1._QAs_RFP_Responses_24Jul2017.pdf

Attachment 9

Question Number

Attachment Number Section Number

Page Number Paragraph

Questions and Comments

RFP - Cover Letter Instructions

Instructions request a chart that in part shows an "Explanation of how each (subcontractor) are incorporated into the offeror’s overall proposed price."

With this requirement, there will be, by necessity, pricing information included in the Cover Letter. Will the Government clarify that the cover letter should be included only in Volume II?

Or will the Government remove the requirement to include pricing information in the Cover Letter and include the Cover Letter in Volumes I and II?

Answer

1) IAW Table 1, only one cover letter is requested per proposal (both Vol I & II).

2) ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1 , para 3, Cover Letter Instructions, sub-para d removed.

E.3 pg 39, Section 3 Proposal Instructions

There is no requirement for a Table of Contents or List of Acronyms/Abbreviations in Section E.3 Proposal Instructions. Question: Are these items required, and if so, are we correct in assuming they will be outside of page count for each volume?

Answer Table of Contents or List of Acronyms / Abbreviations are not required. However, if provided, they shall be included in the provided page limitations (see Table 1).

E.3 pg 39, Section 3 Proposal Instructions

There is no requirement for a cover page at the front of each proposal volume. Question: Are cover pages required at the front of each volume, and if so, are we correct in assuming they will be outside of page count for each volume?

Answer IAW Table 1, only one cover letter is requested per proposal (both Vol I & II).

Section L, Section 3 pg 40 For the Small Business Utilization Section, the RFP states that the subcontracting plan and the SF295 (SSRs) are excluded from the 10 page limit. With both of these items excluded from page count, will the Government consider eliminating page count for this section and requiring exclusively the two required items: the subcontracting plan and the SF295s for relevant contracts?

Answer

No, the 10 page count allows offerors to address all areas identified in Section II, Factor 5, i.e., offerors shall provide a record of previous performance in carrying out the goals of subcontracting plans; If the offeror has had no previous contracts requiring a subcontracting plan, include a statement to that effect.

E.3 Pg 40, Table 1, Proposal Instructions

Instructions group SF 1449, Compliance Matrix (attachment 8) and all fillable Provisions and Clauses together in one requirement. Question: Is the Compliance Matrix to be included as part of the SF 1449 and Fillable Provisions and Clauses, or as a separate document apart from the SF 1449 and all Fillable Provisions and Clauses?

Answer It is a separate document apart from the SF 1449 and all fillable Provisions and Clauses.

Section L, Section 3 pg 40 The RFP requires that a Cover Letter, SF 1449, Compliance Matrix (Attachment 8) and all fillable Provisions and Clauses, as well as Assumptions and Constraints be provided.

Can the Government please clarify if these items should be included in Volume I, Volume II or as a stand alone document?

Answer Stand alone document.

U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) Application Support Centers (ASC)

HSSCCG-17-R-00005

Industry Questions Regarding ASC Re-compete Solicitation

NOTE: If there is a conflict between any answer provided and the solicitation and its attachments, the solicitation and its attachments take precedence.

Questions and Answers 1-66 posted to FedBizOpps 10 Jul 2017 Questions and Answers 67- 83 posted to FedBizOpps 20 Jul 2017 Question and Answer 84 posted to FedBizOpps on 24 Jul 2017

Section E 3 Volume I - Technical Proposal / Section I Corporate Experience Figure 1 p41, first table, right column "Required References"

The RFP states "One reference representing one contract vehicle from the prime offeror alone for items 1-4."

Please confirm that the one reference must come from the prime offeror for work performed as a prime contractor and not as a subcontractor.

Answer That is correct, the one reference must come from the prime offeror for work performed as a prime contractor (see Figure 1).

Section E 3 Volume I - Technical Proposal / Section III Staffing, Training & Retention p43, paragraph/list item 4) c)

The RFP states "Under no circumstances will an offeror's transition approach exceed 90 days."

Question: All other aspects of the transition plan being equal among bidders (including risk of approach), will the government give higher scores to an offeror that commits to faster transition times such as less than 30 days?

Answer No

Section L, Section 3 pg 43 The solicitation states that, "Offerors do not need to submit any additional information for the evaluation of the Corporate Experience reference(s) provided in Factor 1".

Can the Government please clarify that an Attachment 10 should be provided in Section I - Past Performance for any contract references also included in Corporate Experience.

Answer

No. Attachment 10 is not required for an offeror's Corporate Experience reference. Section 1, Factor 4, states: "The relevant Corporate Experience reference(s) provided under Factor 1 will be considered recent and relevant for purposes of past performance and the entire period of performance will be evaluated for past performance. Offerors do not need to submit any additional information for the evaluation of the Corporate Experience reference(s) provided in Factor 1."

Section II Page 45 Please define "relevant" related to the inclusion of SSR or SF295 reports.

Will the Government consider making the requirement for SSRs, as applicable, cover only programs included in the offeror's past performance?

Answer Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to OFFERORS – Commercial Items, Volume II, Section II, Factor 5, revised.

Section II – Small Business Utilization (Factor 5)

45 Reference: “Offeror shall include all recent and relevant Summary Subcontracting Reports (Standard Form 295) and points of contacts for all active and physically completed contracts within the last 3 years of issuance of this solicitation”.

Question: Is the offeror required to submit points of contact for their provided Summary Subcontract Reports (SSRs)? Are the points of contact to be Government technical points of contact or contractual points of contact?

