Attachment_L9_Amend_0005_Questions_Responses.pdf

Item

RFP Section Subsection/Paragraph Page Number Question/Comment Response

1 Section J

A resulting contract will be subject to the Service Contract Labor Standards clause, FAR 52.222‐41 (formerly known as the Service Contract Act). Please provide a copy of the applicable wage determination for California, San Mateo County, in accordance with FAR 22.1009‐4(d). See Attachment WD 15‐5637 Rev. 11.

The NSF has nine (9) vehicles stationed at Fairbanks facility. Site visit observation, there's no place at this location for vehicle maintenance. Question 1: Can NSF clarify if it's the contractor responsibility to perform vehicle maintenance? Question 2: If so, will the awarded contractor be expected to provide a facility to house repairs of these vehicles?

Question 1. Yes. Question 2. The Contractor will be expected to provide the best maintenance solution.

The facility located at 2325 Kings Road, Fairbanks AK. 99709: Question 1: Can NSF provide the name of the realtor for this facility? Question 2: Is the cost of this facility included the L‐2 plug number? Question 1: No. Question 2: Yes.

It was mentioned on the site visit at Toolik Station that the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) intends on placing a fulltime Emergency Medical Technician (EMT ) onsite. Question: If so, will they support the contractor and the contractor medical needs?

If an EMT is available at Toolik Field Station, the EMT is expected to serve the population at the station to the level of their ability.

It was stated on the site visit at Barrow that all of the office, warehousing, and lodging space is owned and operated by UIC. Question 1: Will the awarded contractor be able to lease the required space from UIC? Question 2: Are the lease costs for all of the facilities at Barrow in the L‐ 2 plug numbers? Question 3: Can NSF provide Points of Contacts for the UIC real estate office?

Question 1: See Amendment 0002, Attachment L‐7, response to question 13. See question 9 and response below. Question 2: Yes. Question 3: No.

It was stated on the site visit at kangerlussuaq that all of the office, warehousing, and lodging space is owned and operated by kangerlussuaq Airport Authority. Question 1: Will the awarded contractor be able to lease the required space from the Kangerlussuaq Airport Authority?

Question 2: Are the lease costs for all of the facilities at kangerlussuaq in the L‐2 plug numbers?

Question 3. Can NSF provide Points of Contacts for the kangerlussuaq Airport Authority?

See 3rd paragraph of sub‐section C.2.2.2. Question 1: Each Offeror is responsible for determining the answer to this question. Question 2: Yes. Question 3: http://www.mit.gl/en/

The Contractor shall provide a full‐time cargo coordinator at the NYANG facility in Schenectady, NY, and coordinators as schedules and requirements dictate at Kangerlussuaq and Thule.

Question: With the requirement of a full time person at NYANG facility in Schenectady, NY, will the NSF consider a site visit to this location? A site visit to the NYANG facility was provided on May 6, 2019.

The Contractor shall be provided a computerized maintenance management system (CMMS). The Contractor shall operate and maintain the CMMS. Question: Will the NSF provide the awarded contractor access to the current CMMS? See the first sentence of the 4th paragraph under sub‐section C.2.4.

9 Section M Amendment 002, Sub‐section M.5.3.1

Amendment 002, Sub‐section M.5.3.1 states that “Each Offeror’s proposed effort for the Utquigvik area, will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis.” How does the Government intend to evaluate the labor categories and proposed labor rates for the Utquigvik area scope?

UIC is unwilling to provide labor rates for this work based on an exclusive teaming agreement with a single Offeror. This prohibits other Offerors from using UIC labor rates and does not allow for a fair and reasonable price evaluation by the Government. We recommend that the Government (1) remove labor categories from Attachment L‐2 for the Utquigvik area work or (2) provide a plug number for this scope area.

While federal agencies are not required to cast procurements in a manner that neutralizes the competitive advantages some firms may have by virtue of their own particular circumstances, NSF has taken reasonable steps to alleviate any perceived advantage regarding this issue. See Attachment L‐2 Rev. 2, revised Section L and Section M.

