Q and A RFP 693JJ620R000001.docx

DOCX document 77 KB Posted Jun 19, 2020

Attached to: Transportation Technology Center
Solicitation number: 693JJ620R000001
Issued by: Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

About this file

Written by GovTribe AI · Dec 30, 2023

This is a request for proposals from the Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration to provide facility management, operations, maintenance, and support services at the Transportation Technology Center in Pueblo, Colorado. Key details include that the resulting contract will be a single-award IDIQ with a base period of five years and three five-year option periods for a total of 20 years. Sample task orders are provided and the estimated contract award date is March 31, 2021. Offerors must submit Phase 1 proposals by May 27, 2020 responding to the performance-based statement of work, with Phase 2 evaluations to follow. The North American Industry Classification System code is 541715 with a size standard of 1,000 employees, and this acquisition is set aside 100% for small business concerns.

View the file

Other files

File	Type	Posted
Attachment 8 SOW Amendment 0001.docx	DOCX document	Jun 19, 2020
Attachment 10_SAMPLE TO_Training Amendement 0001.docx	DOCX document	Jun 19, 2020
Attachment 11 Transition Task Order Amendment 0001.docx	DOCX document	Jun 19, 2020
Attachment 9_SAMPLE TO_R and D Amendment 0001.docx	DOCX document	Jun 19, 2020
693JJ620R000001 RFP Amendment 0001.pdf	PDF	Jun 19, 2020
Attachment 1 - Schedule_Training 2020.pdf	PDF	May 18, 2020
Attachment 4 - TTC Tracks.pdf	PDF	May 18, 2020
Attachment 13 - TTC Acronyms.docx	DOCX document	May 18, 2020
Attachment 12 Past Performance Questionnaire.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	May 18, 2020
Attachment 11_Transition Task Order.docx	DOCX document	May 18, 2020
Attachment 7 - Pricing Tables_2020.04.13.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	May 18, 2020
Attachment 9_SAMPLE TO_R and D.docx	DOCX document	May 18, 2020
Attachment 3 - TTC Structures_2019.docx	DOCX document	May 18, 2020
Attachment 5 - Facility Codes.docx	DOCX document	May 18, 2020
Attachment 6 - Safety Guides.docx	DOCX document	May 18, 2020
Attachment 8 SOW_2020.05.15.docx	DOCX document	May 18, 2020
693JJ620R000001 RFP.pdf	PDF	May 18, 2020
Attachment 10_SAMPLE TO_Training.docx	DOCX document	May 18, 2020
Attachment 2 - Schedule_Research and Development 2018-2019.pdf	PDF	May 18, 2020

Show all 19

On GovTribe

Work with this file

Download the original file
Contacts named in this file
Similar government files
Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

Question

DOT/FRA Answer

Reference: RFP Section L.5.1

Issue: Email address for delivery states TTCRFP.dot.gov Question: Please confirm the email delivery address as TTCRFP@dot.gov.

Confirmed.

Reference: Attachment 11, sections 3, 5, 6, & 10

Issue: Sections 3, 5, and 6 of attachment 11 states a 180-day transition. Section 10 lists a 12- month transition.

Question: Please confirm the transition period is 180 days.

Confirmed. Section 10 of the Transition Task Order (attachment 11) will be updated to state: “The government will hold a monthly transition meeting with both the incumbent and the awardee during each of the transition periods.”

Reference: L.6.1, L.7.1

Issue: The transition task order appears in two places. In L.6.1 it is listed as part of Phase II, Volume 1D, and it is listed in L.7.1 as Phase II, Volume 5. Further, there is not a paragraph in L.6 that explains what is required for the 5 pages listed in the table in section L.6.1 (e.g., L.6.4).

Question: Please confirm the transition task order will be in accordance with L.7.1 as Phase II, Volume 5 and delete the transition task order from the table in L.6.1.

Section L.6.1 is updated to reference section L.7.1 criteria. Section L.7.1 is now moved to create section L.6.3.4.

*The transition task order will be evaluated as part of the management criteria, currently referenced as Vol 1D in section L.6.1.

