Answers_to_Vendor_Questions_Submitted_3.14.14_Set_1_of_2.pdf

Answers to Vendor Questions Submitted in Response to the Draft RFP

SET #1

Section I:

SF1449 and Continuation Page:

Q.1 Section I, Part A Continuation Block 20 – Schedule of Supplies/Services. The title of each of the performance periods is Year 1, Year 2, Year 3 and Year 4. The performance periods on the Group A and Group B Schedule of Services are identified as Base Period, Option Year 1, Option Year 2 and Option Year 3. Which performance period titles are correct?

A. Base Period of 12 months plus three 12 month option periods for a total of four (4) years.

PWS:

Q.1. Section B, 1.0 Introduction, page 6. Will the final RFP address the transitioning/implementation of the USCIS ELIS system or is a separate contract responsible for that process?

A. We will update the RFP with any new ELIS deployment dates available at that time.

The process of deploying ELIS is entirely dependent on other contracts, not the SCOSS program contracts. Office of Transformation is the program office responsible for the implementation of the USCIS ELIS system.

Q.2. Section B, 4.0 Contract Task Requirements, page 10. Will the government provide a copy of the ROH in the final RFP?

A. Yes, the updated ROH is provided on the Government Provided Information CD (Reference PWS Atch 8.6).

Q.3. Pg 13 – 27. Contractor Requirements - For some of the individual PRs, the headings are specific to ELIS and Legacy systems. Is it to be assumed the headings of ELIS and Legacy apply to all PRs listed?

A. Yes, the headings apply to all PRs under section 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5.

Q.4. Page 87. Schedule of Monetary Disincentives for 4.3.3 - Please reconsider the use of monetary disincentives in light of the fact the data collection volumes are scheduled to decrease throughout the life of the contract. The impact of mail delivery times, multiple site facilities and site preferences of processing with the shrinking volumes across a two-shift operation reduces staffing flexibility and adds risk to the process that is often not reasonable.

A. We will consider this suggestion.

Q.5. Page 87. Schedule of Monetary Disincentives - Please consider adding monetary incentives for exemplary performance in light of this contract being a set aside for small businesses.

A. It will be considered.

Q.6. Page 113. Key Personnel - Please define definition of Assistant Manager.

A. Any manager below the rank of Program Manager or Site Manager of a Service Center.

Q.7. 4.1.13 The requirement states “The Contractor shall maintain the capability to accommodate surges in data collection volume of up to 25% above the daily average receipt volume for the previous 20 business days.” Will the Government have insight into when Surge capabilities will be required or does USCIS experiences surges on an Ad Hoc Basis?

Having a tentative schedule of Surge Requirements will better allow contractors to meet USCIS processing requirements.

A. FY 2013 Surge Reports for each Service Center are provided on the Government Furnished Information CD.

Q.8. 4.1.17. What is the volume of mail required to be picked up daily? Understanding this volume will allow contractors to ensure they have the appropriate vehicles to handle expected capacity.

A. The Government has provided DAAG, WAAG, MAAG, and YAAG information on the Government Provided Information CD.

Q9. 4.2 – 4.5. Can you provide annual projections of how this work breakdown will change over the course of the contract and Option Periods? Sections 4.2-4.5 document the impacts ELIS will have to the various requirements, however, there is no timetable associated with these changes. If no timeframe exists, How does the government intend on handling or negotiating these changes in the future from a pricing standpoint?

A. The fixed price per unit CLIN volumes have our estimated rate of declines shown already.

Q.10. I.B. The third paragraph states “…Most of the workload formerly performed in data collection and fee collection has been transitioned to the USCIS lockbox facilities.

Additionally, USCIS is transitioning the processing of applications and petitions for immigrant and non-immigrant benefits from a paper-based model to a secure, online environment using the USCIS Electronic Immigration System (USCIS ELIS).” Can we assume these workload volumes will be used as minimums and that we will be paid based on those volumes?

A. The volume estimates are based on our best available information. Actual volumes may be higher or lower.

Q11. I.B. This section states “…using Contractor provided transportation...” How many vehicles are currently being used at each of the Service Centers?