Answer Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to OFFERORS – Commercial Items, Volume II, Section II, Factor 5, revised.

ASC RFP, Section B Section IV, para 4, page

RFP states that CLINs for Facilities, Equipment and Travel will be T&M CLINs and no G&A, Overhead fee or any other markups will be reimbursed. FAR 16.601 (b) - Time-and Material contracts provides definition of T&M contract type and states that indirect costs are allowable under this contract type. Specifically:

“Materials” means—

(1) Direct materials, including supplies transferred between divisions, subsidiaries, or affiliates of the contractor under a common control;

(2) Subcontracts for supplies and incidental services for which there is not a labor category specified in the contract;

(3) Other direct costs (e.g., incidental services for which there is not a labor category specified in the contract, travel, computer usage charges, etc.); and

(4) Applicable indirect costs.

Will the Government to allow contractor to include its applicable burdens on all Facilities, Equipment and Travel costs in accordance with contractors accounting system and disclosure statements?

Answer

USCIS previously answered this question, #212, posted it to FedBizOpps on May 5, 2017: "USCIS is not directing offerors to violate their established accounting practices. The contractor shall follow their established accounting practices for the allocation of indirect costs in their accounting system. However, the Government will not reimburse the contractor for indirect costs and fee on other direct costs on the contract. Only direct costs will be reimbursed. USCIS has filled in the applicable sections of FAR 52.212-4 Contract Terms and Conditions -- Commercial Items (Jan 2017), Alternate I, Section C - Contract Clauses, lines 36 – 42, to reflect that no indirect costs will be reimbursed.

Additionally, the solicitation states in the Contract Line Items that ODC Facilities, Travel, and Equipment will include “no G&A, overhead, fee or any other markup” and in Clause FAR 52.212- 4, Alternate I, that indirect costs allowed under the contract will be “none.” While the question cites FAR Part 16 language that allows indirect costs to be included as part of Materials, for commercial items, FAR 52.212-4, Alternate I, states in paragraph (i)(1)(ii)(D) that “Unless listed below, other direct and indirect costs will not be reimbursed.” This statement makes it clear that for commercial items, the preference is that other direct costs and indirect costs be borne by the contractor. For the ASC contract, the government considers the other direct costs of Facilities, Travel, and Equipment to be of sufficient magnitude that it is appropriate they be reimbursed, however, the government will not reimburse indirect costs associated with these expenses.

Evaluation - Commercial Items;

Factor 4 - Past Performance p53 Please clarify how the number of references for the prime offeror and/or major (10%) subcontractors impact the assessment of the rating for past performance. Specifically, how does the final assessed rating compete between an offeror that provides 1-2 "superior"-level references versus an offeror that provides the full 5 (or 3 for subcontractors) references with a mix of "superior" and "acceptable" references?

Answer Past performance will be evaluated based on the totality of the Offeror's proposal.

PWS 4.1Biometrics and Identity Verification

C-5 Will the contractor receive a 2 day notice of Canadian Visa appointments?

Answer No, the PWS, Task 4.1., has been updated.

PWS 4.1Biometrics and Identity Verification

C-6 The RFP states “Unscheduled applicants are not included in the scheduling capacity and are to be processed in addition to the scheduled workload…”

In the event that unscheduled applicants exceed the capacity of an ASC, is the Contractor required to process 100% of unscheduled applicants?

Answer

No. Chapter 1 of the ASC SOP states "If an applicant appears at an ASC outside the scheduled time and there are biometrics technicians available to take the applicant without inconveniencing other scheduled applicants, the applicant will be processed. In determining if an applicant should be processed, the ASC ISO or Site Supervisor will consider the ratio of biometrics technicians to applicants already at the ASC. If the ratio is more than biometrics technicians can process in an hour, the applicant should be asked to come back at a later time or return at the time indicated on the appointment notice."

PWS 4.1Biometrics and Identity Verification

C-7 As there are no SOPs for Code 5, Identity Verification, will the Government please clarify the following:

With regards to Code 5 Identity Verification processing, will this be done on the same biometrics machines as the other biometrics capture codes and will this process be done by a Biometric Technician?

If a person comes in as a Code 5 applicant and the match does not complete, do they go back to the reception to obtain a new number in the queue for processing or is it expected that processing must continue on the same machine?

How does the contractor count , report and invoice that transaction if the process begins as a Code 5 but ends up having to be completed as another code, such as a Code 3?

How does the contractor account for the time spent on the Code 5 if the applicant ends up being processed (reported and invoiced) as another code or would it be counted as both a Code 5 and Code 3 in the example given?

The SOP currently does not include the Code 5 processing. The SOP is currently under revision and will be provided post award.

Yes, Code 5 Identity Verification processing will be done on the same biometrics machines as the other biometrics capture codes.

"Who" will perform the Code 5 Identity Verification is up to the Offeror's staffing solution.

PWS 4.3 Mobile Route Support

C-7 There is no valid data included on homebound applicant processing time, leading a contractor to guess whether this could take anywhere from several hours to an entire day to process one applicant, depending on the distance that must be traveled.

Will the government provide estimated time domains for homebound applicant processing for staffing planning purposes? How should the potentially significant time required for a homebound applicant, versus an applicant processed at an ASC, be accounted for in the applicant unit pricing?

Answer

Homebound applicant processing is included in the Scope Section 3.0 in the PWS, in the event this is required in the future. However, it has been removed from PWS Task 4.3. Therefore, homebound applicant processing shall not be priced at this time. If required in the future, it will be negotiated separately via a contract modification.

