The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
Question #
| Reference |
| Question |
| Answer |
| Change Made |
| 1 |
| Solicitation Section: Attachment A- Performance Work Statement, Page: A-24, Paragraph Number: 6.1.1 (Program Manager (PM)) |
| A PMP can be an important credential, particularly as the Government noted in the February 2016 Draft, when a person does not have the otherwise required B.A. However, it is only one way of demonstrating qualifications. In the interest of ensuring competition, and given that this substantial change was done so late in the FOSS competition, leaving companies and individuals very little time to obtain the newly required certification, would the Government consider modifying the RFP, in this respect, back to the Draft, which it used to set expectations just a few weeks ago? |
| The Government has described its requirement accurately. |
| No change made. |
| 2 |
| Solicitation Section: IV- Instructions, Condition and Notices to Offerors, Page: IV-5, Paragraph Number: 1.5 Volume II- Business Proposal (Factor 3 Past Performance) |
| Under the current structure, with strictly directed FTE, hours and labor categories, FOSS is a program support activity that simply involves records management and file management tasks, as well as related tasks, including Correspondence Management and Administrative Support. For that reason, and to foster greater competition from qualified program support bidders, would the Government consider reverting to the requirement as stated in the Draft RFP and allow past performance in the areas of Records Management, File Management and/or Program Support? |
| The Government determined that “Program Support” could be too broadly interpreted and chose to specify Records Management and File Management as they pertain more to the majority of the anticipated work. |
| No change made. |
| 3 |
| Solicitation Section: Solicitation Section: IV- Instructions, Condition and Notices to Offerors, Page: IV-5, Paragraph Number IV-5 (Factor 4 Small Business Utilization Instructions) |
| In order to truly maximize Small Business participation would the government consider increasing the Small Business participation goal to 33.5% of Total Contract Value to be consistent with the DHS Prime Contracting Small Business Goals for 2016? |
| The Government’s current small business subcontracting requirements, as stated in the solicitation, meet current goals and will remain as-is. |
| No change made. |
| 4 |
| Solicitation Section: Attachment F- Security Requirements, Page: F-1, Paragraph Number: N/A |
| Will the Government provide the awardee with a list/report of suitability determination and PIV dates (investigation closure, investigation type, approval date(s) and PIV issuance/expiration dates) upon contract award? |
| Yes, the Government will provide all necessary data as it pertains to suitability determinations upon award. |
| No change made. |
| 5 |
| Solicitation Section: Attachment F- Security Requirements, Page: F-1, Paragraph Number: N/A |
| Will the Government require that incumbent personnel to be re-processed for the respective Suitability Determination and PIV access during the transition period? |
| No, the Government will require transfer paperwork be filled out. The transfer paperwork is less intensive than new-hire paperwork. |
| No change made. |
| 6 |
| Solicitation Section: IV- Instructions, Condition and Notices to Offerors, Page: IV-2, Paragraph Number: 1.3 Proposal Instructions |
| Will the Government permit attachments, such as completed Representations and Certifications, to be submitted as .pdf attachments to the proposal response? |
| Yes, but they will still count towards the page limitations. Entire proposals shall not be submitted in .pdf form. |
| No change made. |
| 7 |
| Section L, SubFactor 2 – Corporate Experience, Page #IV-4, Second Paragraph |
| By specifying the number of FTEs, the contract dollar amount and the number of experiences, the government is repeating the past performance requirements. Corporate experience as an evaluation factor should be distinct and independent of past performance. Suggest the removal of the FTEs and dollar amount and have offerors demonstrate experience relevant to the tasks. |
| Section left as-is. |
| No change made. |
| 8 |
| Section L, SubFactor 2 – Corporate Experience, Page #IV-4, Second Paragraph |
| This required “prime” experience is unduly restrictive. There are many businesses who have performed on previous iterations of this contract as subcontractors who are experienced in all aspects of the work, have demonstrated responsibility and can provide best value to the government. Please replace “as a prime contractor” to “as a prime or subcontractor.” |
| Section left as-is. |
| No change made. |
| 9 |
| Section L, Factor 3 – Past Performance, Page #IV-5, Fourth Paragraph |
| Defines relevancy, in part, as $50 million life value and 100 FTE. $50 million life value and 100 FTE are not relational in this or other contracts with SCA/CBA components. The example you look for would mean that each contract year was $10 million and each FTE produced $100,000 in revenue. 100 FTE x $100,000 = $10 million x 5 years = $50 million. In service contract work like this the market is generally half that so each FTE would produce $50,000 making the annual value $5 million and the life value $25 million. Given this data, consider reducing the life value requirement. |
| Section left as-is. |
| No change made. |
| 10 |
| Section L, Factor 4 – Small Business Utilization, Page #IV-5, Eighth Paragraph |
| USCIS is making subcontracting highly significant portion of the contract with small businesses goals at 41%. Given that, how will prime contractors be evaluated on their records of fulfilling subcontracting requirements and satisfactory subcontractor relationships so that the government can determine acceptable or unacceptable? |
| Offerors will be evaluated as described in Section V, Factor 4. Also reference, Section IV, Factor 4. |
| No change made. |
| 11 |
| Section IV, para B.1.4 Sub-Factor 2, page IV-4 |
| Does the experience of a subcontractor count for the Corporate Experience evaluation or is it only the prime’s experience that is counted? |
| No, the experience must have been gained “in which the prime offeror performed as the prime |
contractor.”