Reference: Attachment+8+SOW_2020.05.15 – section 1, page 4

Issue: Attachment 8 states, "As a result of Section 1204 of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, Pub. L. 110-53, August 3, 2007 (9/11 Commission Act), the TTC was designated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as a member of DHS's National Domestic Preparedness Consortium (NDPC) to specialize in developing and providing training and exercises in surface transportation”.

Section 6 of the cited act reads “(6) the Transportation Technology Center, Incorporated, in Pueblo, Colorado”.

Please note that TTCI is stated as the DHS designated member of the NDPC and not TTC.

Question: Will the NDPC training and exercises remain at TTC?

That is an agreement between the incumbent contractor and NDPC. FRA cannot predict or anticipate what NDPC will decide in the event a different vendor is awarded the contract. The SOW incorporates use from third parties and DOT partners (such as DHS) whereby the work is allowable to continue at TTC.

See also question 4.

Reference: RFP Attachment 11, Figure 1 Transition Deliverables, identifies a Transition In Plan (Deliverable #1) and a Phase In Plan (Deliverable #6), each referencing Master ID/IQ SOW Section 6.1.

Question: Please clarify the content required for each Plan The Transition In Plan is the same as the Phase In Plan; attachment 11 and SOW figure 7 are updated.

Considering that RFP item Section H. SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS sets out that, "The Contractor is responsible for meeting the facility management and operations performance requirements in the SOW (including sections 10 through 14) without federal funding, since the Contractor has use of the facility for its commercial activities." and considering that SOW section 12.3.1 sets out that “the contractor can publish prices lists for all equipment use fees to its customers, without consult to the DOT”, what would constitute an "unreasonable rate" in the context of item RFP H.8? How would this be determined, particularly considering that the prices for commercial work will include overhead and expense of the entire facility regardless of the use of the facilities for such work? What measures can/would the DOT take regarding such complaints?

FRA intends to negotiate a contract rate schedule with the awardee for services to be provided for DOT at TTC based on prevailing market prices, including allocated costs for facilities management and operations. Pricing provided to commercial entities for similar services to those provided to DOT, should similarly be derived from actual costs and based on market based pricing. Should FRA receive complaints of pricing that significantly exceeds pricing for similar services provided elsewhere, the Government will request the contractor provide an explanation for variance from standard market prices. Continued concerns with excessive pricing without sufficient justification will result in a written notice from the contracting officer and may be factored into CPAR evaluations.

The SOW section 4.1 sets out that the contractor is responsible for establishing a sufficient business base that will enable the contractor to meet the facility management and operations performance requirements, however the FRA is a priority customer and no commercial business may conflict with DOT task order requirements. Therefore, it is important to understand the levels of availability that the Contractor will have of the facilities, as this will impact pricing. Please provide information which can be used to estimate availability and/or whether any accommodations will be permissible by DOT to allow and foster commercial use.

It is the governments intent that use of the TTC facility be maximized so as to benefit the US Department of Transportation, The Federal Railroad Administration, the Rail Industry and the US taxpayer through advancing rail safety. FRA guarantees the TTC facility to be fully available for the contractor to use in support of this mission. The government expects full use of the site to be achieved through combined DOT/FRA and Contractor use of the facility. It is the Contractors responsibility to balance commercial use to be able to accommodate DOT/FRA tasking while still maximizing the use of the facility. Additional enhancements and investments may be made to further expand the capacity of the facility to meet business needs.

Under SOW section 4.2 General Performance, it is stated that the Government reserves the right to use the facility for itself and its other contractors to conduct its own research using the TTC facilities. Considering that these other contractors won't be burdened with the overhead for the facility, nor will they have to bear any direct expenses related to the use of the facility, the price from other contractors for similar research may be lower than prices from the Contractor. How does the FRA ensure that the Contractor covers variable costs stemming from FRA research that the FRA opts to perform with other contractors? How does the FRA intend for the TTC IDIQ Contractor to be competitive with other possible contractors? Are there limits to the time, number of people, support, and variable expenses which are expected to be borne without direct compensation? Can the FRA provide estimate quantities and scope such that the associated costs be known to the offeror and thus included in the burden rates to be estimated for Commercial work?