PWS 4.4 Rescheduling Support

C-8 The RFP states that the "Contractor and/or USCIS Representative may conduct initial rescheduling, at the local site, for expedited requests with USCIS approval." How would the contractor reschedule locally? Would this be sending a reschedule request directly to the Alexandria reschedule unit, by referring it to the ISO to reschedule the applicant or will the contractor personnel in local sites be given access to reschedule applicants?

Answer Language removed from the PWS Task 4.4.

PWS 4.6.2 Facilities Management

C-10 Are there 139 or 138 ASCs? Are there 77 or 76 Stand Alone Sites? Please clarify.

Answer There are 138 ASCs and 76 Stand Alone Sites. The PWS Sections 2.0 and 4.6.2 and Attachment 2 have been updated.

PWS 5.2.3 Guard (Unarmed)

C-21 The government has removed the section from the Draft RFP titled Secondary Duties which stated "Guards may also be utilized to greet applicants, check the hands of applicants for open wounds or cuts, distribute the Applicant Information Worksheet (AIW), and check applicant identification documents to include the initial applicant processing actions completed by the receptionist. The use of guards in these secondary activities is acceptable as long as these additional duties do not interfere with their primary responsibilities."

Is it the USG's intent that unarmed guards may not perform these secondary functions? Will the Government issue updated SOPs prior to proposal submission to reflect if this is a change from current SOPs?

Answer That is correct. The SOP provided in Attachment J, has the secondary functions removed.

At every ASC, there is a Government employee - the Immigration Services Officer (ISO). Is that ISO a Biometrics Division employee and there to provide USG recommendations on operational issues, including opening tickets for L1 Machines, issues with PIV cards, etc? Or is the Site Supervisor responsible for personnel and operational management of the ASC biometrics processing? Can a bidder assume that the ISO would function in lieu of the Site Supervisor to handle all issues, concerns, or problems encountered by Biometric Technicians?

Answer

The ASC ISO is not a Biometrics Division employee, but rather a Field Operations Directorate (FOD) employee. The ASC ISO does not provide recommendations on operational issues, including opening tickets for LiveScan machines, issues with PIV cards, etc. The Contractor is responsible for personnel and operational management of the ASC biometrics processing. No, an ASC ISO would not function in lieu of the Site Supervisor to handle all issues, concerns, or problems encountered by Biometric Technicians (see PWS 5.2.1)

PWS 5.2.5

Clerical/Administrative Support

C-22 Will the government confirm bidders cannot introduce new technology in their proposal without USG approval? For example, a bidder cannot replace a person performing clerical and administrative support with a technology solution such as a tablet or computer?

Answer That is correct.

PWS 9.3 Travel C-25 How should the contractor account for the approximately $XXX,XXX of travel costs not directed by the government in the execution of the quality assurance, training of new supervisors and other management issues for a distributed workforce of this size.

Answer Such costs, which are not ODCs (see PWS 9.3), are the Offeror's approach and business decision.

PWS 12.6.2 C-29

PWS 12.6.2 required "The Contractor sanitizes magnetic storage devices under the observation of the U.S. Government representatives from the respective ASC..."

Traditionally, in order to sanitize a device, IAW DHS Management Directive 4300A, the contractor would require administrative privileges. Will the Government give the contractor administrator privileges on or will the representative from OCIO perform that function? If the Contractor is granted administrative privileges, are there any required trainings, clearances, skills and certifications to perform this function?

Answer The Contractor may turn the magnetic storage devices over to a representative from OCIO to perform this function.

PWS 12.10 Termination Report

C-31 Is a turn away report is due 4 times per month?

Answer The reference provided, PWS 12.10., is the "Termination Report" which does require reports 4 times per month. However, the question relates to PWS 12.11 the "Applicant Turn Away" report and is only required once a month. PWS 12.11 has been updated.

PWS 18 Physical Security

C-36 The RFP states that CCTV systems will be maintained, monitored and tested. Will the government define "Maintain," "Monitor," and "Test"? Do the current on-site CCTV systems meet the USG requirements? Will the USG reimburse a contractor for "maintain, monitor, and test" including any system upgrades as cost-reimbursable through Facilities?

Answer

The PWS section 18 has been updated to include definitions. The current systems have mixed functionality, but may be assumed to meet the Government's requirements. Under this commercial acquisition, a cost-reimbursable contract type is not allowed (ref FAR 12.207).

However, following direction/approval from the COR, the government will reimburse the contractor for CCTV system upgrades through the T&M ODC Facilities CLIN.

B Tables pg 3 Please clarify the pricing expectations for CLINS 0004-0006. The contract type is listed as T&M but no labor hours are permitted. The Unit of Measure is identified as a LOT. Would these CLINs be more appropriately marked as Cost Reimbursable with unit of measure as 12 months to allow us to estimate a months’ worth of support?

Answer Under this commercial acquisition, a cost-reimbursable contract type is not allowed (ref FAR 12.207). CLINS 0004-0006, and associated option CLINs, shall be T&M.

Pricing Table

The Government has explicitly created CLINS 002 to account for Guard Services - a number and WD dictated by USCIS to be filled by the contractor as reflected in Attachment A.