10 Section L Amendment 003, Section L.2.4

Amendment 003, Section L.2.4 states that offerors “may also enter into Prime/Subcontractor arrangements as defined under FAR 9.601(2).” The Government’s answer to question 16 in Amendment 001 with regards to teaming with non‐U.S. firms through subcontracting is unclear.

Please confirm that teaming with non‐U.S. firms is acceptable in Prime/Subcontractor arrangements as defined under FAR 9.601(2).

As stated under sub‐section L.10.6, teaming with non‐U.S. firms is NOT acceptable. The beginning of sub‐section L.10.6 clearly states "The resulting contract from this solicitation shall be made only to a U.S. Firm. Any teaming through subcontracting must be between U.S. Firms. “U.S. Firm” is defined as an organization that is incorporated and located within the United States of America."

This position reflects applicable NSF contracting policies and/or law, including holding the prime contractor fully responsible for contract performance under this complex procurement.

Note, a reference for the respective TAA and WGTO thresholds, was provided under the Amendment 0003, Question 16 and response to Question 16.

11 Section C What part of Section C includes the Thule Air Base support services (for example: snow removal)?

Are these types of Thule Air Base support services included under the ODC costs?

See revised 3rd paragraph of sub‐section C.2.2.2 Greenland. Yes, the Thule Air Base support services are included under the ODC amounts provided by the Government.

49100419R1001 Attachment L‐9 Amendment 0005 Questions/Comments Responses Page 1 of 5

RFP Section Subsection/Paragraph Page Number Question/Comment Response

12 Greenland Site Visit

One of my staff members asked a couple of questions regarding the condition of a large piece of equipment, which was covered by dust and was told that the question had to be submitted in writing. Our intent was to “sample” the status of equipment and systems so that we could parametrically estimate the condition of equipment/facilities. Since that was not done we need to request that a complete listing of equipment and facilities systems be provided to us, including the current condition of the equipment/system so we can determine if the backlog of maintenance is higher/lower than best Industry practice.

See Appendix J, Property Inventory Report. See Appendix L, Summit Station Systems. See Summit Station Facility Photos located in the Reading Room under Sustaining Facilities & Operations/Greenland. https://www.nsf.gov/geo/opp/arctic/arsl/facilities_equip.jsp

We also noted a general level of poor housekeeping in most of the living facilities and common areas, is this level of housekeeping the expected level or is this general level of housekeeping acceptable for the performance of this effort. I will also request that we be provided with pictures of similar living areas, common space, operations areas, offices and labs at Summit so we can make an assessment of the housekeeping level at those locations.

See sub‐sections C.2.9.7, F.4.2.1, L.13.2.3, and M.6.2. Note, the last sentence under the first paragraph of sub‐section 2.9.7 states, "The Contractor shall develop a Quality Assurance/Quality Control plan for each portfolio area and shall work with NSF to establish performance metrics."

The hours estimated under Attachment L‐2, Rev. 2 are based on an acceptable quality level. The Government expects to provide some additional photographs of Summit Station facilities within several days of the date this amendment 0005 is posted.

General Alaska Site Visit Who is responsible for the delivery and purchase of the food at Toolik and for the Dorms in Barrow?

The Contractor is not responsible for purchasing food at Toolik Field Station or the Dorms in Barrow. The Contractor is not responsible for delivery of food at Toolik Field Station or the Dorms in Barrow.

General Alaska Site Visit Is the contractor responsible for the insurance and maintenance of the NFS provided vehicles to include the three trailers and forklift? See sub‐section F.4.5.15 and sub‐section H.4 NSF 100 INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS.

General Alaska site Visit Is there a % of cold weather gear that is required to be changed out each year? There is not a set % replaced each year. Replacement should be based on condition according to the Offeror's proposed plan. The replacement costs, of cold weather gear, are included in the ODC numbers provided by the Government.

