May 29, 2009
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

May 29, 2009

on

  • 1,195 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,195
Views on SlideShare
1,195
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

May 29, 2009 May 29, 2009 Document Transcript

  • ADDENDUM for MULTI-REGION TARGET CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT RFP NO. EM-RFP-2009-01 HAMPTON ROADS PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION May 29, 2009    
  •   The following questions were submitted for clarification. Questions and subsequent responses are arranged according to the question’s respective section within the RFP. All subsequent questions need to be asked by 4:30pm EST on June 1, 2009. Any questions received after this date will not be answered. INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS______________________________________________ 1. How are the proposal evaluation criteria specified in section J of the RFP weighted, and how much is price weighted in the evaluation? The proposal evaluation criteria will be weighted on the following criteria Qualifications Technical Participation of Small, Women, and Minority-Owned Business Subsequently, price is not an evaluation criteria specified in section J. SCOPE OF WORK ___________________________________________________________ 1. Is there a particular survey tool or methodology that HR and CV UASI regions prefer using? Or, can proposer recommend a tool and methodology? A particular methodology has not been specified by the HR and CV UASI regions and the proposer may recommend a methodology. The proposed methodology will be evaluated as specified by the criteria within the RFP. Examples of federally developed capability assessments include the Federal Emergency Management Agency Pilot Capability Assessment, Department of Homeland Security National Preparedness System, and the Local Capability Assessment for Readiness. 2. Is there an expectation that the CV stakeholders (UASI working group) will conduct their own analysis of the data? Or, is it expected that the vendor will provide expert analysis and facilitation to assist the UASI group conduct this analysis? It is expected that the contractor will provide an analysis of the data from their perspective and provide an appropriate spending plan based on their analysis. CV wants the contractor to provide them with the methodology they used to arrive at their conclusions and the data they used so we can also conduct our own evaluation to a limited degree. HRPDC Page 2 of 6 EM-RFP-09-01
  • 3. Individual jurisdiction results and assessments are to remain private to the jurisdiction and are not to be included as part of the regional assessment. Can the data be used as part of the assessment, without attribution to locality? Yes, the information obtained from the jurisdictions is expected to be part of the regional assessment. However, the individual assessment of the jurisdictions would not be included within the final regional product. 4. Individual jurisdiction results and assessments are to remain private to the jurisdiction and are not to be included as part of the regional assessment. In assessing response capabilities and plans, does this stipulation preclude a regional document from containing a catalogue of response assets/capabilities by local/jurisdiction? No, the protection of individual jurisdiction’s information does not preclude a regional document from containing a catalogue of response asset/capabilities by local jurisdictions. However, any assessment of this type should focus only on assets that would be available to the region through functions such as a mutual aid agreement. 5. What does the reference to "risk verification" on page 7 of the RFP mean? Is there envisioned to be a risk assessment or risk analysis as a component of the scope of work for this RFP? Yes, it is envisioned that a risk assessment or risk analysis would be included within this RFP. The term risk verification was selected since current regional and local plans have identified risk; however, the methodology used to conduct the risk verification would be similar to that used in a risk assessment or risk analysis. 6. Page 8 of the RFP states that joint tasks 5 through 7 "should address each region as well as each jurisdiction," does this mean that findings from tasks 5 through 7 must be produced for (1) each of the two UASI regions, and (2)each of the 36 individual cities and counties that make up these two regions? Yes, however, jurisdiction specific tasks for 5-7 need to only focus on those items not already addressed within the regional assessment. 7. In the Objective section on page 7 of the RFP it refers to an "assessment of the needs to fill the identified gaps, and a three to five year spending plan to address identified needs;" is this referring to the work described in Task 7? Yes, the objective on page 7 is referring to Task 7. HRPDC Page 3 of 6 EM-RFP-09-01