However, because the guard CLIN is evaluated at 100% for base and OYs, a bidder might consider moving guard costs into the lease management. As these costs are a CR NTE amount, this would result in the guard services costs not being evaluated. This would likely result in a higher total cost for the USG, as costs incorporated into leases would come with a significant mark-up. In this scenario, the Government runs the risk of paying significantly more for the same service while simultaneously decreasing the ability to quickly respond to emergent security needs, lowering the overall effectiveness and responsiveness of the guard operation.

In order to accurately reflect the costs of this service, and to assure the Government will always have guard services, will the government clarify that all guard costs as dictated by the USG for all option periods must be reflected in CLINs 002, 1002, 2002, 3002, and 4002 for the Base and all OYs.

Answer

Guard services are not an allowable cost under the Facilities T&M CLINs. Guard costs must be reflected in CLINs 0002, 1002, 2002, 3002, and 4002 for the base and all option periods (these minimum amounts are intended to cover volume bands AA, AB, and AC). Any additional guards needed above the Government-required minimum amount, in order to support volume bands AD and AE, shall be factored into the fixed-price-per-applicant pricing and split evenly between biometric collection and identity verification (ref Attachment 6 instructions under "Mandatory Unarmed Guards").

Attachment B Attachment 6, CLIN 0002 Guards

Please confirm that all mandated Guards II in Attachment B have to be priced as part of CLIN 0002 Base and all Option Years and are not allowed to be included/reimbursed through NTE Facility plug number provided by the Government.

Answer

Guard services are not an allowable cost under the Facilities T&M CLINs. Guard costs must be reflected in CLINs 002, 1002, 2002, 3002, and 4002 for the base and all option periods (these minimum amounts are intended to cover volume bands AA, AB, and AC). Any additional guards needed above the Government-required minimum amount, in order to support volume bands AD and AE, shall be factored into the fixed-price-per-applicant pricing and split evenly between biometric collection and identity verification (ref Attachment 6 instructions under "Mandatory Unarmed Guards").

Attachment 2 - Wage Determinations

The following wage determinations (WDs) need to be updated based on the latest WDs published by the Department of Labor (DOL):

1. Denver, CO WD 15-5419, Rev. 4, 06/13/2017

2. Oakland Park, FL WD 15-4535, Rev. 3, 06/13/2017

3. Hackensack, NJ WD 15-4183, Rev. 4, 06/15/2017

4. Bronx, NY WD 15-4187, Rev. 5, 06/15/2017

5. Long Island, NY WD 15-4187, Rev. 5, 06/15/2017

6. Manhattan, NY WD 15-4187, Rev. 5, 06/15/2017

7. Port Chester, NY WD 15-4187, Rev. 5, 06/15/2017

8. Queens/Jamaica WD 15-4187, Rev. 5, 06/15/2017

9. Austin, TX WD 15-215, Rev. 5, 06/13/2017

10. Laredo, TX 15-5239, Rev. 3, 06/13/2017

Answer Wage determinations, Attachment 2, revised. However, please note that if a wage determination is revised the DOL link provided will not work. In this case please go to https://www.wdol.gov/ to find the current wage determination.

Staffing Template (Attachment 7) n/a The Staffing Template requires fixed personnel to be split evenly between the BC and IV bands at 50% each. However, the Staffing Template gives offerors the ability to split variable FTE, as needed to meet BC and IV requirements. In addition, the Staffing Template instructions "for each ASC, enter the number of staff (to one decimal place using either whole numbers or halves (0.5)), in the yellow-colored cells for volume bands AA through AE for all positions entered and the guards."

However, there may be some situations where the total level effort for a particular band at a specific site is only 0.5 of a staffed employee; in that situation, splitting that 0.5 a person evenly between BC and IV (50% each) creates 0.25 of a staffed employee that must be denoted. Is the Government willing to accept decimals beyond one decimal point (i.e.: 0.25) to reflect accurate staffing rather than rounding up to the next 0.5 increment?

Answer

The staffing template asks for personnel/head count and not FTEs (per Instructions tab in cells B9, B44, B89, and B90). Therefore, a part-time employee should be shown as 1 (not 0.5), unless shared between BC and IV, in which case, should be shown as 0.5 under each.

Therefore, only one decimal place should be necessary. Attachment 7 has been revised, see cell B44.

Staffing Template (Attachment 7) n/a In the Staffing Template, Attachment F, the Government does not define the hours associated with FT, PT, or On-Call. We understand the Government's intent is to have the "vendor staffing template will remain as number of staff and not FTEs" per Q&A response.

In that case, should 1 FT and 1 PT be counted equally as a staff members rather than a number of productive hours?

Answer That is correct.

Attachment 10 - Past Performance

Relevancy Section

The Relevancy section of this attachment appears to be constructed for the evaluation of the qualifications of the prime contractor.

Would the USG consider requiring any major subcontractors (with workshare over 10%) to meet at least one of these requirements?

Answer

If the subcontractor is proposed to perform 10% or more of the proposed contract value, then past performance is require from the subcontractor IAW Factor 4. The subcontractor's past performance will not replace the prime's requirement to provide recent and relevant past performance references.

IAW Section I, Factor 4, prime contractor references must meet one of the 4 relevancy criteria.

Subcontractor relevancy is defined as contracts with 10% or more of the overall proposed value of work similar to the size, scope, and complexity of the proposed subcontract. In this case subcontractors shall provide past performance references IAW Section I, Factor 4.

Attachment 10 is for both prime and subcontractor references.