A. This is proprietary information of the current task order holders.

Q.12. Section I.B. Para 5.1.1. The last sentence refers to a reference Attachment 9.6 – Government Providing Information for report templates.” There isn’t an Attachment 9.6 included in the RFP or supporting attachments. We believe the correct reference should be Attachment 8.6. Please clarify.

A. Correct, Attachment 8.6.

Q.13. Section I.B. Para 5.1.2. The last two sentences in this section refer to Attachment 9.5 and 9.6 which are DAAG Glossary that defines the requirements for each line of the DAAG and Government Provided Information for report templates, respectively. Neither are included in the RFP. We believe that the correct references are 8.5 and 8.6, respectively.

Please clarify.

A. Correct, 8.5 and 8.6.

Q.14. Section I.B. Para 5.1.8. This section states “The Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) is due 45 days after the notice to proceed or after receiving the Government’s COOP. It should be consistent with and in compliance with the Government’s plan which will be issued within 30 days after contract award. In order to provide sufficient time to ensure the Contractor’s COOP is in compliance with the Government’s, would the Government consider providing their plan within 5-days after award or extending the period of time for delivery to the Government to 30-days following receipt of the Government’s

COOP?

A. It will be 45 days from the NTP or when the Government’s COOP plan is received, whichever is later.

Q.15. Section I.B. Para 5.2.2. This section states “Service Center generic reports are provided and maintained locally by the Contractor. These reports may require manipulating or inputting data, and/or monitoring and electronic or paper transmission of data, and may require the information to be keyed and maintained in a database. Each report will have different processing times and maintenance requirements. Standard Operating Procedures for the Service Center reports will be maintained and provided by Service Center Records at each site. A list of reports appears below.” Because these systems are provided and maintained by the Contractor, does the Government own these systems such that they will be turned over as GFE upon contract award?

A. These are all Government owned and will be provided upon commencement of performance.

Q.16. Section I.B. Para5.2.3. Is the data used to create these reports, which are generated locally at each of the Service Centers, derived from government owned systems or does the Contractor have to provide a system to capture the data? Please provide whether the system used to generate these reports is from a government owned system for all reports listed in this section.

A. These are all Government owned and will be provided upon commencement of performance.

Q.17. Section I.B. Para 6.1. This section refers to Section 8 for a listing of monetary disincentives. We believe that the proper reference should be Section 7.0. Please clarify.

A. Yes, Section 7.0 per PWS.

Q.18. Section I.B. Para 6.3. These sections, which address the AQL’s for each work process, assume that ELIS is not completely operational. How will these AQL’s be impacted as forms move to ELIS?

A. Most AQLs will be eliminated for a form moved to ELIS.

Q.19. Section I.B. Para 7.0. It appears that there are no monetary disincentives for SOW sections 4.1 or 4.2. Is that correct? In addition, would the government consider monetary incentives for outstanding performance given that the volumes will be decreasing.

A. Correct for 4.1 and 4.2. We do not think decreasing volume warrants monetary incentives for performance.

Q.20. Section I, Part B 7.0 Schedule of Monetary Disincentives, Fee Collection 4.4.2. In the column titled “Monetary Disincentive Schedule for Observed Non-Conformance”, the Draft SOW states “22. Each infraction thereafter, remainder of month…$2,000.” Please clarify the meaning of the “22” in this section or is this an artifact from another RFP?

A. Formatting/Typo error – 22 should be removed.

Q.21. Section I, Part B 7.0 Schedule of Monetary Disincentives, Fee Collection 4.4.4. In the column titled “Monetary Disincentive Schedule for Observed Non-Conformance”, the Draft SOW states “23. Each of first 3 infractions in a month…..$1,000.” Please clarify the meaning of the “23” in this section or is this an artifact from another RFP?

A. Formatting/Typo error – 22 should be removed.

Q.22. Section I.B. Para 8.0. There are 11 attachments identified in this section; however, only Attachment 8.5 and 8.6 are referenced. Where do the other references apply in relation to the SOW?