Any third party contractor supporting FRA research at the TTC facility will be doing so on behalf of FRA and covered by the terms and pricing of the master contract. As such, all costs associated with the joint FRA/third-party contractor use of the facility will be funded through issued task orders. Any contractor performing their own research at the TTC would negotiate their own agreement directly with the awardee for use of the facility and costs for facility usage for services rendered would be paid for under that contracting mechanism.

SOW section 4.10 states that contractor will have "full use of the site" and as such "full responsibility for the maintenance and operations of the site, to include all costs associated with these activities." However, sections 4.1 and 4.9 as well as many others throughout the document establish that the FRA has priority usage of the site, and that FRA scheduling for the use of the site takes precedence over commercial work. Considering the actual reality, that the Contractor will have use of the site only to the extent that the FRA does not require it, what is the real assured availability of the site for work other than FRA mandated work? Isn't full responsibility for the maintenance and operations incompatible therefore with partial use of the site?

It is the governments intent that use of the TTC facility be maximized so as to benefit the US Department of Transportation, The Federal Railroad Administration, the Rail Industry and the US taxpayer through advancing rail safety. FRA guarantees the TTC facility to be fully available for the contractor to use in support of this mission. The government expects full use of the site to be achieved through combined DOT/FRA and Contractor use of the facility with both DOT/FRA tasking and Contractor activities bearing their equitable share of facilities maintenance and operations and costs. Therefore, while the government requires priority use of the facilities, the government does not see this as conflicting with the contractors ability to achieve full use of the site.

Government and agency task orders are typically priced under FAR guidelines, resulting in between 5% and 10% profitability. In the RFP, FRA states that the site could expect to receive $570,000,000 in task orders over the life of the contract, based on historical levels of task orders, but the contractor cannot count on receiving any Task Order awards. FRA also assumes that current site facility operating costs are approximately $4.4M per year. Thus, without escalation, this represents at least $88 million over the life of the contract. On-going capital and maintenance costs of approximately $15M per year without escalation representing $300 million over the life of the contract are sited, too. Finally, an additional $95 million is needed for facility capital improvements and an unspecified amount is needed for track and substation capital improvements. Adding all these together, this indicates that the successful contractor will need to invest approximately $500 million over the life of the contract. FRA clearly indicates that commercial work is considered secondary to all task order work, so commercial work cannot be counted upon to generate needed profitability to maintain the site and makeup the shortfall. FRA also cautions that the $570,000,000 in historical task order revenue could be as low as zero (no guaranteed revenue). Finally, funding from any awarded task order must also cover all direct labor and materials to perform the work. Given all of this, what is the total amount of task order revenue that FRA anticipates would be needed to meet expectations for site maintenance of $500 million or more over the life of the contract? Further, given this, it seems unreasonable to ask a contractor to commit to a 20-year contract for $88 million in baseline operating costs (to say nothing of maintenance) and not guarantee any funds. Will FRA reconsider the fact that zero dollars guaranteed or commit to lesser requirements should task orders not materialize to cover the anticipate operating and maintenance costs? Alternatively, can FRA modify the RFP to not subjugate commercial work so that the Contractor can reasonably and reliably court commercial opportunities to help fund the TTC?

All costs associated with the maintenance and operations of the TTC facility are allowable indirect costs and should be allocated across the contractors revenue baseline and billed accordingly. These allocated indirect costs will not be considered an investment on the part of the awardee but rather indirect costs that are appropriately applied to direct labor costs to arrive at fully burded prices. The government expects full use of the site to be achieved through combined DOT/FRA and Contractor activities and expects full use of the TTC facility to generate sufficient revenue for indirect costs associated with maintenance and operations to be included in a reasonable and realistic indirect cost structure. FRA will evaluate offerors who provide a dynamic vision and a credible plan for expanding their business base to reduce these indirect costs burdens more favorably.

The RFP item B.2 states that Contractor will be asked to submit government and non-government equipment rates. However, item 12.3.1 in the SOW states that the "DOT will not be charged use fees for their own equipment," and further states that "at no time may the Government be denied access to this equipment." Therefore is it correct to assume that the Contractor has no guaranteed access to the equipment for Commercial purposes, yet will bear 100% of the costs stemming from maintenance linked to usage and calendar cycles stemming from Government use and occupation of the equipment?