3. Proposal Instructions P. 41 and 44 Section 1, Figure 1 (p.41) identifies Corporate Experience as relevant as performed within 5 years of the date of issuance of this solicitation. Section 1 Past Performance (p. 43) states "The relevant Corporate Experience reference(s) provided under Factor 1 will be considered recent and relevant for purposes of past performance......" but identifies contracts active or completed within 3 years. Can the government please clarify the recency relevance definition?

Answer

There are different recency and relevancy requirements for Corporate Experience and Past Performance. Only after Factor 1, Corporate Experience (CE), is rated "acceptable" shall the CE reference(s) be evaluated for past performance. Because CE is initially separate, it alone will be considered relevant for past performance up to 5 years. All other past performance references are limited to 3 years.

3. Proposal Instructions page 41, Figure 1 Can you please confirm that subcontractors can be used to meet the Item 5 requirement in Figure 1, Corporate Experience? The first two sentences following the Figure might imply this requirement can only be met by the Prime.

Answer Yes, Figure 1, Item 5 only, does allow for subcontractors to compliment the primes proposal.

The first two sentences following Figure 1 have been revised.

RFP, Section E.3, Volume II, Section II page 45, 1st para

Previously, the Draft RFP requested 2 Summary Subcontracting Reports. The final RFP Small Business Utilization section states, "Offeror shall include all recent and relevant Summary Subcontracting Reports (Standard Form 295) and points of contacts for all active and physically completed contracts within the last 3 years of issuance of this solicitation."

Since all Subcontracting Reports are relevant to their respective contracts, this will mean submitting SSRs for all contracts that the company has had active during this last 3 years. This could be a fairly large number. Is this what the Government intended?

Answer Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to OFFERORS – Commercial Items, Volume II, Section II, Factor 5, revised.

3. Proposal Instructions page 46, Section IV

Section IV-Price (Factor 7) identifies this effort as a Service Contract Act (SCA) requirement. In order to properly assess fringe costs, will the government provide the current labor profile by labor category and number of years on the contract and previous iterations?

Answer

The "labor profile by labor category" is part of each offeror's proposed solution. By the request of "number of years on the contract and previous iterations" the government infers this is a request for the "seniority list." In accordance with FAR clause 52.222-41(n) a seniority list shall be provided to the successor contractor at the commencement of the succeeding contract.

Solicitation (Additional Requirements for Telecommuting)

Page 36, Paragraph 4, #1

Solicitation background:

In accordance with FAR 7.108, the following position are the only positions eligible for telecommuting under this contract:

1) The contractor program management staff, with the exception of the 4 regional managers.

2) The on-site project manager and the assistant on-site project manager are to be on-site at USCIS Headquarters, but may telework when the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) announces unscheduled telework (example: inclement weather) for federal employees.

Our question:

Does the Government have specific location(s) from which the Regional Managers must report out of? If so, what are those locations?

Answer Yes, PWS 5.1.10 has been updated.

Attachment 1 (7.0 Work Location)

Page C-24, Paragraph 3

Solicitation background:

The Contractor Program Management staff, with the exception of the 4 Regional Managers, is considered telework eligible. The On-Site Project Manager and the Assistant On-Site Project Manager are to be on-site at USCIS Headquarters, but may telework when the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) announces unscheduled telework (ex. due to inclement weather) for Federal employees.

Our question:

Does the Government have specific location(s) from which the Regional Managers must report out of? If so, what are those locations?

Answer Yes, PWS 5.1.10 has been updated.

Attachment 1 (12.6 Property Disposal Report)

Page C-29, sections

12.6.4 and 12.6.6

Solicitation background:

12.6.4. The Contractor's proposal contains detailed procedures for the sanitization and disposal of all listed equipment in their inventory.

12.6.6. The Contractor's proposal addresses the issue that sanitation workspace at many ASCs is non-existent and the Contractor makes provisions to accommodate the sanitation process.

Our question:

The solicitation indicates "Contractor's proposal" in the Property Disposal Report. Is the intent that offerors should include in their submission the "detailed procedures for the sanitation and disposal of all listed equipment in their inventory" and "addresses the issue that sanitation workspace at many ASCs is non-existent and the Contractor makes provisions to accommodate the sanitation process"?

Answer No, PWS 11.1 and 12.6 have been updated.

Attachment B (District 5)

Page C-49 Solicitation background:

XPB shows as a COLO site however it also seems to indicate a Guard presence is required.

Our question:

Please confirm XPB is a COLO with Guards location.

Answer XPB is a COLO and 0 guards are required. Attachment B has been revised.

Attachment F (5.

Applicant Turn-Aways)

Page C-60, Paragraph 1

Solicitation background:

The list of Contractor fault provisions includes, but is not limited to, the following examples that could cause applicant turn-aways: 1) A water pipe bursts in SA building, thereby damaging equipment, closing ASC site, etc.; 2) Electrical wiring in SA building causes power outages, brown-outs, etc. that damages or hinders equipment, and/or causes a fire that damages or closes ASC site; 3) Contractor provides insufficient staff and/or staffing measures to meet scheduled workload; 4) Sprinkler system in SA building malfunctions and damages/closes ASC site; and 5) Significant over-scheduling of an ASC site due to the Contractor’s fault.

Our question:

Items 1, 2, and 4 seem to be out of the Contractor's control unless the failure is directly due to neglect or lack of proper maintenance/testing. This is exacerbated for a new awardee that must assume all leases and locations. Please confirm these instances are contract faults in whole or update with some sort of negligence or "beyond reasonable control" standard (for example, pipe burst due to failure to properly maintain temperature or conduct regular pressure tests, etc.)

