CUI Solicitation Questions Matrix with responses v2.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 33 KB Posted
- Attached to
- MEPS Applicant Management Services Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- W9124D24R00070001
About this file
This document is a questions and answers matrix related to a solicitation for MEPS Applicant Management Services issued by the Department of the Army Materiel Command Mission and Installation Contracting Command Fort Sam Houston. The solicitation establishes a Multiple Award Task Order Contract to provide lodging, meals, and transportation services to support Military Entrance Processing Stations across the United States. Key details include requirements for lodging facilities to have a minimum AAA rating, transportation providers to be approved by the Defense Travel Management Office, and contractors to submit task order proposals for at least 80% of opportunities to remain eligible. The document provides responses to clarify requirements around subcontracting plans, past performance evaluation, medical transportation logistics, and other contractual terms.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Attachment 4- USMEPCOM 729.pdf | ||
| Attachment 3 - USMEPCOM 728.pdf | ||
| Attachment 5 - Sample RTOP TE A.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment 2 - USMEPCOM 727.pdf | ||
| Attachment 1 - Sample Invoice for MEPS Application Management Services.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| W9124D24R0007 0001.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
COVER
| Controlled by: U.S. Army |
| Controlled by: MICC–Fort Knox (CCMI-CSH-KX) |
| CUI Category: General Procurement and Acquisition |
| Distribution/Limited Dissemination Controls: FEDCON |
| POC: charles.g.trumpfheller.civ@army.mil, (502) 624-8046 |
CUI Questions
| CUI//SP-PROCURE//FEDCON | ||||||
| # | Solicitation section/ Sample TE A section | PWS Section | Paragraph # | Page # | Question | Response |
| 1 | CLIN 0001/0002/0003 | 3 | What is the expectation for completing the CLIN numbers for Solicitation Number W9124D24R0007 when there is no estimated quantity or unit numbers supplied and it is noted in the solicitation that price is not factored? | The CLINS are a requirement by the contract writing system to be a part of a solicitation. There is no expectation for the offerors to complete the CLINs. | ||
| 2 | CLIN 0001/0002 | 3 | On line items 0001 - 1002 you are only asking for pricing for 2 years, however; on page 5 under the delivery information it states period of performance 6/28/24-6/27/29. Please advise | Dates for ordering periods are correct as stated in Solicitation pages 5-6 . See Solicitation page 13 - paragraph (b); and Solicitation notice at SAM.gov pricing is not required | ||
| 3 | CLIN 0003 | 4 | Can you give me more information on the Kick Off Meeting line item 0003 I didn't see any clarification in the PWS. | Solicitation page 4 CLIN 0003 - Kick off meeting will be in person with all awardees, to be held a the MICC Fort Knox office. Date and times to be determined at time of award. See Solicitation amendment PWS section 1.5.6.1 added. | ||
| 4 | Clauses Incorporated by Reference |
52.209-5;
| 52.209-7 | 6 | Listed in this section is FAR 52.209-7 "Information Regarding Responsibilities Matters", which is to be completed by the Offeror. Question: Once completed, where should this FAR Clause be included in the Offeror's proposal or if FAR 52.209-5 is completed and included as part of an Offeror's beta.sam.gov Repse and Certs, would this still be required? | I- General - See Solicitation amendment 52-212-1 addendum | ||
| 5 | Clauses Incorporated by Reference |
(2)52.204-7012, (2)52.204-7019,
| (2)52.204-7020 | 7 | How will contracting verify and enforce that NIST compliance is adhered to? | After review it was determined this is not covered defense system therefore the clauses were removed. See Solicitation amendment | ||||
| 6 | Solicitation 52.212-1 (b) | Table 1 | 8 | The vertical line symbol included in the required file names (e.g., I-General | Offeror’s Name) listed in Table 1 is not an allowable character for Microsoft Word or Adobe PDF file names. Can the Government please revise the required naming convention to include only characters allowable for saving these file types? | Naming convention updated. See Solicitation amendment 52.212-1 addendum | ||
| 7 | Solicitation 52.212-1 (b) | I-General Volume (4) | 8 | States, "Any contractor, Other than Small Business, must submit an initial Subcontracting plan at time of proposal. And must agree in the contract that small business, veteran owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and women-owned small business concerns will have the maximum practicable opportunity to participate in contract performance consistent with its efficient performance." Question: Can the Government please describe the trade-off considerations for "practical opportunity"? Price, Past Performance, etc? The Government is not asking a Contractor to consider using a maximum practical opportunity with a small business, veteran owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and women-owned small business if they don't have past performance or if they are not economically priced, correct? | The subcontracting plan is a requirement by regulation. It is not part of the source selection evaluation. Regulation requires offerors submissions to be evaluated FAR clause 52.219-8 requires contractors to propose subcontracting goals under paragraph (d)(1), and “provide a description of the method used to develop the subcontracting goals developed in paragraph (d)1.” (Note: Since this requirement is new, the Government did not have adequate historical information to support assignment of realistic/challenging goals in the solicitation.) While no minimum goals were assigned, DFARS 219.704 (d)(i) requires the Government to do the following when evaluating proposed subcontracting goals: “Challenge any subcontracting plan that does not contain positive goals. A small-disadvantaged business goal of less than five percent must be approved one level above the contracting officer.” As specified in the solicitation, If the apparent successful offerors fail to negotiate a subcontracting plan acceptable to the KO within the time limit prescribed, the offerors will be ineligible for award. | ||
