RFP-PCC-0023 _Q A's.pdf

RFP‐PCC‐0023, Q&A February 11, 2015

1 | P a g e

Questions and Answers:

1. The second Decisional Rule Criterion indicates a definition of an existing facility is included in the Performance Work Statement, however; we have not been able to find this definition. Please clarify. (Section L, Page 35)

Answer: See amendment #01, which removed this language.

2. Can beds may be added to an existing facility which does not currently meet the bed thresholds listed in CAR 16 and 17 (1,200 and 2,000 beds respectively)?

Answer: Yes, see amendment #01. Any construction, expansion or renovation to the proposed facility must show that it will not interfere with or delay the arrival of the inmates. All inmate beds must be in compliance with the solicitation requirements.

3. Will the BOP allow for vendors to propose other facilities not submitted as a place of performance in accordance with the J-13, Offeror’s Intent to Propose, which is due on 02/06/2015? (RFP-PCC-0023 Cover Letter)

Answer: Yes, see Amendment #01.

4. CAR 16/17 calls for a 100% capacity basis pricing structure. Does the BOP have any plans to actually exceed 100% of the stated capacity, as has been the case under CAR 5/6, and if so, how does the BOP intend to address pricing for such housing demand above the stated capacity? (Section B, page 5)

Answer: No, the BOP does not plan to exceed the 100% rated capacity at award.

5. Section M.5 identifies a Risk Assessment audit that will be used to score each vendor’s proposal. Can the BOP please provide clarity on the evaluation method and/or criteria to be used to rate vendor proposals? Is the vendor required to submit anything with respect to the Risk Assessment audit? (Section M, page 43)

Answer: The BOP may apply a low, medium or high risk to all evaluation criteria. The criteria for any rating will be based on the narrative spelled out in the solicitation Section M.5, Risk Assessment. The solicitation does not require that a vendor submit anything with respect to the Risk Assessment.

6. In order to enhance the process in improving the inmate’s condition and ongoing treatment of chronic diseases and other related health conditions, will vendor’s be allowed to utilize Tele-Health in the diagnosis and treatment of our inmate population?

(Section O, Page 5)

2 | P a g e

Answer: Tele-Health is not intended to replace the requirements of the Performance Work Statement. Any proposed use of Tele-Health should be clearly documented in your proposal.

7. Based on the institution’s mission as well as the staff and community resources available at the institution, will vendors be allowed to specifically utilize Tele-Psychiatry in the diagnosis and treatment of the inmate population as stated in P6340.01, Page 5 and 6?

(Section O, Page 50)

Answer: Tele-Psychiatry is not intended to replace the requirements of the Performance work statement. Any proposed use of Tele-Psychiatry should be clearly documented in your proposal.

8. Amendment 1 revised Decisional Rule Criterion #2 to require the offeror to show that any construction, expansion or renovation to the proposed facility will not interfere with or delay the arrival of inmates. Is it the Bureau's intention that all construction, expansion or renovation be completed prior to accepting the first inmate or may construction, expansion or renovation continue through the ramp up phase as long as it does not interfere with the facility's ability to accept 80 per week as indicated in the PWS (page 3 lines 20-21)? (Amendment #01, Page 2)

Answer: No, The solicitation allows for construction, expansion or renovation (to include that which may increase the occupancy levels of the proposed facility as it was on the date the solicitation was posted). It is the BOP’s intention that all construction, expansion or renovation be completed prior to issuance of NTP as the contractor must at that time be prepared to accept responsibility for performing all requirements of the contract.

9. The cover letter was revised by Amendment 1 to indicate all potential places of performance should be submitted (rather than must be submitted) to the Contracting Officer by February 6, 2105. Please confirm this change allows proposers to include additional facilities in their proposals, submitted by the proposal due date – currently March 9, 2015, that were not submitted via Attachment J-13 Offeror's Intent to Propose on February 6,2015. (Amendment #01, Page 2)

Answer: The closing date for all proposals is 12:00pm, March 9, 2015.