A. Some attachments are general reference information for the SCOSS program.

Q.23. Section I.B. Para 8.0. This section requires the Contractor to sign an NDA in order to obtain Attachment 8.6. Please clarify where we obtain the NDA form.

A. You may contact Sonah Lee for NDA form; NDA forms will also be provided during the pre-solicitation conference.

Section II:

No questions received.

Section III:

Q.1. Section III, Part C Pricing Schedule Group A & Pricing Schedule Group B, CLIN 0001. The CLIN 0001 pricing requires an Extended Estimated Price but there is no provision for a Unit Price. In order to calculate an Extended Estimated Price, offerors need to multiply an Estimated Quantity by a Unit Price. Please amend the Schedule(s) of Services to include a Unit Price component in CLIN 0001.

A. Final RFP will include a spreadsheet for the pricing proposal. Offeror may also include additional supporting documentation for the price proposal.

Q.2. Section III, Part C Pricing Schedule Group A & Pricing Schedule Group B, CLIN 0004. The CLIN 0004 pricing requires an Annual Extended Price (Month x Price x 12) but there is no provision for a Monthly Price, only a Price Per Form. In order for offerors to calculate an Annual Extended Price, a fixed quantity of forms is required as a constant to be multiplied by the Price Per Form. Currently, the pricing contains ranges for Quantity Per Month. Should the Price Per Form column actually be Price Per Month?

A. Refer answer for Question #1.

Q.3. Section III, Part C Pricing Schedule Group A & Pricing Schedule Group B, CLIN 0007. The CLIN 0007 pricing requires an Annual Extended Price but there is no provision for a Monthly Price, only a Price Per Form. In order for offerors to calculate an Annual Extended Price, a fixed quantity of forms is required as a constant to be multiplied by the Price Per Form. Currently, the pricing contains ranges for Quantity Per Month. Should the Price Per Form column actually be Price Per Month?

A. Refer answer for Question #1.

Q.4. Section III, Part C Pricing Schedule Group B, CLIN 0009. The CLIN 0009 pricing requires an Annual Extended Estimated Price but there is no provision for a Monthly Price, only a Price Per Form. In order for offerors to calculate an Annual Extended Price, a fixed quantity of forms is required as a constant to be multiplied by the Price Per Form. Currently, the pricing contains ranges for Quantity Per Month. Should the Price Per Form column actually be Price Per Month?

A. Refer answer for Question #1.

Q.5. Section III, Part C Pricing Schedule Group B, CLIN 00010. The CLIN 0010 pricing requires an Annual Extended Estimated Price but there is no provision for a Monthly Price, only a Price Per Form. In order for offerors to calculate an Annual Extended Price, a fixed quantity of forms is required as a constant to be multiplied by the Price Per Form. Currently, the pricing contains ranges for Quantity Per Month. Should the Price Per Form column actually be Price Per Month?

A. Refer answer for Question #1.

Q.6. Section III, Part C Pricing Schedule Group A & Pricing Schedule Group B, CLIN 0009 Group A & CLIN 0011 Group B. Is it the Government’s intention to have offerors include NSP transition out costs in each year of performance?

A. Yes

Q.7. Section III, Part C Pricing Schedule Group B. The Qty per month for CLIN 2004AB Tier 1 – 25 Fields is stated as 1-20,00. Was it the Government’s intention to represent this as 1-20,000?

A. Yes, it should be 1 – 20,000

Q.8. Section III, List of Documents, Exhibits and Other Attachments, Attachment C, Schedule of Services, Overview Section 3, Description of CLINS, page 3.

a. Is the transition period, 60 days, to be included in the base year PoP?

A. Transition can be proposed up to 60 days and is included in the base year.

Section IV:

Q.1. Page 128, Section 3.5 Volume I – Technical Proposal, Paragraph 1.A.3.b Quality Control Plan: The DRFP indicates the Quality Control is a maximum of 15 pages. Is the plan a part of the overall Volume I page count of 50 pages for Part A and 60 pages for Part B?

A. QCP 15 maximum page limit should be included in the 50 page count. Offeror must determine the necessary amount of page s they want to dedicate to QCP versus other information.