No change made.
| 12 |
| Section IV, para B.1.5 Factor 3, page IV-5 |
| Does the experience of a subcontractor count for the Past Performance evaluation or is it only the prime’s experience that is counted? |
| No, the past performance must have been “for which the prime offeror performed as the prime contractor.” |
| No change made. |
| 13 |
| Section IV, para B.1.5 Factor 2, page IV-4-5 |
| Please provide a listing of the current seniority levels for incumbent employees since bidders must reflect accurate vacation and other leave balances in their pricing calculations and those fringe benefits are calculated based on the number of years of service at the sites (per the CBAs and WDs). Please note, we are not asking for the names of the incumbents, only the seniority levels per person (e.g, two people at 5 years in x location, etc.). |
| The Government does not have this information. Any information of this sort would be provided to the successful offeror post-award. |
| No change made. |
| 14 |
| Section IV, para B.1.5 Factor 4, page IV-5 |
| Please clarify whether 41% of this contact must be subcontracted to various types of small businesses or whether the 41% is a target goal that bidders should strive to achieve? |
| Offerors will be evaluated as described in Section V, Factor 4. Also reference, Section IV, Factor 4. The 41% goal pertains to 41% of subcontracted dollars, not necessarily to 41% of the total contract value. |
| No change made. |
| 15 |
| PWS Section 4.1.2, page A-4 |
| Will the government provide the vehicles needed to deliver mail to the Post Office and other vendors such as FedEx, etc. (services not listed under “Courier”)? If not, please indicate the following vehicle requirements for each location: vehicle quantity, make/model, mileage per year, whether fuel is government reimbursed, whether a backup vehicle is required, and any equipment the contractor must supply per vehicle (e.g., flares, emergency kits, jumper cables, etc.). |
| The Government will provide the vehicles needed to deliver mail. |
| No change made. |
| 16 |
| PWS Section 6.0, page A-23 |
| Indicates contractor personnel cannot perform work until they have completed the training mentioned in Section 4.9.10. However, neither section indicates how many hours this training encompasses, which is information bidders need to factor into their pricing since they must pay their people for their time to complete the training before they are allowed to invoice for their time. Please indicate how many hours of training new hires must complete prior to assuming billable work. |
| Mandatory training is considered billable work. |
| No change made. |
| 17 |
| PWS Section 6.0, page A-23 |
| How many days does it typically take the OSI PSD to render a satisfactory enter-on-duty determination for new hires? |
| Currently, OSI PSD's average turnaround time for EOD case processing is 7 days. OSI PSD cannot begin case processing until eQIP has been released to their office and a complete security package, to include all additional supplemental forms, have been received. OSI PSD cannot guarantee how long a specific package will take as every case is different. There are times in which OSI PSD will need to reach out to the subject or an outside source for additional information prior to making a final EOD determination. |
| No change made. |
| 18 |
| PWS Section 11 on page A-28 |
| Indicates some local offices may require shift work; however, the CBAs and WDs do not mention shift differential pay. Please identify the sites requiring shifts, what type of shifts (e.g., swing, night, split, etc.) each site requires, the number of people working on each of those shifts, and whether there is any additional compensation needed to staff those shifts. |
| Currently there are no offices that work shifts; however there is a possibility if there is a surge in workload |
| No change made. |
Page II-14 specifies that that the Program Manager and Deputy Program Manager are considered Key Personnel.
In the Transition bullet of Sub-factor 1 (page IV-4), the instructions say that offerors should describe “their plan to obtain key personnel.” However, the proposal instructions are not clear whether bidders should actually propose Key Personnel and include resumes for these individuals.
Can you please clarify what information, if any, about Key Personnel should be included in the technical proposal?
| Reference Section IV, Paragraph 1.3, Proposal Instructions. |
| No change made. |
| 20 |
| Attachment J – Pricing Spreadsheet |
For the Contractor Labor Category titled “Functional Area Supervisor”, the corresponding SCA Labor Category is described as “General Clerk III or SCA Exempt”.
Could you please clarify the intent in having two options for this position? Should the offeror determine whether this position is subject to the SCA or is SCA exempt?
| The offeror shall determine whether or not this position is SCA or SCA exempt. |
| No change made. |
| 21 |
| Attachment J – Pricing Spreadsheet |
The SCA Labor Category titled Key Entry Operator II does not appear on current wage determinations for any of the localities covered under this contract.
