B.1.6.A: This paragraph requires that we complete this table and include it in the cover letter. The table includes a column for Socio-Economic Status. Will the Government give extra credit to prime contractors or subcontractors who have additional socio-economic status certifications (e.g., WOSB, ED-WOSB, etc.) otherwise is this column necessary?

USCIS Response: No additional credit is given for specific socio-economic status. This column has been deleted.

9. Reference – Page 127, Para 1.6.B: Please clarify what is meant by “Firm Fixed Price and Fixed-unit price CLINS shall not be escalated.” Does this prohibit price adjustment per FAR 52.222-43, or is the instruction that an offeror not include escalation in their bid but will be allowed to adjust the price in accordance with FAR 52.222-43?

USCIS Response: Correct. Do not escalate FFP or FUP CLINs in the proposal. Price adjustments will be allowed for DoL adjustments.

If the intent is to prohibit the adjustment of a Fixed Price or Fixed Unit Price CLIN, we ask that the government reconsider because the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) allows an Offeror to adjust its price for these type of CLINS because SCA Labor and Health & Welfare are components of the price build-up for negotiated Fixed Price and Fixed Unit Price CLINs.

USCIS Response: Offerors are only permitted to escalate exempt wage rates and any Other Direct Costs. In accordance with the RFP, FFP and FUP CLINs shall not be escalated nor will they be allowed renegotiation. No contract price adjustments will be made outside of the FAR requirement of 22.1012-3.

10. Reference – Page 127, 128, Para 1.6.B: Please confirm each past performance reference will be individually assessed against the 4 criteria (identified on page 128 of the RFP) to assess relevance and be evaluated against the role each partner is performing on the SCOSS contract.

If the SDVOSB (prime) provides mail, data entry and file operations as well as managing surges and spikes, how will the government assess relevance to this type of past performance reference?

USCIS Response: Past Performance for primes and major subcontractors (in the aggregate) should show relevant past performance as listed in the 4 bullets. The government will evaluate whether the team as a whole has the relevant past performance.

11. Reference – B.1.3, Page 121, 2 under Page Limit column: Will the Government consider excluding the maximum 15 page count for the Quality Control Plan from total page count?

USCIS Response: The page limit will remain as required from the RFP.

12. Reference – 1.5.1 Technical, Page 123, 3. Teaming Approach: We are asked to “Describe what role each team member will play in meeting the requirements of the PWS” and to “Describe what role each team member will have. If a joint venture, identify the roles of each partner.” Will the Government provided clarification about the difference between these two descriptions of roles?

USCIS Response: The Government is interested in what role the prime contractor will play (tasks performed) and each subcontractor. If a joint venture is proposed as a prime contractor or subcontractor, address what role each member of the JV will play. In some instances, such as an unpopulated JV, each JV partner making up the JV may play a different role.

13. Reference – B.1.3 Proposal Instructions, Page 121, Page Limits: The Draft RFP established a 60 Page limit for the Technical volume. The final RFP reduced the page limit to 50 pages for the Technical volume. Will the Government consider reinstating the page limit to 60 pages?

USCIS Response: The page limit will remain as required in the final RFP (50 pages).

14. Reference – 1.5.1 Technical – (Factor 1). A. Subfactor 1 – Operational Approach, page 122: Does the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) required under 1. Concept of Operations, Item G, needs to be at the 4th level as indicated in PWS Section 5.1.10? If so, would the Government consider removing it from the page count as a 4th level WBS could be 5 pages in length?

USCIS Response: See response to question # 3 in this section.

15. USCIS did not provide a template for corporate experience profiles, to be completed in accordance with Section 1.5.1, page 124). Will USCIS provide a format or should offerors determine what information to provide and in what format?

USCIS Response: USCIS will not be providing a template or format. Vendors shall respond in accordance with the RFP.

16. Reference - IV.B.1.5.1.B.2.a: States that offerors should “identify the personnel comprising the program management of each center and any headquarters office and clearly define their roles and responsibilities.” However, parenthetically, at the conclusion of Key Personnel requirement in the same section it is stated, “All key personnel are assumed to be members of the Program Management, but not all members of Program Management need to be key personnel.” These two statements are in conflict as to what personnel should be presented as part of the Key Personnel section of the Management Approach. Is it USCIS intention that offerors define the roles and responsibilities of administrative type non-key personnel, that are inherently a part of the Management component operations, as part of the key personnel section under item a? Or should we exclude such non-key personnel in the roles and responsibilities discussion in the key personnel section?

USCIS Response: The PWS outlines the minimum Key Personnel required; however, Vendors may propose additional Key Personnel. The roles of each member of the program management staff should be addressed to permit a proper evaluation of the understanding of the offeror in proposing how to meet the requirements of this solicitation. The Government is interested in the proposed program management team at each center and HQ office and their roles and responsibilities.