| 8 | Solicitation 52.212-1 (b) | I-General Volume (4) | 8 | No specific Subcontracting goals were mentioned in the RFP. Question: For the subcontracting plan should Offeror's proposal insert "TBD" into the goals section of the plan to be achieved over the life of the contract in addition to the statement "small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and woman-owned small business concerns will have the maximum practicable opportunity to participate in contract performance consistent with its efficient performance."? | Regulation requires offerors submissions to be evaluated FAR clause 52.219-8 requires contractors to propose subcontracting goals under paragraph (d)(1), and “provide a description of the method used to develop the subcontracting goals developed in paragraph (d)1.” (Note: Since this requirement is new, the Government did not have adequate historical information to support assignment of realistic/challenging goals in the solicitation.) While no minimum goals were assigned, DFARS 219.704 (d)(i) requires the Government to do the following when evaluating proposed subcontracting goals: “Challenge any subcontracting plan that does not contain positive goals. A small-disadvantaged business goal of less than five percent must be approved one level above the contracting officer.” As specified in the solicitation, If the apparent successful offerors fail to negotiate a subcontracting plan acceptable to the KO within the time limit prescribed, the offerors will be ineligible for award. | ||
| 9 | Solicitation 52.212-1 (b) | I-General Volume (4) | 8 | Clarification Requested: Does the Government mean "Individual Subcontracting Plan" rather than "Initial Subcontracting Plan" in reference to the requirements of FAR 52.219-9? Or does the Government intend to negotiate a final subcontracting plan after contract award, based upon the information provided under the “initial subcontracting plan” submitted with the Offeror’s proposal? | Subcontracting type updated. See Solicitation amendment 52.212-1 addendum | ||
| 10 | Solicitation 52.212-1 (b) | I-General Volume (4) | 8 | Will MEPCOM state the percentages that must be adhered to at minimum for the Small Business Subcontracting Plan for each Small Business catgegory (i.e., SB 20%, WOSB 5%, etc.), as well as the requirement to use all socioeconomic small businesses? | FAR clause 52.219-8 requires contractors to propose subcontracting goals under paragraph (d)(1), and “provide a description of the method used to develop the subcontracting goals developed in paragraph (d)1.” (Note: Since this requirement is new, the Government did not have adequate historical information to support assignment of realistic/challenging goals in the solicitation.) While no minimum goals were assigned, DFARS 219.704 (d)(i) requires the Government to do the following when evaluating proposed subcontracting goals: “Challenge any subcontracting plan that does not contain positive goals. A small-disadvantaged business goal of less than five percent must be approved one level above the contracting officer.” As specified in the solicitation, If the apparent successful offerors fail to negotiate a subcontracting plan acceptable to the KO within the time limit prescribed, the offerors will be ineligible for award. | ||
| 11 | Solicitation 52.212-1 (b) | I-General Volume (4) | 8 | What is the percentage set aside for each socioeconomic small business category in the Small Business Subcontracting Plan? Is it the governments intent that they match industry standards? | Regulation requires offerors submissions to be evaluated FAR clause 52.219-8 requires contractors to propose subcontracting goals under paragraph (d)(1), and “provide a description of the method used to develop the subcontracting goals developed in paragraph (d)1.” (Note: Since this requirement is new, the Government did not have adequate historical information to support assignment of realistic/challenging goals in the solicitation.) While no minimum goals were assigned, DFARS 219.704 (d)(i) requires the Government to do the following when evaluating proposed subcontracting goals: “Challenge any subcontracting plan that does not contain positive goals. A small-disadvantaged business goal of less than five percent must be approved one level above the contracting officer.” As specified in the solicitation, If the apparent successful offerors fail to negotiate a subcontracting plan acceptable to the KO within the time limit prescribed, the offerors will be ineligible for award. | ||
| 100 | Solicitation 52.212-1 (b) | I-General Volume (4) | 8 | Due to it being a commercial plan, it speaks to indirect costs. By way of our Business model, we directly sub with hotels and transportation companies and believes it doesn’t have indirect costs associated with a proportional rate to our subcontractors. Would a commercial plan that does not provide for indirect costs be acceptable? | If the offeror currently has an approved Commercial Subcontracting Plan without indirect cost, it will be accepted. Additionally please see answer to question 9 above. | ||
| 12 | Solicitation 52.212-1 (b) | II-Factor 1 Technical Approach (1) | 9 | States "A technical description of the services being offered in sufficient detail to evaluate compliance with the requirements in the solicitation. This may include product literature, or other documents, if necessary". Question: Can the Government confirm if Appendices of literature or of our Teaming Agreements count against the section's page count? | Yes, they will be counted against the page count. see table 1 | ||
| 13 | Solicitation 52.212-1 (b) | III Past Performance (1) & (4) | 9 & 10 | QUESTION: Will the Government accept Past Performance in which a contractor has provided Lodging and Transportation but did not include Meals? | If an offeror has no record of relevant past performance, or if an offeror’s information on past performance is not available, the offeror’s lack of past performance information will be evaluated as having neither a favorable nor unfavorable impact on the evaluation. Unknown past performance shall be considered acceptable. | ||
| 14 | Solicitation 52.212-1 (b) | III Past Performance (1) & (4) | 9 & 10 | QUESTION: Will the Government accept Past Performance in which a contractor has provided Lodging and Meals but did not include Transportation? | If an offeror has no record of relevant past performance, or if an offeror’s information on past performance is not available, the offeror’s lack of past performance information will be evaluated as having neither a favorable nor unfavorable impact on the evaluation. Unknown past performance shall be considered acceptable. | ||
| 15 | Solicitation 52.212-1 (b) | III Past Performance (1) | 9 | It states that a offerer must have contracts totaling more than 3 million dollars in the identified field. In order to create a fair enviornment for small disadvantage businesses can there be consideration given to currently performing contractors that have not reached this size standards but, have completed historcal compeitition standards, in order to create a fair and equal competition pool. | If an offeror has no record of relevant past performance, or if an offeror’s information on past performance is not available, the offeror’s lack of past performance information will be evaluated as having neither a favorable nor unfavorable impact on the evaluation. Unknown past performance shall be considered acceptable. | ||
| 16 | Solicitation 52.212-1 (b) | III Past Performance (1) | 9 | How should offerors substantiate designation of a “major” subcontractor based on a minimum performance of 25% on any contract resulting from the solicitation? Will credit for subcontractor past performance be limited to their designated scope of work to be performed on resulting contracts? | It is the offerors responsibility to provide enough information to show the government the appropriate level of work preformed in the relevant areas. | ||
| 17 | Solicitation 52.212-1 (b) | III Past Performance (1) | 9 | Is past performance for major subcontractors to be included among the three (3) allowable reference contracts, or are offerors using subcontractor past performance allowed more than three references? Can the Government please clarify the rationale for allowance of additional page count for major subcontractor past performance? | Three total, The additional page are to allow for offeror to fully describe subcontractor efforts performed. | ||
| 18 | Solicitation 52.212-1 (b) | III Past Performance (1) | 9 | Will the Government accept individual task orders under an IDIQ vehicle if they meet all other requirements for past performance references (i.e., exceed $3 million minimum value, fall within the required performance period, and include relevant services)? | Yes, the Government will accepts task orders. | ||
| 19 | Solicitation 52.212-1 (b) | III Past Performance (1) | 9 | What contract information should offerors provide for each reference to facilitate validation of recency, relevancy, and performance quality? | It is the offerors responsibility to provide enough information to show the government the appropriate level of work preformed in the relevant areas. | ||
| 20 | Solicitation 52.212-1 (b) | III Past Performance (1) | 9 | How will the value of reference contracts be determined? Will the Government require evidence of actual awarded dollars vs. ceiling values for IDIQ contracts to comply with the minimum $3 million contract value? | It is the offerors responsibility to provide enough information to show the government the appropriate level of work preformed in the relevant areas. | ||
| 21 | Solicitation 52.212-1 (b) | III Past Performance (1) | 9 | Paragraph 1 states "Recent and relevant past performance information for this solicitation is past performance within the previous 36 months (from the date established for submission of proposals) performing services for lodging and meals and transportation with a minimum value of $3 million." QUESTION: Must every Past Performance reference show performance in providing all three facets of providing lodging, meals, and transportation? | Yes, must address all three. If an offeror has no record of relevant past performance, or if an offeror’s information on past performance is not available, the offeror’s lack of past performance information will be evaluated as having neither a favorable nor unfavorable impact on the evaluation. Unknown past performance shall be considered acceptable. | ||
| 22 | Solicitation 52.212-1 (b) | III Past Performance (1) | 9 | Is it the government's intent to have incumbent past performance which does not total at least minimum $3 million, to not submit the current past performance contract, and therefore submit no past performance to be evaluated Acceptable? | if an offeror has no record of relevant past performance, or if an offeror’s information on past performance is not available, the offeror’s lack of past performance information will be evaluated as having neither a favorable nor unfavorable impact on the evaluation. Unknown past performance shall be considered acceptable. | ||
| 23 | Solicitation 52.212-1 (b) | III Past Performance (3) | 9 | In regards to the proposed small business plan, is there a requirment to also include the small business socio economic status and well as affiliation status (i.e., subsidary of ABC company) to prevent offerors from simply standing up small businesses in order to adhere to subcontracting goals without a diverse subcontractor plan. | See FAR 9.104-1(d) & (g) To be determined responsible, a prospective contractor must- Have a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics and Be otherwise qualified and eligible to receive an award under applicable laws and regulations. | ||
| 24 | Solicitation 52.212-1 (b) | III Past Performance (3) | 9 | Can CPARS be submitted as “information substantiating the offerors past performance in complying with FAR 52.219-8, “Utilization of Small Business” and FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan…”? Will the Government please exclude these pages from the page limit for the past performance volume? | see 52.212-2(c) - the government will be review CPARS no need to submit | ||
| 25 | Solicitation 52.212-1 (b) | III Past Performance (3) | 9 | Question: Should the number of SF294/SF295 or ISR/SSR reports being submitted match the number of contracts submitted for past performance to demonstrate Offeror's compliance with FAR 52.219-8 and FAR 52.219-9, with the SF294/SF295 or ISR/SSRs having been submitted within the last three years? Example: If five past performance citations are presented, Offeror is to submit the five SF294/SF295 or ISR/SSR reports that support those contract's past performance. Please confirm. | The offeror shall submit all substantiating information to demonstrate Offeror's compliance with FAR 52.219-8 and FAR 52.219-9, with the SF294/SF295 or ISR/SSRs having been submitted within the last three years. These will not count against the page count. Solicitation amended Table 1. | ||
| 26 | Solicitation 52.212-1 (b) | III Past Performance (3) | 10 | States "For Other than small business, include SF 294 and SF 295 (or Individual Subcontracting and Summary Subcontracting Reports in eSRS) information for Government contracts with these reporting requirements for the last three years. Question: Are the Individual Subcontracting and Summary Subcontracting Reports included in page count? | The offeror shall submit all substantiating information to demonstrate Offeror's compliance with FAR 52.219-8 and FAR 52.219-9, with the SF294/SF295 or ISR/SSRs having been submitted within the last three years. These will not count against the page count. Solicitation amended Table 1. | ||
| 27 | Solicitation 52.212-1 (b) | III Past Performance (3) | 10 | Will the Government exclude pages submitted in response to the following requirement from the maximum page count for the past performance volume? “For Other than small business, include SF 294 and SF 295 (or Individual Subcontracting and Summary Subcontracting Reports in eSRS) information for Government contracts with these reporting requirements for the last three years.” | The offeror shall submit all substantiating information to demonstrate Offeror's compliance with FAR 52.219-8 and FAR 52.219-9, with the SF294/SF295 or ISR/SSRs having been submitted within the last three years. These will not count against the page count. Solicitation amended Table 1. | ||
| 28 | Solicitation 52.212-1 (b) | III Past Performance (5) | 10 | Paragraph 5 states "As discussed in the FAR Provision 52.212-2 Addendum, if an offeror has no record of relevant past performance, or if an offeror’s information on past performance is not available, the offeror’s lack of past performance information will be evaluated as having neither a favorable nor unfavorable impact on the evaluation. Unknown past performance shall be considered acceptable." QUESTION: Previous sections state that the offeror shall submit past performance for providing services for lodging and meals and transportation. If an offer doesnt have past performance with contracts providing all 3 facets (lodging, meals, and transportation), but does have past performance in providing 2 of the facets, will this be considered acceptable? | No, if an offeror has no record of relevant past performance, or if an offeror’s information on past performance is not available, the offeror’s lack of past performance information will be evaluated as having neither a favorable nor unfavorable impact on the evaluation. Unknown past performance shall be considered acceptable. | ||
| 29 | Solicitation 52.212-1 (b) | III-Past Performance (5) | 10 | The solicitation states that Unknown past performance shall be considered acceptable, therefore, if Offeror does not submit any past performance their Volume III will be acceptable? | No, your volume III should include a statement regarding such. | ||
| 30 | Solicitation 52.212-1 (c) | 52.212-1 (c) | 10 | Solicitation states that the price will not be evaluated, in our expereience we feel that simple pricing of the sample task order or elements is key as some industry partners expectation is full per diem rates or fully burden localities rates and therefore could create a cluttered competiiton field and wonder if the goverment will consider adding a element of price for price realism evaluation. Would the government add a pricing requirement asking offerors to bid the max price they will submit in each TO released (percentage of per diem)? | Neither, cost or price will be added as an evaluation factor. | ||
| 31 | Solicitation 52.212-1 (c) | 52.212-1 (c) | 10 | The RFP does not to include price or cost as an evaluation factor for award. Question: Why are there estimated CLIN costs? | The CLINS are a requirement by the contract writing system to be a part of a solicitation. There is no expectation for the offerors to complete the CLINs. | ||
| 32 | Solicitation 52.212-1 (c) | 52.212-1 (c) | 10 | Will the government have a ceiling of how many offerors are awarded a contract under this MATOC? | There will be not a ceiling on the number of awardees; see page RFP page 10 52.212-1(c)... 3) the Government intends to make an award to each and all qualifying offerors. | ||
| 33 | Solicitation 52.212-2 (a) | Factor 2 Past Performance (1)(ii) | 12 | Will contracting consider revising the minimum value required for a contract to be considered for Past Performance, given that the majority of recent MEPS RTOP contract award amounts do not meet that threshold? | No, if an offeror has no record of relevant past performance, or if an offeror’s information on past performance is not available, the offeror’s lack of past performance information will be evaluated as having neither a favorable nor unfavorable impact on the evaluation. Unknown past performance shall be considered acceptable. | ||
| 34 | PWS | 1 General Information | 1.1 | 59 | PWS states one Remote Processing Station. Which RPS is closing will not have a task order? | Riverside RPS closed in 2022 | |
| 35 | PWS | 1.5. General Information | 1.5.5.5 | 61 | States, "The Contractors shall provide local background checks for all employees". Question(s): Does this also apply to all subcontractors? What is required to report back to the Government after background checks are processed? | No, background checks don't apply to sub-contractor employees. Please refer to TE B Deliverables, it states written verification. | |
| 36 | PWS | 1.5. General Information | 1.5.6. | 61 | Question: Does the Government consider to use Virtual Teams meetings to conduct Task Order Post Award Conference/Periodic Progress Meetings? Can the Governement provide an example / agenda for Post Award Meetings and who would be required to attend (i.e., Prime and/or Subcontractors)? | Yes, Task Order Post Award Conferences/Periodic Progress Meetings are held on MS Teams (Virtual). Agendas for meetings will be provided to the contractor before the scheduled meeting. The KO, prime contractor and COR attend the meetings. | |
| 37 | PWS | 1.5. General Information | 1.5.8.2. | 62 | States, "The contractor is responsible for providing at least one “dedicated liaison” that is onsite at the lodging facility the entire time applicants are present in the lodging facility and always dedicated to the applicants (see PWS Paragraph 5.2 Military Applicant Lodging)". Question: Can the Government confirm that there is no responsibility for the “dedicated liaison” to travel to and from the lodging facility to the MEPS each day with the applicant? | According to paragraph 1.5.8.2. the dedicated liaison "ensures applicants are boarded on the bus for transport to the MEPS/RPS". | |
| 38 | PWS | 1.5. General Information | 1.5.10 | 62 | States we must bid on 80% of the contract and failure to submit can be considered for removal. Will there be assistance and or rules in place to prevent contractors from tying up hotels until the last minute knowing they will not be bidding them since only one hotel can be submitted per proposal. | No, the Government does not interfere with Offeror's business practices. However, the Government reminds all offeror's of FAR 9.104-1(d) Have a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics. | |
| 39 | PWS | 1.5. General Information | 1.5.10 | 62 | States we must bid on 80% of the contract and failure to submit can be considered for removal. In locations where offerors are unable to bid due to a majority of hotels being exclusively signed with other offerors, are offerors held accountable for not submitting even though there are no viable hotels? | The Government does not interfere with Offeror's business practices. However, the Government reminds all offeror's of FAR9.104-1(d) Have a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics. Offeror's are encouraged to inform the Government when this situation is encountered. | |
| 40 | PWS | 1.5. General Information | 1.5.10 | 62 | States we must bid on 80% of the contract and failure to submit can be considered for removal. Is there a requirement that can be added to limit offerors to contractually agree or exclusively lock down hotels with only one hotel at a time? If hotels are agreeing to an exclusive agreement with an offeror then the offeror should be exclusive with only one hotel. This will promote competition while also ensuring there is not unreasonable justification in off-ramping. | The Government does not interfere with Offeror's business practices. However, the Government reminds all offeror's of FAR9.104-1(d) Have a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics. Offeror's are encouraged to inform the Government when this situation is encountered. | |
| 41 | PWS | 1.5. General Information | 1.5.10 | 62 | States, "The Government reserves the right to off-ramp MATOC contractors when it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government, including, but not limited to, a contractor’s failure to maintain an 80% proposal submittal rate, poor performance, change of ownership, or low number of accepted proposals." Question: Can the Government confirm that this means a MATOC Holder must submit a Task Order response 80% of the time in order to remain current on the overall IDIQ contract? | Yes, contractors must submit proposals 80% of the time. | |
| 42 | PWS | 1.5. General Information | 1.5.10 | 62 | Given the vast number of MEPS cities with a limited number of qualifying hotels, will there be exceptions made for the participation requirement of 80%? | The Government does not interfere with Offeror's business practices. Offeror's are encouraged to inform the Government when this situation is encountered. | |
| 43 | PWS | 1.5. General Information | 1.5.10 | 62 | Given the Government's stated intention to award all qualifying offerors at the IDIQ level and the requirement that offerors maintain an 80% proposal submittal rate for subsequent task orders, will the Government allow multiple offerors to propose the same resources (i.e., hotel, transportation company, etc.) in a given location? | Yes, the Government will allow offerors to propose the same resources. | |
| 44 | PWS | 1.5. General Information | 1.5.10 | 62 | Will the Government prohibit participating contractors from entering exclusive agreements with local lodging and transportation providers to maximize competition and make it possible for all offerors to comply with the expected 80% proposal submittal rate? | The Government does not interfere with Offeror's business practices. However, the Government reminds all offeror's of FAR9.104-1(d) Have a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics. Offeror's are encouraged to inform the Government when this situation is encountered. | |
| 45 | PWS | 1.5. General Information | 1.5.10 | 62 | Given the expectation to maintain 80% proposal submittal rate, how will the Government validate realistic contractor capability to actually perform this volume of work if awarded? | An 80% task order proposal submittal in no way guarantees an 80% task order award. This is a performance based contract. If a contractor is unable to perform, step will be made to remove them from the task order and subsequently the MATOC. | |
| 46 | PWS | 5 MEPS AMS | 5 | 65 | What is the MEPS AMS/BNM battle rhythm? Are new applicants arriving Sun-Thu (Sun/ Mon, Mon/Tue, Tue/Wed, Wed/Thu, Thu/Fri)? | There are new applicant projections every night, these are not long term stays. Typically new applicants arrive daily Sun-Thurs. However some location have weekend arrivals (this will be noted on the RTOP TE A). | |
| 47 | PWS | 5.1 Military Applicant Meals | 5.1.5.4 | 65 | Emergency lunches- 500 per year- is this contract wide or anticipated per location? | The estimated 500 emergency lunches is per task order for each year. | |
| 48 | PWS | 5.1 Military Applicant Meals | General | 65 | Do you want all meals boxed and dropped off at the hotel? | This is not a box meal contract see 5.1.2 | |
| 49 | PWS | 5.2. Military Applicant Lodging | 5.2.1. | 65 | States, "Lodging facility shall have a minimum of a three-diamond rating on the American Automobile Association (AAA) rating scale". Question: If a non-listed property files an application to request an inspection from AAA, can the Government provide any ability to expedite the application and inspection process to gain the AAA rating for a new non-listed property? | No, the Government has no control or say in the AAA rating process. | |
| 50 | PWS | 5.2. Military Applicant Lodging | 5.2.1.1 | 66 | In the paragraph, the PWS states the Hotel must maintain current approved elevator permits, pool permits and lodging inspection. In 5.1.3, the PWS states the Hotel must receive and maintain an acceptable score on its health inspection. Does the government intend on requiring evidence of lodging inspections or was the term "lodging inspection" meant to read "health inspection"? | No, the "lodging inspection" and "health inspection" are two distinct things. The Government requires lodging facilities to have a "lodging inspection" by local officials. See question 51 for definition of "lodging facility inspection". "Health Inspections" are for the dining facilities. These inspections maybe combined depending on the state/local regulation. Solicitation amended TE B. | |
| 51 | PWS | 5.2. Military Applicant Lodging | 5.2.1.1 | 66 | Can you define what is meant by Lodging Facility Inspection? | Lodging Facility Inspections that are done under the authority of the Rules and Regulations Governing Hotels (i.e. state, and/or county). All HOTELS, MOTELS, BED & BREAKFAST and OTHER LODGINGS require a permit to operate. | |
| 52 | PWS | 5.2. Military Applicant Lodging | 5.2.14 | 66 | States, "Overflow Lodging: Within 30 calendar days of TO award, contractor shall submit for approval its lodging overflow procedures, to include identification of an overflow hotel. The KO will provide a decision of acceptance or non-acceptance within 30 calendar days of receipt from the Contractor’s lodging overflow procedures.". Question: Is there any Government requirement to provide an approval for overflow Transportation procedures? | No, this is a performance based requirement. Contractors need to ensure they have a plan (s) established to transport applicants according to paragraph 5.3.3 of the PWS. | |
| 53 | PWS | 5.2. Military Applicant Lodging | 5.2.2 | 66 | The PWS states the lodging facility shall accommodate at least 70% of the maximum double rooms required. Is the government stating the Contractor shall lodge (accommodate) at least 70% of the maximum prior to overflowing or is it stating the lodging facility shall be structured in such a way that it has enough doubles to lodge (accommodate) at least 70% of the maximum. | According to paragraph 5.2.2 the lodging facility shall accommodate at least 70% of the maximum double rooms required. | |
| 54 | PWS | 5.2. Military Applicant Lodging | 5.2.3 | 66 | States, "The MEPS/RPS will provide the contractor the projected applicant processing list(s) by 3:00 p.m. daily, MEPS/RPS local time". Question(s): Can the Government provide an example of this format? Does this applicant processing list provide just 24 hour future applicant lists or does it provide estimated applicants/per day for the next week? | The applicant processing list (APL) is generated from US MIRS 1.1 each afternoon after the MEPS run Quality Review Program (QRP) and will only provide a list of applicants that require lodging that evening. No Future projections provided. | |
| 55 | PWS | 5.2. Military Applicant Lodging | 5.2.8 | 66 | This paragraph states that females may not be lodged at the overflow hotel. Does this include males projected as females? | Yes | |
| 56 | PWS | 5.2. Military Applicant Lodging | 5.2.16 | 67 | Emergency lodging- is there an estimated number or percentage of applicants/shippers that stay on weekends? | No. Government cannot plan for emergency lodging. | |
| 57 | PWS | 5.2. Military Applicant Lodging | 5.2.16.4 | 67 | Will the government allow for adjusted pricing if single occupancy is enforced due to a worldwide pandemic? | No | |
| 58 | PWS | 5.2. Military Applicant Lodging | 5.2.17.2 | 67 | Please define “conjoined and contiguous”. Will bathrooms, storage rooms, etc. be considered in the total square footage? If the space is conjoined by a wall with a door, is that considered “contiguous”? | Any and all space, to include other rooms that may have alternate functions will be considered in determining conjoined and contiguous. Open doors allow areas to be conjoined and contiguous. Bathrooms and storage rooms are considered in figuring the total square footage if the space remains conjoined and contiguous--i.e.. doors open. | |
| 59 | PWS | 5.2. Military Applicant Lodging | 5.2.17.3 | 67 | What is the anticipated timeframe between contract award and contract start date to allow for camera installation in the check-in area/lounge and designated smoking area prior to contract performance? | The Government intends to award new task orders 30 days prior to performance start. | |
| 60 | PWS | 5.2. Military Applicant Lodging | 5.2.17.3 | 67 | Current RTOP's state contractors have 30 days from TO award date to install cameras in the dedicated check-in area and designated smoking area. Confirming that this requirement will change to cameras to be operational prior to contract performance. | Yes, Paragraph 5.2.17.3 states, Operational security cameras shall be in the dedicated check in area/lounge and designated smoking area prior to contract performance. | |
| 61 | PWS | 5.3. Military Applicant Transportation | General | 68 | With the contractor now required to perform/hire transportation providers. Will the transportation providers no longer be able to see the requirements for medical consult, airport drop off and pickup in GOPAX? | Go-Pax will no longer be used for medical consult transportation. Airport transportation will still be procured in Go-Pax. | |
| 62 | PWS | 5.3. Military Applicant Transportation | General | 68 | Are there any special requirements or training needed for medical transfers other than standard commercial drivers licenses? | See PWS 5.3.6.1 | |
| 63 | PWS | 5.3. Military Applicant Transportation | General | 68 | How many people are going to need the daily transportation? the "average daily applicants" or a number less than that? | For morning transportation, it will depend on how many applicants are projected for lodging and the actual number of applicants that are lodged. For medical consult transportation it will depend on how many consult appointments are scheduled by the MEPS. | |
| 64 | PWS | 5.3. Military Applicant Transportation | General | 68 | How many people per day do we anticipate needing airport transfer? a % of the average daily applicants? | See PWS 5.3.7.3 and 5.3.7.4 | |
| 65 | PWS | 5.3. Military Applicant Transportation | General | 68 | When determining the number of transporation vehicles needed can you please clarify a few things for me? For example; for Atlanta, you state daily average applicant quantity 67 with a daily maxinum average applicant quantity of 250. Am I to assume on some days there could be as many as 250 people needing transporation to/from the MEPS location? If so; this is a bit hard to price unless you want me to price it per trip for the average number and if the number goes up to the maximum you would have to add vehicles at that time and the cost would go up. But I was just trying to figure out how to price it. | Yes, there could be as many as 250 applicants requiring transportation. It will depend on how many applicants are projected for lodging. This is a firm fixed price for applicants requiring daily lodging and should include all costs. | |
| 66 | PWS | 5.3. Military Applicant Transportation | General | 68 | In regards to transportation, can we assume for example the Dallas location may need more than 1 bus when the average applicant quantity is 79 and maximum could be 250? | Yes | |
| 67 | PWS | 5.3. Military Applicant Transportation | General | 68 | For the transportation services, do you have any idea on how much need you have for services? It would make most sense for us to quote services for an entire day, every day to cover ourselves not knowing exactly when you are needing services, it might not be the most cost effective, but I believe that would be the best way to handle it unless you can give us more accurate details of when, where and times services are needed, how many miles, etc. | The Government can only provide daily estimates based off historical data. | |
| 68 | PWS | 5.3. Military Applicant Transportation | General | 68 | Are full sized motorcoaches (55 passenger) currently being used or are smaller mini bus and vans being used to service the morning and evening transportation while also supporting medical and emergency transportation? | This is a performance based requirement and contractors must provide transportation resources in accordance with PWS paragraph 5.3.3. The Government does not interfere with Offeror's business practices. | |
| 69 | PWS | 5.3. Military Applicant Transportation | 5.3.3. | 68 | States "Ensure all transportation carriers other than hotel organic transportation (including limousines, taxicabs, and commercial bus companies) utilized in the performance of services herein, shall be an authorized DoD Approved Carrier by Defense Travel Management Office (DTMO) at the time of RTOP is submitted, and shall retain approval status throughout the life of task orders." Question: Can the Government confirm that a subcontractor hotels organic transportation is authorized to take applicants to and from local airports and train stations? | Yes | |
| 70 | PWS | 5.3. Military Applicant Transportation | 5.3.9.2 | 69 | States, "The contractor will be notified during the day if transportation is not required for that evening. MEPS/RPS personnel will coordinate with the contractor if different pickup times are required. If modified, the MEPS personnel will notify the contractor at least 30 minutes prior to the modified pickup time. If the last pickup time modified later than the originally scheduled pickup time or not needed, the MEPS personnel will notify the contractor no later than 30 minutes prior to the last scheduled pickup time." Question: Can the Government describe if the coordination between the MEPS/RPS is conducted via phone calls or emails, what method is used to do this coordination? | The MEPS/RPS will either communicate via phone call or send an email to the task order liaison. The MEPS will decide the best way to provide the information. | |
| 71 | PWS | 5.3. Military Applicant Transportation | 5.3.10 | 69 | Also, are we able to use organic transportation for medical appointment transport ? | Yes | |
| 72 | PWS | 5.3. Military Applicant Transportation | 5.3.10 | 69 | Will a list of currently used Medical Consult transportation providers be shared? | Yes, these will be shared at TO fair opportunity. Please keep in mind they do change based on available medical appointments in the local areas. | |
| 73 | PWS | 5.3. Military Applicant Transportation | 5.3.10 | 69 | Will the addresses of each local medical facility be listed on the RTOP for each market to help ensure proper logistics planning? | No, these will be shared TO fair opportunity. Please keep in mind they do change based on available medical appointments in the local areas. | |
| 74 | PWS | 5.3. Military Applicant Transportation | 5.3.10 | 69 | Will the Medical Transportation be part of the line item or part of the overall submitted rate per RTOP? | There will be a separate CLIN for Medical Consult transportation services. | |
| 75 | PWS | 5.3. Military Applicant Transportation | 5.3.10 | 69 | Is Medical Consultation transportation held to the same requirement of only DoD approved transportation companies? | Yes, or hotel organic transportation as required by PWS paragraph 5.3.3 | |
| 76 | PWS | 5.3. Military Applicant Transportation | 5.3.10 | 69 | Would hotel organic transportation be allowed to provide or supplement medical consultation appointment transportation? | Yes | |
| 77 | PWS | 5.3. Military Applicant Transportation | 5.3.10 | 69 | Would a medical facility that provides transportation to guests be considered organic transportation? | No | |
| 78 | PWS | 5.3. Military Applicant Transportation | 5.3.10.3 | 70 | States, "Local medical appointments are scheduled between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. local time, Monday through Friday based upon medical facility availability, appointment type and the number of applicants requiring a consultation". Question: Can the Government confirm that it is the MEPS that makes these appointments and not the Contractor? | The MEPS/RPS will schedule medical appointments. | |
| 79 | PWS | 5.3. Military Applicant Transportation | 5.3.10.4 | 70 | Medical appointments are normally scheduled within a 60-mile radius of the local MEPS/RPS. An estimated 90% of medical appointments are known a day in advance of the appointments, however, the remaining percentage of appointments are ad hoc... | ||
| It further states that we will have 60 minutes to pick up unplanned medical appointment transfers. Is this from the time of notification that there is an appointment or from the appointment time? For example, if applicant has an appointment at 2:00, will we know a few hours before an appointment or will it be notification at 1:00 and the appointment is 60 minutes later? | The contractor needs to provide medical consult transportation as required by paragraph 5.3.10.5 of the PWS. | ||||||
| 80 | PWS | 5.3. Military Applicant Transportation | 5.3.10.5 | 70 | States, "Provide unscheduled, ad hoc transportation requests within an hour of notification from the MEPS/RPS". Question: Can the Government describe what occurs in situations where there are multiple ad hoc requests per day that overlap, as clearly the Contractor then must have a stand by fleet of sedans to respond to simultaneous requests to deliver an applicant within 60 miles of a MEPS for an ad hoc unscheduled appointment. | This is a performance based requirement and contractors need to be able to meet the requirement. The Government does not interfere with the Offeror's business practices. | |
| 81 | PWS | 5.3. Military Applicant Transportation | 5.3.10.9 | 70 | Is one medical consult driver allowed to pick up or drop off multiple applicants within the same trip as long as the time constraints are maintained? | Yes, The Government does not interfere with the Offeror's business practices. | |
| 82 | PWS | 7 Attachment/Technical Exhibit (TE) Listing | 72 | The only attachments that were provided were the Sample RTOP TE A and the question matrix. Can you please provide Attachment 1 - 4? | yes | ||
| 83 | PWS | 7 Attachment/Technical Exhibit (TE) Listing | TE A | 73 | Will contracting include current RTOP expiration dates including any option extensions for each location in technical exhibit A, MEPS historical data? | Neither dates or option will be included | |
| 84 | PWS | 7 Attachment/Technical Exhibit (TE) Listing | TE C | 76 | The Technical Exhibit states that Contractors shall ensure sufficient rooms are reserved daily to lodge all applicants that are projected. This statement is in conflict with PWS 5.2.2 which states that either the hotel must have sufficient doulbe rooms to lodge 70% of the maximum applicant volume or the Contractor must lodge at least 70% of the stated applicant maximum, dependend on interpretation. Please advise. | At TO proposal the proposed lodging facility shall accommodate at least 70% of the maximum double rooms required in accordance with PWS 5.2.2. Additionally, the contractor shall be responsible for ensuring sufficient rooms are reserved daily to fulfill the requirements of the contract. | |
| 85 | PWS | 5.4 Invoice processing | |||||
| 7 Attachment/Technical Exhibit (TE) Listing | 5.4.4 | ||||||
| 7.4 | 71 | ||||||
| 72 | Will the government please provide contractors Attachment 1 – Sample Invoice for MEPS Applicant Management Services or a listing of all required information as referenced in 5.4.4? | Provided with Solicitation amendment. However, keep in mind the current sample does include lines for the Medical transportation. | |||||
| 86 | General | Not Covered | N/A | Question: Can the Government provide the format for a Task Order response? | RTOP will provide instructs | ||
| 87 | General | Not Covered | N/A | Question(s): What is the expected Task Order duration (i.e. 2 years, 3 years, etc)? Should a current IDIQ incumbent not be awarded an IDIQ contract under this solicitation, will Task Orders awarded to the previous incumbent be recompeted immediately under the new IDIQ contract? | Depends on when the Task Order is awarded. Generally task orders will have a one year base, and include as many option years available in the current ordering period. (i.e. Task order awarded effective 1 Aug 2024, could have four option years; but a Task order awarded effective 1 Aug 2025 could only have three option years) | ||
| 88 | General | Not Covered | N/A | Question(s): Before a Task Order award, is there any type of Government site visit or inspection of the lodging facility and/or the DTMO approved transportation company? Can the Government provide a copy of all checklists associated with these inspections? Who would be expeted to participate in these inspections? | RTOP will provide instruction and if inspection is required what will be inspected. | ||
| 89 | General | Not Covered | N/A | Question: What are the requirements for Font, Margins, and Page size? | Solicitation Amendment issued to update FAR 52.212-1 addendum | ||
| 90 | General | Not Covered | N/A | Clarification Requested: There is no specified font for tables and graphics. Please confirm if 9 point Arial Narrow (or whatever our standard/desired is) is acceptable. | Solicitation Amendment issued to update FAR 52.212-1 addendum | ||
| 91 | General | Not Covered | N/A | Question: Will the Cover Page, Table of Contents, List of Figures be excluded from page count? | Solicitation Amendment issued to update FAR 52.212-1 addendum | ||
| 92 | General | Not Covered | N/A | Are we required to list the contractors that we have signed agreements with in our proposal submission? Or will we need to ensure we meet the requirements when bidding on said contracts? | Subcontract agreements are not required for the proposal submission for this solicitation. However, they will be required that task order proposal submission. | ||
| 93 | General | Not Covered | N/A | Is this is a service thats currently being provided. If so, is there a preference on pricing structure and data on vehicle quantities & types in the last year by location? | Price is not a part of this solicitation. And will be provided at RTOP | ||
| 94 | General | Not Covered | N/A | Can we build the proposal based on average needs and scale up and scale down on an as-needed basis and make and contract amendments if we have to increase our cost? | Price is not a part of this solicitation. Each TO proposal will require a pricing proposal. | ||
| 95 | General | Not Covered | N/A | Is there a disclosure requirement related to the pricing structure and methodology in the technical description of the proposal? | Price is not a part of this solicitation. Each TO proposal will require a pricing proposal. | ||
| 96 | General | Not Covered | N/A | Is there a Q&A Session that we can attend? | Government does not intend to hold a Q&A session. | ||
| 101 | General | Not Covered | N/A | Can a BID be presented for a certain region only? | To bid on task orders you must have been award a contract under this Multiple Award Task Order Contract as a whole. Please see PWS 1.5.10 for additional information to remain in the Multiple Award Task Order Contract. | ||
| 97 | Sample RTOP TE A | For the Hot Morning meal you state timeframe no earlier that 4:30am. How soon will we know what the delivery time will be? | See PWS section 5.1.5.1 ( the "Sample RTOP TE A" document was provided only to show an example what will be provided when we request a task order proposal) | ||||
| 98 | Sample RTOP TE A | For the Hot Eventing meal you state timeframe 5pm-10pm. Do you want meals available all during that time? Or is that just a time frame in which meals could be delivered? How soon will be know exact delivery time? | See PWS section 5.1.5.2 ( the "Sample RTOP TE A" document was provided only to show an example what will be provided when we request a task order proposal) | ||||
| 99 | Sample RTOP TE A | For the transportation timeframe, you state 5:50am-6:00am. Can you confirm what time frame transportation is needed to and from the airport? And do you want us to quote transportation services for 8am-4pm daily for medical appointments? It's hard to quote transportation services accurately if we don't have specific timeframes and distances. | The "Sample RTOP TE A" document was provided only to show an example what will be provided when we request a task order proposal | ||||
| CUI//SP-PROCURE//FEDCON |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .