Attach_7_Amend_6_-_RFP_Questions_and_Gov._Responses.pdf

RFP# 70FA2018R00000013

Amendment 6 Attachment 7

NETC Facility O&M Support Services

Solicitation Document Page # Section, Subsection, Paragraph #, Bullet Point (BP) #, etc.

Question or Comment and Government Response

Attach 1 – Clauses, Provisions, Addenda

Business Proposal Instructions / JV documents (last paragraph)

RFP Excerpt:

The Business Proposal shall also contain as and if applicable a copy of the appropriate Joint Venture (JV) documents required for continued award eligibility consideration by the time responses are due. However, Offerors are advised that if the period of the JV arrangement is less than the period of performance specified in this solicitation, and a future extension to the JV arrangement to meet the period of performance specified in the solicitation is not possible or cannot be guaranteed, then the Offeror may not receive further consideration for award.

Question:

Sir, IAW CFR 125.9 (d)(1)(iii) (A) Except for contracts with durations of more than five years (including options), a contract awarded to a joint venture between a prote´ge´ and a mentor as a small business continues to qualify as an award to small business for the life of that contract and the joint venture remains obligated to continue performance on that contract.

The SBA grants the Joint Venture for 3 years with the possibility of a 3 year extension. That being said, the solicitation language appears to be restricting and/or steering to a particular contractor by removing the possibility of a JV competing.

Request this information be removed in its entirety.

If a JV agreement is for a period of less than five years, the JV Offeror will not be eliminated from the competition based on this requirement where 13 C.F.R. 125.9(d)(1)(iii)(A) applies.

There were insufficient response clarity concerns communicated to the Government regarding the following questions from Attachment 7 – Amendment 4. The Government responses to these questions have been further clarified as follows:

# Solicitation Document Page # Section, Subsection, Paragraph #, Bullet Point (BP) #, etc.

Question or Comment and Government Response

Attach 1 – Clauses, Provisions, Addenda

41-42

Proposal Submission Instructions do not list any naming conventions for the file submissions to distinguish Volumes or Contractors.

Does the Government want us to prepare our own naming conventions for the files? The Addendum to 52.212-1 section on pages 37-43 and specifically the Proposal Submission Instructions on p.41-42 outline and address this question.

AMENDMENT 6:

We have reviewed the section and the pages referenced in this answer, but cannot find any information on how the files are to be named. We would like to ensure we are in compliance with this requirement. Can you please provide the exact paragraph reference where this information is provided and/or provide the naming convention desired? Specific naming conventions are not being provided.

20 Attachment 2 – PWS 9

4. Definitions / FEMA Directives

The referenced Directives are not included in the solicitation. Are there any tasks in the Directives that will require contractor labor to support? Labor support in performance of PWS requirements and tasks must comply with these Directives.

AMENDMENT 6:

We understand the Government’s response, however, how can offerors know the labor support necessary to comply with the Directives when they have not been provided? There is no need to provide the Directives because they either concern things like no alcohol in the workplace, sexual harassment or lewd acts, etc. OR if they concern the labor support provided under this requirement, then they are already addressed within the tasks of this PWS.

# Solicitation Document Page # Section, Subsection, Paragraph #, Bullet Point (BP) #, etc.

Question or Comment and Government Response

Attach 5 – RFP Response Pricing Template

N/A Labor & ODC Tabs

Please confirm that bidders are to use/price the wage and benefit rates specified in the CBA Appendix A effective 10/01/2018 for the Base Year and the rates effective 10/01/2019 for OP 1 through OP 4.

This is acceptable. Yes, confirmed.

123 Attach 10 – TE 1 29-30 General Information & Campus Map / 2. Grounds

Q1. How many linear feet of gravel road or gravel parking areas are to be maintained on the facility? All of it.

AMENDMENT 6:

We understand the Government’s response, however, it does not provide the information needed to permit adequate pricing of this area of performance. Can the linear feet of these areas be provided so that offerors can adequately estimate the labor hours that will be involved in performing this task?

Gravel parking areas consists of a roughly 450 sq. ft. area in front of Building A and a 320 sq. ft. area by the Security Building at the Main Gate. There is also an access road that is crushed stone that covers a roughly 18.7K sq. ft. area as it runs from Building Q / the Barn around the back side of the campus property adjacent to Rt.15 to Building J. Government would provide materials for maintaining.

Attach 10 – TE1 updated.

Q2. Is any maintenance to be performed on the Fallen Firefighter Memorial brick walkways? Yes. Reference PWS.

The following question was submitted in response to the Government response from Questions 6 & 11 (included in this document for reference purposes) on p.3 of Attachment 7 – RFP Questions and Government responses from Amendment 4. It merits a Government response (in red), but was too large to fit within the table structure of this document.

Question:

According to the answers to questions 6 and 11, while the government acknowledges the “right of first refusal” FAR regulation, it is insisting that offerors provide resumes for the Other Resumed Personnel – the Trades personnel. This provides an unfair advantage to the incumbent offeror in that only the incumbent has access to the resumes of the current personnel, yet offerors are required by FAR 52.222-17, Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers to “in in good faith offer those service employees employed under the predecessor contract whose employment will be terminated as a result of award of this contract or the expiration of the contract under which the service employees were hired, a right of first refusal of employment under this contract in positions for which the service employees are qualified.”