17. Reference - Section IV.B.1.5.1.A.1.g, Page 122 requires the submission of a Work Breakdown Structure. As an offeror with significant insight into the program, we can offer a level of detail and granularity in the WBS that fully accounts for all activities, however, a detailed breakdown, which will also ease the government’s evaluation of technical understanding, takes many pages of space. In that respect and so offerors can provide a fully compliant and detailed WBS, will the government please consider removing the WBS from the page count requirements?

USCIS Response: The Work Breakdown Structure will be exempted from the 50 page limit of the Technical Proposal.

18. Reference - 1.6 Volume II – Business Proposal, B. Section B Price Information (Factor 2), Instructions, page 127:

“Pricing of Option Periods 1, 2 and 3: Offerors shall price the options requirement for the additional one-year option periods by assuming that the minimal hourly wage and fringe benefits established by the Administrator, Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor, for the base period will apply to the additional one-year option periods. The minimum wage rates and fringe benefits applicable to the base period are outlined in the respective wage determinations listed in Section III, Attachment A.

In the event the option(s) to extend performance is exercised by the Government, the contract price(s) will be subject to Equitable Adjustment(s) in accordance with the clause entitled FAR 52.222-43 Fair Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Act Price Adjustment (Multiple Year and Option Contracts), included by reference in the solicitation/contract. Such Equitable Adjustments will be made as a result of any wage determination revisions. Firm Fixed Price and Fixed-unit price CLINS shall not be escalated nor will they be allowed renegotiation. No contract price adjustments will be made outside the FAR requirements of 22.1012-3.”

The Prime contractors proposal will include management positions that are exempt from SCA and that should be priced with “cost of living” escalation factors applied. Is this allowable for “Exempt” labor positions?

USCIS Response: Offerors are only permitted to escalate exempt wage rates and any Other Direct Costs. Both FFP and non-FFP labor CLINs will be adjusted in the future for any impacts from changes in DoL wages and benefits in accordance with FAR 52.222-43 as stated in the solicitation.

19. Reference – Section C, Page 128, Past Performance Factor: Request that USCIS clarify what they mean by “privity of contract?” Does USCIS consider privity of contract to include subcontractors for which USCIS or DHS has approved for inclusion on the contract, including either the master ID IQ contract (e.g., DHS PACTS) or a task order?

USCIS Response: The Government will not provide a past performance evaluation for a firm providing work on a DHS contract as a subcontractor. Since the contract is with the prime, and subcontractors are not the responsible party for performance of the contract, the Government will only submit a past performance evaluation on the prime. If a firm wanted to submit past performance information to the Government, they would need to provide a past performance questionnaire to the applicable prime and the prime would have to provide past performance on their subcontractor to the Government.

20. Reference – Section C, Page 128, Past Performance Factor: Item 4 of the relevancy determinations in Section C- Past Performance, which lists “Managing multiple hundreds of employees over multiple shifts,” seems to advantage JVs over true SDVOSBs, as SDVOSBs under the $7 M size standard will have difficulty meeting this relevancy objective.

Request that the Government revise this relevancy objective to something like Managing employees over multiple shifts.

USCIS Response: USCIS will evaluate the proposed team’s past performance in the aggregate, to include the experience of subcontractors performing more than 10% of the effort.

21. Reference – Page 118, 1.1 Questions & Proposal Due Date and Time: Due to the complexity of this solicitation and the anticipated volume of Q&A, will the Government accept questions prior to the proposal due date?

USCIS Response: The Government does not intend to extend the date for receipt of questions.

Will the Government accept follow-on questions to Q&A, if needed for additional clarification?

USCIS Response: The Government will consider additional questions and respond if the questions raise major issues that must be addressed, but does not intend to extend the date for submission of proposals.

Section V – Proposal Evaluation

1. Reference - In section V – Proposal Evaluation: There are no point allocations specified for any of the Factors and Sub-Factors. In the section “Basis of Award”, it states that “Award will be made to the responsible offeror that offers the best value to the Government, price and non-price factors considered.” However, in the section “Evaluation Factors and Criteria”, it is stated that “Technical and Price are approximately equal” but there does not appear to be any quantifiable way for the Bidder or USCIS to appropriately determine the value presented between quality and price of each factor and sub-factor. Without a defined point system to determine best value, solution comparisons between Bidders becomes subjective and arbitrary at best rather than the methodical evaluation and objective point scoring that a “Best Value” determination requires. Will USCIS consider modifying its evaluation criteria to reflect a point system appropriate for a “Best Value” determination?

USCIS Response: No. USICS will not modify its evaluation criteria to reflect a point system to determine Best Value.