Q.2. Page 126. Technical Proposal page limit - May the resumes of key personnel be added as an attachment?

A. It is the Government’s preference to receive statements of qualification rather than resumes. Statements of qualification will not be part of the page count.

Q.3. Section IV. Para 3.3, 3.4. Section 3.3 states “Executive summaries, tables, charts, graphs, and any additional attachments are considered part of the page count.”

Section 3.4 does not specifically state that the Contractor can provide an Executive Summary.

Please clarify whether the Government will allow an Executive Summary and if so, where it should be placed, in one or both volumes.

A. An Executive Summary is not required; however, if you want to include one in the technical volume, it will be part of the 50 page count. The Business Volume has no page limitations with the exception of Section C - Past Performance which has page limitations as noted in the table in Para 3.4

Q.4. Section IV. Para 3.6.A. This section requires that copies of Subcontractor Teaming Agreements be included. This requirement is unusual in that the government doesn’t usually involve themselves with teaming or subcontract agreements. Is there rationale for asking for these proprietary documents?

A. Copies of Teaming Agreements are not required. The requirement to provide copies of Teaming Agreements as part of the Business Proposal will be deleted and not part of the final RFP.

Q.5. Section IV. Para B.3.6.A.1. This section requires that the Offeror complete the SF1449, showing quantity, unit price, extended price for each CLIN and totals for each period. There are 9 CLINS times 4 years for Group A and 13 CLINS times 4 years for Group B required and don’t believe that there is sufficient space to document all of them on the SF1449, please advise how you would like for us to provide CLINS that do not fit on the form.

A. The SF1449 should include total dollar amounts for each CLIN. The RFP will be revised to so state. The SF1449 can be provided as a word document with continuation pages allowing for incorporation of all CLINs.

Q.6. Should separate 1449’s be submitted for Group A and another for Group B?

A. Yes, separate SF1449s shall be submitted for each Group. Offerors shall treat Group A and Group B as two separate proposals.

Q.7. Section IV. Para 3.6.B. The first paragraph refers to historical workload volumes and estimates in a PWS Attachment #6. There is no PWS Attachment #6. We believe that the correct reference is 8.6. Please clarify or provide this for pricing purposes.

A. Attachment 8.6 is correct.

Q.8. Section IV. Para 3.6.B. This section states “In the event the option(s) to extend performance is exercised by the Government, the contract price(s) will be subject to adjustment in accordance with the clause entitled FAR 52.222-43 Fair Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Price Adjustment (Multiple Year and Option contracts), included by reference in the solicitation/contract. Firm Fixed Price and Fixed-unit price CLINS shall not be escalated. No contract price adjustments will be made outside of the FAR requirements of 22.1012-3. Will the government allow renegotiated Fixed Price and Fixed Unit Price CLINs upon the issuance of new Wage Determinations because SCA Labor and Health & Welfare are components of the price build-up?

A. Equitable adjustments as a result of wage determination revisions are made upon exercise of the next option. Refer to FAR 52.222-43.

Q.9. Will the Government provide additional funding to the successful offeror when the applicable Wage Determination is periodically updated by DoL to accommodate labor escalation in all affected CLINS? If so, will the Firm Fixed Price and Fixed-unit CLINS that are predicated on W/D labor be increased as well?

A. Equitable adjustments as a result of wage determination revisions are made upon exercise of the next option. Refer to FAR 52.222-43.

Q.10. Section IV. Para 3.6.B. This section states “The offeror (prime) shall complete the SF1408 checklist located in Section VIII, Attachment A.” Can we obtain a copy of this prior to the release of the RFP?

A. The SF1408 is already released as an attachment to the Draft RFP.

Under, “SECTION VIII ATTACHMENT.”

Q.11. There is a form included in the RFP entitled Pre-award Survey of Perspective Contractor Accounting System Checklist. Is this the form that is referenced in this section of the RFP?

A. The Pre-Award Survey of Perspective Contractor Accounting System Checklist is the SF1408 form, attachment of SECTION VIII.