For GFE, the government will appropriately compensate the awardee for actual labor and material costs and related indirect burdens associated with the upkeep of the subject equipment but will not pay any lease or use costs.

The SOW section 4.5 and RFP item B.3 PRICING CONDITIONS set the historical value of annual task orders for research and development at $15 Million (M). Considering that this historical amount includes use fees for equipment that will no longer be allowable (SOW section 12.3.1), what will be the expected volume of Task Orders issued for Research and Development, testing and training services?

Attachment 1 provides anticipated 2020 training volume. Attachment 2 provides the historical volume for R&D. These are provided as a baseline expectation for FRA's anticipated needs. FRA intends to continue using the TTC at a similar cadence. SOW section 4.5 further explains "The Department-wide nature of this contract is a change from the historical operating model and represents a growth opportunity for both the use of the facility and the volume of task orders awarded under the IDIQ."

In the RFP Section H.9 the RFP states that the government will provide the Contractor at least 30 days’ notice and the Contractor will need to make reasonable effort for the facilities to be used by the government. This section also indicates that the government has priority use assuming it does not cause serious disruption to ongoing work. However, the SOW in section 4.9 states that the government has priority use and no commercial activities should conflict with DOT TO’s. Is there or is there not a provision for “serious disruption” of other work? If so, what is considered a serious disruption and who would pay for the necessary delays and financial impacts of such an interruption?

RFP H.9 addresses situations where the government would directly use the facility without issuing a TO (or just an incidental support TO). Since the government is operating outside the IDIQ, then the government is willing to give notice and work with the contractor to avoid “serious disruption” of Contractor work. SOW 4.9 addresses government TOs. In that case, the Contractor cannot decline or delay accepting the government TO. The government TO has priority. SOW section 7.1 addresses scheduling resolution, However, the contractor will work with the CO in the event there is a serious disruption. Delays and financial impacts are generally the responsibly of the contractor. The Contractor may seek an equitable adjustment in the event of a serious disruption.

SOW, Section 1 Background, states, "the TTC was designated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as a member of the DHS's National Domestic Preparedness Consortium (NDCP), which is incorrect as the actual member is TTCI. Please clarify. Will new offerors, not currently members of the NDCP be required to join? What does this require?

There seems to be confusion between capabilities of the existing Contractor and the facilities of the TTC. For example Section 4.1 states that activities are being performed at the TTC which are contracted directly between the current contractor and the end customer, and that much of that business is based on the unique capabilities of the TTC facility that are exclusively available at the site. Additionally, in the SOW section 14.4 states " The Contractor shall maintain and operate the TTC facility and its existing R&D, training and safety capability." Considering that with the exception of FRA staff, the site has no staff, how does the FRA understand that the current capabilities in R&D, training and safety, and work executed for existing customers be "maintained"?

The TTC facility is unique in many ways as it relates to the successful execution of Rail related R&D and Training activities . There are however numerous organizations capable of developing and staffing dynamic R&D and Training programs in support of Federal government requirements. The government expects the awardee to be able to utilize the unique characteristics of the TTC to develop and maintain a similar R&D and Training capability as to that provided by previous contractors.

SOW section 8.0 sets out that if the Contractor chooses not to accept a task order, or is unable to accept a task order, that the Contractor will assume financial liability for impacts that the FRA may come to bear. Considering that there are no set amounts, or set quantities, or agreed upon scope, how can the Contractor be expected to agree to all Task Orders, sight unseen? What if one of the Task Orders includes a capability which is unknown to the Contractor? Does the FRA intend for the Contractor to be held liable for unexpected increases in volumes, and urgent requests without restriction or limitation? If this is not the expectation, please explain precisely what falls into this category and why.

Task Orders issued against the contract are required to be within the scope of the provided RFP and resultant contract. All offerors are expected to be prepared to provide services against all scope areas either as a prime contractor or through teaming.