2. Reference – Page 135, 136, Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, paragraph 1 and 2: This paragraph states “Award will be made to the responsible offeror that offers the best value to the Government, price and non-price factors considered. In making this comparison, the Government is more concerned about performance capability superiority rather than the lowest overall price…” This contradicts what is stated on page 136 where it says “Technical and Price are approximately equal.” Given that you have stated that this is a Best Value procurement, will you consider placing more importance on Technical over Price?

USCIS Response: No, the evaluation method and order of importance will remain as required in the RFP. The paragraph on page 135 is revised to delete the conflict.

3. Reference – Page 140, Factor 3: The RFP states “If the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Government will not evaluate the offeror favorably or unfavorably on past performance.”

If the Prime contractor doesn’t have relevant past performance and the government will not evaluate them as favorable or unfavorable, how will risk be assigned? Please clarify.

USCIS Response: An offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will be rated Neutral Risk. A Neutral rating does not advantage or disadvantage an offeror. Past performance of subcontractors over 10% of the total contract value will be evaluated as well.

RFP Attachments

1. Reference – Attachment C, Labor Hour Base Tab: Is the offeror permitted to enter a composite team rate for each labor category or is the offeror required to submit a separate entry for each labor category by team member as well as day and night shift?

USCIS Response: No composite team rates are to be proposed. Offerors are to propose a separate fully burdened labor rate for each labor classification for each prime and subcontractor for day and night as well as separate fully burdened labor rates for overtime day and night.

Miscellaneous

1. Will the security clearances of incumbent employees be transferred to the new SCOSS contract without having to submit new security packets?

USCIS Response: All transfer of “active” contractors will only need to complete the Position Designation Determination (PDD), CODE Sheet, and 11000-6 Non-Disclosure Form to receive Entry on Duty notice. New hires will require a complete security package.

2. Are the MRPT applications being done electronically through eQIP at this time?

USCIS Response: Yes, all SF-85Ps must be done through eQIP.

3. Will the Government allow its space to be used for Contractor provided training?

USCIS Response: When not in use by the government, conference rooms and training rooms will be allowed for contractor use upon request.

4. Will the Government provide hours and frequency of training for all Government provided training?

USCIS Response: At this time there is no regularly scheduled Government facilitated training. However, USCIS provided PWS Attachment 8.9 for all Mandatory Contractor Trainings required at this time.

5. Will the Govt. provide office space for the following: Site Manager, Quality Manager, Program Manager?

USCIS Response: The number of office spaces available at each center was provided during the site visits (see FedBizOps for Site Narratives). No space is provided outside of the four service centers.

6. Will increase/decrease in volume of receipt levels result in any form of contract modifications?

USCIS Response: Any significant impacts that cause changes to contract awarded value may require a contract modification.

7. Can the government specify the training and travel criteria that the contractor will be responsible to handle?

USCIS Response: The contractor is responsible for planning and handling all travel done in performance of this contract. Apart from government provided training, the same is true for training of the contractor workforce. New employees for example are entirely the responsibility of the contractor to train in using the existing systems and procedures.

8. Can the government provide a list of the systems that are in use in performing the work under this contract?

USCIS Response: The current list of systems was provided on Attachment 8.2 Government Provided Property under the “Systems” section.

9. Can the government provide actual current spending on the contract?

USCIS Response: No, this will not be provided.

10. Can the government provide the number of FTE currently performing this work? Can you provide the information based on key personnel and staff?

USCIS Response: The Government will not provide this information.

11. In moving from a paper-based model to the USCIS ELIS, will the government provide training to the contractors?

USCIS Response: On newly introduced systems, processes and applications, the government will provide initial training to managers and supervisors, who are expected to train the remainder of their workforce. For existing systems, processes and applications, the contractor is expected to be able to utilize the existing knowledge base of the workforce already employed at the service centers.

12. Can the government provide metrics on the existing contract for Correspondence Management, Fee Depositing, Data entry forms and File operations?

USCIS Response: USCIS provided annual workload data for FY 2010-2013 and monthly workload data for October through May of 2014 as part of the Attachment 8.6 GFI.

13. Will the DHS approved Mentor-Protégé relationships be excluded from affiliation concerns? If not in its’ entirety, will the terms of the DHS-approved Mentor-Protégé agreement be excluded from consideration for Affiliation?

USCIS Response: A protégé will not be considered an affiliate of a mentor solely on the basis that the protégé has or will receive developmental assistance from the mentor under this program. For more information concerning size standards and affiliation, refer to FAR 19.101(7)(i)A. Moreover, a protégé firm as used in the DHS OSDBU Mentor-Protégé Program, means a small business concern which is independently owned and operated, not dominant in its field and meets federal size standards in its primary NAICS code.

14. Based on our review, the current contract ends on 11/30, does the Government intend to extend the period of performance to incorporate the 60 day Transition-In period for the incumbents?

USCIS Response: If needed, the current contract will be extended.