47QFWAK0002_F2F GEMO Site Visit and DRAFT PWS Consolidated Q_A Govt Response_GEMO_2026 05 12_Final.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 40 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Fence to Fence Environmental Services for Grand Forks/Ellsworth/Minot AFB/Offutt (GEMO) Air Force Bases
- Solicitation number
- 47QFWA26K0002
About this file
This file is a consolidated question and answer (Q&A) document providing government responses to industry inquiries regarding a forthcoming Request for Quote (RFQ) for environmental services at four Air Force bases.
The solicitation concerns Fence to Fence Environmental Services for Grand Forks, Ellsworth, Minot AFB, and Offutt Air Force Bases (GEMO). Services required include environmental compliance support, air emissions inventory data management, Title V recordkeeping, EPCRA reporting, HAZMAT management program support, hazardous waste management, recycling programs, sampling and analysis monitoring, SPCC recertification, stormwater reporting and inventory updates, NPDES reporting, and environmental management system support. The requirement is classified under NAICS Code 541620 (Environmental Consulting Services) and Product Service Code F999 (Other Environmental Services). The GSA Federal Acquisition Service, Assisted Acquisition Services Division intends to issue the RFQ as a competitive Section 8(a) Set-Aside utilizing the OASIS+ Government-wide Acquisition Contract under the Environmental Domain with hybrid pricing structures including Firm-Fixed-Price, Time and Material, and Cost (No Fee) arrangements. Site visits were conducted April 20-23, 2026, with slides and a draft Performance Work Statement released for industry review. The question submission deadline was May 4, 2026, at 3:00 p.m. CST, with formal solicitation anticipated within 30 days of the Q&A response. Inquiries should be directed to Contracting Officer Wesley Mason (wesley.mason@gsa.gov) or Contracting Specialist Audree Hicks (Audree.hicks@gsa.gov).
View the file
Other files
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Q&A
F2F GEMO Environmental Services SITE VISIT AND DRAFT PWS Review CONSOLIDATED QUESTION AND ANSWER (Q&A)
Company Name:
| Note to Prospective Offerors: Please provide the specific Slide No and/or paragraph reference using the Section/Sub-Section numbers in the document referenced. | |||||
| PART # | SLIDE / PARAGRAPH # | SLIDE / PARAGRAPH TITLE | QUESTION | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE | |
| 1 | C | 4 & 7.1.4 | Tasks & Transition In/Transition Out | How much transition time should the contractor anticipate between the award notification and the first day of contract performance? Section C.4 states "The contractor shall be prepared to perform services on the contract start date." In order to meet this PWS requirement, a minimum of 30 days of transition time is required. | Currently, there is no incumbent contract. The previous contract ended 28 Feb 2026. Therefore, the offeror must be prepared to perform the duties outlined in the PWS on the contract award date. |
| 2 | C | 4.1.1 | HW Contract Support | How many onsite personnel has the previous contractor provided to support this media area at each installation? Has the previous contractor provided adequate support at each installation? | Ellsworth: 3 people; Grand Forks: 2-3 people; Minot: 2 people; Offutt: 2-3 people. |
Minot would benefit from having 3-4 people onsite and potential back support for EESOH-MIS & reporting, but otherwise each base has been sufficient
| 3 | C | 4.1.1 | HW Contract Support | Is it permissible for personnel to obtain a valid Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) with an “H” endorsement after being hired? | The government would not limit personnel from securing H endorsement at contractor expense if the licensing is required. |