Answer PWS Attachment F has been revised.

Attachment B (5.2.3 Guard)

Page C-21, paragraphs 2-

Solicitation background:

5.2.3. Guard (Unarmed) - Required

Functional Responsibilities: The Contractor shall provide at a minimum one unarmed uniformed security guard at Stand Alone ASC locations

Our question:

The Secondary Duties for the guards seem to have been removed form the original Draft RFP that indicated the "Guards may also be utilized to greet applicants, check the hands of applicants for open wounds or cuts, distribute the Applicant Information Worksheet (AIW), and check applicant identification documents to include the initial applicant processing actions completed by the receptionist. The use of guards in these secondary activities is acceptable as long as these additional duties do not interfere with their primary responsibilities" (2/17/17

SOW C-20).

During the on-site visit, it was noted that the guards were in fact doing some of these secondary duties that now appear to have been removed. Is the intent to ensure that Guards have no Secondary duties which are typical in the Clerical /Administrative Support FTE (5.2.5) or can offerors assume that the guards can continue to perform some of this initial checking as is currently the practice with the incumbent?

Answer Guards will not be able to perform Clerical /Administrative Support functions, as they do under the current contract. See PWS 5.2.3 and 5.2.5.

Attachment 6 AE Level Solicitation background:

The original draft pricing template (2/17/17 as Attachment F, Cell B52 of Instructions tab) indicated that the AE band for all locations (SA and COLO) would require additional guard support due to the requirement for the AE band to establish temporary facilities (essentially overflow).

Our question:

Does this assumption still exist that the AE band would automatically lead to a new location (per established location) and thus offerors should account for this in their pricing or are offerors to assume all bands would occur at the currently established facilities?

Answer Yes, the assumption is still valid. Thus, offers should account for this in their pricing. See Attachment 6, Instructions Tab, cell B32.

ASC_RFP_final_22Jun2 017.pdf

Pg 13 2nd Paragraph

Solicitation background:

_X_ (12) (i) 52.219-4, Notice of Price Evaluation Preference for HUBZone Small Business Concerns (Oct 2014) (if the offeror elects to waive the preference, it shall so indicate in its offer)(15 U.S.C. 657a).

Our question:

Since the government has checked this box, how much price differential will HUBZONE Primes receive?

Answer

If applicable, a price differential will be applied IAW 52.219-4(b)(1) Offers will be evaluated by adding a factor of 10 percent to the price of all offers, except—

(i) Offers from HUBZone small business concerns that have not waived the evaluation preference; and

(ii) Otherwise successful offers from small business concerns.

ASC_RFP_final_22Jun2 017.pdf

Pg 16 last Paragraph

Solicitation background:

_X_ (1) 52.222-17, Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers (May 2014) (E.O. 13495)

Our question:

Can the Government please provide a seniority list so we can account for vacation accrual since the Gov has checked this box _X_ (1) 52.222-17, Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers (May 2014) (E.O. 13495)?

Answer IAW FAR clause 52.222-17 (d) and (e), information will be provided post award.

Additionally, IAW FAR clause 52.222-41(n) a seniority list shall be provided to the successor contractor at the commencement of the succeeding contract.

ASC_RFP_final_22Jun2 017.pdf

Pg 21 Solicitation background:

__X_3052.219-72 Evaluation of Prime Contractor Participation in the DHS Mentor Protégé Program

Our question:

Since this box is checked will the Government allow a letter from DHS stating that the application is under review or will the firm be penalized for not having the approval at time of submission not time of award?

Answer

IAW ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2, Factor 6, "Participation in the Mentor-Protégé Program is voluntary and not mandatory; therefore, an offeror that does not participate in the DHS Mentor-Protégé Program or does not provide the signed letter of mentor-protégé agreement approval in its proposal will receive a rating of Neutral for this factor, and is eligible for award."

ASC_RFP_final_22Jun2 017.pdf

Pg 40 Table 1 Solicitation background:

Corporate Experience reference(s) is/are limited to 3 pages

Our question:

Does this statement mean total or per reference?

Answer Per Reference. Table 1 has been revised.

ASC_RFP_final_22Jun2 017.pdf

Pg 40 All Solicitation background:

Our question:

With respect to the pricing templates in Excel, which of those tables and sheets does the Government want incorporated into the MS Word document which is submitted as the price volume? Alternatively, is it acceptable to simply provide the Excel file? (e.g. does the Government want a static print version of the pricing matrix)?

Answer Submit attachments as provided. Table 1 revised.

ASC_RFP_final_22Jun2 017.pdf

Pg 45 table 2 Solicitation background:

The Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) subcontracting goals for fiscal year 2017 are listed below. Offerors shall address each small business (SB) category in the subcontracting plan and how the DHS SB goals are proposed to be achieved by the percentage of total proposed subcontracting dollars [(ref FAR52.219-9(d)(1)]

Our question:

Please confirm that the DHS subcontracting goals are based off Subcontractor dollars and not total contract value.

Yes, see FAR 52.219-9(d)(1) "The Offeror’s subcontracting plan shall include the following:

"Separate goals, expressed in terms of total dollars subcontracted, and as a percentage of total planned subcontracting dollars . . . "

ASC_RFP_final_22Jun2 017.pdf

Pg 46 2nd paragraph

Solicitation background:

This is a Service Contract Act (SCA) requirement. Offerors shall assume that the minimum hourly wage and fringe benefits established by the Wage and Hour Division of the U.S.