Attachment J-13 Offeror's Intent to Propose is not required to submit a proposal.

10. Item #2 Suggested server specifications lists Proliant dl 5160 which we are not familiar with. Was this intended to be Proliant dl 560? (Attachment J-19, Page 3)

Answer: This is a typographical error and should read DL 560.

3 | P a g e

11. Please confirm the operator will be allowed to maintain usage of all existing operational IT equipment until such time as it has failed. At that point the equipment would be replaced to comply with the latest Attachment J-19. (Attachment J-19, Page 2)

Answer: As stated in J-19 of this solicitation, if functional existing equipment for administrative file servers and network backup meet the functional requirements of the contract modification the contractor may continue to use and replace through standard life-cycle upgrades or as broken.

12. Page 3 of J-19 indicates, "If functional existing equipment for administrative file servers and network backup meet the functional requirements of the contract medication the contractor may continue to use and replace through standard life-cycle upgrades or as broken." The J-19 in place in the current contract references "IT computing equipment" in general, not specific items such as file servers and network backup. Would the BOP consider modifying the J-19 language in the RFP to reflect the language in the current contract? (Attachment J-19, Page 2)

Answer: No, the BOP has not considered modifying the J-19 language in the RFP to reflect the language in the current privatized corrections contracts.

13. In the event an offeror proposes multiple facilities, will the page limit of the Organizational Structure section of Volume 2A be increased to allow for a one page narrative, corporate organizational chart and an organizational chart of each facility proposed? (Section L.4, A.2, Page 36)

Answer: Yes, for each facility being proposed we allow for a one page narrative, one corporate organizational chart, and one facility organizational chart.

14. In the event an offeror proposes multiple facilities, the required information regarding arrest authority and use of force authority for the jurisdiction of each proposed facility could require much of the space allotted to the Institution Operations section of Volume 2A. Would the BOP consider exempting the arrest authority and use of force language in the page limit for this section? (Section L.4, B.2, Page 36)

Answer: If the offeror chooses to identify multiple locations in a single Volume #2-A, then a 2-page limitation per additional site will be used for site specific information with the exception of Volume 2A Organizational Structure which will be limited to a one page organizational chart of each facility proposed.

15. The contractor is required to notify the CO in writing of all litigation pertaining to this contract and provide pleadings filed or said litigation within five working days of the filing. In most instances, the contractor is not served with litigation within five days of the litigation being filed. Accordingly, we request to revise this sentence to require the

4 | P a g e contractor to notify the CO within five days of being served such litigation. (PWS, Pages 9-10)

Answer: The BOP prefers to leave this language as it is written; however, consideration may be granted on a case by case basis.

16. Part 1 – Section B – Supplies or Services and Prices/Cost- Do we provide both Schedule A and Schedule B? (Section B, Page 1)

Answer: The solicitation states that the offerors must submit Schedule A and Schedule B.

17. Three part question:

a. Do the provisions for the DBA apply to this RFP and/or resulting prime/sub contracts?

b. If the provisions for the DBA are NOT applicable, please confirm this RFP will not include any substantial and segregable construction work.

c. If the provisions for the DBA ARE applicable, please provide the following:

i. Detailed description of the project(s) or possible project(s) covered under DBA.

ii. Applicable DBA Wage Determination(s) for the appropriate

Construction Type(s) for the work to be completed. The Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division issues four types of Davis-Bacon Wage Determinations: Building, Residential, Highway and Heavy. A section of FAR 22.404-2 includes the general guidelines for each wage rate schedule.

Answer: No. The contract does not require construction as part of performance.

18. Are attachments considered part of the page count?

Answer: Yes, attachments are considered part of the page count.

19. Are attachments created in a different font or page size acceptable?

Answer: Yes, as long as the print is clearly legible.