Q.12. Section IV. Para 3.6.C, 3.4. In the second paragraph of Section 3.6.C. it states “This information shall begin with an introductory matrix listing the offeror’s and its major subcontractors’ past performance followed by an offeror’s rationale supporting the assertion of relevance for each reference.”

A. This sentence has been revised to “This information shall begin with an introductory matrix listing the offeror’s and its major subcontractors’ past performance.” References to providing rationale supporting the assertion of relevance for each reference has been moved to the bulleted list of information to be provided with each reference.

Q.13. Section 3.4 provides page limits under Past Performance of 2 pages per reference up to 3 for prime and another 2 pages per reference up to 2 for each major subcontractor. It further states that pages exclude questionnaires & introductory matrix.

Are we to assume that there is no page restrictions on the matrix which precedes our 2 page reference descriptions?

A. Correct.

Q.14. Since questionnaires are to be emailed back to CIS directly, what is the government expecting to see besides the introductory matrix in response to Section 3.6.C. because Section 3.4 states that pages exclude questionnaires & introductory matrix?

A. Reference the paragraph which stated “Present the following information in references.” This is being revised to state, “Present the following information for each reference”. For each reference you should include the bulleted list of information. This is the information that shall not exceed two pages per reference up to three references for the Prime contractor and up to two references for each major subcontractor.

Q.15. Section IV. Para 3.6.C. This section states “If some of the offeror’s (and major subcontractors’) past performance is relevant and the rest is not, only the relevant past performance will be evaluated for purposes of past performance.”

There are 7 areas identified which will be used to assist in determining relevance of the past performance:

1. Managing Operations over multiple locations

2. Managing surges and spikes

3. Providing services in correspondence management

4. Data entry

5. Fee receipting

6. File operations

7. Providing customer service

A. FYI, the areas to assist in determining relevance have been revised somewhat in the latest posting.

Q.16. Given the size standard associated with this requirement is $7M, how many of these seven task areas will the government require be included in a single past performance for it to be considered relevant?

A. In the change pages for this section we consolidated correspondence management, data entry, fee receipting and file operations. The offeror and proposed subcontractor, in the aggregate, are expected to demonstrate experience in the specified areas.

Q.17. Should the Government also consider adding Service Contract Act experience as an area of relevancy given the high volume of SCA employees working on this contract? With an increased emphasis on SCA Audits by DOL, any violations of SCA administration could add risk to the operation of this contract.

A. This was considered but will not be added to the list.

Q.18. Section IV and V. Para 3.6.C and B.2 Factor 3. Section IV, 3.6.C states “Past Performance of parent, subsidiaries, other corporate entities other than the offeror are permitted, however the offeror shall describe how they will be substantially involved in performance of the SCOSS effort. Joint Venture, past performance must be submitted for each member of the JV and clearly identify the role of the member in the contract performed.

The DUNS for the offeror and each parent, subsidiary, or other corporate entity for which past performance is submitted and who will be substantially involved is required.”

Section V, B.2.Factor 3 appears to repeat this language on page 147; however, the sentence about Joint Ventures appears to be missing. Please clarify whether it should be included in Section V, B.2.Factor 3.

A. This was corrected in the latest posting of change pages. It should be in both Sections IV and V.

Section V:

Q.1. Page 142, Section B. Basis of Award, Paragraph 2. Evaluation Factors and Criteria:

The DRFP states that “Technical is slightly more important than Price, and Price is significantly more important than Past Performance.” Given the critical nature of the SCOSS mission, demonstrated past performance would seem to be more important than price, thus affording the government less risk in transition and operation. The current evaluation criteria’s order of importance suggests a LPTA approach which may not be in the Government’s best interest.

A. Award will be made based on the proposals offering the best value using the tradeoff approach.

Q.2. SDVOSBs do not normally have experience working with or managing labor unions.

We are requesting clarification if SDVOSBs without past experience working with or managing labor unions would be disqualified?

A. For Subfactor #4 Experience with Unionized Labor Force, under Factor #1 Technical, the evaluation criteria apply to the proposed team. If the prime contractor does not have the experience, they can use the experience of a proposed subcontractor as well. The prime contract (SDVOSB) would not be disqualified, only rated accordingly based on the experience of the team. Further the offeror can include what actions it would take if presented with a situation where it (or its teammates) does not have direct experience.