SOW, section 6.2 establishes that all automated data files in the possession of the contractor are the property of the Federal Government and must be turned over at the completion of the contract. Please confirm that this only pertains to data files directly stemming from FRA Task Orders, and related to maintenance of FRA owned property, and specifically excludes all other files, namely Commercial Customer work, corporate data, human resource files, financial information not otherwise disclosed, among others.

All data files refers to knowledge, information and documentation for all facility, operations, and task order knowledge as stated in SOW 6.2. Data rights are further addressed in SOW 10.3 (10.3.1-10.3.7).

In section 10 of the SOW, it states the DOT can use additional space and the Contractor must accommodate given a 60-day notice. Is there any compensation tied to this required move which may put unplanned financial burden on the Contractor? Is there any limitation on the space that DOT can acquire under this section? This too may impact commercial activities without sufficient time to accommodate. Will FRA compensate the Contractor for lost revenues because of foreclosing commercial opportunities?

SOW section 10 was updated for clarity.

No, there are not limitations to the space the government may acquire. The government’s intention is to work with the contractor to reduce adverse impacts. When directed, certain actual costs, after contractor mitigation, associated with accommodating additional DOT/FRA resources at the TTC, and approved in advance by the CO, will be allowable direct costs (e.g. partitioning contractor office space to accommodate for lost space). Losses beyond incidental costs may be evaluated under applicable contract provisions, e.g. as a partial termination.

Section 10.1.3 of the SOW, Emergency Weather Protocol, states, " the Contractor will make determination to delay opening or close the facility in coordination with the COR." Does this mean the Contractor will inform the FRA of these decisions? Or does this mean that the FRA must approve such decisions? If so, will the COR be available 24/7/365? If the decision-making lies in the hands of FRA personnel, will the Contractor be compensated for the impact on the business due to these decisions?

The contractor will inform the COR in writing of their decision with justification. This does not require COR approval.

Section 10.1.8 Surplus/Removal establishes the Contractor as responsible for removal of surplus, end of life, destroyed or unusable equipment at the direction of the FRA. Are there items already identified by the FRA that will be disposed during the life of the contract? If so, can a list of these items be provided? Must the Contractor price this aspect with the expectation that these materials include hazardous materials and require special disposal? Without more information, offerors may have to factor in significant cost risk.

The current contractor will have disposed of all surplus, end of life, destroyed or unusable equipment as identified by FRA prior to contract transition.

Considering the RFP specifies FRA approval for (i) Contractor supplier agreements; (ii) Contractor commercial contracts; (iii) Contractor safety procedures, specifically as these pertain to operations outside the scope of regularly approved FRA safety guidelines applied in revenue service; (iv) Contractor partner agreements; (v) Contractor modernization plans; (vi) Contractor Operations and Maintenance Plans and Procedures; (vi) Contractor schedules; (vii) Site Master Plan; (viii) Training Plan; (ix) Approval of Task Order deliverables; (x) Use of non-mulching mowers; (xi) Determination of need for expedited response to maintenance issues such as pests and fence repairs; (xii) Quality Control Plan (QCP); (xiii) Performance Evaluations; (xiv) Safety & Health Plan; (xv) Emergency Plan; (xvi) Entry of all visitors; (xvii) Placement of locks; (xvii) All Project and Work Plans; (xviii) Any scheduled equipment or utility outages; (xix) Approval of all data cabling work requests; (xx) All changes to TTC life safety systems; (xxi) Phase-in/Phase-out plans; (xxii) Changes to all key personnel; as well as many other items, what type of team will the FRA provide to support the Contractor considering the diverse nature of these functions are normally performed by scientists, engineers of varied backgrounds and business professionals? Given the varied nature of approvals, some of which would require extremely tight approval responses, what assurances can the Contractor have the urgent requests will be decided promptly or the Contractor will be given the authority to make its best judgment without liability. Further, if the Contractor disagrees, will the contract be subject to traditional government contracting remedies – requests for equitable adjustments and the disputes process under the Contract Disputes Act?

The government will provide the necessary resources to make contract related decisions in a timely manner. Any requests for escalation shall be submitted through the designated Contracting Officer.

