Guard Services Amendment No. 6 to FORMAL Solictation No. 693JK423R500001 as PUBLISHED in PDF on June 26 2023.pdf

Amendment No. 6

To

DOT Guard Services Solicitation No. 693JK423R500001

This Amendment No. 6 provides a further and expanded and combined-answer to previously-posed Questions Numbered 27 and 47 (regarding Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) and Wage Determinations (WDs)) considered to be relevant to the subject Solicitation).

For the convenience of prospective offerors reading this Solicitation Amendment No. 6, those previously-posed Questions and DOT’s previously-given Answers numbered 27 and 47 are re-printed between the horizontal lines set forth immediately below:

PREVIOUSLY-POSED QUESTION 27: Re: New Guard Services Solicitation 06032013 bl, Solicitation 693JK423R500001, Section L8, Proposal Format, Tab B.1.c – Price Proposal: There is mention in this section of potential Collective Bargaining Agreement(s) (CBAs) that may be applicable to this effort. Our understanding is that there is indeed a CBA(s) in place at these locations, one for supervisors, and one for PSOs. Respectfully request your consideration in incorporating these into the solicitation documents, and any other U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) Wage Determinations deemed appropriate for this effort.

PREVIOUSLY-GIVEN ANSWER 27: Although DOT has no involvement in the CBA negotiations: (a) it is the Office Security’s understanding that the DOL wage determinations for the District of Columbia for DOL 27102 Guard II is easy to obtain by prospective bidders; and (b) DOT’s contracting officer is asking that all prospective offerors please e-mail—to james.mowery@dot.gov, and to Terry.Brewster@dot.gov, and to all of the other DOT e-mail addresses specified in the subject Solicitation, by June 22, 2023 if possible—a copy of each particular Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and each particular DOL Wage Determination which the prospective offeror believes is relevant to the contractor-services to be provided under the contract resulting from this Solicitation. DOT’s contracting officer is asking for that help because he is IT-challenged and because he accordingly has always experienced great difficulty in navigating DOL’s Wage Determination website.

PREVIOUSLY-POSED QUESTION 47: Question 27 in Amendment 3 references a Collective Bargaining Agreement. While we understand the Government isn't a signatory to the CBA, it is essential for offerors to review the economics of any and all active CBAs on this subject requirement so we may price accordingly. Can the Government please work with the incumbent contract to provide this information?

PREVIOUSLY-GIVEN ANSWER 47: DOT's contracting officer is now studying that matter and hopes to publish a further answer via a further Solicitation Amendment in SAM.gov on approximately June 26, 2023. So prospective offerors should carefully and frequently monitor SAM.gov for any FURTHER Amendments to this Solicitation.

This Solicitation Amendment No. 6’s FURTHER and EXPANDED and COMBINED ANSWER TO PREVIOUSLY-POSED QUESTIONS numbered 27 and 47 is as set forth between horizontal lines immediately below:

A. The following guidance has been given to DOT’s contracting officer by DOT’s Office of General Counsel: Per 41 USC 6707(c), given the fact that the project contemplated in the subject Solicitation will be a service contract: If there is a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), then the new contract to be awarded from the subject Solicitation, which will succeed DOT’s incumbent Guard Services contact, but which will be substantially the same as DOT’s incumbent Guard Services contract, may not pay the service employees less than the wages and fringe benefits the service employees would have received under the incumbent (predecessor) DOT Guard Services contract, including benefits provided for in a CBA. Therefore, each CBA entered into by DOT’s incumbent Guard Services contractor is important information for the subject Solicitation’s offerors to have, and should be shared by DOT with them.

B. In e-mails recently sent to DOT’s contracting officer, DOT’s incumbent Guard Services contractor has confirmed that it has no objections to the contracting officer’s publishing, in SAM.gov, the Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) and Supervisory Agreements which have been entered into by that incumbent contractor.

C. Accordingly, DOT’s contracting officer is publishing, in this Solicitation’s location in the SAM.gov website, and concurrently with the publishing of this Solicitation Amendment No.

6, the following additional related files: (a) the incumbent DOT Guard Services contractor’s file named “BGS and LEOSU Non-Supervisory CBA”; and (b) the incumbent DOT Guard Services contractor’s file named “20_05_DOT Supervisory Agreement FINAL”.

D. And DOT’s contracting officer is also publishing, in this Solicitation’s location in the SAM.gov website, and concurrently with the publishing of this Solicitation Amendment No. 6, the following additional file: “Washington D.C. Area Wage Determination (AWD) 2015-4281 Revision 26 Dated May 10 2023”. And the contracting officer is relatedly confirming that DOT’s cognizant Office of Security Manager for this procurement has recently stated his belief that only that Wage Determination’s labor-category (job-tile) denominated as “27102

- Guard II” is used by DOT and will be used by DOT for guards serving on DOT’s Armed Guard Services Contracts; and that Office of Security Program Manager has further stated his belief that that “27102 - Guard II” job-title pertains to all uniformed PSO positions at DOT; and that DOT Office of Security Manager has further stated his belief that that Wage Determination’s job-title denominated as “27102 – Guard II” does specify the minimum wage-pay-level that DOT’s Guard II Officers must receive—except as is provided in the next sentence. However, and, per the legal guidance mentioned in paragraph A above, DOT’s contracting officer is hereby instructing all of this Solicitation’s offerors to not propose to pay their proposed non-supervisory Guards lower wages or lower benefits than are specified in this Solicitation Amendment No. 6’s concurrently-published file named “BGS and LEOSU Non-Supervisory CBA”, and DOT’s contracting officer is hereby further instructing all of this Solicitation’s offerors to not propose to pay their proposed Supervisors lower wages or lower benefits than are specified in this Solicitation Amendment No. 6’s concurrently-published file named “20_05_DOT Supervisory Agreement FINAL”.

E. Via an e-mail sent to DOT on June 26th, 2023, DOT’s incumbent Guard Services contractor has stated that its non-supervisory CBA and its supervisory agreement, cited in paragraphs “C” and “D” above in this Solicitation Amendment No. 6, were not issued by DOL and do not appear on DOL’s website, but follow all DOL requirements for wage agreements.

And the incumbent contractor further stated that publishing such wage agreements on DOL’s website is not a requirement.

This Amendment No. 6 conveys no further information and provides no further clarifications regarding the subject Solicitation.

James H. Mowery III Contracting Officer, DOT June 26, 2023