General Alaska Site Visit Q.1. How is fuel distributed from the tanks in Toolik? Q.2. Is it billed back to the contractor when the contractor fills NSF vehicles up?

Q.1. Fuel is distributed through a nozzle controlled by a fuel management system. Q.2. Fuel is distributed based on project numbers. The prime contractor is not billed for fuel because the prime contractor's fuel consumption directly supports the ARSLS program.

General Alaska Site Visit Are all facilities in Barrow leased from UIC only?

Who is responsible for the maintenance of these facilities?

UIC owns the facilities toured during the Utqiaġvik site visit. Generally, UIC negotiates maintenance in a lease.

General Alaska/ Greenland Site Visit Of the vehicles, snow machines, and heavy equipment such as dozer owned or leased by the NSF, can the Government please identify which ones are in working condition and which ones need repairs? See Appendix J, Property Inventory Report.

General Greenland Site Visit We were advised by the NSF Program Officer that no questions would be answered during the Greenland visit. Some of the questions reflected a "sampling" of the condition of equipment and systems. Since we did not get to visit Summit, there is now a significant risk to completing our proposal, so we present the following question: Will the Government provide a complete listing of facility equipment, mobile equipment and facility systems and the current condition of the equipment/system?

See Item 12 and response above.

Section L Attachment L‐2 Can the Government identify which L-2 categories are/would be under UIC management?

Would it be correct to assume these UIC labor rates would be determined after award?

If so, would it be acceptable to price theses labor categories at $0/hour?

See Item 9 and response above.

If a Contractor entered into a subcontract with UIC, the labor rates may be determined after award.

See Attachment L‐2 Rev. 2.

Section L L-2 (Phase, Base, Option Period Tabs)

In the L-2, it is demonstrated that "Total Cost" is calculated by multiplying Unit Price by Qty. Did the Government intend for the Unit Price columns to be labeled as Unit Cost, since it will be a Direct Labor Rate that will be inputted in those columns and not a fully-loaded rate through fee? See Attachment L‐2 Rev.2.

Section L L-2 ODCs Are the ODC amounts listed in the Total Cost column a government plug number? If so, will the government provide the breakdown of the quantities, or would it be acceptable to input a qty of 1?

See Attachment L‐2 Rev. 2. For Schedule B purposes, the expected contract is cost‐ reimbursement. Schedule B is expected to included estimated cost, fixed fee and total estimated cost plus fixed fee.

We noted that there is equipment stored in laboratory space and that the general housekeeping level is lacking and again we ask if this is the expectation?

See Item 13 and response above.

Does NSF allow the storage of equipment in wet labs, specifically equipment that is not related to the work in the lab?

UAF‐IAB manages the wet lab space at TFS. The Contractor is responsible for building maintenance.

Is it the expectation that the contractor will support the disposal of unused equipment and materials, specifically snow mobiles and items of that type? Yes.

27 Will NSF provide a suggested “factor” for the salaries associated with work in Greenland? No.

49100419R1001

Amendment 0005 Questions/Comments Responses Page 2 of 5

RFP Section Subsection/Paragraph Page Number Question/Comment Response

Also, we request a visit to the NYANG, and would like to understand how it is expected that answers from questions submitted on May 8 can be provided in time such that the printed copy of the proposal can be provided on May 10? See Amendment 0004.

Page Set‐Up/Font Size/Lines on Page – 2nd to the last bullet “Text must be single‐spaced with separation between paragraphs double spaced”

Per Webster's dictionary, double spaced is defined as "to type (text) leaving alternate lines blank , or to type on every other line ." Additionally, this definition also applies within MS Word settings.

Therefore, the offeror would set their line spacing to Single and put a blank 11pt Arial space (which would equal a full blank line) between each paragraph.

QUESTION: Will the government please confirm that the Webster’s definition noted above, is the Government’s intent regarding "double spaced”? Yes.

30 Section L L.10.3.8 L‐6

Based on the unknown factors on when industry would receive Q&A’s from the Alaska and Greenland site visits and the recent 6 May 2019 scheduling of the Stratton Air National Guard Base, Schenectady County, Scotia New York site visit, as well as the 8 May due date for site visit questions , would the Government consider providing an extension of the proposal due date by a minimum of 4 weeks for industry to make necessary adjustments to their proposal See Amendment 0004.

Per the site visit the KISS facilities are leased from the airport authority. Question: Who is responsible for maintenance of the facilities at Kangerlussuaq?

Can the NSF provide historical work orders for the facilities?

Maintenance requirements of leased space would be defined in the lease. Kanger maintenance costs are included in the ODC amounts provided by the Government.

No, historical work orders will not be provided.

other Site Visit N/A On the site visit at Kangerlussuaq we did not visit/view the vehicle maintenance facility. Who is responsible for maintenance of the NSF owned vehicle?

The site visitors toured facilities where vehicle maintenance may be performed in Kangerlussuaq.

The Contractor is responsible for vehicle maintenance.

Other Site Visit N/A On the Kangerlussauq site visit ECW gear was issued and logged on a paper document. Question:

Is there a automated system in place for receipt and issue of equipment and/or materials?

See the fourth (4) paragraph under sub‐section C.2.4.

Other Site Visit N/A The L‐2 Cargo Coordinator and Cargo Supervisor at Kangerlussuaq has a total of 2,120 hours.

Question: Is the requirement for these position to be onsite only when there's scheduled MILAIR flights?

See paragraph 4, sub‐section C.2.5. Attachment L‐2 assumes these labor categories are at Kanger during the full operating season.

J ‐ List of Attachments Attachment L‐2 Cost workbook N/A Question: What are the detailed base access requirements for Thule AB? See the second (2) paragraph under sub‐section C.2.2.2. Further details of TAB access requirements will not be provided under this solicitation.

Other Site Visit N/A During the site at Thule AB there were no block warmers in use for the motorized equipment.

Question: Is this not requirement in that frigid climate? , if so, who provides them? Block heaters or circulatory heaters are used for most equipment. Generally, heaters are acquired when equipment is purchased. Generally, the contractor procures the heaters.

Other Site Visit N/A At Thule AB the NSF leases the facilities from the Air Force and are contractor managed.

Question: Who is responsible for maintenance of the facilities at Thule AB, the NSF contractor or the BOSS Contractor?

Can the NSF provide historical work orders for the facilities? See revised sub‐section C.2.2.2. Historical work orders will not be provided.

Other Site Visit N/A

Will the Government be issuing a conformed copy of the Solicitation capturing all changes?

The Government expects to post a conformed copy of the solicitation. In the event any variances exist between the copy of the conformed solicitation and the original solicitation posted to fbo.gov and the amendments then the original solicitation posted to fbo.gov and the amendments posted to fbo.gov shall take precedence over the conformed copy.

39 other We request that the Government extend the due date 3 weeks from the date that final questions are answered by the Government. The solicitation's due date was extended.

49100419R1001

Amendment 0005 Questions/Comments Responses Page 3 of 5

RFP Section Subsection/Paragraph Page Number Question/Comment Response

Discussion: Offerors who do not have negative (i.e. below satisfactory) past performance references may have meaningful clarifications regarding past performance reference scores which could materially impact the Government’s Past Performance Adjectival Rating under M.7.3.

Limiting additional narrative under L.14.9 to only negative (i.e. below satisfactory) past performance references does not allow Offerors with satisfactory or above references to provide clarifications which could materially and positively impact the Government’s Past Performance Adjectival Rating. This may result in an unfair advantage to certain offerors (i.e. those with negative references) who could receive the benefit of a higher Adjectival Score based on additional information taken into Government consideration under L.14.9. By way of example, an offeror that has a poor past performance reference has the opportunity to explain why that reference is incorrect and increase its score to as high as "Excellent". In contrast, an offeror that receives a past performance reference of "Satisfactory" would not have the same opportunity to increase its past performance reference score.

Question/Recommendation: As Past Performance is a critical factor in the best value source selection, will the Government modify L.14.9 to state the following? The offeror may submit a clarification narrative for any past performance reference received. The Offeror may provide clarification and additional support (e.g. other relevant past performance documentation) regarding reference scores, which may include problems encountered on the submitted projects and the offeror’s corrective actions. This submission is not required but may be included to address past performance assessments. The Government will consider this information, as well as information obtained from any other sources, when evaluating the offeror’s past performance.

It is the Offeror’s responsibility to ensure completion and timely submission of the Surveys by their references. The Offeror shall also submit written consent from its proposed subcontractors to allow the Government to discuss the subcontractors’ past performance evaluation with the Offeror. See FAR sub‐part 15.306(a) regarding the definition of clarifications.

41 Section L and M L.14.9 and M.7.3.

Discussion: L.14.1 provides that an Offeror shall submit a maximum of awards with recent and relevant performance, and L.14.8 details the use of Past Performance Surveys; however, there is a patent ambiguity regarding whether more than one Past Performance Survey may be submitted for a single award.

Question/Recommendation: If an Offeror has more than one Past Performance Survey for the same award, will the Government consider all Past Performance Surveys related to the same award, or is the Offeror limited to submitting one Past Performance Survey per award? Offeror believes it is in the best interest of the Government to consider all past performance information for referenced awards, and therefore recommends the Government allow multiple surveys for each award up to three awards. See revised sub‐sections L.14.1, L.14.2 and L.14.8. Sub‐section M.7.4 was deleted.

42 Section L L.14.1 & L.14.8

Discussion: L.14.8 Past Performance ((CPARS) information does not exist) includes the following:

For a subcontract, the Past Performance Survey must be completed and signed by a Corporate Officer of the firm with cognizance over the submitted project. For a subcontract, a prime contractor point of contact with direct cognizance over the submitted project may not be a Corporate Officer. The Government would benefit from direct feedback from a different employee or former employee of the prime contractor (such as the program manager) that had direct cognizance over the submitted project. This may be especially helpful where the person with the most knowledge about the past performance is no longer employed by the prime or the subcontract has ended and there is not a Corporate Officer at the prime contractor who has any knowledge of the prior past performance.

Question/Recommendation: Will the Government consider allowing a subcontractor Past Performance Survey to be completed and signed by a non‐Corporate Officer who has or had cognizance over the program during the recency period?

No. An Offeror may provide additional context under their past performance volume including an additional point of contact.

49100419R1001

Amendment 0005 Questions/Comments Responses Page 4 of 5

RFP Section Subsection/Paragraph Page Number Question/Comment Response

43 Section L L.14.8

Since anyone working in Utqiagvik is required to use the services of UIC, and since UIC has been non‐responsive in providing rates to enable us to fill out Attachment L‐2, we request that the NSF provide a dollar amount to assign to the Utqiagvik tasking as the NSF specified with the ODC in that same spreadsheet. We completely understand that we are responsible for Science Planning so we will fill in that data

As an alternative, since this is a cost reimbursement contract, if the NSF modified the proposal requirements such that the subcontract effort of UIC is cost neutral across all the proposals then we could complete the effort without any further assistance. See Attachment L‐2 Rev. 2.

44 Section L L.15.7

Please provide clarification; FAR 19.704.(a) provides a mechanism to have our large business subcontractors provide subcontract reports to us via eSRS when their subcontracts exceed the threshold and they anticipate additional subcontracting. However, their spend has not been allowed to be counted with the prime contractor's awards to meet SB goals.

Additionally, what is the Federal language and mechanisms available to request our large business subcontractors that don’t meet the criteria at 19.704(a) and specifically our small business subcontractors to report their lower‐tier subcontract activity?

Currently, FAR sub‐part 19.704, FAR clause 52.219‐9 and the web‐based eSRS (http://www.esrs.gov) do not allow lower‐tiered submissions or submissions by large business subcontractors under the respective threshold. FAR Case Number 2018‐003 is expected to address this issue. See current FAR Case Status at https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/opencases/farcasenum/far.pdf

45 NYANG Site Visit What systems are the contract employees using? Global Air Transportation Execution System (GATES) and/or Cargo Movement and Operations System (CMOS)?

The ARSLS contractor provides a cargo manifest printed from their Cargo Tracking System to the Air Force. The Air Force completes a DD Form 2133 for the cargo based on the submitted manifest.

46 NYANG Site Visit Are the cargo personnel DoD Hazardous Materials certified? Is there recertification training factored in the ODC plug number or is it paid for the US Air Force?

Cargo personnel receive training in hazardous materials. The cost is included in the ODC allowance and hours are included in the cost worksheet.

47 NYANG Site Visit Can the contractor Green sheet cargo on behalf of NSF? Can the contractor ship it’s cargo under 999 shipments? No. DD Form 2133 is used for all NSFmission cargo for LC130, C130, and C17 SAAM flights.

48 NYANG Site Visit Are the current holding an active security clearance?

Visitors are vetted through base Security Forces for base access. Contractors working 180 days or more will be processed for T1 investigation through the base Information Protection Office.

49 NYANG Site Visit Is the contractor responsible for load planning? The 109th is responsible for load planning.

50 NYANG Site Visit Who performs the Joint Inspection (JI) DD Form 2133 of NSF cargo. The 109th is responsible for Joint Inspection and preparation of DD Form 2133.

51 NYANG Site Visit Who’s performing the discharge of cargo at Kangerlussuaq and Summit Station?

Are the New York Personnel traveling on the aircraft to conduct discharge?

New York personnel do not travel to Kangerlussuaq specifically for conducting cargo offload.

Cargo discharge at Kangerlussuaq and Summit is performed jointly by NYANG and contractor personnel.

52 NYANG Site Visit How far in advance is the flight schedule developed? The flight schedule is developed in September of the previous year.

53 NYANG Site Visit Who coordinates retrograde cargo from Kangerlussuaq and Summit Station? The contractor.

54 NYANG Site Visit Air Force assets at Kangerlussuaq and Summit Station, who is responsible for the maintenance e.g. K‐Loaders, etc.

The NSF has K‐Loaders in Kangerlussuaq. See Appendix J items 1863 and 6449. SOW Section C.2.4 refers to all NSF owned and NSF sponsored facilities in the Arctic region; C.2.4.3 refers specifically to Greenland sites; C.2.9.6 further states, "The Contractor is tasked with all aspects of inventory management including procurement, tracking, shipping, receiving, maintenance, repair, control, and analysis of needs." and, "The current equipment inventory is provided in Appendix J: Property Inventory Report, 2018."

55 NYANG Site Visit Does the contractor personnel hold CAC’s?

Normally 6‐8 contractor personnel are processed by NSF for CACs, primarily science planning personnel requiring access to NSF IT systems.

56 NYANG Site Visit What are the contractor normal duty hours in N.Y.?

Attachment L‐2 assumes 40 hours per week for personnel at the NY location during the operating season.

57 NYANG Site Visit Are the contractor personnel in the NYANG?

Contractor personnel at the NYANG base may be in the NYANG, but it's not a contract requirement.

58 NYANG Site Visit

Does the contractor personnel receive flight line safety training from the NYANG? Contractor personnel may go on to the flight line at the NYANG Base, and if so, will always be escorted by a member of the NYANG. Contractor personnel working on the Kangerlussuaq flight line require flight line training, if the respective personnel have not already received the required flight line training.

59 NYANG Site Visit Are the contractor personnel augmenting the NYANG in any role? Ramp coordination? Yes. For every SAAM flight upload/download the contractor personnel will augment the NYANG members at the SAAM aircraft.

49100419R1001

Amendment 0005 Questions/Comments Responses Page 5 of 5