5-29ResponsestoRFPQuestions.doc

5/30/2007 Response to DRAFT RFP Questions

Draft SOW

Evaluation Approach

Section C.1.3.2.1 Acquisition strategy currently favors low price. It should favor a highly secure credential with best value to the Government. Price comparisons should be done last.

For the Department of State to select the optimal (best value) solution for the PASS Card, the acquisition strategy should focus on technical (proposals and samples) evaluation before cost evaluation. To this end, we recommend that the solicitation be amended to reflect the following order of the evaluation process:

i. Technical proposal review and down-select

ii. Demonstration of top offeror’s products and down-select

iii. Government testing and down-select

iv. Price evaluation and award

To achieve a best value evaluation, we recommend that the total evaluation weighting consist of technical at 80% and cost at 20%. This structure will result in the selection of a contractor with a good to excellent technical score at a reasonable expense to the Department of State. Computing the total score would be done as follows:

i. Assign technical points 80% of total evaluated score) based on a scale determined by the Department of State

Assign price with 100% of points (20% of total evaluated score) attributed to lowest price bidder; all other bidders receive a point score based on how close their price is to the lowest price (i.e., Lowest Price/Bidders Price) RFP does not suggest that low price is favored. USG needs price information to make trade offs between price and security level even at the beginning of the evaluation process. “Security at any cost” is not a valid goal. Security level is always a trade off with cost (and other considerations as well.) Cost will remain a consideration in the first evaluation stages.

If an Offeror's proposed cost is determined to be outside a reasonable range, then a decision could be made not to incur further expense to both the Offeror and the Government by including the Offeror in the demonstration and testing phases.

Section M.2 states that technical merit is more important than cost or price.

No RFP changes made.

Draft SOW

Section C.4.1.1 10-Business days to deliver the Integration Kit (CLIN 0001) is unrealistic. It should be 3-months with the 50 card per hour laser (or 6-months including the 500 card per hour printer).

Unrealistic deadlines (e.g. 10-Business days to deliver the Integration Kit) will unnecessarily limit the competition on this procurement to those firms that have high volume and low/medium volume personalization laser engraving printers on the shelf (or the financial resources to pre-purchase the equipment in anticipation of an award) and that may provide less than ideal performance and quality. We strongly recommend that this requirement be extended to minimum of 90 days for the low/medium volume printer and 180 days for the high volume printer, provided that both have the same SDK interface.

The assumption is that the equipment used for the demonstration may make up the core of the Offeror’s integration kit.

USG is willing to negotiate card delivery schedule upon award. HOWEVER, it is imperative that card stock be available for integration purposes. The earliest delivery of a minimal amount of card stock needs to be 10 days. (i.e. 10 days for 500 card stock, with 500 card stock delivered per week until the 6000 card stock is delivered).

The High Volume Laser should be delivered 16 weeks after contract award. High Volume Laser equipment (even though it is commercially available) is not normally held in inventory by vendors. By allowing 16 weeks for delivery of the High Volume Laser, DoS can obtain the best of breed laser markers at a reasonable price. Requiring the High Volume Laser within 10 business days would eliminate qualified and high quality lasers that would be beneficial to the DoS program.

The assumption is that the equipment used for the demonstration may make up the core of the Offeror’s integration kit.

Draft SOW

Section C.7.3.1

Vendors are invited to submit separate proposals for differing solutions.

No RFP changes made.

Draft SOW

Section C.7.10 The optional Card Delivery System, if provided, must include an Automatic Vision System and the printed cards must move directly from the printer in an automated fashion. This should be changed in two ways. First, the Card Delivery System should be optional and not tied to the Automatic Vision System. Second, the requirement to move cards automatically from printer to Card Delivery System should be dropped.

The final RFP was updated to clarify this issue.

Draft SOW

Section J, Attachment A The passport card quality control (Page 5) bullet item “Match Passport Cards with Passport Books” should be removed. There is no other description of matching books and cards.

This is an operational consideration and not part of the RFP requirements. It will be removed to clear confusion.

The final RFP was updated.

Draft SOW

Section C.7.2.3 Throughput of the High Volume Card Printer should be stated as 500 cards per hour AT 300 dpi. Throughput of the Low Volume Card Printer should be specified as 50 cards per hour AT 300 dpi.

Throughput for High Volume Printer should be 500 cards per hour at 300 dpi.

Throughput for Low to Mid Volume Printer should be 50 cards per hour at 300 dpi.

