ISAP-V RFI Part 2 Questions and Answers 17Dec2024.pdf

ISAP-V Industry Day Questions and Answers (Round 2) All information provided in government responses is tentative and subject to change

Question Government Response 1 Can ICE please provide the list of registered attendees for the industry day session?

No - ICE did not get advanced consent from attendees to disclose their information.

2 The RFI notes that a coversheet is excluded from the page limitation for the capability statement but shall not exceed two pages.

Can the government please confirm that the actual cover is not included in the coversheet two-page count and that the coversheet reference in the RFI addresses a cover memo and the entity information requested by the government.

The RFI submissions should not exceed 22 pages in total.

Up to 2 pages may be utilized for coversheet information Up to 20 pages may be utilized for capability information

3 Can the government please clarify that graphics are not subject to the Times New Roman font type and 12-point or greater font size requirement?

Graphics are exempt from the 12-point font requirement.

4 Please provide any recent data regarding the primary languages of program participants that would help inform what languages a Biometric Mobile Application must be provided in (numbers and percentages of participants by language).

The following languages are available on the Biometric Mobile Application. Please note that the contractor may be asked to develop and and implement other languages as need of the Government and the population evolve:

77.82% Spanish 18.07% English 3.86% Portuguese 0.25% Haitian

5 Please elaborate on your comment in the December 2nd meeting that there would be a role for small businesses in this effort.

The specific opportunities that will be available to small business will depend on the information obtained from RFI responses. The ISAP-V procurement will be conducted in accordance with the small business procedures contained in FAR part 19: https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-19

6 Is there any opportunity to match technology only contractors with those that provide Case Management Specialist services?

Unless unallowed by a solicitation, vendors can partner to fulfill all aspects of a requirement.

7 What metrics will be used to evaluate the program's effectiveness in achieving its stated objectives (e.g., cost savings, compliance rates, appearance rates)?

Evaluation factors are still being developed and will in part be informed by market research to include RFI responses.

8 Can the government clarify the criteria for determining participant eligibility for different levels of supervision and technology use?

Factors considered include but are not limited to: current immigration status, criminal history, compliance history, community or family ties, being a caregiver or provider, medical conditions, and other humanitarian factors. This is not an all encompassing list and the government reserves the right to consider additional factors.

9 How should contractors address conflicts between federal, state, and local licensing provisions, if they arise?

Please identify known or anticipated conflicts in your RFI response.

10 Draft SOW Section 6.0 A Required Services: Can the government provide examples of "extenuating circumstances" that would require contractor personnel to be on-call outside of standard business hours?

An enforcement action that takes place outside of standard business hours may result in a number of noncitizens taken into custody that the Government does not want to detain but immediately release with additional case management and technology levels.

11 Will ICE have an internal information system, functioning as a case management system where participant data and overall reporting metrics from contractor monitoring systems will be shared? If so, what is this central platform?

The ISAP vendor provides the case management system in accordance with SOW 6.1.g

12 Will ICE ERO build in adequate transition requirements/timelines enabling the transfer of key participant data that ensures mission objectives and operations are not interrupted?

Transition considerations to include requirements and timelines are being discussed. Please identify the transition time and milestones you believe are necessary in your RFI response.

13 ICE issued sole source extensions in conjunction with the two previous solicitations (ISAP III and ISAP IV). The JFOCs focused on reliance on the incumbent’s data for tracking and case management. Does all this program data still primarily reside on the contractor’s systems? If so, isn’t this a significant risk to the ATD program? If so, doesn’t this represent a barrier to competition?

The incumbent is required to hold all case management data, technology data, and participant data and safe guard it according to technical requirements. Any vendor who is interested in ATD - ISAP V should be prepared to meet those same requirements.

14 Is there anything specifically NOT included in the price per participant estimates? Facilities, Tech, Labor all of the above.

No - the RFI request for a rough cost estimate per participant is all encompassing.

Please provide assumptions that form the basis for the rough estimate.

15 Is an independent government cost estimate being developed for these services? If so, will it be shared?

ICE is not disclosing a cost estimate at this time.

16 Is it the government's intent to award these services to one contractor?

ICE is seeking information from industry to make an informed decision as to the best acquisition approach for the ISAP-V program.

17 Would the government consider regionalizing these services?

ICE is seeking information from industry to make an informed decision as to the best acquisition approach for the ISAP-V program.

18 Draft SOW Page 22: For the technical solution, what level of FedRamp compliance is required, if any, for data storage, device integration, biometric data, and other technical requirements to ensure it meets federal security standards?

No response available at this time.

19 Draft SOW Page 9: It is the contractors understanding that the government guidance on C-Sites are to remain flexible and as needed. What processes will be in place to notify the contractor of an additional site, size, and scope of its work for the contractor.

These take place through ongoing communications between the Government and the vendor. The Government determines if there is a need for site expansion, new location, etc. internally then communicates with the vendor to meet those needs.

20 Draft SOW Page 9: With C-sites being 100% under control of the contractor, what is the government's guidance on opening and closing c-sites on short notice and the commercial real estate obligations that presents for the contractor.

No guidance to provide. ICE would appreciate input on this topic in your RFI response.

