Q&A_Attachment_1_-_03-01-2018.pdf

ATTACHMENT 1

1. In light of the California Supreme Court’s ruling in Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc. (2016) 2 Cal. 5th 257, that California law forbids an “on-call” rest period, should offerors assume that all posts require relief?

The Revised Post Exhibit, included as part of this amendment, identifies the posts that would contractually require a relief officer to be provided to stand post if or when the contractor provides a break to one of its PSOs standing at that post. While the post exhibit does not state that every post requires a relief officer to stand post during a break, the SOW at section 4.1.6 states “The Contractor shall adhere to all federal, state, and local government laws, regulations, and statutes, to include but are not limited to areas concerning health, safety, security, and privacy.” Therefore, offerors must comply with all requirements stated in the solicitation as well as all federal, state, and local government laws, regulations, and statutes. It is the obligation of the contractor to determine how it will comply with state, and local government laws, regulations, and statutes. The solicitation/Statement of Work does not have any “on-call” rest period requirements.

2. If all posts do not require relief, will the Government invoke Federal supremacy under the rationale of State of Ohio v. Thomas, 173 U.S. 276 (1899) to excuse the successful offeror from having to provide relief in satisfaction of State law?

The Government will not invoke Federal supremacy under the circumstances stated in the question.

3. Under California law, an employee who is required to be on call during a rest break is entitled to an additional hour of wages for that day. Will the Government compensate the contractor for that additional wage requirement in a FAR 52.222- 43 price adjustment?

The solicitation/Statement of Work does not have any “on-call” rest period requirements.

The government will not compensate the contractor for these costs under an adjustment pursuant to FAR 52.222-43 or any other contract clause. Additionally, the government will not compensate the contractor under FAR 52.222-43 or any other contract clause for any costs associated with a wage premium above the standard PSO rate for guards that stand at posts that do not require relief or for which the guard remains on call during his/her break. Any costs pertaining to compliance with any applicable federal, state and local government laws, regulations and requirements should be included in the contractor’s pricing and will not be reimbursed or otherwise be considered for a price adjustment by the Government.”

4. Under California law, all employees under this contract will be entitled to a 30-minute meal break in which they are fully relieved of all duties, or an additional hour of wages as a penalty. The only exceptions are for employees covered by a Collective Bargaining Agreement that meets certain requirements or employees who execute an “on-duty meal agreement” that meets certain requirements.

Since any new contractor who is not the incumbent will not meet these requirements at contract start – only the actual employer can enter these agreements – will the Government permit an equitable adjustment in the first year for the additional wage penalty so that the incumbent is not unfairly advantaged?

The Government will not permit an equitable adjustment for the circumstances stated in the question.

5. Historically, employers in California have been subject to wage-and-hour class actions to enforce these California meal and rest break requirements. In addition, these cases have been brought by “private attorney general actions,” also known as “PAGA,” which include state-mandated penalties intended to incentivize lawsuits. In light of the disruption and exorbitant expense involved simply in defending these actions, will the Government invoke Federal supremacy under the rationale of State of Ohio v. Thomas, 173 U.S. 276 (1899) to shield contractors from these lawsuits?

The Government will not invoke Federal supremacy.

6. The Post Exhibit has a column that is noted as ‘Post Type’ and one noted as ‘Post Location’. In some buildings the notes identify posts with screening requirements but not in all posts. Can the Government please confirm that the only posts with X-Ray or Mag training under the new NWDTP standards are noted on the post schedule?

Amendment 0001 revises Exhibit 13, Post Exhibit. Please refer to Amendment 0001.

7. There is a column on the post exhibit that is titled ‘Security Clearance, but all the data are blank. The RFP requires the awardee to possess a TS FCL by start of contract. Given that it takes almost two years to get a TS FCL today, can the Government please provide data in this column so that offerors can assess the risk of responding or subcontracting these cleared posts?

Amendment 0001 revises Exhibit 13, Post Exhibit (PE) and provides the requested data. For Security Clearance PE column it shows Top Secret (TS); Moderate Risk Background Investigation (MBI). Please refer to Amendment 0001.

8. We looked through all the documentation and did not see any recommended number of security officers for this project. What is the minimum recommended number of protective security officers and supervisors you need to complete this project?

Exhibit 13: Post Exhibit was provided to describe the type, number and location of posts where PSOs will be required. There is not a minimum or recommended number of PSOs and/or supervisors for the requirement. Staffing plan details are at the discretion of each offeror so long as the requirements of the SOW are met.

9. What was the previously awarded solicitation this security contract is replacing and what was the award amount?

In response to RFP HSHQW9-13-R-00002, Contract HSHQW9-13-D-00004 was awarded in the amount of $66,452,256.61. This award information is available in the FedBizOpps (www.fedbizopps.gov) posting dated 1/13/2013.

10. Who is the current incumbent?

Paragon Systems, Inc.

11. When was the current incumbent awarded the contract?

June 29, 2013

12. What is the estimated usage (number of annual hours) of prior contract?

The estimated number of annual hours to be used under the prior contract is 334,565 hours. However, it should be noted that the requirement covered under the instant solicitation differs from the requirement covered by the prior contract. The revised Exhibit 13, Post Exhibit, included as part of this amendment, indicates the estimated number of hours to be used under the contract to be awarded under this solicitation, whereas the pricing schedule indicates the maximum number of hours that may be ordered under the resulting contract.”

13. What is the estimated total number of annual hours for this contract?

338,615 hours

14. What is the current bill rate?

The current hourly rate cannot be provided as the information is proprietary to the incumbent contractor.

15. What was the contract amount spent last year?

The estimated expenditures during the 3rd Option Period covering October 1, 2016 through September 30, 2017 was $17,714,032.00.

16. Are there any additional services that may be needed that are not listed in the RFP?

No, the RFP represents all known requirements.

17. Is there any minimum wage/pay?

Refer to Attachment 5 for the applicable wage determination(s) and applicable collective bargaining agreement(s).

http://www.fedbizopps.gov/

18. Is there any prevailing wage, living wage ordinance, state or local mandated wage, contract specific wage, or collective bargaining agreement?

See response to question 17 above.

19. Is a Bid Bond required? If yes, how much?

No.

20. How often / how many times have you assessed liquidated damages, if applicable?

None.

21. If awarded, will a Performance Bond be required?

No.

22. If yes, how much?

N/A

23. If awarded, will a Payment Bond be required? If yes, how much?

No.

24. Is there a desired page limit for the proposal?

Refer to Proposal Submission Requirements, Section 4 “Page Limitation, Page 382 of 416.