| 4 | C | 4.1.1 | HW Contract Support | Is EESOH-MIS fully implemented/utilized at each installation? Is there an installation where a more robust EESOH-MIS implementation will be expected above the current implementation/usage? | EESOH-MIS is being implemented at each installation, but more usage would be beneficial. |
| 5 | C | 4.1.1 | HW Contract Support | The HW Contingency Plan and QRGs are listed in this section as HW Report the contractor shall assist the MPM in preparing. The HW Contingency Plan and QRGs also have their own separate PWS Section, 4.1.6, that includes annual Plan updates when this Optional Task is awarded. What level of support is expected for the HW Contingency Plan and QRGs as part of PWS Section 4.1.1? | Refer to the PWS |
| 6 | C | 4.1.1.1 | HW Support Vehicle Truck)/Forklifts | Does the transportation of waste from shops within the installation fence line require DOT placarding on contractor‑operated vehicles? | No |
| 7 | C | 4.1.1.4 | Data Management and Technical Support | What is the frequency the contractor will be required to perform base-specific HW training at each site? | Each base has online training for basic training requirements, but a option of HW training from Ellsworth is in-person. Advanced training for base personnel that handle HW will be conducted as needed quarterly, biannually, or annually. |
| 8 | C | 4.1.1.4 | Data Management and Technical Support | What is the installation-preferred method of HW training at each site? | Basic training is online but at Ellsworth, there's in-person, online and at the Entrican Center. Advanced training is in person. |
| 9 | C | 4.1.1.4 | Data Management and Technical Support | When is the next Large Quantity Generator Report data set due to the installation at each site? | Minot: 1 March 2028 |
Ellsworth: 1 March 2027
GF: NA
Offutt: Two at the end of March and one due 1 July 10 C 4.1.1.5 Data Management and Technical Support When is the next Biennial Report data set due to the installation at each site? GMO March 2028 Ellsworth March 2027
| 11 | C | 4.1.3 | Recycling, Other Regulated Waste | How many man hours each week should the contractor anticipate dedicating to maintaining the Red Rag recycling program at MAFB? | 3-4 hour per week |
| 12 | C | 4.2.1 | Installation Hazardous Materials Program Support | How many onsite personnel has the previous contractor provided to support this media area at each installation? Has the previous contractor provided adequate support at each installation? | See response to question #2 |
| 13 | C | 4.2.1 | Installation Hazardous Materials Program Support | Is EESOH-MIS fully implemented/utilized at each installation? Is there an installation where a more robust EESOH-MIS implementation will be expected above the current implementation/usage? | See response to question #4 |
| 14 | C | 4.2.1 | Installation Administration/User Management for EESOH | What is the frequency of installation-specific training provided by the contractor in support of the Hazardous Materials Management Plan (HMMP) at each site? | There is no Hazardous Materials Management Plan |
| 15 | C | 4.2.3 | IHMP Support, Supplies | Will barcode equipment and supplies be procured through the IHMP Support Supplies task on this contract? | No |
| 16 | C | 4.3.3 | SAM, NPDES / Other Wastewater | For MAFB, can you please clarify if the contractor is responsible for sample collection and laboratory analysis of samples from the MAFs? If yes, please provide the number of samples per year and the approximate MAF locations. | None currently, or expected. |
During Government furloughs or reduction of staff, F2F will be required to sample if there is a MAF wastewater discharge event. There is an average of 3 discharges per year at the 15 MAFs; requiring 1-3 samples per discharge.
| 17 | C | 4.3.4 | SAM, Storm Water | For each installation, are storm water samples collected during business hours only? Or are samples required to be collected before/after standard base operating hours or on nights/weekends? | The contractor must meet the permit requirements |
| 18 | C | 4.4.1 | Assessment, Air | How many opportunity assessments are expected per year at each installation? | GEMO: 0-2 per year |
| 19 | C | 4.4.1.1 | Assessment, Air, NAAQS | How many New/Emerging AQ Requirements Evaluations are expected per year at each installation? | GEMO: 0-2 per year |
| 20 | C | 4.4.1.1 | Assessment, Air, NAAQS | Do current assessments exist for each installation for the contractor to update? Or will this be a new task to be created from scratch? | GEO: New tasks based on event |
M: Assessments exist in APIMS 21 C 4.4.4.2 Permit Decomposition and Compliance Assessments At each installation, how many shops per year need to be visited to verify ODS/Refrigerant compliance? GO: 1 shop E: 3 shops M: 2 squadrons a visited to verify ODS 22 C 4.4.4.2 Permit Decomposition and Compliance Assessments If shops outside of CE require compliance assessments for ODS/Refrigerants, please list them. GO: NA E: MXS, AGE, Commissary
M: MXS
| 23 | C | 4.4.4.3 | AQ Awareness and Shop-Level Training | Do AQ training slides or course material currently exist at each installation? Will the contractor only be required to update and expand on the current material or produce all material from scratch? Please respond based on the status of each installation for pricing purposes. | Yes, training material exists and the contractor will be requested to update/expand on current materials. |
| 24 | C | 4.5 | Wastewater and Stormwater, 6th bullet | Please provide a copy of the AMP work plans to be updated for pricing purposes. | CUI information will be sent out after award |
| 25 | C | 4.5 | Wastewater and Stormwater, 6th bullet | Please advise which AMPs will be applicable and the corresponding levels of service. | N/A |
| 26 | C | 4.5 | Wastewater and Stormwater, 7th bullet | Will the contractor be required to use the BUILDER database? | No |
| 27 | C | 4.5 | Wastewater and Stormwater, 13th bullet | Please elaborate concerning the extent of illicit discharge studies that will be required to determine prohibited waste. | Refer to the PWS/Solicitation for permit compliance requirements |
| 28 | C | 4.5 | Wastewater and Stormwater, 14th bullet | Are pretreatment NPDES permit survey checklists already created or will the contractor be expected to decompose the permits and create checklists from scratch? | BMP checklists exist |
| 29 | C | 4.5 | Wastewater and Stormwater | Please indicate the extent of effort expected for contamination source studies? | No effort expected, but dependent on extent of contamination. Refer to PWS sections for Reports NPDES, SWMP and SWPPP. |
| 30 | C | 4.5.7 | Plan Update, SWMP | Is the OAFB SWMP currently in the T-EMP template or will the contractor be required to update the current SWMP and put it into T-EMP? | Bases use TEMP |
| 31 | C | 4.5.7 | Plan Update, SWMP | Concerning outreach material, handouts, and training, are these materials available for updating or will the contractor be expected to create content from scratch? | Available for updating |
| 32 | C | 4.5.8 | Plan Update, SWPPP | For each installation, is the SWPPP currently in the T-EMP template or will the contractor be required to update the current SWPPP and put it into T-EMP? | Bases use TEMP |
| 33 | C | 4.5.8 | Plan Update, SWPPP | Concerning CSCEs, how many SWPPP documents are there for each installation? | GEO: 1 SWPPP tasks. |
M: 44 IAP documents
| 34 | C | 4.5.8 | Plan Update, SWPPP | For each installation, concerning handouts and training, are materials available for updating or will the contractor be expected to create content from scratch? | See response to question #31 |
| 35 | C | 4.6.2 | Consultation Native American | For each installation, please describe the consultation support that is expected of the contractor. Will each installation be hosting an annual NA Consultation meeting that will require contractor planning and support? Will each installation require contractor support for outreach letters and documentation? Other tasks or activities? | Refer to the PWS |