21 Attachment 1 Page 4: Please confirm the biometric reporting metrics and languages that are required for the mobile application. Attachment 1 mentions: 1-various forms of checkins 2-Facial matching/recognition 3-location reporting and 4-communication features. Is this a complete list of requirements for the app?

See response #4 for languages. No additional feature information available at this time.

22 Will ICE maximize competition under the RFP by ensuring that there is sufficient time for a handoff between vendors if someone other than the incumbent wins?

See response #12.

23 What was ICE anticipating during industry day that did not occur or was not fully addressed by the participants?

Industry day was intended to be a forum to share information on the ISAP V requirement in a more interactive manner. It was also an opportunity for vendors to present their ideas and possible solutions. The Government did not have any pre-conceived expectations that were not addressed.

24 When utilizing multiple vendors (i.e. detention operations) ICE has a set of definitions/standards to ensure performance goals are met. What are the performance metrics for successful case management of participants on ISAP? If those metrics were captured during ISAP IV, would ICE share them with proposed vendors of ISAP V?

ICE would appreciate input on this topic in your RFI response.

25 We understand that there are different strategies in monitoring noncitizens depending on specific factors such as where encountered, processing pathway, stage in the removal lifecycle, and family unit composition. Will ICE remain open to evaluating the benefits of a geographic breakdown of the docket based on encounter location, release location, or final domicile/longer term monitoring via a multi-vendor approach?

ICE is open to considering all solutions that meet requirements.

26 What does the current vendor do to increase compliance with final order other than collect travel documents?

No response available at this time.

27 In ISAP V, will Extended Case Management Services continue? If yes, will it continue in its current form?

Yes, it will continue with requirements, subject to change.

28 Will the successful contractor be able to contact the embassy and consulate to expedite participants obtaining a travel document?

No - per SOW section 6.2. “The contractor shall not deal directly with the consulate of any foreign Governments on behalf of the participant or ICE.”

29 When evaluating and scoring technical proposals will ICE evaluate more favorably a vendor's submission if they exceed specific technology requirements?

The Government is seeking information from industry to make an informed decision as to the best acquisition approach for the ISAP-V program. Evaluation factors have not been determined yet.

30 Please confirm that ICE is open to considering alternative vendor-provided device types if they can capture biometric data and provide accurate GPS tracking?

Yes, the Government is open to considering alternative vendor-provided devices types if they meet requirements.

31 What was the system downtime for the incumbent's case management system for the last 90 days?

ICE would appreciate input on your service uptime capabilities in your RFI response.

32 In order to maximize competition and improve program performance, will ICE eliminate restrictive vendor-specific specifications that are based on dated technology and are biased towards the incumbent, and ensure that RFP evaluation accommodates and rewards innovative technologies that outperform the current specifications?

Please identify in your RFI response any overly restrictive specifications.

33 Because technology components are updated on a regular basis, brand new equipment has superior operating performance and contributes to program integrity.

Therefore, will ICE require the successful offeror to provide all brand new equipment for use in the next contract?

Allowing bidders to offer used equipment could reduce competition and result in inferior program performance.

ICE is open to considering all solutions that meet requirements.

34 Will Voice Verification be in the RFP? If no, would ICE consider Voice Verification if a GPS point was obtained during a Voice check-in?

ICE will not require Voice Verification but is open to considering this as a solution if it meets requirements.

35 Will the RFP require a removable wrist worn GPS device in addition to the non-removable wrist worn GPS device?

Any body worn device or device combinations will be considered as long as proposed solutions meet requirements.

36 Will battery life for all proposed devices be tested by ICE or by an independent source to confirm all vendors meet the required specifications? If not, how will battery life be evaluated in the RFP process? Would ICE consider evaluating more favorably vendors that exceed the required specifications?

ICE would appreciate input on your battery life capabilities and evaluation in your RFI response.

37 If ICE pursues a phased approach source selection process as described in the RFI, in order to promote competition, will ICE value a vendor's size, track record with ICE and the ability of the proposed technology to scale in lieu of an individual contract size given the unique scope and size of the current contract?

The Government is seeking information from industry to make an informed decision as to the best acquisition approach to include evalution factors for the ISAP- V program.

38 Given that the current proximity tamper specification is limited to one vendor in the traditional GPS monitor category, will ICE allow vendors to propose other types of tamper that achieve the same goal of providing immediate evidence a device has been removed from a non-citizen?

Yes, ICE is open to considering alternative vendor-provided solutions if they meet requirements. ICE would appreciate input on tamper specifications in your RFI response.

39 In ISAP IV, cultural orientation was a requirement of the program. Will that be a continued requirement in ISAP V?

Yes, subject to change.

40 Will a vendor be evaluated more favorably for increased efficiency and accountability measures, such as an improved court tracking plan?

ICE is seeking information from industry to make an informed decision as to the best acquisition approach to include evaluation factors for the ISAP-V program.

41 Will ICE confirm that the case management system will interface with EARM through CADS and that CADS can interface with multiple case management systems?

Yes, subject to change.

42 Will ICE be issuing a draft RFP and allow for ample time for comments and/or questions to that document from potential vendors/contractors?

To be determined.

Sheet1