Offerors should not assume that predecessor employees will meet the minimum qualifications specified in the RFP, or that qualified predecessor employees will accept offers of employment. The requirements of the RFP are not the same as the predecessor contract, and qualified predecessor employees are not required to accept a new contractor’s offer of employment. Therefore, Offerors must ensure proposed personnel meet the minimum qualifications specified in the RFP.

This also places the non-incumbent offeror and the non-incumbent job applicants in an unfair position as, according to the contract clause 3052.215-70 Key Personnel or Facilities (Dec 2003), offerors are not permitted to make personnel changes without CO approval.

Other Resumed Personnel are not Key Personnel. HSAR 3052.215-70 Key Personnel or Facilities (Dec 2003) prohibits Contractors from removing or replacing Key Personnel without Contracting Officer approval. Therefore, a contract modification would be required for any proposed changes in Key Personnel. Any proposed changes to Other Resumed Personnel (Trade) positions would not require a modification to the contract, but would require the Contractor to provide documentation so the Government can verify that the proposed replacement meets the minimum qualifications specified in the contract for the position. The Government is not requiring letters of commitment for Key or Other Resumed Personnel.

If we solicit resumes for the Trades positions but the incumbent personnel are found to be qualified, will offerors be held to the person named in the resume provided with our proposal? If so, that violates the FAR.

No. The RFP does not ask or imply Offerors violate the FAR. The awardee will be required to provide qualified personnel for the Other Resumed Personnel (Trades) positions. If the incumbent personnel are qualified for any of these positions, they will be entitled to receive a right of first refusal from the awardee in accordance with FAR 52.222-17.

We respectfully request that resume requirements for trades persons be removed from the requirement as it provides an unfair advantage to the incumbent contractor and contradicts the FAR.

The requirement to provide resumes for Other Resumed Personnel is unchanged for the above listed reasons.

Copied from Attachment 7 – Amendment 4

# Solicitation Document Page # Section, Subsection, Paragraph #, Bullet Point (BP) #, etc.

Question or Comment and Government Response

Attach 1 – Clauses, Provisions, Addenda

3052.215-70 Key Personnel or Facilities (Dec 2003)

Please clarify if offerors are to submit resumes with their proposals for these positions: Mechanics (Maintenance)/HVACR Mechanic, Electricians (Maintenance), Carpenter, Plumber. Yes and as stated in Section E / Addendum to 52.212-1 / Technical Proposal Instructions / Key and Other Resumed Personnel Experience / Qualifications on p.39.

Attach 1 – Clauses, Provisions, Addenda

Addendum to 52.212-1 / Key Personnel / 1st paragraph

Please confirm that only the key personnel resumes are required that is listed on page 17 & 18 and not other personnel as other personal are required to be given first right of refusal based on DOL law, and in previous rfp the requirement for other personnel were removed and just key personnel were required. See response to Question 6.

Government agrees Other Resumed Personnel are required to be given right of first refusal. Government is only setting Min.

Qualifications for Other Resumed Personnel and requesting resumes as means to confirm Min. Qualifications for these positions are met.

The following question was submitted in response to the Government changes to the Technical Proposal Instructions concerning Company Experience on pgs.38-39 of Attachment 1 – RFP Clauses-Provisions-Addenda from Amendment 4. It merits a Government response (in red), but was too large to fit within the table structure of this document.

Attach 1 – Amendment 4 Excerpt:

“Describe company experience of one (1) project SIMILAR IN SIZE AND SCOPE and one (1) project SIMILAR IN COMPLEXITY in relation to this requirement. All cited projects must have been performed for a minimum of one (1) year within the past five (5) years. Reference corresponding evaluation section of Company Experience for definitions of SIMILAR IN SIZE AND SCOPE and SIMILAR IN COMPLEXITY. However, if an Offeror’s SIMILAR IN COMPLEXITY project includes all PWS Service Areas, then no SIMILAR IN SIZE AND SCOPE project is required except as outlined in the next two (2) paragraphs.

If the Offeror is a Joint Venture (JV), then one of the partners must meet one of these project requirements, and the other partner shall meet the other. However and in the event one of the JV partners meets a SIMILAR IN COMPLEXITY project that includes all PWS Service Areas, then the other partner still must meet a SIMILAR IN SIZE AND SCOPE project corresponding to that partner’s proposed performance on this requirement.

If the Offeror is proposing a Prime Contractor / Subcontractor relationship, the SIMILAR IN COMPLEXITY cited project must be from the Prime Contractor, and any Subcontractor proposed performance requires a corresponding SIMILAR IN SIZE AND SCOPE cited project even if the Prime’s SIMILAR IN COMPLEXITY project were to include all PWS Service Areas.”

Question:

Sir, request that this section be adjusted so that the request is not restricting or limiting competition. At this time, it appears that the requirement is steering to only one Contractor having the ability to meet the requirement for award and not allowing for effective competition.

My suggestion is to possibly change to read, 2 projects meeting the Complexity and Size and Scope definition. One of the purposes of a Joint Venture relationship is for the protégé to gain opportunities through some of the past performance of the mentor. Through the remaining portion of company experience portion of the submittal the relationship would further be defined.

The instruction has been revised to require all offerors to submit 2 projects - one (1) project SIMILAR IN SIZE AND SCOPE and one (1) project SIMILAR IN COMPLEXITY. The JV and Prime Contractor / Subcontractor instructions will not be changed.