| 36 | C | 4.6.5 | Survey/Inventory Update, Cultural Resources, Archaeological | Please clarify how compensation for TCS participants will be managed. Based on the unknown quantity of required participants and their expense requirements at this time, can this requirement be identified on a case-by-case basis and reimbursed through the CTP process? | Refer to the PWS |
| 37 | C | 4.7.2 | Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (ISWMP) | For each installation, is the current ISWMP and CMA in the T-EMP template or will the contractor be required to update the current documents and put them into T-EMP? | Bases use TEMP |
| 38 | C | 4.7.3 | Solid Waste Minimization and Cost Optimization | Is this task intended to be the "thorough solid waste study" that is mentioned in Section 4.7.2, ISWMP? If this task is not awarded when the ISWMP Update task is awarded, is the intent for the contractor not to perform a solid waste study? Please clarify the solid waste study requirement for each task, 4.7.2 and 4.7.3. | Refer to the PWS |
| 39 | C | 4.9.2 | Plan Update, EMS Action Plan | What is the typical amount of EAPs at each installation at any given time? How many should the contractor expect to update existing documents, and how many should the contractor expect to develop from scratch? | Refer to the PWS |
| 40 | C | 4.12.1.3 | FRP Update (EAFB, GFAFB and MAFB) | This PWS Section is not listed in Table 1. Please add the installation and contract year information for this task to Table 1. | Non-Concur. This is a sub-task to Plan Update, SPCC Recertification (5-Year) (EAFB, GFAFB and MAFB) . PWS revised |
| 41 | C | 4.12.1.4 | Integrated Contingency Plan Update (One Plan) (OAFB) | This PWS Section is not listed in Table 1. Please add the installation and contract year information for this task to Table 1. | Non-Concur. This is a sub-tasks to Integrated Contingency Plan Update (One Plan) (OAFB). PWS revised |
| 42 | C | 7.19 | Multiple | There are seven instances of California-specific requirements present in many of the personnel requirements that likely need to be updated. Search for "California." | Concur. PWS revised to specify "GFAFB, EAFB, MAFB, and OAFB or as required in the applicable states." |
| 43 | F | 7 | Hours of Operation | What are the expected hours of operation for contractors at each installation? | GMO: 8-4 M-F |
E: 7-4 M-F
| 44 | G | 2.1 & 2.2 | T&M CLINs, FFP CLINs | Please specifically identify which Labor CLINs (Basic and Optional) are FFP and T&M. We understand that Travel and OLM CLINs are T&M, please confirm. | Refer to the PWS |
| 45 | General | Will the government consider an extension to the Q&A period given the timing of the Performance Work Statement release on 4/30/2026. | The offeror will be afforded an opportunity to ask additional questions during the formal solicitation Q&A phase | ||
| 46 | General | Can the government provide all supplemental documentation for this solicitation such as base specific reports, plans and permits? | Yes, Additional information will be provided with the formal solicitation | ||
| 47 | General | Will the government consider the evaluation of Basic tasks only for the LPTA pricing and award since it is unknown whether Optional tasks will be awarded? | Yes, this will be taken under advisement. However, the Optional tasks are essential to meeting the overall environmental service effort | ||
| 48 | General | Will the government’s evaluation of the contractor’s technical approach include an assessment of whether proposed staffing levels (e.g., number of FTEs) are sufficient to meet the PWS requirements? | Evaluation factors will be provided in the formal solicitation | ||
| 49 | C.4.1.1.3 | Satellite Accumulation Point Assessment | Is the contractor responsible for SAP follow-up visits to ensure inspection findings are corrected? | GMO: Not out of the regular cycle of inspecting. Findings are tracked by MPMs. |
E: Contractors are responsible for following up after 30 days of a finding to ensure it was addressed.
| 50 | C.4.1.1.3 | Satellite Accumulation Point Assessment | Is the contractor responsible for entering SAP inspection deficiencies into EASIER? | Not at GEO bases, but Minot tracks inspection findings in EASIER |
| 51 | C.4.1.1.4 | Data Management and Technical Support | Can the government provide copies of the HWMPs and HW Contingency Plans? | Yes, the government will provide copies of the plans to the vendors. |
| 52 | C.4.1.3 | Recycling, Other Regulated Waste | Can the government provide an instance when historically a local energy service recovery hauler can not be used to recover used oil and the alternative method must be used? Alternative method(s) appear to be much more labor intensive. | No, have not needed to find other haulers. |
| 53 | C.4.1.6 | Plan Update, HW Contingency | For the Offutt specific RCRA Contingency Plan, can the government clarify the "development" effort for this task? Does a RCRA Contingency Plan currently exist for Offutt? If not, is the contractor responsible for developing the plan from scratch? | No RCRA Contingency Plan exists. An AFCEC template will be available |
| 54 | C.4.2 | Hazardous Material Management | Regarding excess expired HM, do any of the Bases have a historical backlog of HM above and beyond typical shop generation? Has the presence of expired HM ever been cited as a deficiency during State regulatory inspections? | Not at GEO bases, but Minot has had a backlog that has required getting state extensions to remove HM/HW from the base. |
| 55 | C4.2.1.1 | Process Authorization | On average, how many personnel require aspects of HM training each month? Are training materials available for use by the contractor? | Ellsworth: 0; Grand Forks: 3-5; Minot: 4-10; Offutt: 2-5 |
Yes, updates might be required
| 56 | C4.2.1.2 | Installation Administration/User Management for EESOH-MIS | On average, how many EESOH-MIS users are there at each Base? | Ellsworth: 166; Grand Forks: 125; Minot: 230; Offutt: 200 |
| 57 | C4.2.1.3 | Compliance Site Visits-HM | On average, how many HM storage facilities are there at each Base that require inspection? | Ellsworth: 118; Grand Forks: 55; Minot: 99; Offutt: 70 |
| 58 | C4.2.1.3 | Compliance Site Visits-HM | Is the contractor responsible for entering HM storage location inspection deficiencies into EASIER? | No |
| 59 | C.4.2.2 | Reporting, EPCRA | Can the government confirm that the contractor is responsible for preparation and submission of the EPCRA Tier II and TRI reporting data and not simply mining the data for the MPM to prepare the reports? | GMO: Yes |
E: HM MPM prepares EPCRA reports & submits
| 60 | POL/Storage Tanks | During the site visit, it was mentioned that the Grand Forks AFB FRP would require significant work to address EPA comments and make overall improvements. Please expand on the expectations for the FRP update. | All requirements are provided in the PWS |
| 61 | POL/Storage Tanks | Please provide the SPCC Plans, FRPs, and/or ICPs for all bases. | Duplicate question. |
| 62 | Stormwater, Wastewater | Is a pH/temperature meter GFE at GFAFB for use when sampling stormwater and/or wastewater? | Yes |
| 63 | Stormwater, Wastewater | Is a pH/temperature meter GFE at MAFB for use when sampling stormwater and/or wastewater? | Yes |
| 64 | Stormwater, Wastewater | Is a pH/temperature meter GFE at EAFB for use when sampling stormwater and/or wastewater? | Yes |
| 65 | Stormwater, Wastewater | Is a pH/temperature meter GFE at OAFB for use when sampling stormwater and/or wastewater? | Yes |
| 66 | Stormwater, Wastewater | Will the contractor be responsible for purchasing supplies for GFE meters? | Yes |
| 67 | Hazardous Waste | Will the contractor be responsible for complete operation of the rag recycling operation at MAFB? |
How many rags are expected to be processed each week?
How many rags can the system launder per day? F2F will work with base MPMs for daily rag recycling operations.
Average of 500 per week.
System has the potential to launder 800-1000 over a 8-10 hr. day.
| 68 | F2F Site Visit Slides | 12 | Acquisition Timeline | When should we expect the final PWS? | The final PWS will be issued with the formal solicitation. Anticipated release the end of May or early June |
| 69 | F2F Site Visit Slides | 12 | Acquisition Timeline | When can we expect the Instructions to Offerors? | The Instruction to Offerors will be issued with the formal solicitation. See question above |
| 70 | F2F Site Visit Slides | 12 | Acquisition Timeline | Could the Government please provide offerors two-weeks after the final solicitation is issued to ask questions? | Offerors will be afforded 10-14 calendar day for questions. The final PWS will have minimal revisions from the DRAFT PWS |
| 71 | 1 | Slides – “PWS References” | Deliverables / ASSIST submission | The slides state that deliverables/reports shall be submitted through ASSIST. Please confirm whether all CDRLs (including drafts) must be uploaded to ASSIST in addition to any email transmittals, and whether there is any required naming convention (e.g., TO#, base, CDRL#, version). | All contract deliverables should be submitted through ASSIST. Duplicative effort of sending through email is unnecessary. Requirement will be addressed post award. |
| 72 | 1 | PWS CDRL Notes (Deliverables table notes) | Deliverables transmittal / cover letter | The PWS notes deliverables are to be transmitted with a cover letter on Prime letterhead and that a copy of the deliverable and cover letter shall be attached in ASSIST. Please confirm whether the cover letter must be a separate PDF for each deliverable and whether this applies to routine monthly deliverables (e.g., CPSMR, meeting minutes). | The cover letter should not be a separate file from each deliverable |
| 73 | 1 | PWS CDRL Notes (Deliverables markings) | Data rights / proprietary markings | Please clarify what the Government considers “non-conforming markings” for deliverables and whether a company standard footer (copyright/confidential) is prohibited on deliverables submitted under this TO. | Yes, copyright/confidential language are considered non-conforming marking. Please refer to FAR 27.4 - Rights in Data, DFARS 227.7102 and clause 52.227-7015, Technical Data–Commercial Products and Commercial Services |
| 74 | 1 | PWS F.4 Deliverables Media | Electronic formats | The PWS lists acceptable formats (Word/Google Docs/PDF; Excel/Sheets; PPT/Slides; Visio/Drawings). Please confirm whether PDF is required as the official final for narrative deliverables in addition to an editable native format, or if either is acceptable unless otherwise specified. | Either are acceptable except where specified |
| 75 | 1 | PWS C.6.4 | Post-Award Meeting/Teleconference | For the post-award meeting within 10 days of task order issuance, please confirm whether the Government prefers in-person or virtual, and identify any required participants (installation POC, COR, CO, PM) by role for scheduling. | Prefer in-person kickoff meeting with MPM and HW contractor support. |
| 76 | 1 | PWS C.4.2.1.2 | EESOH-MIS Admin/User Management | The PWS requires a log of individuals who received technical support/training and submission in the monthly report. Please confirm whether the Government has a preferred log format and whether any portion of this log is considered sensitive (PII) requiring redaction before submission in ASSIST. | There is not a log template for contractor use and the information can be incorporated into your Activity Summary Report (X034). The log should not contain PII information. |
| 77 | 1 | PWS C.4.2.1.2 | SAAR management | Please clarify whether the Contractor is expected to prepare SAAR packages for users (as a drafting/administrative support role) or only to “track users and ensure all SAAR forms are up-to-date” once the Government prepares/initiates them. | Refer to the PWS |
| 78 | 1 | PWS C.4.2.2 | EPCRA Reporting | The PWS requires drafts to be provided with sufficient time (2 weeks) for Government review prior to due dates. Please confirm whether “2 weeks” means 10 business days or 14 calendar days, and whether the Government will specify EPCRA internal suspense dates by base. | PWS revised to 10 Business days; Yes |
| 79 | 1 | PWS C.4.1 Task 1 | HW management scope (EESOH-MIS, manifests) | Please confirm the process for “documents associated with hazardous/non-HW removal and disposal” requiring Government review/signature—specifically, what lead time is required for review/signature prior to scheduled shipments and who is the designated DAF signatory at each installation. | Refer to the PWS |
| 80 | 1 | PWS C.6.13.1 | Laboratories / SEDD requirement | The PWS requires labs to provide results via electronic files compatible with USEPA SEDD format for import to EESOH-MIS. Please clarify whether the Government has a preferred laboratory (or existing lab contracts) at each installation, or if the Contractor is fully responsible for procuring qualified labs. | Qualified labs have been identified. |
| 81 | 1 | PWS C.6.13.1 | Lab audits | Please clarify the expected frequency/scope of laboratory audits and performance evaluation sample programs (who performs, what standard, and whether audits are required annually or only “where applicable”/per task order direction). | Refer to the PWS |
| 82 | 1 | Slides – “Site Tour” | Access to GFE/current contractor equipment | During the site tour, the slide requests access to any GFE/current contractor equipment and the process of how they are used. Please identify which GFE items will be available to view at each installation and whether current contractor equipment/process demonstrations will be permitted. | Refer to the PWS |
| 83 | 1 | PWS Attachment C, Table 3-1 | Government Furnished Equipment – calibration/maintenance | Table 3-1 lists GFE by installation and indicates calibration/maintenance expectations. Please confirm whether routine calibration and preventive maintenance for listed GFE is the Contractor’s responsibility and whether funding is included under the fixed-price tasking or will be handled as ODC/OLM when needed. | Refer to the PWS |
| 84 | 1 | PWS Attachment C – “Unique Equipment Supply or other Requirements” | Contractor-furnished equipment/supplies | The PWS notes potential unique needs (forklift, trucks, iPads for inspections, labels/printers, repair/maintenance of AF unique equipment, etc.). Please confirm what items are expected to be contractor-furnished versus Government-provided at each base, and whether any of these are expected to be proposed as ODC/OLM. | Refer to the PWS |
| 85 | 1 | PWS H.4 (Security Requirements) – H.4.2; and PWS H.4 (Security Requirements) – NACI Tier-1 (SF85) paragraph | Security Clearances / Background Investigations | Please confirm whether performance under this TO requires any personnel security clearance eligibility/access (e.g., Confidential/Secret/Top Secret) for any labor categories, installations, facilities, or tasks. If yes, please identify: (1) the required clearance level(s); (2) the specific locations/tasks driving the requirement; (3) whether cleared access is required at award/start or may be obtained post-award; and (4) whether the Government will accept personnel with the minimum NACI Tier-1 (SF85) position-of-trust investigation and CAC/AFNET access for all routine work that does not involve classified access. | Refer to the PWS |
| 86 | 1 | PWS C.7.10 | Required Qualifications (Labor Categories) | Do the minimum qualifications in C.7.10 apply to all personnel proposed/performing under the TO (including part-time, surge, and subcontract staff), or only to key staff? Please confirm whether resumes must clearly map each individual to one of the PWS labor categories and demonstrate compliance at time of award. | Refer to the PWS |
| 87 | 1 | PWS C.7.5.2 / H.5 | Identification and Change of Critical Contractor Personnel | Please identify which roles the Government considers “critical contractor personnel” for this TO (e.g., Program Manager, Project Manager, Media PMs, etc.) and whether the Government requires pre-approval for substitutions of any additional non-critical roles beyond those designated critical. | Refer to the PWS |
| 88 | 1 | PWS C.7.19 / C.6.1 | Contractor Personnel Training / Proof of Training | Please confirm what training documentation the Government expects the contractor to maintain/provide (e.g., certificates, training rosters, LMS records) and whether the Government will require submission proactively (at onboarding) or only “if requested”/during surveillance. | Refer to the PWS |
| 89 | 1 | PWS C.6.2 and/or C.7.19.1 | Environmental Awareness Training | Please confirm the installation-specific environmental awareness training requirements for each GEMO base (Ellsworth, Grand Forks, Minot, Offutt), including required course titles, delivery method (online/in-person), and completion deadlines after onboarding. Also, the PWS references a “Desert Tortoise Awareness Briefing”; please confirm whether this applies to GEMO installations or is not applicable. | Refer to the PWS |
&"Times New Roman,Italic"&10Template Version 09-26-24 &"Times New Roman,Regular"&10Page &P of &N image1.PNG
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .