Attachment_L4_Responses_Question_and_Answer_Spreadsheet.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 27 KB Posted
- Attached to
- AIR FORCE (AF) HOUSING, ENHANCED USE LEASE, AND UTILITIES (HEU) PRIVATIZATION MANAGEMENT
- Solicitation number
- FA8903-20-R-0003
About this file
This document contains questions and answers related to a solicitation for Air Force Housing, Enhanced Use Lease, and Utilities Privatization Management services. The incumbent contractor is Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc. under contract number FA8903-15-D-0035. The solicitation number has changed from FA890319R0082 to FA8903-20-R-0003.
The government anticipates awarding either a single contract for all three business areas (Housing, Enhanced Use Lease, and Utilities Privatization) to one contractor, or two separate contracts - one for Housing and Enhanced Use Lease, and another for Utilities Privatization to different contractors. The performance work statement covers services throughout the United States. The period of performance and pricing terms are not specified. The acquisition is a hybrid contract including both firm-fixed-price and cost-reimbursable CLINs.
View the file
Other files
Show all 33
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Questions and Answers
FA8903-20-R-0003
14 Feb 2020 Attachment L-4
AIR FORCE (AF) HOUSING, ENHANCED USE LEASE, AND UTILITIES (HEU) PRIVATIZATION MANAGEMENT
# Proposal Request for Proposal (RFP) Performance Work Statement (PWS) Question RFP / PWS Document
| Reference | Government Answer | ||
| 1 | We have a client interested in knowing if there is a previous or existing incumbent for the following solicitation: "AIR FORCE (AF) HOUSING, ENHANCED USE LEASE, AND UTILITIES (HEU) PRIVATIZATION MANAGEMENT" (Solicitation #: FA890319R0082) | Incumbent: Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc., Public Institutions, 1801 K St NW Suite 1000, Washington, DC 2006-4044 | |
| 2 | I am hoping to find out if there is an incumbent contractor currently performing these services, if similar services have been performed in the past, or if this is a new requirement. If there is an incumbent, could you please provide the contract or task order number? | Incumbent: Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc., Public Institutions, 1801 K St NW Suite 1000, Washington, DC 2006-4044 |
Similar services have been performed in the past. This is not a new requirement.
Contract #: FA8903-15-D-0035 3 Please clarify whether a single proposal for all business areas (Housing & EUL and UP) will also be evaluated for individual component award if the government chooses not to award the offeror all business areas. If not, please clarify whether three (3) separate proposals (i.e., Housing & EUL, UP, combined) are needed. Section M, Part 1.2 – Number of Contracts to be Awarded (page 2 of 10). Section M, page 2 of 11 -- Paragraph 1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded -- The Government anticipates awarding either one single award Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract for all HEU business areas (TAB A - Housing, Enhanced Use Lease (EUL) and TAB B -Utilities Privatization (UP)) to a single contractor or the Government may award two independent IDIQs; one for TAB A - Housing and EUL and one for TAB B – Utilities Privatization to two different contractors.
The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s proposal IAW the area(s) of business proposed (TAB A - Housing/EUL, TAB B - UP). Each TAB will be independently evaluated.
Furthermore, the Government can potentially separate an Offeror’s proposal and award only TAB A or B, and select a different Offeror for the remaining TAB. The purpose for the separation of proposals is to achieve the best value for the Government.
Section L, page 24 of 41, paragraph 3.9 Model Contract -- (b) The Offeror’s proposal shall include a signed copy of the Model Contract (Sections A thru J). Signature by the Offeror on the Standard Form 33 constitutes an offer, which the Government may accept. The "original" copy shall be clearly marked under separate cover. Only one model contract (one signed SF33) is needed for the Offeror’s proposal, do not submit two model contracts if you are proposing TAB A - Housing/EUL and TAB B - UP.
| 4 | Please clarify why past performance examples are not being requested for EUL services. EUL services seem to be an important part of this requirement and excluding past performance in this business area may be a disadvantage to firms that provide this service. | Section M, Part 2.2 – Factor 2: Past Performance (page 6 of 10). | Section M, Page 7 of 11, Section 2.2 Factor 2: Past Performance. Sentence removed. Past Performance will be required for all three (3) business lines: Housing, EUL and UP. |
| 5 | Regarding the definition of “Very Relevant,” please clarify whether the $10 million threshold refers to contract/task order value or asset value. | Section M, Part 2.2(c) – Past Performance table (page 7 of 10). | The thresholds removed |
| 6 | If the $10M threshold identified for a “Very Relevant” rating is based on contract or task order value, please confirm that the total value of a contract or task order covering multiple services can be used to satisfy this requirement. | Section M, Part 2.2(c) – Past Performance table (page 7 of 10). | The thresholds removed |
| 7 | Please confirm that past performance of recently acquired companies can count towards a prime contractor’s recent and relevant experience needed for a “Very Relevant” rating. | Section M, Part 2.2(c) – Past Performance table (page 7 of 10). | Section M, Page 7 of 11, Section 2.2 Factor 2: Past Performance. (Applies to TAB A and B), subparagraph (c) Relevancy Assessment: The Government....... A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and Team Members. In determining relevancy for individual contracts provided, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, Team Member, including Subcontractors, whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. |
Section L, Page 15 of 41 defines: Team, Team Arrangement and Team Member:
TEAM: This solicitation will refer to the Prime and all identified Team Members as a “Team”.
TEAMING ARRANGEMENT (TA) OR LETTER OF INTENT (LOI): To be valid under this solicitation, a Teaming Arrangement (TA) or Letter of Intent (LOI) must commit the business entities to performance under this contract, should it be awarded to the Offeror.
TEAM MEMBER: Is defined as any business entity other than the Prime with a signed Teaming Arrangement (TA) or Letter of Intent (LOI) with the Prime.
| 8 | Please clarify whether a “Very Relevant” rating would require joint venture or prime/subcontractor teams to describe previous experience where all entities on the team worked together on the assignment. | Section M, Part 2.2(c) – Past Performance table (page 7 of 10). | Section M, Page 7 of 11, Section 2.2(c) addresses joint venture, team members and subcontractors for the relevancy assessment |
| 9 | Please confirm whether page limits will be proportionally adjusted if offerors are only bidding on individual components (Housing & EUL or UP). If the same page limits are used in all circumstances, offerors bidding on all three business areas could potentially be at a disadvantage relative to offerors who are only bidding on individual components. | Section L, Table 2.2 – Proposal Organization (pages 9-10 of 31). | Section L, Page 19 of 41 -- Page limits revised to 36 pages. 16 pages for Housing, 10 pages for EUL and 10 pages for Utilities Privatization |
| 10 | Please clarify whether offerors are restricted to three (3) project/contract/task order summaries per business area (Housing & EUL, UP) or a total of three (3) summaries for all business areas. | Section L, Part 5.5 – Past Performance Information Sheets (pages 24-25 of 31). | Section L, Page 34 of 41, Paragraph 5.5(b) revised. The Offeror shall provide up to a total of five (5) contract/task order (TO) summaries (narratives) for TAB A. TO summaries (narratives) for TAB A shall include at least two (2) housing, and two (2) EUL. For TAB B, the Offeror shall provide up to a total of three (3) contract/task order (TO) summaries (narratives). TO summaries (narratives) for TAB B shall include at least two (2) UP. |
| 11 | Part 1 of Section L states: “The source selection will be conducted and awarded using competitive, best value, Firm-Fixed Price with Cost Reimbursable CLIN pricing arrangement (Hybrid).” However, Part 6.3 states: “The Offeror shall propose a price on a FFP basis in accordance with the proposed CLIN/Sub CLIN structure. The total price proposed shall be inclusive of all business areas.” Please clarify whether this contract will be Firm-Fixed Price or Firm-Fixed Price with Cost Reimbursable CLIN pricing arrangement (Hybrid). If a portion of this contract will be Cost Reimbursable, please clarify which portion. If this contract will be entirely Firm-Fixed Price, please confirm that Section 3.9.3 – Accounting System does not apply. | Section L, Part 1 – Program Structure and Objectives and Part 6.3 – Pricing General Instructions (pages 5 and 27 of 31). | This acquisition is considered a Hybrid contract as it includes both Firm Fixed Price (FFP) and Cost Reimbursable (CR) CLINS identified at Schedule B, Attachment L12. Schedule B identifies the type of CLIN. All Labor CLINs are FFP. All travel CLINs are CR. |
Section L, paragraph 3.9.3 (page 29 of 41) applies, as cost-type CLINs will be required for this effort.
| 12 | Please clarify the geographical area covered by the PWS. Page 1, Section 1.0 states: “This includes Asset, Acquisition and Portfolio Management services in support of Housing, EUL and UP throughout the United States.” Other areas of the document such as page 4, Section 4.2 reference the Continental United States. Are projects or potential projects in Alaska, Hawaii, the District of Columbia and other US territories included for all business areas? | Attachment L-2, PWS, Sections 1.0 and 4.2 (pages 1 and 4 of 14). | Section L, Attachment 2: PWS revised and provides clarity of the geographical area covered. A definition of United States was added |
| 13 | Please confirm that a final price with no additional detail is all that is required. If additional detail (e.g. weighted average labor rate build-up, total FTEs required, estimated level of effort) is required, it is not clear where offerors should show that detail in the proposal. | Attachment L-12 – Pricing Schedule. | Refer to Section L Attachment 11 - Professional Compensation Plan Labor Model. The Total Compensation Plan details salaries and fringe benefits proposed for professional employees who will work under the contract. The back-up for base and fringe rates is to be provided in the "narrative" portion of the Professional Compensation Plan. |
| 14 | Does the government intend to set-aside award for small business or will give preference to small businesses? | General | The Government does not intend to set-aside award for small business(s) or give preference. This is a competitive, full and open acquisition |
| 15 | Will the government commit to awarding two independent awards as this will be most advantageous to the government? | General | Yes, the Government is committed to awarding one award for all 3 business lines (TAB A and TAB B) to one Awardee or two independent Awardees (different Offerors); TAB A - Housing and EUL, TAB B - Utilities Privatization that are fair and reasonable and in the best interest of the Government |
| 16 | “AFCEC will provide workstations for up to four (4) on-site contractor personnel to be used in the performance of this contract at the Government workplace located at Port San Antonio, Texas.” Can the government provide a cross walk of which positions are on-site in relation the Attachment L9 Labor Categories? | Attachment L2 PWS Page 8 6.1 Government Furnished Property | Historical information includes a mix of the program manager and financial analyst |
Section L, Attachment 2, Subparagraph 6.1 on page 9 of the PWS revised. Paragraph reads as follows: AFCEC shall provide up to 3 workstations for HE and 1 workstation for UP, up to a total of four (4) workstations for on-site contractor personnel to be used in the performance of this contract at the Government workplace located at Port San Antonio, Texas and identified at the Task Order level depending on the Government requirements.
| 17 | The individual task order or delivery order number, or stand-along contract number with an initial award value of $5 Million or greater. Will the government consider removing dollar thresholds as this unfairly favors large businesses? | Section L Page 25 #1. | Thresholds removed |
| 18 | "Past Performance will not be accomplished for EUL." Will the government consider past performance for EUL since many companies have this demonstrated capacity and experience? | Section M, Page 2, 2.2 Factor 2 | Section M, Page 7 of 11, Section 2.2 Factor 2: Past Performance. Sentence removed. Past Performance will be required for all three (3) business lines: Housing, EUL and UP. |
| 19 | Contract values less than $5M are considered "Not Relevant". Will the government consider removing dollar thresholds as this unfairly favors large businesses? | Section M, Page 2, 2.2 Factor 2 subsection "c" Relevancy | Thresholds removed |
| 20 | For the avoidance of doubt, please confirm that all work within the scope will not be a complete outsourcing, but rather will be advice, findings, recommendations, analysis and due diligence that will be overseen by and will be the ultimate responsibility of individuals within the Air Force who have appropriate skills, knowledge, and expertise? | All | Correct. FAR Part 2, Definitions of Words defines Advisory and Assistance Services as follows: means those services provided under contract by nongovernmental sources to support or improve: organizational policy development; decision-making; management and administration; program and/or project management and administration; or R&D activities. It can also mean the furnishing of professional advice or assistance rendered to improve the effectiveness of Federal management processes or procedures (including those of an engineering and technical nature). In rendering the foregoing services, outputs may take the form of information, advice, opinions, alternatives, analyses, evaluations, recommendations, training and the day-to-day aid of support personnel needed for the successful performance of ongoing Federal operations. All advisory and assistance services are classified in one of the following definitional subdivisions: |
(1) Management and professional support services, i.e., contractual services that provide assistance, advice or training for the efficient and effective management and operation of organizations, activities (including management and support services for R&D activities), or systems. These services are normally closely related to the basic responsibilities and mission of the agency originating the requirement for the acquisition of services by contract. Included are efforts that support or contribute to improved organization of program management, logistics management, project monitoring and reporting, data collection, budgeting, accounting, performance auditing, and administrative technical support for conferences and training programs.
21 Is the government intending to make multiple awards? If so, is the government open to what might be practical demarcations of scope? All Section M, page 2 of 11 -- Paragraph 1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded -- The Government anticipates awarding either one single award Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract for all HEU business areas (TAB A - Housing, Enhanced Use Lease (EUL) and TAB B -Utilities Privatization (UP)) to a single contractor or the Government may award two independent IDIQs; one for TAB A - Housing and EUL and one for TAB B – Utilities Privatization to two different contractors.
The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s proposal IAW the area(s) of business proposed (TAB A - Housing/EUL, TAB B - UP). Each TAB will be independently evaluated.
Furthermore, the Government can potentially separate an Offeror’s proposal and award only TAB A or B, and select a different Offeror for the remaining TAB. The purpose for the separation of proposals is to achieve the best value for the Government.
| 22 | Is the government considering or amenable to a small or disadvantaged business serving in a prime capacity? | All | This requirement is being procured as Full/Open. The Government will take no exception to an award made to a small or disadvantaged business serving in a prime capacity. See Section M, paragraph 1.0 Basis for Contract Award |
| 23 | Can the government provide additional information on any technological systems, databases, or tools that are currently in use? | All | Currently, information is provided on a SharePoint platform - AFPACES is hosted on a Cloud database |
| 24 | If firms have systems or tools that would allow them to perform more efficiently, how would the government evaluate the proposing firms' pricing or scoring? | All | The relative order of importance states Technical is the most important factor. The Government will evaluate the technical proposal based on the evaluation criteria identified at M002. The evaluation of the Technical proposal will include words such as Deficiency, Meets, Significant Weakness, Strength and Weakness for Factor 1, Subfactors 1.1 - 1.4, as identified on page 5 of 11 in Section M. |
Performance or capabilities proposed above mandatory minimums may be incorporated into the contract, if cited as a strength, identified in Section M, page 3 of 11.
25 Section L paragraph 3.9 references sections A-J of the Model Contract but it is unclear where sections A-J are located. Paragraph 6.4 of section L suggests Schedule B is a component of the Model Contract. Will the Government clarify what constitutes a Model Contract? Section L; 3.9 (b) and Section L; 6.4 Sections A-J and all attachments will be included with the Final RFP. The Draft RFP only included Sections L and M.
The model contract is the solicitation document. Section L, paragraph 3.9 (page 28 of 41) addresses what constitutes the model contract 26 The description of the requirements for Technology Maintenance/ Document Management Services provides a detailed description of the process for transitioning off the contract and delineating what elements are to be owned by the government; however, it is unclear what will be provided upon award to transition responsibilities to the new contractor. Will the existing system stay active during the 90 day transition period? Will the new contractor be granted access to the existing systems during the initial 90 day transition period, including any current reports that are being generated? Are there current SOPs or other guidance materials that would be turned over to the new contractor upon award? Section M; 2.1.3(a) and Attachment L-4 3.2, 4.12, and 4.14 Section L, Attachment 2, Page 3 of the PWS indicates the contractor shall transition activities within 90 calendar days after contract award and transition out at the end of the contract to a follow-on contractor for HEU.
Currently no SOPs or other guidance materials will be turned over to the new contractor by the Government.
The current PCM contractor will transition out the program activities within 90 calendar days to a follow-on contractor.
27 Section L states, "the Government intends to issue one (1) solicitation resulting in the accomplishment of one (1) single award for Housing, EUL and UP or two (2) independent awards consisting of one award for Housing and EUL and a second award for UP." If an offeror submits a proposal for all three components, can the Government break that proposal into separate components and award one of the two independent awards? If so, how will the Government evaluate Volume II - Technical for those who bid all three components vice those that only bid the infidel components? Section L and Section M 2.1.1 Section M, page 2 of 11 -- Paragraph 1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded -- The Government anticipates awarding either one single award Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract for all HEU business areas (TAB A - Housing, Enhanced Use Lease (EUL) and TAB B -Utilities Privatization (UP)) to a single contractor or the Government may award two independent IDIQs; one for TAB A - Housing and EUL and one for TAB B – Utilities Privatization to two different contractors.
The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s proposal IAW the area(s) of business proposed (TAB A - Housing/EUL, TAB B - UP). Each TAB will be independently evaluated.
Furthermore, the Government can potentially separate an Offeror’s proposal and award only TAB A or B, and select a different Offeror for the remaining TAB. The purpose for the separation of proposals is to achieve the best value for the Government.
| 28 | Will the Government please provide a workload estimate with an breakout of hours by LCAT? | Attachment L-4 Appendix 2 | Section L, Attachment 2, Page 18 through 20 -- PWS revised to provide the workload estimate with a breakout of hours by LCAT |
| 29 | Does the $19.4 M reference an IGE or is this the ceiling cap for annual contract award? Should this same amount be used if the offeror is just bidding one of the three elements of the IDIQ? | Section L; 4.10.1(c) | The value of $19.4 is not the IGE. It is the anticipated ceiling (depending on need). For Housing and EUL, it is approximately $12M and approximately $7.4M for UP |
30 The Small Business Subcontracting Goals table includes percentages for four (4) different disadvantaged categories. Does the offeror have to have small business subcontractors across all four of these categories? Are the percentages of total subcontracting dollars for each of these categories intended to be cumulative? Section L; 4.10.1(c) The Offerors plan must address all small business subcontracting goals as identified in Section L, paragraph 4.10, Page 32 of 41.
The percentages of the total subcontracting dollars are cumulative for the life of the contract.
31 Reference: “VERY RELEVANT: Present/past performance efforts above $10M involving essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Must have served as the prime contractor.”
Potential Risk: Few federal programs of this magnitude exist, potentially constraining vendor ability to demonstrate highly innovative and relevant experience in the Government market. As currently drafted, this requirement unnecessarily restricts competition and does not appear to be in line with the USAF goal to bring innovation. Past performance in the commercial sector would rarely meet the size requirements stated in the evaluation criteria despite the ability to demonstrate relevancy, application of commercial leading practice, and leveraging of innovative approaches that could be beneficial to the Air Force on this assignment. It is also unclear how this would apply to an offeror only bidding on one of the PWS areas, as a $10M requirement for only one of the PWS areas is not in line with the same magnitude for the actual PWS areas.
| Suggestion for Consideration: Consider lowering or removing the dollar value for past performance efforts, and judging them by their merit for relevancy. Create a Relevancy Table specific to each of the bundled Bids (1.) EUL/HP and (2.) UP or each of the (2) separate programs that are being evaluated by the Past Performance Criteria (HP and UP only). | Thresholds removed | |
| 32 | Reference: “Relevancy – Performance (of all recent performance information) – similarity, complexity and diversity of tasks, type of effort, scope and value. Must have been the Prime.” |
Potential Risk: As currently drafted, the past performance requirements for each individual reference to stand on its own with regards to “relevancy” restricts competition from offerors who bring all of the relevant capabilities across several contracts.
Suggestion for Consideration: The Relevancy description for Factor 2: Past Performance could be revised to permit quals with a diversified size (contract value) to allow the offer the ability to demonstrate innovation in the commercial space across tasks and effort that will greatly benefit this program.
| Example for Consideration: “Relevancy – Performance (of all recent performance information) – similarity, Complexity, diversity of tasks, and type of effort. Innovation or commercial experience applied to tasks of similar type and scope will be evaluated and considered. | Past Performance information revised. All thresholds removed for relevancy. Language in all tables (Section M) mirror DoD Source Selection Procedures for competitive requirements | |
| 33 | Reference: “1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded - The Government anticipates awarding one (1) single award ID/IQ contract for all three business areas (Housing, EUL and UP) or two (2) independent awards; one for two business areas (Housing and EUL) and one award for one business area (UP).” |
Potential Risk: Bundling of the EUL and HP business areas as one direct award may limit the Government's ability to enable innovation to be demonstrated for EUL and HP independent of each other to maximize the government’s ability to choose.
Suggestion for Consideration: Consider separating each of the three (3) business areas into stand-alone PWSs, so offerors can bid on 1, 2, or 3 of the business areas.
Example for Consideration: “The Government anticipates awarding one (1) single award ID/IQ contract for all three business areas (Housing, EUL and UP) or two (2) independent awards; one for two business areas (Housing and EUL) and one award for one business area (UP), or three (3) independent awards; one for each of the separate business areas.”
| Example for Consideration: “The Government anticipates awarding one (1) single award ID/IQ contract for all three business areas (Housing, EUL and UP) or two (2) independent awards; one for two business areas (Housing and EUL) and one award for one business area (UP), or three (3) independent awards; one for each of the separate business areas.” | The Government anticipates awarding either one single award ID/IQ contract for all three business areas to one Offeror (TAB A - Housing and EUL along with TAB B - UP) or two independent awards (different Offerors) ; one award for TAB A - Housing and EUL and one award for TAB B - Utilities Privatization | ||
| 34 | Section L, Parts 2.3.11.1 and 2.3.11.2 (f): The instructions in Part 2.3.11.2 (f) (Foldouts) indicate that for tables, charts, graphs and figures, the font size shall be no smaller that 10 point. However, in Part 2.3.11.1 (Page Format), the font size for tables, charts, graphs and figures is not addressed. Can you please clarify whether 10 point font can be used for tables, charts, graphs and figures throughout the proposal. | Added font size for tables, charts, graphs and figures shall be no smaller than 10 point |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .