Request for Proposal (RFP) for Homeland Security Consulting Services/PHYSICAL SECURITY PLAN PSC # /06

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Request for Proposal (RFP) for Homeland Security Consulting Services/PHYSICAL SECURITY PLAN PSC # /06"

Patricia Collins
5 years ago
Views:

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Request for Proposal (RFP) for Homeland Security Consulting Services/PHYSICAL SECURITY PLAN PSC #4079-05/06 Pre-Proposal Conference Notes Thursday, April 13, 2006 To

1 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Request for Proposal (RFP) for Homeland Security Consulting Services/PHYSICAL SECURITY PLAN PSC # /06 Pre-Proposal Conference Notes Thursday, April 13, 2006 To facilitate a fair and competitive procurement process, the Port offers the following information in response questions submitted in writing and as a part of the Pre-Proposal Conference held Thursday, April 13, Interested parties are strongly encouraged to review all addenda for official changes, additions or deletions to the RFP. Such addenda are incorporated into the RFP as if a part of the original released RFP document. CLARIFICATIONS/QUESTIONS 1. QUESTION: Will the Brooks Act apply to this contract? This RFP solicits planning consulting services. The scope of work does not involve architectual and Engineering design services. As such, the Brooks Act does not apply. 2. QUESTION: What is the amount of the grant used for this contract? As indicated in the RFP, the contract to be awarded from this process will be funded by the United States Department of Homeland Security s Urban Areas Security Initiative Grant. While the Port has received approval to use a portion of the total grant funds specifically for this procurement, proposers are reminded that the proposed fee must reasonably reflect market rates, the required labor and resources to complete the specified scope of work. The Port intends to award this contract to the firm that it considers will provide the best overrall program services. The Port has requested and received approval to use $300,000 for this contract of which 10% will be reserved for other unforseen services that are essential, but not included in the RFP scope of work. The Port reserves the right to award a contract that is lower or higher depending on the required fee to secure the solicited services. 3. QUESTION: Since this is a federally funded contract, why isn t the Port applying federal Small Business Enterprise or Disadvantaged Business Enterprise subconsulting goals to this contract? A Federal Small Business Enterprise or Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program does not apply to the use of these funds. The Port, however, has affirmatively reached out to known Disadvantaged Business Enterprises that offer the services required in this RFP to solicit their participation. 4. QUESTION: Page 5; Evalaution and Scoring Criteria. Please explain how the fee proposal will be scored. All proposals will be evaluated to determine if all services required in the scope of work are being offered. The fee proposal score is estimated at 10 points out of the total 35 points allocated to the Project Approach Scoring Criteria. Then, the lowest fee would receive the total number of points assigned to the fee evaluation criterion. The other fee proposals would then be scored by dividing the amount of the lowest fee by the fee proposal being scored and Page 1 of 5

2 multiplying the result by the total number of points assigned to the fee evaluation criterion. Under that formula, a proposer who offers the lowest fee proposal of $10,000 receives all 10 points and a proposal that offers $15,000 would receive a score of 6.7 points ($10,000 divided by $15,000, multiplied by 10 points). As stated in the RFP, final selection will be based upon the proposed providing the best quality of services at the most reasonable price. If during negotiation with the highest ranking proposer, the Port is unable to reach a fee agreement that is deemed reasonable, such negotiation shall terminate and the Port may commence negotiations with the next highest ranked firm. 5. QUESTION: In clarification of Appendix B (Calculation of Charges), of the RFP, how should travel, lodging and per diem charges be calculated within the detailed proposed costs and estimated fees. Are these line items to be considered pass through costs or part of overhead. Please identify the per diem calculation specific to your locale that will be utilized as a part of this RFP. Travel (including per diem) cost is considered part of overhead, except travel at another location outside of San Francisco for the benefit of the Port's official business under the contract scope of work. Firms located outside of the San Francisco Bay Area that requiring travel costs to perform the required work should footnote their overhead cost to itemize such travel costs. 6. QUESTION: Does the Port have a preference for having the same firm perform the Emergency Operations Plan and the Physical Security Plan? No. Each solicitation was issued separately because we anticipate awarding two separate contracts. However, this does not preclude any firm from competing for both contracts. 7. QUESTION: What does the Port mean by Higher Education under the Minimum Qualifications? A four year degree, graduate degree or post-graduate degree. 8. QUESTION: Can you provide aerial photographs? The best up todate aerial maps of the Port are available using the Google Earth website. Schmatic maps that include Port jurisdictional boundaries are available on the Port s website: under Real Estate maps. These two sources combined should provide best intitial orientation to the Ports domain and adjacent City properties. Additional pier specific drawings can be provided in support of the awardees production of the plan. 9. QUESTION: What will be the Coast Guard role in the development of the Plan? The firm awarded this contract will be expected to interview the Coast Guard and the Coast Guard may review draft documents. However, Coast Guard authorization and approval is not required. 10. QUESTION: Is the firm that did the Vulnerability Assessment eligible to compete for this work? 11. Yes. However, that firm has not directly requested a copy of the RFP from the Port as of this writing. 12. QUESTION: What systems will the selected Consultant have to design or implement for this contract? This solicitation is for planning work only. Although the plan will be used to identify systems that need to be designed or implemented, the consultant is expected to develop a Port-wide plan to address the Port s Physical Security. 13. QUESTION: Is the Consultant responsible for reviewing terminal operator Physcial Security Plans? Page 2 of 5

3 No. However, it is expected that terminal operators will be interviewed. 14. QUESTION: Please address certain dangerous cargo. This term is defined pursuant to the Marine Transportation Security Act (MTSA) of Guidelines for additional requirements for receiving and delivery of certain dangerous cargo (CDC) at Maritime Facilities are listed under 33 CFR The Port currently does not handle much containerized cargo and therefore our volumes of CDC are minimal. Occureences of CDC do take place at Pier 80, 94/96 and QUESTION: How will the PG&E power plants be addressed in the Physical Security Plan? The two power plants are the Hunterspoint and Potrero. Both are adjacent to Port property and are to be addressed in terms of their potential risk and vulnerability impact to Port facilities accordingly. 16. QUESTION: Can you provide a list of the Port tourist attractions? Virtually any area where there is interaction of tourists on Port property. The major tourist atractions are listed in the RFP introduction. 17. QUESTION; How should ferries and cruise/cargo terminals be addressed in the Plan? How many are there? ANSWERS; There is one permanent cruise terminal located at Piers 35 with Pier 27 and 30/32 used as temporary facilities. Each year security plas are stood up and down during vessel calls (13 calls this year). There are five locations currently where ferry-excursion vessel facilities operate. Piers 43.5, 41 and 33/31 are the ferry/excursion terminals under lease to service providers. The Ferry Building and the Ballpark are the locations of ferry terminals operated by the Port. The Ferry Building location also includes the Golden Gate Bridge District operated ferry terminal. There are currently several concepts for modification at these terminal and new locations. However, only existing ferries and cruise/cargo terminals are to be considered at the time of the proposal deadline. 18. QUESTION: Will the successful bidder s POSF physical security plan replace a plan that is currently in effect? Will it eliminate the requirement for the Captain of the Port to oversee physical security for the Port, or will it become a joint effort. The Physical Security Plan will not replace a plan that is currently in effect. It will not replace the Facility Security Plans required by MTSA, or eliminate any Captain of the Port requirements under MTSA, but rather will complement these plans and fill current gaps in the Port s security planning. 19. QUESTION: Introduction: The last paragraph of the RFP asks for procedures. Can the port be more specific? This would be understood to be prevention, protection, response, and recovery procedures. Actions to follow, or measures taken, to carry out the Physical Security Plan. Your understanding is correct as to procedures. See Section II, elements A, B and C for specifics. 20. QUESTION: Section I and Section II.E: Can the port clarify in what respect it expects the physical security plan to be NIMS-compliant? Based on IEM s knowledge of NIMS, typical physical security plan contents, and the fact that the port has an emergency operations plan, it would seem that updating the emergency operations plan so that it is NIMS-compliant and integrating the physical security plan with it would meet the intent of the port. Page 3 of 5