Section 10.2 of the SOW, notes that “in the event that the threat level or requirements change” for site security, the contractor will accept direction from the CO. If the changes involve significant monetary investment, does the government intend to cover those costs? Will the contractor be compensated if business interruptions occur due to the decision of the CO?

All costs associated with the security of the TTC facility are allowable indirect costs and should be allocated across the contractors revenue baseline and billed accordingly. These allocated indirect costs will not be considered an investment on the part of the awardee but rather indirect costs that are appropriately applied to direct labor costs to arrive at fully burded prices. Contractors will not be compensated for impacts on existing business associated with changing security practices.

Section 10.2.1 of the SOW, Controlled Access, requires to the Contractor to provide 3-day advance notification of all planned tours and visits by third parties in writing to the COR for validation. A. Please confirm if validation indicates "approval" or only "to be informed"? B. Additionally, please confirm that the intent of this section is to include ALL commercial business development meetings or testing meetings with the Contractor's non-DOT customers, regardless of the scope of the intended work, as well as all potential supplier meetings, or quantity of visitors, or nationality of visitors. C. Does this also mean visitors will only be able to participate in meetings with three-day notice and validation by the FRA?

A. To validation for COR approval.

B. Confirmed.

C. Yes, with at least three-day notice.

What were we trying to achieve with this section of the SOW?

In section 10.3.6 Scheduling of the SOW, do the referenced schedules only pertain to the government work or is it the intent of the DOT to have unlimited access to information pertaining to all work occurring on site, including that of non-DOT customers. If so, how does the contractor maintain confidentiality of its commercial work as appropriate?

SOW 10.3.6 refers to any and all work being conducted at TTC. The intent is specified to include "schedules for facility usage (Section 7.1), repair, and maintenance scheduling". Also see RFP section H.4.

Confidential and priority data need not be included when reporting all facility usage, repair, and maintenance schedules at TTC.

SOW section 12.3.1 states that the government may not be denied access to the equipment at any time. First, please define “access”. Is this for visual inspection or use or other? Also, what if the contractor has a non-DOT test using the equipment and the government has not provided their notice? Is the contractor required to disclose this information to the DOT to the detriment of the commercial client’s confidentiality?

Access refers to full rights related to visual inspection. The contractor shall have documented any and all work being conducted per SOW 10.3.6. The DOT is not required to provide notice to access GFE; DOT requires immediate access to all data upon request. RFP section H.9 refers to the government providing 30 days’ notice for use of TTC facilities. RFP section H.4 provides information on documentation expectations.

SOW 7.1 reinforces "It is not FRA’s intent to disrupt or threaten the contractors use requirement. However, TTC FRA and DOT Agencies are the priority customer of the contractor".

Section 12.4, General Purpose Equipment states that Contractor is responsible for replacing equipment. A. Does this mean that at the end of the equipment's useful life, or when it has failed beyond repair, that the Contractor is liable for its replacement? B. If so, can FRA provide a list of all equipment that will reach its end of useful life during the term of the contemplated contract and the date of such end of life?

A. Yes

B. Equipment lifecycle will be identified as part of the post-award baseline facility conditions assessment.

The RFP states that the facility needs $95 million in capital improvements in addition to the estimated $15 million annual facility capital and maintenance but does not specify a time frame for which improvements are required. How does the $95 million compare to the $15 million mentioned in the SOW to operate the site on an annual basis? What is the expected annual expenditure breakdown of the $95 million? Is it expected the expenses will occur evenly throughout each contract period or will upfront investments be higher than in later years of the contract?

A non-disclosure agreement (NDA) will be provided by the CO for the offeror to sign; once completed the CO will provide the 2018 Facility Conditions Assessment for the Offeror's review.

It is expected that following award the Contractor will work in partnership with FRA to define a plan that includes estimated costs and schedule as a part of their overall facilities management plan to address these items.

The RFP or SOW does not provide a capital recovery cost for tracks and track structures. While an estimate is provided for the track, the track assessment calls for replacement of electrical substations without providing a cost estimate. What is FRA’s estimated cost for track capital maintenance, including substations, and over what time frame are the cost to be spread? How does this compare to the $15 million mentioned in the SOW to operate the site on an annual basis?