Draft SOW

Section C.7.5 RF Attenuating Sleeves must enclose the card with 360 degrees line of sight. This should be changed to specify the 40dB attenuation regardless of card orientation.

C.7.5 is superseded by acceptance criteria in C.7.3.1.e for the RF Attenuating Sleeves, which is repeated in Section J, Attachment I. Since they seem to conflict, we will delete reference in Section C.7.5. The final RFP was updated.

Draft SOW

Printer Card Hopper Input Size Meets or Exceeds 1,000 cards. This should be changed to “input capacity (one or more hoppers) of 1,000 cards.

The final RFP was updated with the recommended change.

Draft SOW

Section C.7.2.3: Personalization Printer capabilities. The current document does not address laser marking quality. Additional language and evaluation criteria added to recognize the value of better laser marking quality.

Laser marking quality as an evaluation factor is listed in RFP Section L.

Draft SOW

Section C.7.2.1 Ability to print the entire MRZ as tactile elements. The MRZ should not be made tactile. It would introduce many read errors. Tactile elements can be marked on the card in other locations such as the expiry date.

Capability of laser printing MRZ was only to provide a performance goal, not to require tactile printing in that area.

Draft SOW

Section C.7.10 The Centralized Delivery System must be able to handle inserts. Please define what will be inserted, the number of items, and whether windowed envelopes can be used.

The final RFP was updated.

Draft SOW

Section C.7.2.4 Describes tactile features with varying height. Please clarify that height means point size not distance above the surface.

Tactile features may be included, but deleted reference in RFP.

Draft SOW

Laser Image Quality (C.7.2.4)

Draft SOW

“Under” Photo Area

Section C.7.3.1.h.iii Section C.7.3.1.h.iii: Describes the OVD located ON FACE UNDER PHOTO area. Please clarify that the OVD is stamped on the surface of the card.

It is unclear what is meant by the word “under” in this section. We recommend that OVDs be hot stamped on the card and that the resulting photo personalization be lasered through the OVD such that both the photo and the OVD are clearly visible and that no negative impact on quality of either the photo and OVD images or the performance of the OVD occurs.

Section C.7.3.1.h.iii was updated to clarify the requirement.

Draft SOW

Section C.7.3.3

Draft SOW

Passport Card Test Stock (C.7.4)

Please clarify at what point in the procurement process bidders will be required to submit such material. Also, what is meant by “continual testing”? How will this testing differ from/provide a complement to the testing of the printed and printed/personalized cards?

The passport issuance process is a never-ending cycle of software and hardware updates. It is necessary to conduct thorough testing of the complete system when these changes take place. The test stock will be used for this continual life-cycle change testing.

Draft SOW

Section C.7.7

Draft SOW

Section C.7.7

Draft SOW

Section J, Attachment C

Draft SOW

Section C.4

Draft SOW

Section C.7.13.1.2 Clarify acceptable shippers.

Acceptable shippers are bonded shippers as specified in Section C.9.1.2 of the RFP.

Draft SOW

Section J, Expected Passport Card Demand (Page 5).

Please provide volumes for years 3 and 4.

The RFP was updated to include rough order of magnitude estimates for years 3 and 4.

Draft SOW

Section J, Facilities Page 5).

No RFP changes made.

Draft SOW

Section J, Attachment E Will this contract have a Buy America clause?

Section K states: “The Government will evaluate offers in accordance with the policies and procedures of Part 25 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation. For line items covered by the WTO GPA, the Government will evaluate offers of U.S.-made or designated country end products without regard to the restrictions of the Buy American Act. The Government will consider for award only offers of U.S.-made or designated country end products unless the Contracting Officer determines that there are no offers for such products or that the offers for those products are insufficient to fulfill the requirements of this solicitation.”

Draft SOW

Section J, Att I, DoS Testing

Draft SOW

Department of State Security Feature Assessment (Attachment I)

No RFP changes made.

Draft SOW

Section C.7.3, Passport Card Stock Section C.7.3, Passport Card Stock: Please describe the decals to be adhered to the card, when will it be attached, and what is its function?

There are no current plans for decals to be adhered to the card. This will be negotiated if it becomes a future requirement.

Draft SOW

Section C.7.5, RF Attenuating Sleeves:

What will DoS print on the sleeves? How many colors? How many sides?

There are no current plans for printing on the card sleeve. This will be negotiated if it becomes a future requirement.

PAGE

5/29/2007

US DoS Passport Card Procurement