Department of Labor for base period will apply to each option period. The minimum wage rates and fringe benefits applicable to base period of performance are outlined in the respective wage determinations or collective bargaining agreement listed in Attachments 2 & 3.

Our question:

The requirement just lists SCA (and does not list CBA) as a contract requirement. Do we need to honor the current CBA?

Answer Yes, see Attachment 2.

ASC_RFP_final_22Jun2 017.pdf

Pg 46 2nd paragraph

Solicitation background:

This is a Service Contract Act (SCA) requirement. Offerors shall assume that the minimum hourly wage and fringe benefits established by the Wage and Hour Division of the U.S.

Department of Labor for base period will apply to each option period. The minimum wage rates and fringe benefits applicable to base period of performance are outlined in the respective wage determinations or collective bargaining agreement listed in Attachments 2 & 3.

Our question:

If the current SCA rate for a region is below minimum wage for that location should we simply propose the SCA rate?

Answer

In accordance with FAR clause 52.222-41(e) “Minimum wage. In the absence of a minimum wage attachment for this contract, neither the Contractor nor any subcontractor under this contract shall pay any person performing work under this contract (regardless of whether the person is a service employee) less than the minimum wage specified by section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Nothing in this clause shall relieve the Contractor or any subcontractor of any other obligation under law or contract for payment of a higher wage to any employee.”

Additionally, in accordance with FAR clause 52.222-55(b)(8) “Nothing in this clause shall excuse the Contractor from compliance with any applicable Federal or State prevailing wage law or any applicable law or municipal ordinance establishing a minimum wage higher than the E.O.

minimum wage. However, wage increases under such other laws or municipal ordinances are not subject to price adjustment under this subpart."

RFP, Volume I, Technical Proposal

RFP, Volume II, Business Proposal Section 1

41-42

43-45

Solicitation background:

In defining Factor 1, the instructions require a single contract within five years, greater than $35 million labor / management experience annually, more than 800 personnel, and multiple sites (at least 10 sites geographically separated). This is to be evaluated on a pass/fail basis.

Our question:

Will the Government revise the Corporate Experience factor to: 1) lower the dollar value and personnel numbers; 2) allow for relevance evaluation on a sliding scale (i.e. somewhat relevant, relevant, very relevant); 3) use different measures of relevance, such as the number of applicants fingerprinted and the number of sites operated?

Answer

1) No, dollar value and personnel numbers are appropriate for this requirement

2) No, it is critical that offerors meet this minimum relevancy requirement

3) The chosen relevancy measures are appropriate for this requirement. The number of sites operated is one of the relevancy requirements (see Figure 1 item 4). Volume 1, Section 1, Factor 1 - any customer service contract is relevant.

RFP, Volume I, Technical Proposal

RFP, Volume II, Business Proposal Section 1

Attachment 10, Past Performance (Factor 4) Reference Template

41-42

43-45

Solicitation background:

In defining Factor 1, the instructions state a contract is relevant only if it has $35 million labor / management experience annually, and more than 800 personnel, and, Multiple sites (at least 10 sites geographically separated). As this reads it appears offerors are to submit just one contract reference that meets all of these criteria. However, in contrast, the Past Performance (Factor 4) and Attachment 10 instructions use the same criteria as listed, but the word OR is included after each. That is, it states $35 million labor / management experience annually, OR more 800 personnel, OR Multiple sites (at least 10 site geographically separate, OR facility management experience over $15 million per year.

Our question:

The instructions regarding Corporate Experience (Factor 1) vs. Past Performance (Factor 4) appear to be inconsistent. Assuming that Corporate Experience requires a single limited reference encompassing all items 1 through 4 in order to be relevant, how is this consistent with the Factor 4 criteria and Attachment 10 criteria that allow a contract to be relevant if it meets only one of the items 1 through 4?

Answer Factor 1 and Factor 4 are purposefully different and distinct. Evaluation criteria will remain as stated in the solicitation (see Q&A #35).

Attachment 7 Instructions Tab

It appears Full Time Equivalents (FTE) vice the number of staff is entered in the Identity Verification example as well as in the Biometrics Collection and Identity Verification spreadsheet examples. Kindly clarify whether bidders should input FTEs, or the actual head count into the template.

Answer Actual head count (see cells 9B, 44B, 89B and 90B of Attachment 7 instructions).

RFP, Section E.3 pg 41 and 44 Corporate Experience and Past Performance requirement of "with many locations nationwide (at a minimum 10 locations and multiple time zones)." Kindly clarify whether "international locations" would be acceptable in place of nationwide locations.

Answer Yes, international locations are acceptable. Solicitation revised.

Attachment 6 & 7 pg 40 Will the Government accept a minimum .25” left & right margin, and a minimum .5” top & bottom margin on the proposal Excel files?

Answer Formatting described in Table 1 does not apply to the solicitation attachments. Table 1 revised.

RFP, Section 3 - Proposal Instruction pg 40 Formatting specifications are given for the font size for figures, tables, and graphics; but not the caption (e.g., title) specifically. We assume the caption (title) for figures, tables, and graphics would be the same font type and font size as that specified for figures, tables, and graphics themselves. Is that a correct interpretation?

Answer Correct. Table 1 revised.