A non-disclosure agreement (NDA) will be provided by the CO for the offeror to sign; once completed the CO will provide the Track Assessment for the Offeror's review.

All costs associated with the maintenance and operations of the TTC facility are allowable indirect costs and should be allocated across the contractors revenue baseline and billed accordingly.

The RFP is devoid of non-tangible property right terms, such as FAR 52.227-14. What rights in data, software, etc. will FRA assert? Will all data and intellectual property rights only apply to work performed for DOT customers?

Yes, and this will be managed at the Task Order level.

According to SOW section 4.6, Facility Usage, the Contractor shall provide the CO with information “as outlined in the contract” pertaining to the use of the government owned TTC for CO consent to ensure compliance with facility usage requirements. Please confirm what information this includes and where this is detailed in the contract. Additionally, please confirm that it is the intent of the FRA to review all work scope for non-DOT customers that the Contractor seeks to serve. Further, please confirm that the sole purpose of this is to “ensure compliance with facility usage requirements.” Does this mean for scheduling purposes? Or does this mean to mitigate risk of damage to the facility? Has the FRA considered that non-DOT customers may reject an obligation to disclose the nature of their work to the DOT, and therefore take business elsewhere? Further does this mean that the Contractor will only be able to take on non-DOT with the express permission of the DOT? Will FRA provide any funding for lost revenue due to decisions of the CO to decline commercial work?

Confirmed. The facility is owned by the Department of Transportation. The work conducted on the facility falls under terms in the RFP (namely sections B, C, and H (H.7)); however all attachments under the contract apply.

Scheduling: Please review RFP H.17 in response, along with SOW sections 7.1 and SOW 10.3.6.

FRA is not responsible for any potential loss of funding for work that does not comply with the TTC requirements or contract terms.

RFP Section H.1 notes that at the “Contractor’s option, the Contractor may purchase insurance covering its risk, operations, and interests in the facility, including property and hazard insurance.” In the event of a natural disaster or some other unforeseeable event that is not covered by insurance or exceeds the insurance ceiling, which party will bear the costs of repair not covered by insurance proceeds? Will FRA compensate the Contractor for business interruption expenses because of any such damage, etc. until the necessary repairs are made? If not, how would FRA expect the Contractor to cover other operational and maintenance expenses of the TTC if damages to certain facilities stops performance on specific task orders or commercial work that would otherwise cover such expenses?

See RFP H.15 “Liability for the Facility”

The RFP, item B.3 PRICING CONDITIONS sets out that the TTC facility operating costs, such as utilities, operations, security, emergency management, etc. were on average $4.4M annually. In SOW 14.5.1 Contractor Costs, the FRA estimates that the operations and maintenance expenses will be approximately $15M annually. Considering that the requirements set out in the SOW attached do not reflect the current requirements set out in the existing operational scenario, and the reporting requirements, staffing and performance requirements are in excess of currently mandated requirements and are to be complied with regardless of use, what is the expected impact to the Contractor’s costs expended in these areas?

All costs associated with the maintenance and operations of the TTC facility are allowable indirect costs. For the purposes of price evaluation, indirect rates have been prescribed as stated in Attachment 7. The specifics of contractor rate structures will be addressed during contract negotiations.

Did the 2018 Facilities Assessment Report estimate of $95M include the specific requirements and obligations set out in the SOW, including reporting, response times, systems, plans, levels of quality and performance?

The 2018 Facilities Assessment Report estimate includes all estimated direct costs and oversight costs related to improvement of the facility.

The RFP, item B.3 PRICING CONDITIONS sets out that the TTC Facilities Assessment Report identified $95 million in total 10-year renewal costs, including recurring and nonrecurring costs for buildings and non-building assets. Considering that the requirements set out in the SOW are based on minimum levels of readiness, rather than on fixed minimum amounts, how is this $95 million considered to be representative of the new requirements?

All recurring and nonrecurring costs for buildings and non-building assets are allowable indirect costs. To allow for fair evaluation of pricing elements, indirect rates have been prescribed as stated in Attachment 7. Methodologies for cost allocation and indirect rate development will be addressed during contract negotiations.

The RFP, item B.3 PRICING CONDITIONS sets out that " the operation, maintenance, upkeep or modernization of the TTC facility are considered indirect costs and should be appropriately integrated into the Contractors indirect costs structure and applied across the Contractors allocation base to include the full volume of business to be conducted at the TTC facility, including DOT, other government and commercial business." However, section 12.3.1 in the SOW states that the "DOT will not be charged use fees for their own equipment." Therefore, is it correct to understand that the FRA intends for all maintenance and operational expenses of government furnished equipment be included in burden rates and that these may be charged to the DOT? Does the word “equipment” in section 12.3.1 include tracks and the impact wall? Or is it correct to understand that use fees can be charged for track and impact facilities?

RFP section G.3.b, indicates that TO’s maybe issued for the base period and options or all 20 years if all options are exercised. If the government chooses not to exercise an option year, but a TO’s period of performance is expected to exceed the termination of the current contract, how will this be handled by the government?

See RFP section G.3 (c) All TOs shall be subject to the terms and conditions of the basic contract. In the event a conflict between a TO and the contract, the contract shall prevail.

RFP item H.2 states that changes in FRA vision may provoke requests for Contractor to revise a performance area. Please confirm that such changes will be negotiated and when required be accompanied by remuneration for additional service performed.

Changes in IDIQ scope will require bilateral agreement. Changes in IDIQ scope will warrant no compensation by the government to the contractor. Actual costs associated with performance of work for newly defined task areas will be billable per contact terms

Are all key personnel required to be individuals with sole responsibilities to the “key personnel” role they fill, or can these roles be filled by a person with other responsibilities to the contractor? In other words, must key personnel be fully dedicated to the key personnel position?

A single individual cannot fulfill multiple key personnel positions; however, the individual may take on additional responsibilities in support of TTC facilities.

According to RFP item H.7 LEASEHOLD the lease currently "extends" until August 22, 2070. Please confirm that in the event that there is a dispute between the State of Colorado and the FRA, which result in the Contractor being required to vacate the premises, that the unamortized investments, as well as expenses to relocate, and/or cease operations will be borne by the FRA.

The relevant contract, TO, and FAR provisions would govern such circumstances.

In section H.15 of the RFP it is stated that the contractor must establish “clear and convincing evidence” for loss, destruction, or damage of government property. Please define the criteria which will be used to determine “clear and convincing”.

The term “clear and convincing” has the same meaning as it does in various FAR provisions. See, e.g. 52.245-1 Government Property.

According to RFP item H.17 FACILITY MODIFICATION AND FOR EXPANDED USE, any modifications to real property in excess of $25,000.00 requires prior written approval of the CO. However, SOW section 10.12 states, "Contractor shall obtain written approval from the CO prior to making any modifications or alterations to the facilities." We understand that only modifications in excess of $25,000 need to be communicated for approval, please confirm our understanding is correct.

The SOW section 10.12 and 15.9 are updated for clarity. These sections now reflect that any modification or alteration shall obtain written approval from the COR. RFP section H.17 remains as stated, modifications over $25,000 require written approval from the CO.

The RFP, in section L.6.4.1, states that the Offeror must specify an approach “for maintaining all facilities to the standards outlined in the SOW, whether they are in use and occupied, or not”. What if a building requires repairs or other services that are not part of the standard services to be performed as part of regular maintenance services to meet the criteria in the SOW?

It is the governments intent that the TTC be maintained according to the standards set forth in the SOW; however, if the Contractor determines to resolve issues not specified under the SOW, they shall inform the COR in writing of their intent with justification.

The RFP section L.6.4.3 Training Support establishes that the Training Support requirements set out in SOW XX must be set out in the approach and strategy. Please clarify which sections of the SOW this should be referencing. In the same section the term “modern furnishings” is used. Please provide the criteria which will be used to determine if a furnishing is “modern”. If the furnishings are not considered modern enough, will this expense be borne by the FRA?

SOW is revised to add reference 8.3

The governments intent is that the furniture be clean, is fully functional without significant blemishes, and is in good working…

This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated Jun 19, 2020.