The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
| Reference |
| Question |
| Government Response |
| 1 |
| RFP L.3.B, Section 5 Experience |
“Contractors shall provide the information listed below for prime contracts under which it performed relevant work similar in size, scope, and complexity to the subject requirement.”
| Please clarify “prime contracts.” Does this phrase indicate that the identifying information for the contract must be the prime information, or does it indicate that Experience references must be limited to contracts where the Offeror was the prime? Given this procurement is a small business HUBZone set-aside, we encourage the government to allow Offerors to include subcontracts as examples of Experience. |
| The identifying information (A – G) should be that of the prime contract. However, the offeror may include the relative experience as a predecessor company, major subcontractor, Contractor Team Arrangement/Joint Venture, or an offeror's parent or affiliated companies. Within part F, the offeror should describe their role with the referenced contract (i.e., as the prime contractor, as a major contractor, etc.). |
| 2 |
| Performance Work Statement |
| Is the maintenance, calibration, and/or inspection of automated external defibrillators within the scope of this contract? |
| Contractor will check AEDs monthly for battery life (expiration date). When a battery is found to be expired, or nearly expired, the contractor will notify the Government’s safety official who will provide fresh batteries. AEDs perform a self-test when powered on; no calibration is required. The contractor will coordinate any errors detected with the Government’s safety official. Occasional software updates will be coordinated by the Government’s safety official. |
| 3 |
| PWS L.3.B, Section 5 Experience and Section 6 |
| Would the CDP consider allowing one page each of overview/introductory information for Section 5 and for Section 6? |
| Yes, offerors may provide a one-page verview/introduction for Sections 5 and 6. However, the one-page introduction will be considered “Front Matter” and will not be considered part of the proposal content for the technical evaluation. |
| 4 |
| FAR 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting |
| The solicitation includes the current version of FAR 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting, which has not yet been updated to incorporate the similarly situated language that is found in SBA’s regulations. In December 2018, DoD issued a class deviation to incorporate the similarly situated provisions for all DoD procurements. Also last December, the FAR Councils issued a proposed change that would incorporate the similarly situated language into the FAR. But that is only a proposed change at this point. Until the proposed change is finalized, the FAR does not contain the similarly situated language. |
While the FAR does not contain the similarly situated language, SBA’s rules have included the similarly situated language for several years, and this is also part of a law that Congress passed several years ago.
For this solicitation, will the CDP permit a HUBZone prime contractor to satisfy the limitations on subcontracting based on combination of the labor performed by the prime contractor as well as the labor performed by its similarly-situated HUBZone subcontractor, pursuant to SBA’s limitation on subcontracting rule at 13 C.F.R. 125.6.
The FAR has not implemented the SBA rule for the similarly situated language on Limitations on Subcontracting clause, and the FAR deviation has not been finalized/issued. Additionally, we do not follow DoD procurement guidelines. Therefore, we must follow the FAR clause (52.219-14) as written. At least 50 percent of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel shall be expended for employees of the (HUBZone prime) concern.
| 5 |
| FAR 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting |
| With regards to compliance with FAR 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting, does the CDP consider only direct labor costs, or does the CDP look at the total labor costs to determine compliance? |
| The Government will consider the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel. That cost includes direct labor rates, health and welfare (fringe) benefits, and applicable pension rates. |
| 6 |
| RFP |
| What costs does the predetermined funding in the ODC CLIN’s cover? |
| The costs of all supplies, materials, equipment, overtime, temporary labor (due to surge), “project” subcontractors, and recurring subcontractors are covered under reimbursable CLINs. |
The FFP CLINs should include all fully burdened FTE and PTE labor costs required to perform the PWS tasks.
| 7 |
| RFP |
| In the interest of equitable benefits across all represented employees on this HUBZone, small business set-aside contract, will the Government recommend one union be selected for the new consolidated contract? Alternatively, will the Government coordinate with the two existing unions to harmonize the differences in the collective bargaining agreements, ensuring consistent benefits and provide new guidance for the firm fixed price cost submission? |
| The Government has little to no involvement in the CBA process. The contractor employees will be responsible for the selection of successor union for one or both CBAs. The successful offeror will be responsible for reaching a CBA(s) with that union(s). The Government anticipates the new CBS(s) will be executed within one year of contract award. Once executed, the CBA(s) will be incorporated into the contract, along with any equitable adjustments (if necessary). |
| 8 |
| RFP |
| There are many differences between the two existing collective bargaining agreements. To ensure consistent and equitable treatment of all the represented employees, can the government provide guidance as to which collective bargaining agreement to follow with respect to paying out H&W rates and annual increases? |
| For the purpose of this competitive solicitation and proposal evaluation, the Government will ensure compliance of business proposals for non-exempt employees against the terms and conditions of both the (2) existing CBAs. One CBA (w/ International Association of Machinist and Aerospace Workers) applies only to those proposed non-exempt employees located at the COBRATF, all other non-exempt employees located at CDP (non-COBRATF) would fall under the other CBA (w/ The International Union of Operating Engineers). |
| 9 |
| RFP |
| How should the collective bargaining agreement with LOGZONE be treated under the proposal we are submitting since it ends 3/16/2020. This would be pertaining to Section 5.5 - Successor and Assigns in the International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, District Lodge No. 75 and Local Lodge No. 291 CBA. |
| See Question # 9 response. Similar to a DoL SCA wage determination, the business proposal evaluation compliance review will only compare to the applicable labor wage rates. If there are no further increased labor wage rates included in the CBA beyond final year of the CBA, then the compliance review will be made with the final year of the CBA. In business proposals, no escalation is required following the base period, as any future increase in wage rates resulting from a new CBA(s) will be incorporated through a equitable adjustment modification of the contract. |
| 10 |
| PWS |
| Sections 7.1.3 – 7.1.7 (including subsections) appear to be redundant of Section 7.2. Please clarify whether these are discrete requirements and if so, how they are to be differentiated. |
| Disregard Section 7.1.3 – 7.1.7. Section 7.2 is the applicable requirement. |
| 11 |
| PWS 6.2 |
| "General Requirements and Procedures for Service Call Work" and "HVAC and Refrigeration Systems" are both numbered 6.2. Will the government confirm it intends for the offeror to perform both requirements? |
| The formatting error of the list of performance requirements in Section 6.0 does not relieve the contractor of performing the tasks in Section 7.0 |
| 12 |
| PWS 7.1.8 |
| Although it appears the Government's intent was for Section 6 and Section 7 of the PWS to address the same requirements, "General Requirements and Procedures for Recurring Work" in Section 7.1.8 does not have a corresponding requirement in PWS Section 6. Will the Government confirm the validity of this requirement? |
| The requirement at Section 7.1.8 is valid. |
Any omissions from the list of performance requirements in Section 6.0 do not relieve the contractor of performing the tasks in Section 7.0
| 13 |
| PWS 7.1.9-7.1.14.1 |
| It appears that PWS sections 7.1.9 - 7.1.14.1 were intended to address recurring work. Will the Government confirm that these requirements are a subset of the requirement in PWS Section 7.1.8? |
| The appearance of 7.1.9 – 7.1.14.1 as a subset of 7.1.8 is a formatting error which does not change the requirements contained therein. |
| 14 |
| PWS 7.1.3 and 7.2 |
| Both PWS Sections 7.1.3 and 7.2 are titled "General Requirements and Procedures for Service Call Work." However, the requirements as written are slightly different. Will the Government confirm that this is in fact a duplicate requirement, and/or provide clarification regarding which requirement takes precedence? |
| Disregard Section 7.1.3 – 7.1.7. Section 7.2 is the applicable requirement. |
| 15 |
| PWS 7.6 |
| Although it appears the Government's intent was for Section 6 and Section 7 of the PWS to address the same requirements, "Filter Exhaust System" in Section 7.6 does not have a corresponding requirement in PWS Section 6. Will the Government confirm the validity of this requirement? |
| The requirement at Section 7.6 is valid. |
Any omissions from the list of performance requirements in Section 6.0 do not relieve the contractor of performing the tasks in Section 7.0
| 16 |
| PWS 7.10.4 |
| Although it appears the Government's intent was for Section 6 and Section 7 of the PWS to address the same requirements, "Provide Maintenance and Repairs to Dining Areas" in Section 7.6 does not have a corresponding requirement in PWS Section 6. Will the Government confirm the validity of this requirement? |
| It appears the intent of the question is to address the requirement at Section 7.10 Repair of Food Service Equipment, which is a valid requirement. Any omissions from the list of performance requirements in Section 6.0 do not relieve the contractor of performing the tasks in Section 7.0 |
| 17 |
| PWS 6.18 |
| Although it appears the Government's intent was for Section 6 and Section 7 of the PWS to address the same requirements, "Recycling Services" in Section 6.18 does not have a corresponding requirement in PWS Section 7. Will the Government confirm the validity of this requirement? |
| It appears the intent of the question is to address the requirement at Section 7.19 Recycling Services, which is a valid requirement. Any omissions from the list of performance requirements in Section 6.0 do not relieve the contractor of performing the tasks in Section 7.0 |
| 18 |
| Attachment E |
| Attachment E provides an interval of "B = Biweekly" for some deliverables. Will the Government confirm that it intends for "Biweekly" to mean "every two weeks" rather than "twice per week"? |
| Any use of the term “biweekly” in the PWS or attachments will mean: done, produced, or occurring every two weeks. |
| 19 |
| Attachment C and PWS |
| Attachment C lists Mail, Parcel, Distribution/Shipping/ Receiving as PWS 7.20; however, the |
| PWS Section 7.21 Mail Center Operation is the requirement. |
| 20 |
| Attachment C and PWS 7.24.9 |
| Will the Government confirm that it intends for "Biweekly" to mean "every two weeks" rather than "twice per week"? |
| Any use of the term “biweekly” in the PWS or attachments will mean: done, produced, or occurring every two weeks. |
| 21 |
| RFP L.3.C |
| Will the Government confirm that it does not desire a cost worksheet, and that all costs are to be provided only in Section B? |
| Other than the price breakdowns/breakouts required in RFP L.3.C parts 2 (non-exempt labor) and 3 (overtime rates), no additional cost worksheet or breakdowns are required. All offeror proposed FFP prices and Government provided CR cost are to be provide only in Section B Cost/Price Schedule. |
| 22 |
| PWS 7.18 |
| May janitorial services, specifically floor mopping, buffing, waxing, polishing, etc. be performed after normal duty hours? |
| Yes. |
| 23 |
| Attachment B |
| Please provide total square feet of carpeted and non-carpeted floor for the ARTC. |
| All floors in the complex are bare concrete. |
| 24 |
| PWS 7.18.7.4 |
| Please provide the number of general waste dumpsters, cubic yard capacities for each dumpster currently used and locations. |
| Location, number of dumpsters/capacity, and frequency serviced are as follows: |
· B61, 2/8cy, 4x/week;
· COBRA, 2/8cy, 4x/week;
· B162, 1/4 cy, 1x/week;
· B303, 1/4 cy, 1x/week;
· NTF, 2/8 cy, 4x/week;
· B251, 2/8 cy, 4x/week;
· B17, 2/8cy, 4x/week;
· B320, 2/8 cy, 4x/week;
· B40, 1/6 cy, 1x/week;
1/30 cy (recycle), as needed; 1/30 cy (constr. Debris), as needed
| 25 |
| PWS 7.18.7.5 |
| Is the cost to provide waste dumpsters and disposal included in the government-provided ODC cost line? |
| Yes |
| 26 |
| Attachment T |
| Please clarify the floor cleaning requirements for building 40 (warehouse). Do the floor cleaning requirements (sweeping, dust mopping, polishing/buffing, etc.) in Attachment T apply to Building 40? |
| Yes. |
| 27 |
| PWS 7.25 |
| Please clarify portable toilet and hand wash station requirements. Is this a part of the ODC line or a responsibility of the contractor. If contractor responsibility, please provide estimates for total toilets/hand stations per month in conjunction with estimated number of event attendees. |
| 4 portable toilets and 2 hand-wash stations are continuously positioned at the ARTC near bldg. 640. Any requirement beyond this is not estimable. All costs associated with providing and servicing portable toilets and hand-wash stations are reimbursed under an ODC CLIN. |
| 28 |
| Attachment GG |
| Will the government confirm that all positions on this contract qualify as either "Classification II" or "Classification III"? |
| Per CDP Safety Plan (COBRATF), Annex A, Blood-Borne Pathogens, 2c (5)(a), it is the project manager’s or supervisor’s responsibility to assign the risk of exposure Classification I, II, or III to each position under their control or purview. Additionally, PWS 1.4.13.5 Blood-Borne Pathogens requires the contractor to determine which job classifications or specific tasks and procedures involve reasonably anticipated contact with blood or other potentially infectious materials and for providing protections of 29 CFR 1910.1030 to those employees. |
| 29 |
| RFP Section 5, page 64/73, Section 5: Experience |
| Does Section 5 require a detailed explanation of experience that ties directly to the contracts we provide in Section 6: Past Performance? |
| No, while contract references for Experience may be the same as a contract reference in Past Performance, they do not need to tie directly to contract referenced in past performance, or vice versa. Either way, offerors should be sure to provide all the required information for each respective technical proposal section/factor, even if they are the same contract reference. |
| 30 |
| RFP Section 5, page 64/73, Section 5: Experience |
| Please confirm if teammates or subcontractors of the Prime Offeror may submit examples of experience as part of the 3-5 examples for Section 5? |
| As stated in the RFP, this information may include the relative experience of predecessor company |
(resulting from mergers and acquisitions), major subcontractor(s) (defined as a subcontract with a total value greater than $750,000 over the life of the contract), or Contractor Team Arrangement/Joint Venture (FAR 9.6), or an offeror's parent or affiliated companies (where the offeror's proposal demonstrates that the resources of the parent or affiliated company will affect the performance of the offeror)
| 31 |
| RFP Section 6, page 64/73, Section 6: Past Performance |
| Please confirm if teammates or subcontractors of the Prime Offeror may submit past performance summaries as part of the 3-5 examples for Section 6? |
| As stated in the RFP, if the offeror has no similar corporate or organizational past performance, the offeror may substitute past performance |
of a predecessor company (resulting from mergers and acquisitions); major subcontractor(s) (defined as a subcontract with a total value greater than $750,000 over the life of the contract); Contractor Team Arrangement/Joint Venture (FAR 9.6), or an offeror's parent or affiliated companies (where the offeror's proposal demonstrates that the resources of the parent or affiliated company will affect the performance of the offeror), or key personnel with relative past performance. If using past performance of key personnel, while they were employed for another company, it should be for the same key personnel role being proposed for this requirement and also verifiable.
| 32 |
| RFP - Letters of Commitment (Subcontractors) |
| Is the offerors required to provide Letters of Commitments for all proposed subcontractors or is there a cost threshold for this subcontractor requirement? (Example 5% of the total estimated cost of the contract). |
| Offerors should provide Letters of Commitment from any major subcontractors, as defined in the Experience or Past Performance factors. |
| 33 |
| RFP – L.3.E. Proposal Submission |
| Please clarify the submission time. |
| 4:00 PM, EASTERN TIME, APRIL 24, 2019 |