Can you please clarify, or provide an alternative SCA Labor Category?
| Key Entry Operator II is supposed to be Data Entry Operator II. |
| Titles changed in Attachment |
| 22 |
| Corporate Experience – Proposal Instructions |
In the proposal instructions for Sub-factor 2 – Corporate Experience (page IV-4), the RFP defines “relevant” as experience “valued at or above $50 million and involves managing at least 100 FTEs”. However, it is not clear if this definition of relevant means that each of the three examples must meet this condition, or if the three examples combined must meet this standard.
Could you please clarify the Government’s intent?
| The intent is for each of the three examples to meet this standard (not a combination of the three). |
| No change made. |
| 23 |
| Proposal Evaluation: Factor 2 - Price |
The evaluation language for Factor 2 - Price (page V-3) states that USCIS will perform an analysis “to verify that the correct SCA wage determination rates and union collective bargaining agreement wage and health and welfare rates were used.”
However, the instructions also specify that no pricing backup or rate build-up is required. Given this, would you please clarify how the Government intends to conduct this analysis?
| Offerors are responsible for proposing wages that meet SCA and CBA wage requirements and assume responsibilities for DOL, or other subsequent, labor audits. |
| Statement removed from solicitation. |
| 24 |
| Section B – Instructions to Offerors, page IV-4, paragraph 1.4 Sub-factor 1 – Management Approach |
| Is the Transition Plan to be included in the RFP response, or is it to be provided 7 days from contract award as indicated under deliverables on page A-22? |
| The intent is for the plan to be submitted 7 days from contract award. |
| Section 4.12 of PWS revised to make this change. |
| 25 |
| Section B - Instructions to Offerors, page IV-8, Additional Business Proposal Instructions |
| Is a facility clearance required for all small business subcontractors as well if they will be performing work subject to a SECRET clearance? |
| Yes. |
| No change made. |
| 26 |
| Section 4.9 Program Management, page A-18, paragraph 4.9.10 Training |
| Paragraph two states “the contractor shall provide all contract staff with initial training in USCIS-proprietary systems”. Please clarify if the contractor or USCIS will provide the initial training. |
| Initial training will be provided by the government. |
| No change made. |
| 27 |
| Section 4.9 Program Management, page A-19, paragraph 4.12 Transition-In |
| This section states the transition plan is due at award; however, the deliverables on page A-22 reflect the transition plan is due at award + 7 business days. Please clarify |
| The intent is for the plan to be submitted 7 days from contract award. |
| Section 4.12 of PWS revised to make this change. |
| 28 |
| Attachment J - Pricing Spreadsheet |
| “Data Entry Clerk - Key Entry Operator II. In the Option period tabs, the Data Entry Clerk is mapped to SCA Category "Key Entry Operator II".” This should be "Data Entry Operator II" like the Base Period tab. |
| Key Entry Operator II is supposed to be Data Entry Operator II. |
| Titles changed in Attachment |
| 29 |
| Section IV - 1.3, Paragraph 2, Page IV-2 |
| “There is a reference to Statement of Qualifications for Key Personnel in the page count for the proposal.” Where are the Statement of Qualifications for Key Personnel to go in the proposal? |
| Statements of Qualifications shall be provided as part of the Technical Proposal (reference Factor 1, Sub-Factor 1, “Transition”). |
| No change made. |
| 30 |
| Section IV - 1.5, Paragraph 3, Page IV-5 |
| “Offerors may change the current contract position titles if desired to suit their needs but may not change SCA labor categories or hours as those are what are desired by the Government.” Can the offeror add non-SCA labor categories to the fixed price PMO CLIN? Can the offeror add non-SCA labor categories to the hourly CLINs? |
| No, the intent was to allow offerors to change the “Contractor Labor Category” titles and not the “SCA Labor Category” titles. |
| No change made. |
| 31 |
| Attachment J - Pricing Spreadsheet |
| “There are no Quality Control staff in the Government provided Level of Effort.” Is the contractor to propose their own level of effort to meet the Quality Control requirements of the RFP? If so, can this be done in the T&M CLINs and/or in the FFP PMO CLIN? |
| The contractor shall not propose additional staff, other than what’s provided in the Pricing Spreadsheet, to handle quality control efforts. Quality control, as proposed, must be handled by the staff the Government has provided in the Pricing Spreadsheet. |
| No change made. |
| 32 |
| CBA between FCi Federal and United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America Local 1118, Pages D-24 and D-27 |
| “Effective with this agreement, and until the effective date of implementation of any new Wage and Benefits Determination issued by the Department of Labor applicable to employees covered by this Agreement, the Employer will provide an allowance of $3.71 an hour up to 40 hours per week for all hours paid. Memoranda of Understanding on Health Insurance: The Union and the Employer will engage in bargaining to explore options to reduce costs for employees on the payroll as of January 1, 2013 whose monthly benefit selection costs more than $1,000 per month shall have the entire amount over the $1,000 per month paid by the employer each month for the duration of the agreement. This does not include any future benefit changes by employees.” What is the current Health & Welfare allowance/benefits amount being paid to these CBA-covered employees? This is needed in order to price the Health and Welfare benefits that are currently in the CBA. |
| The only information the Government has possession of is within the CBA’s provided as part of the solicitation. |
| No change made. |