Questions__Answers_Nevada_022818.docx

70RFPW18RW9000001

70RFPW18RW9000004 AMENDMENT 0001

ATTACHMENT 1

1. I did not see a bidder’s conference inside the solicitation or posted on FBO’s website. If there will be a bidders conference can you email me the information?

a. There will not be an in-person bidder’s conference. The Pre-Proposal Conference power point slides, posted as part of Amendment 0001 to the RFP, provide the information that would have been provided at an in-person conference.

2. RFP Reference: Proposal Submission Requirements; 2. Standard Form 1449, page 411 of 442 states, when responding to this RFP the Contractor must use the Standard Form 1449 SF 1449 as a cover page to the proposal. However, the Proposal Check List says the SF 1449 is to be included in the Price Volume.

a. Since this solicitation calls for a Technical Proposal and a Price Proposal, are offerors to include the SF 1449 as a Cover Page in the Price Volume, the Technical Volume, or both Volumes?

b. If the SF 1449 is to be included in the Technical Volume, please confirm that it’s excluded from the 20-page limit?

a. The SF1449 cover page shall be included in Package Two, Non-Technical Documents (Price Volume) and is not part of the Technical Proposal. The SF1449 is not required as part of the Technical Proposal. See Attachment 9 Proposal Submission Checklist.

b. Not applicable. The SF1449 is not included in the Technical Proposal and is not included in its page limit.

3. RFP Reference: Proposal Submission Requirements; 4. Page Limitation, page 412 of 442 states, Page Limitation-Excluding the cover page, table of contents, past performance project forms(attachment 3), past performance questionnaires (attachment 4), field level supervision exhibit(attachment 8), and the teaming agreement or teaming narrative, the technical proposal(covering all non-price factors) is limited to twenty (20) pages in at least 11pt. font and 1”margins. Pages in excess of this limitation will not be evaluated. The pages excluded from evaluation will be at the discretion of the Agency.

RFP Reference: 1 Relevant Past Performance; a. Past Performance Questionnaires, page 413 of 442 sates, The Contractor shall instruct the customer representative to complete the questionnaire and return it, by the RFP submission due date, directly to Paul Metzger by email (preferred) at Paul.Metzger@hq.dhs.gov or, by mail to Paul Metzger at U.S. Department of Homeland, FPS Acquisition Division, WCCG, 400 15th Street SW, Auburn, WA 98001.

a. Please clarify whether Attachment 4 is a required or an optional submission for the Technical Volume.

a. Attachment 4, Past Performance Questionnaire, is an optional submission for the Technical Volume. If Attachment 4 form(s) is(are) submitted, it(they) will be excluded from the page count limitation.

4. RFP Reference: Attachment 1 SOW, Section 1.1.2 General Information, page 51 of 442 states, FPS considers PSO positions equivalent to the Department of Labor, Service Contract Act Directory of Operations, 27102 Guard II.

a. Are there any PSO positions on this contract that do not fall under the incorporated CBAs?

b. If so, will the Government please incorporate the WD into this RFP?

c. Are the guards in Elko members of SPFPA Local 889? If not, please clarify which union they are associated with.

a. The Elko PSO position does not specifically fall under either CBA and are not associated with a union. Although the ELKO PSOs are not covered by either CBA, they currently receive the same compensation as the Reno CBA. The Wage Determination applicable to Elko County is incorporated into Amendment 0001.

b. The CBA between North American Security and International Union, Security, Police, and Fire Professionals of America (SPFPA), Local 887; and the CBA between North American Security and International Union, Security, Police, and Fire Professionals of America (SPFPA), Local 889 were both included as part of the RFP. There are no other wage determinations applicable to this RFP.

c. See ‘a’ above.

5. RFP Reference: Attachment 1 SOW, Section 6.6.4 Transitional Weapons Training and Qualification, page 74 of 442 states, The Contractor shall complete Transitional Weapons training and qualifications whenever there is a change in the model or caliber of the duty firearm with like platforms.

a. What is the model number and caliber of weapon currently utilized on the contract?

b. Is transitional weapons training required for this contract?

a. Smith and Wesson M&P .40 Caliber.

b. Transitional Weapons Training is required IF the make, model or caliber is changed. Weapon Platform Training is required IF the type of platform is changed (i.e. revolver to semi-automatic). In any case, PSOs must qualify with their assigned weapons.

6. RFP Reference: Attachment 1 SOW, Section 6.7.4, page 78 of 442 states, General question regarding NWDTP Training.

a. Please specify which posts require x-ray screening training?

b. Please specify which posts require non-x-ray screening training?

c. Please specify which posts require both x-ray screening training and non-x-ray screening training?

a. The updated post exhibit, provided as part of Amendment 0001, specifies which posts require X-Ray screening.

b. The updated post exhibit, provided as part of Amendment 0001, specifies which posts require non-X-Ray screening.

c. The updated post exhibit, provided as part of Amendment 0001, specifies which posts require X-Ray/non-X-Ray screening.

7. RFP Reference: Attachment 1 SOW, Section 9.2.4 Required Services, page 86 of 442 states, PSOs shall provide a post/shift change brief, to the on-coming PSO, of recent or anticipated occurrences of the assigned post.

a. Does this contract require a formal guard mount?

b. If so, what is the duration of the required guard mount?

a. The contract resulting from this RFP will not require a formal guard mount.

b. Not applicable. Guard mount not required.

8. RFP Reference: Training Certifications, Section 6.3.1, page 71 of 442:

a. Is the incumbent workforce trained and certified to the requirements of this RFP and SOW?

a. The incumbent workforce is trained and certified to the requirements of the incumbent contract, which may differ in several aspects from the current requirement (specifically, NWDTP and screening training). It should not be assumed that additional training of the incumbent workforce will not be required to meet the requirements of this RFP and SOW.

9. Solicitation requires the submission of the Price Element Breakdown Worksheet (Attachment #6).

a. Since the RFP includes 2 different locations covered by two different CBA’s, and therefore different costing elements, does the government require one sheet for each location, or a “blended” worksheet including all pricing on one Worksheet?

a. The Contractor shall provide a detailed breakdown of its proposed unit prices for each line item. However, the Price Element Breakdown Attachment 6 is the suggested (not required) format. Submission of either two different price element breakdowns (one for each CBA) or a single price element breakdown with a single blended labor rate is acceptable. If a blended rate is used, offerors are encouraged to describe how any blended rates were developed. The manner in which these submissions are completed is at the discretion of each offeror.

10. RFP indicates the requirement for paid parking at certain locations.

a. Can the government clarify which locations where the paid parking is required and cost per location. Also is this to be included in our base pricing or is this to be handles as an “ODC”?

a. The updated Exhibit 13, included as part of this amendment, indicates the parking allowance costs associated with the Reno posts. Other than compliance with the applicable CBA, there is no contractual requirement to provide parking payments or to include these costs within a specific price element. Any costs associated with parking may be factored into the proposed hourly rate/unit price under the contract. There is no CLIN for ODC.

11. The RFP indicates that a electronic post tracking system may be required:

a. Who will be responsible for the cost of installing and maintaining the system. Is this a reimbursable cost?

a. A post tracking system (PTS) is not currently functional, but may become functional in the future. As this is a future requirement, further cost information is unknown. Any costs associated with implementation of PTS will be negotiated and incorporated into the resultant contract via bilateral modification.

16. Technical Proposal Submission requirements. The instructions state that the Relevant Past Performance factor be provided under separate cover from the Management Approach. The page limitations reference a table of contents that is outside page count. Should the offeror provide a table of contents for the Management Approach and the Past performance separately under each respective cover?

a. The technical proposal includes both Past Performance and Management Approach proposals; the combined technical proposal is subject to the page limitation. Providing a table of contents for Past Performance and/or Management Approach portions of the proposal is at the offeror’s discretion and any table(s) of contents would be excluded from the page limitation.

22. 29 C.F.R. § 13.5 CBAs Ratified After September 30, 2016. The CBA is clearly not compliant with 29 C.F.R 13.5. The Personal Time Off (PTO) in the CBA is vacation and does not include sick leave. As currently defined in the CBA, the PTO requires scheduling 14 days in advance and it’s not cumulative from one year to the next. As a result bidders must include sick leave hours in their cost estimates.

The RFP states that offerors do not have to separately identify the costs associated with complying with 29 C.F.R 13.5 in their Attachment 6 Price Element Breakdown as these costs will not be evaluated in the price realism analysis.

If offerors do not separately identify these costs, how will the government know what to exclude from their price realism analysis?

a. As there is a degree of flexibility in how offerors may submit their price breakdowns, the Government’s evaluation will be based on the information received.

35. Can the government provide a historical summation of its requests for TAS and ESS for the following years, as available: 2013; 2014; 2015; 2016; and 2017.

a. The current solicitation is a separate requirement with differing TAS and ESS requirements from past contracts. As noted in paragraph b. on page 17 of the RFP (as amended), approximately 8% of the maximum hours solicited under this requirement will be for temporary additional services. The maximum number of ESS hours solicited under this requirement is specified in the pricing schedule. Copies and/or summaries of past TAS and ESS requests will not be distributed.

36. Regarding the qualification and observation of PSO training requirements by FPS inspectors, can the government identify any restrictions to the geographical, dates or times of FPS oversight? I.e. will inspectors provide oversight outside major metro areas, on weekends, or after normal business hours (approx. 1700)?

a. As stated in the note on page 416 of the RFP: Note: In no event shall any proposed transition timeline include assumptions that the Government will waive or defer any contract requirements. Additionally, in no event shall any proposed plan for transition training be dependent upon availability of Government personnel after normal business hours (e.g. overseeing training during evenings and weekends). See also Section 6.2.3 of the SOW which addresses scheduling of training during contract performance. There are no geographic restrictions for completion of training requirements/qualifications.

37. Can the government delineate between which screening posts are x-ray and non-ray, as this effects the calculation of WDTP initial, OJT, and PSO certification and qualification requirements.

a. See response to question 6 above.

39. In addition the PTO section references the agreement being between FPS and Inter-con Security Systems - can the government confirm this document in fact represents the most current negotiated CBA by and between the SPFPA and North American Security (this potential material error is also present in CBA-2017-10850)?

a. According to the president of Local 889, the inclusion of Inter-con Security was an oversight on the part of the union. Inter-con is no longer a party to the CBA. The CBAs included as part of the solicitation are the most current negotiated CBAs. The CBA is a document signed by the vendor and applicable unions. Other than providing clarifications on content, the agency cannot change the terms or correct clerical errors contained in external documents.

41. Please confirm that any post-award conference will be held in Auburn, WA and not within Nevada.

a. The location for any post-award conference has not yet been determined.

42. RFP Para 2.C.1, Staffing Plan, instructs “Offeror shall describe their staffing plan”. RFP Para 2.C.2a, Remote Post Locations, instructs “Offerors shall provide a detailed plan indicating their approach to providing staffing for remote post locations.” Will the Government please clarify if these instructions are for two separate staffing plans, one for mail site and a second for remote sites? Or does the Government expect one staffing plan addressing both main site and remote sites?

a. The minimum submission requirement for the staffing plan is described at C.1.b. on page 416 of the RFP and applies to the overall proposed staffing for all locations. A separate requirement for the minimum submission requirements for remote post locations is described at C.2.b. of the RFP and applies to the remote post staffing portion only. Both of these requirements are part of the Staffing portion of the Management Approach and have separate submission requirements.