There is an important distinction between contractor’s corporate experience and its past performance. Experience reflects whether contractors have performed similar work before. Past performance describes how well contractors performed the work, in other words, how well they executed what was promised in the proposal.

Q.3. Given that the incumbents have a distinct advantage in experience managing a unionized labor work force over other SDVOSBs who do not, how can this possibly be a fair competition?

A. The CSC and VSC sites currently have unionized workforces. Whatever offeror receives the award, it must know how to deal with a unionized workforce with an in-place Collective Bargaining Agreement IAW FAR Part 22.

Section VI:

Section VII:

MISCELLANEOUS:

Q.1. We request that this solicitation be released as a small woman-owned business set-aside under NAICS 561210, Facility Support Services to allow for adequate competition by small businesses of varying SBA certifications and revenue levels.

A. The acquisition strategy has already been established as a SDVOSB set-aside under

NAICS 561110.

Q.2. What are the current staffing levels by Service Center?

A. The actual number of staff is proprietary to the current incumbents. Offerors may request workload data which will assist in determining your own proposed staffing.

This workload data is available upon request and will be provided in a CD. Refer to PWS Attachment 8.6 for instructions.

Q.3. Please provide the names of the current incumbent companies.

A. Veterans Enterprise Technology Solutions, Inc. (VETS) and Longview- FedConsulting Joint Venture, Inc. (LVFC).

Q.4. Please provide the current monthly workload by volumes.

A. Refer to response to question #3.

Q.5. SITE VISIT: What is the itinerary for the site visits? Are we meeting with USCIS officials directly?

A. The final site visit schedule was posted on 3.12.14 with the draft RFP. Only pre-registered attendees will be able to participate and authorized to enter secure government sites. An overview of the site will be provided by USCIS Service Center personnel before the start of a walking tour. Rules, instructions and other information will be provided to pre-registered attendees prior to each site visit by sonah.lee@dhs.gov. USCIS Contracting POCs will be present to take any questions regarding the sites or about the Draft RFP.

Q.6. General. Knowing that the PACTS II solicitation/contract has not been released, is the Government open to consideration of the efficiencies and small business capabilities offered by the NITAAC CIO-SP3 Small Business GWAC vehicle(s)?

[http://nitaac.nih.gov/nitaac/contracts/cio-sp3-small-business] A. This will be an open market procurement.

Q.7. General. What security clearances, if any are required to perform this work scope?

A. SECRET clearances are required for correspondence management couriers. When processing mail, at least two employees must be present and at least 1 of them must have a SECRET clearance. The offeror must have enough cleared personnel to ensure at least one person with a SECRET clearance is there when mail is opened.

Q.8. 9.3.2. Can you please provide an approximate breakdown of work flow currently processed via ELIS vs. Paper? Can you provide annual projections of how this work breakdown will change over the course of the contract and Option Periods?

A. Currently under 1% of adjudications are done in ELIS and 100% of Immigrant Visa Packets are processed in ELIS. It’s not fixed at this time over the option periods.

Q.9. 4.1. Can you please provide the current staffing levels/labor Categories required at the 4 service centers?

A. Current staffing levels will not be provided as this is proprietary to the incumbent.

Workload volume will be provided to assist in determining staffing levels.

Q.10. Will all four service centers be evaluated through one proposal or separate solicitations?

Will there be a separate solicitation from Group A and Group B service center support services?

How many awards does the Government anticipate making?

A. From the one solicitation, two contracts will be awarded, one contract for the Nebraska Service Center (NSC) and Texas Service Center (TSC) called Group A and one for the California Service Center (CSC) and Vermont Service Center (VCS) called Group B. Offerors may submit a proposal for Group A, Group B or both, however, the Government will not make an award to the same Prime contractor for both awards or where a contractor is a Prime for one Group and a major subcontractor on the other. Major subcontractor is defined as a subcontractor performing over 10% of the total contract value minus ODCs.