4 Since the City and County of San Francisco, as well as the Port, will use ICS during EOC, DOC or ICP activation, procedures detailed in the Physical Security Plan must be capable of integrating with that structure. 21. QUESTION: Section II: Can the port provide a clarification of the meaning and understanding of the following: "This plan will help facilitate the acquisition and placement of specific emergency communications equipments..." Based upon procedures developed for the Physical Security Plan, the Port may install or upgrade voice or data equipment to improve communications to a particular area of the Port. 22. QUESTION: Section II: The RFP mentions implementing a new security camera system for the port. Will this also require a new monitoring system and facility? If so, will employee training be expected as part of the requirement? Further, a new security camera system would seem to indicate, at the very least, an upgrade in lighting to make the system more efficient. Will a lighting upgrade be part of the plan? Detailed plans for equipment, placement, or employee training are not included in this project s scope. 23. QUESTION: Section II.A: This section implies that no physical security plan currently exists for the Port of San Francisco. Please confirm whether or not this is true. If not, what planning or procedures for physical security exist at the port at this time? The Port has Facility Security Plans, as required by the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA). 24. QUESTION: Section II.B: The RFP calls for mitigating identified vulnerabilities. Will the selected consultant be required to expand upon vulnerabilities already identified? Updating the Security Vulnerability Assessment is not within the Scope of Work of this project. 25. QUESTION: Section II.C: Which format should the "checklist, graphics and job aids for field use" be in what format besides as appendices in the plan (e.g., a handbook or electronic for "Palm Pilots"?)? The checklist, graphics and job aids for field use must be simple to reproduce and easily carried in the field. Electronic versions are not required in the scope of this RFP. 26. QUESTION: Section II.D: Does the port have an identified list of best practices developed by the transportation industry? No. 27. QUESTION: Section II.F through Section II.J: It appears that these requirements may have been inadvertently carried into this RFP from the RFP for Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), PSC # /06, due to their wording. Please clarify if these requirements are indeed intended for the physical security plan, and, where possible, indicate the port s intentions for these requirements. See question 1 in Addendum 1, Physical Security Plan RFP re EOP wording error. It is recommended to review all applicable documents, with emphasis on Capabilities-Based Planning Tools & TCL in HSPD-8: NIMS and NRP (in particular, ESF s and Incident Annexes) in HSPD-5; and CIPP in HSPD-7. This is not a complete list of research items within each Scope of Work element, nor does it limit consultants from including other items which, in their professional estimation, would improve the quality of the completed Physical Security Plan. 28. QUESTION: Section II.K: Will the selected consultant have access to the port's previously completed security vulnerability assessment report? If so, will the selected consultant be required to create a parallel report or an update to the one already completed? Page 4 of 5

5 To view the Security Vulnerability Assessment, contact the Homeland Security Manager. The Assessment will be available for use by the consultant selected to develop the Physical Security Plan. 29. QUESTION: Section III.B.3.c: The last sentence states, If joint consultants or sub consultants are proposed provide the above information for each. Please clarify if three project descriptions are required for each joint or sub consultant, if this means that 3.a c. are required for each sub consultant. This would require an increase in the page limit for Firm Qualifications if joint or sub consultants are used. Question addressed in Addendum 1, Physical Security Plan RFP. Page 5 of 5

ADDENDUM NO. 1 Kansas City Area Transportation Authority 1350 E. 17 th Street Kansas City, Missouri 64108

ADDENDUM NO. 1 Kansas City Area Transportation Authority 1350 E. 17 th Street Kansas City, Missouri 64108 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) 18-4016-28A TEMPORARY STAFFING AGENCY SERVICES Issue Date: December