Attachment 6 & 7, Section 3 - Proposal Instruction pg 40 Can Attachment 6 - Vendor Pricing Template and Attachment 7 - Vendor Staffing Template the be formatted on a 11” x 17” page to make the templates more legible?

Answer Formatting described in Table 1 does not apply to the solicitation attachments. Please do not reformat attachments and return as provided. Table 1 revised.

Section 3 - Proposal Instruction pg 40 Can a font smaller than 12 point be used in the header and/or footer?

Answer Yes. Table 1 revised.

Section 3 - Proposal Instruction/Section I - Corporate Experience (Factor 1) pg 40

It states that "Corporate Experience reference(s) is/are limited to 3 pages." Does this mean 3 pages per reference? Or 3 pages total?

Answer 3 pages per reference; thus, 6 pages total if an offeror is providing a second reference for facility management experience, Figure 1, item 5. Table 1 revised.

Attachment 3- CBA Page 4, Article 11

Please provide the number of employees that fall into each category of Years of Seniority (1-4 years, 5-10 years, 11-14 years, and 15 or more years) so offerors may adequately estimate the appropriate number of weeks of vacation required.

Answer IAW FAR clause 52.222-17 (d) and (e), information will be provided post award.

IAW FAR clause 52.222-41(n) a seniority list shall be provided to the successor contractor at the commencement of the succeeding contract.

RFP, Section II. Small Business Utilization (Factor 5)

Page 45 Offeror shall include all recent and relevant Summary Subcontracting Reports (Standard Form 295) and points of contacts for all active and physically completed contracts within the last 3 years of issuance of this solicitation. Will the Government confirm that by relevant SSRs, it is requesting only DHS SSRs?

Answer The Summary Subcontracting Reports (Standard Form 295) may be from agencies other than DHS. The RFP, Section II. Small Business Utilization (Factor 5), has been revised to clarify this point.

Attachment 7 Please clarify the hourly and H&W rates for CBA personnel. The current CBA expires on

31 August 2017. Additionally, the H&W rate appears to have been frozen at $3.81 since 2013.

Answer

1) See Article 35, of the CBA, Attachment 2 of solicitation for hourly wages.

2) See Article 34 of the CBA, Attachment 2 of solicitation for H&W benefit.

65 Evaluation Criteria Will the government consider using a plug for price therefore allowing evaluation criteria to be based solely on technical management and corporate experience.

Answer No, this proposed approach is not consistent with the government's acquisition strategy.

Evaluation Criteria Given the cost and delivery advantages associated with a Managed Services delivery model, will the Government consider a managed services delivery solution?

Answer No, this approach is not consistent with the government's acquisition strategy.

Amendment 000001 Section D Contract Documents, Exhibits or Attachments AND Section E Solicitation Provisions

4 (Addendum to FAR 52.212- 1 Instructions to OFFERORS)

AND 54

(Section I Past Performance)

On Page 4, under Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Cover Letter Instructions para b., the Government directs listing "subcontractor responsible for 10% or more of the overall contract value excluding ODCs". On page 54, in Section I Past Performance, the Government defines subcontractor relevancy as "10% or more of the overall proposed value of work similar to size, scope, and complexity of the proposed subcontract" and lists an example related to janitorial services.

These two statements introduce ambiguity and appear to be contradictory. Specifically:

1) Recommend that the government define "overall contract value" as it relates to the 10% definition. For example, the overall contract value could be the total evaluated price, ceiling value, or total evaluated price minus ODCs, etc.

2) It is unclear if the term "proposed value" in the statement "10% or more of the overall proposed value of work similar to size, scope, and complexity of the proposed subcontract" is referring to the total contract value (see question 1 above) or the value of the specific function to be performed. For example, if a subcontractor is proposed to perform 50% of the overall proposed value of the Security Guard function, but the value of that subcontract represents less than 10% of the overall proposed value of the entire contract, is a Past Performance reference required? Recommend the Government clarify this ambiguity.

3) Janitorial services is an ODC, recommend the government consider a different example for their explanation.

Answer

1) Revised via Amendment 2

2) Revised via Amendment 2

3) Revised via Amendment 2

Questions and Answers 67- 83 posted to FedBizOpps 20 Jul 2017

Attachment 9 - Answers posted on 7/10/17

Answer to Question 44

The requirement of a separate location for all COLO and SA locations at the AE Volume Band is not explicit anywhere in any of the final RFP release documents or Amendments. Only the answer to question 44 hints at this requirement. This is a substantial revelation that should have a significant impact on pricing. Ostensibly, a separate location would require dedicated Supervision, Guard, and a separate and distinct location staff for processing AE band volume regardless of what would be bid in the AA-AD bands. Not accounting for this important requirement jeopardizes the evaluation process and an offerors Evaluated Price risking an unacceptable rating due to price realism determination. Question: Would the government please state explicitly that the AE band volume would require a separate facility for all COLO and SA locations to include Supervision, Guard presence, and staff to process that are not associated with AA-AD bands.

Answer For proposal purposes assume volume band AE will require additional facilities at all SA and COLO locations.

Attachment 6 Instructions Tab: No guidance related to allocating the cost of Supervision.

This question goes to how a bidder might handle costs for any "split" costs between programs (shared across the programs) such as Supervision and how these costs are recouped if half of the cost is in a program that is not being paid out. Question: Will the monthly guaranteed AA band for the IV (Identity Verification) be paid if this is not an active program or for some reason does not materialize (AA Band 0-XXXX)?

Answer Biometric Collection and Identity Verification are not…