  • 8. What is the approximate number of interviews that will be conducted to achieve the TCA? The specific number of interviews required to conduct the TCA has not been discussed. However, the HR and CV points of contact will aid in scheduling meetings and identifying the correct people. It is also expected that all applicable TCLs be discussed during a single meeting to save everyone time. 9. Will Buffer Zone Protection Plans (BZPPs) and relevant preparedness documents be provided to the contractor for review? Yes, any available material requested will be made available to aid in the TCA process. 10. Are the HR and CV UASI regions married to the 14 selected TCLs? Yes, the 14 selected TCLs were identified through a process within both UASI regions. However, a contractor may recommend additional TCLs to be reviewed, pending available funding. Further, it is expected that if through the process of reviewing other TCLs an additional TCL is almost finished, it is expected that the contractor would notify the HR point of contact. 11. Will the contractor be following the state or federal process regarding SSI? The federal process for SSI should be followed. Also, it is expected that jurisdiction specific information be treated as SSI in addition to regional documents that may not have jurisdiction specific information 12. Who will be providing the contractor with information? Both the HR and CV points of contact will aid in scheduling meetings, coordinating materials, and additional assistance as needed through the process. 13. Have the two UASI regions established a prioritized list of threats each region faces (if so where are the threats codified?); or will the vendor need to identify and prioritize the threats the regions face in an effort to identify capability requirements? Prioritized lists of threats have been conducted are available within local plans. However, at present a regionally prioritized list of threats is not available. Efforts associated with the regional prioritization of threats should be addressed within the risk verification task identified in the RFP. For additional clarification on the risk verification task, please refer to question five in this section. HRPDC Page 4 of 6 EM-RFP-09-01
  • REQUIRED SUBMITTALS_____________________________________________________ 1. If a firm is certified as a SWaM (Small, Women or Minority) vendor with the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Minority Business Enterprise (DMBE) will that meet the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) requirement? Yes, a certified SWaM does meet the requirement of a DMBE. 2. Ownership of firm by minority or participation of minority personnel, or subcontractors on the project - Does this requirement suggest that any minority personnel assigned to the project, associated with the Prime contractor, or working with a subcontractor; must be specifically identified as such? Only the company (primary or subcontractor) registered as a SWaM or DBE needs to be identified. This requirement does not include the identification of individual minority personnel. Furthermore, a lack of minority participation is not an automatic disqualification. OTHER______________________________________________________________________ 1. How much funding has been allocated for this effort? This will have a direct impact on the solution we propose in our response. Price negotiations will occur after the EM-RFP-09-01 proposals have been reviewed by a joint HR and CV UASI region committee. 2. What is the guidance for the budget submission/price proposal? Price negotiations will occur after the EM-RFP-09-01 proposals have been reviewed by a joint HR and CV UASI region committee. 3. Will the resulting contract be a CPFF type contract, a FFP type contract, or a T&M type contract? At present it is anticipated that the resulting contract with either be a Cost plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) or a Firm Fixed Price (FFP). 4. May the Professional Liability coverage requirements be met through self-insurance? Yes, professional liability coverage may be met by self-insurance. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION_________________________________________________ Mass Transit TCL - To clarify the Mass Transit TCL is not included within the 37 DHS TCLs. This is a pilot TCL that is currently available in draft form. The purpose of reviewing this TCL is to aid the three transit systems in addition to provide information regarding transit’s capability to aid the regions. This element does not include trains, taxis, ferries, or airports. HRPDC Page 5 of 6 EM-RFP-09-01
  • Attendance – The following individuals were in attendance at the EM-RFP-09-01 Pre-Proposal Conference on May 27, 2009. First Last Organization Phone Email Barry Ezell VMASC 757-638-4439 bezell@odu.edu Thomas Reese VMASC 757-638-4454 treese@odu.edu Jim Flaherty WBB Consulting 757-213-8170 x811 jflaherty@wbbinc.com George Gabriel WBB Consulting 757-213-8170 x906 ggabriel@wbbinc.com Frank Harper BDR 202-230-2406 fharper@beckdr.com Dave Hunt CRA 703-535-5203 dhunt@cra-usa.net Hank Lewis Zel Technologies LLC 757-722-5565 hank.lewis@zeltech.com Patrick McCormack Dewberry 757-641-6318 pmccormack@dewberry.com John Owens, Jr. Prevailance, Inc. 757-309-4572 john.owens@prevailance.com Vince Sakovich IEM 703-414-8192 vince.sakovich@iem.com Mark Scott IEM 703-414-8142 mark.scott@iem.com Joel Silverman CAN 703-568-2952 silvermj@cna.org Mike Vasquez IAP 804-869-2005 mvasquez@icfi.com Tammy Waldroup CRA 757-725-1878 twaldroup@cra-usa.net Darwin Washington Zel Technologies LLC 757-722-5565 darwin.washington@zeltech.com Ken Zaklukiewicz Michael Baker Jr., Inc. 702-282-7906 kzaklukiewicz@mbakercorp.com HRPDC Page 6 of 6 EM-RFP-09-01