RFIPosted-13Oct04.xls

RFI POSTED 13OCT04

RFI POSTED 6OCT04

RFI POSTED 4OCT04

MBD00DB01AF.doc

COMMENT/QUESTION:

As discussed at the site visit and explained in paragraph H-936 of the RFP, a Service Provider is required to provide maintenance on all GFE vehicles in Section 2, Appendix FF. This raises several questions. Since the Government is not providing a specific facility (or part of a facility) for this, is it acceptable to do this work on base, in one of the other Government provided facilities? Can a Service Provider provide our own facility on base for vehicle maintenance? Will the Government allow a Service Provider to take these vehicles off base for maintenance and servicing (in some cases having to truck them to the facility due to the unique nature of a special purpose or MHE vehicle)? Will the MEO have to abide by the same determinations, and like a contractor provide their own maintenance, facility, equipment, and tools (or take the vehicles off base) and not be allowed to use the Transportation Squadron’s resources?

ANSWER: This question was resolved with the posting of Amendment 11.

Attachment 2 to Section J

MBD00DC0ADB.doc C-J-139

F41689-02-R-0048

There is not a ‘Summary of Expectations (1)‘ worksheet included in Section J Attachment 10, Cost Model Spreadsheet. Only PRDs 2 through 19 are represented. Will the Government please add a ‘Summary of Expectations’ PRD to each worksheet in the cost model? If not, will the Government please describe where it anticipates offerors to show its management/staff support and non-labor costs, such as equipment, that cannot be directly attributed to a specific cost objective (PRD)?

ANSWER: The answer to this question is as follows: A subCLIN will not be established under CLIN X003 for PRD 1, nor will a worksheet be added to the manpower matrix or cost model. The requirements of PRD1 are applicable to all other PRDs (2-19) and any perceived costs for PRD 1 should be dispersed appropriately across all service areas. Any non-PRD specific requirements should be included under PRD2 “All-Service Requirements.”

MBD00DEA59C.doc M-006

COMMENT/QUESTION: The Section J Attachment 4 Table requires the offeror to list productive manhours in the following categories: SCA- Wage Determination Total Non-Exempt, SCA – Collective Bargaining (when applicable) Total Non-Exempt Workforce, and NON-W.D. & CBA Total Exempt Workforce but does not include Davis Bacon workers.

The RFP incorporates wage rates and Davis Bacon sights by reference. In addition, the RFP also requires the service provider to execute projects under $100K and provides for execution of projects of greater than $100K but less than $500K. The PRD provides history of projects to be executed in the above dollar value categories that include new construction.

The available productive hours for Davis Bacon workers differs from the other categories in the table, however, the reference table does not provide an opportunity for the inclusion of Davis Bacon Workforce Productive Manhours.

QUESTION: Will the Government expand the Available Productive Manhours Table at Attachment 4 to Section J to include Davis Bacon Workforce?

ANSWER: A section will be added to the Available Productive Manhours Table to include positions covered under Davis Bacon General Decisions listed in Atch 3 of Section J.

MBD00DEE0F9.doc P-008

COMMENT/QUESTION: Suggest the Performance Management Plan be amended to incorporate a two- tier approach to administration of the incentive plan with regard to scoring Customer Satisfaction Survey and Performance Metrics. All metrics that are defined in a way that allows for the PMO to quantify a service provider’s effort that significantly or greatly exceeds standard should be scored according to the plans in 4.9.3 Customer Satisfaction Survey Metrics, and 4.9.4 Performance Metrics. Customer expectations that can only be defined in terms of 100% compliance/zero defect should then be reviewed and any chargeable deficiency deducted as a percentage from the final award fee provided the service provider.

Metrics that contain thresholds of number of valid complaints should be reassessed. Consideration should be given to substituting a metric (particularly in areas where the function had no formal feedback system) to measure the service provider’s efforts in response to a complaint (i.e. service provider’s actions to address complaint resulted in service improvements - no other similar complaints received over the next quarter or the number of complaints by month trends toward zero).

ANSWER: While we appreciate your recommended changes to Attachment 6, Performance Management Plan, we will not be incorporating them into the plan. The details of your suggestions are better suited for implementation per the requirements of para 4.5.1 and 4.5.2 of said plan.

_1157789832.doc

Suggestions for Improvement of Metrics and Performance Management Plan

Metrics:

Customer Satisfaction Surveys Should Be Weighted By Impact on Customer/Mission

Customer Satisfaction Surveys should be weighted. Customers or missions most impacted by services provided, or customers most frequently using services being provided, should have a greater impact on the outcome of each survey. (For example, a less than satisfactory rating for a patron of the library based on one visit looking for a specific book for recreational reading may not be as important as a less than satisfactory rating from a new instructor who regularly visits the library to do research for a mandatory associates degree.)

Customer Satisfaction Surveys Should Consider Who the End Customer Is

Consideration should also be given to clearly understanding who is the recipient of the services being provided. For example, only surveying students, about their satisfaction with a training course may not be indicative of the effectiveness of the training course. The end customer of the training may, in fact, be the student’s supervisor, who perhaps ought to be pulsed about the outcome of the training too. (Whether the training enhanced the capability of the work center to perform the mission may be more important than whether the student enjoyed the training experience.)

Surveys Should Be Used to Assess Opportunities for Improvement Without Penalizing the Provider

It should be recognized that customer surveys perform a valuable dual purpose of assisting the service provider in improving quality of service by providing specific feedback and suggestions in areas where service can be improved. Service provider metrics, particularly those issuing from point of service customer satisfaction surveys, should include a measure of how the provider reacts to a customer who points out a less than stellar performance. If the purpose of the survey is to improve service, customer inputs on how service could be improved should be valued not discouraged. If the PMO and the service provider establish an environment where complaints and customer feedback turn into a focus for improvement and the contractor responds to the challenge in a manner that positively impacts the customer’s mission, then the service provider should not be penalized for the compliant but rewarded for an effective response. Relying on customer feedback only to grade the service provider’s performance is not supportive of the Government objective to create a partnership relationship as defined in the Performance Management Plan.

Customer Expectations, With Regard to Complaints, Should be Focused on Service Improvement

Customer expectation thresholds of 1 or 2 complaints in over a month or quarter need to be carefully assessed, especially if the current functional service provider has not regularly asked for any formal feedback from customers in the past. A major challenge in the service sector is that only about 5-10% of the customers voice their dissatisfaction about bad service without that feedback being solicited. If a formal feedback system is introduced as part of the required metrics, the customer complaint expectation thresholds may prove unrealistic. A better standard to apply in the area of complaints might be improvement in customer satisfaction as indicated by a reduction of the number of complaints received over a specified period in a functional area and the effectiveness of the service provider’s corrective action – number of complaints received about the same or similar services is rapidly reduced to zero or near zero.

Timely Response Metrics Should Be Accompanied by Appropriate Response Measures

A service provider’s judgment in providing an appropriate response should be a part of the evaluation of a timely response. How the service provider manages, correctly prioritizes resources and contains costs will ultimately be a significant measure of the overall program success. Not every missed suspense has an equal impact on the mission nor typically should it warrant an over commitment of resources. If the intent is for the PMS “to partner with the service provider to explore means to reduce the costs of the service while maintaining or improving the overall service level within the constraints of the contract and the level of funding”, then appropriate as well as timely responses should be valued and should be measured.

Performance Management Plan:

100% Compliance, Zero Defects Expectations Should be Evaluated Differently in Considering Performance Awards

If the intent is to provide a performance award based on meeting, significantly exceeding or greatly exceeding most or all customer requirements, then the metrics requiring 100% compliance should be placed in a different category in the PMP. 100% compliance metrics by definition cannot be exceeded but may be critical. If 100% is mandated by law, a regulation, an AFI or compliance is of such significance that non-compliance endangers the mission, then failure to meet that customer expectation should be a deduct from the earned Award Fee. We would suggest that all quantifiable metrics on performance or customer satisfaction be computed first. Then, if those 100% compliance expectations are not met, the Government should deduct a significant sum should be made from the Award Fee to the service provider.

MBD00DF3786.doc P-009

COMMENT/QUESTION: The Performance Management Plan (PMP) contains a number of requirements for the service provider to support the plan as “wills and shalls” throughout the document. The Part I, Section B, Costs and Supplies, Item Numbers X003 states that “The contractor shall provide all labor, supplies, materials, parts, supervision and other items or services necessary to perform the management and operation of the Base Operating Support (BOS) services at Keesler Air Force Base as defined in the Performance Requirements Document (PRD) included herein in Sec J Atch.1.

Section J Atch 1 refers to the Performance Requirements Document (PRD) for Base Operating Support, Keesler AFB, MS. While Section J lists Attachment 6, Performance Management Plan among the List of Attachments, there is no link between any CLIN and the PMP.

The Performance Requirements Document contains no reference to the PMP. Therefore, it appears that requirements stated in the plan are not part of CLIN pricing.

QUESTION: Are the service provider requirements (“wills and shalls”) contained in the Performance Management Plan considered mandatory requirements as part of the PRD?

ANSWER: The Performance Management Plan (PMP) will be an attachment to the contract and therefore, the service provider will be responsible for the requirements established in the plan. The PRD will also be a separate attachment in the contract.

QUESTION: Are these requirements required to be priced in Schedule B?

ANSWER: Any costs associated with the requirements of the PMP should be included in Section B CLINs X003 or X010 as appropriate.

QUESTION: If so, where (in what CLIN) should these costs of supporting the PMP be priced?

ANSWER: See above answer.

MBD00DECB3F.doc P-007

COMMENT/QUESTION: The Performance Management Plan contains a table that outlines the general overall performance/satisfaction levels and definitions. The customer satisfaction and performance metrics are called out in Exhibit 2 of the Plan. In defining the % award to be given to the service provider, the performance definition indicates that in order to receive an award in excess of 20% the service provider’s performance must at least be significantly above most contract requirements while the remainder are slightly above contract requirements. The definitions of higher performance levels require the provider to be significantly above or greatly exceed all contract requirements. In the remaining paragraphs, the Customer Satisfaction Metrics and Performance Metrics scoring is outlined. Exhibit 2 contains 156 possible metrics that the PMC and the Wing Commander may select from to determine if an acceptable rating has been achieved or exceeded customer satisfaction or performance standards. The Technical Library contains further information regarding the standards to include in many cases the required level of service. Of the 156 metrics, over 27% contain standards that require 100% compliant, zero defect standard. While the Wing Commander and the PMC may at their discretion elect metrics other than pass/fail, given the importance of most of the criteria, it seems unlikely. The questions all related to the above, therefore are as follows:

How is the contractor to be judged for exceeding a standard, if the 100% compliance, zero standard, by definition, cannot be exceeded?

ANSWER: The Award Fee Review Board will consider other variables (i.e. quicker completion of the event, going above the minimum number required, etc.) for performance/customer satisfaction standards measured at the 100%/zero defect threshold.

Are metrics related to customer complaints considered Customer Satisfaction or Performance Metric related?

ANSWER: The nature of the complaint could determine which category of metric the complaint may go in.

If the standard can only be met and not exceeded, how can the contractor perform at any of the performance levels called out in the referenced table?

ANSWER: Neither the Performance Management Plan, Award Fee Plan, nor the Performance Requirements Document state that the service provider cannot exceed the standard.

Finally, given the challenge in exceeding the performance standards to the extent defined in the table on page 11 of 20, how was it determined that the contractor’s award fee for the purpose of price evaluation would be 65% of the award fee bid?

ANSWER: This is a requirement IAW AFI 38-203, para 10.7.2 and 12.6.2.1.3.

MBD00DE101E.doc C-L-147

In section L-901(g)(2) of the RFP under letter (e) the Government asks us to provide “Documentation of commitment to the identified Small Business Sources.” We take the term “documentation” to mean copies of the teaming agreements that we have with our subcontractors cited in the proposal. Each teaming agreement for our six subcontractors is approximately 7 pages in length.

Assuming our interpretation is correct, our question to the Government is, given the page limitations of the Small Business Subcontracting Plan, request the documentation be excluded from the page count.

If our interpretation is incorrect, please define the exact type of documentation you are asking for under letter (e) “Documentation of commitment to the identified Small Business Sources.”

ANSWER: Your interpretation is correct. The documentation submitted by offerors in response to Section L, para L-901(g)(2)(e) of the RFP, is hereby excluded from the page count limitation to Volume III, Small Business Subcontracting. This change will be included in a forthcoming amendment.

MBD00DE3D76.doc C-L-166

RFP paragraph L-901 g(c) says: “The small business subcontract goal is 25 percent of ESTIMATED COST (CLIN X003), on an annual basis. The plan shall state the apportionment of the small business subcontracting goals among the small business types. This data shall be submitted in a table similar to the following:”

However, in the top left corner of the chart it says “Totals CLINS 0001-0009” and the percentages given in the example use this total as the denominator to figure the percentage. Should the chart not say “Total CLIN 0003?”

ANSWER: The worksheet required for calculating small business subcontracting dollars has been revised and incorporated via Amendment 0010 and makes reference to CLIN 0003 only. The chart under L-901g(c) was inadvertently left in Section L and was deleted in Amendment 0011 since Atch 12 replaced this format.

MBD00DCA00B.doc C-L-125

The above referenced section states that the offeror must include “(vii) Total average man-years priced (each contract period) as indicated in the cost proposal. NOTE: The average man-years priced in the technical and cost proposals must match. If not, the cost proposal data will have precedence.” It is our understanding that total average man-years priced for each contract period are the same as total man-years priced for each contract period. For example, if the total man-hours priced in OY1 are 150, 150/1 = 150 (total man-years/number of years = average man-years. Is this correct? If not, please demonstrate the type of calculation you require to arrive at total average man-year priced for each contract period.

ANSWER: The reference to “average” man-years was deleted in Amendment 0016 to avoid any confusion.

MBD00DB8FCC.doc C-H-161

Section H-935 (d) states, “All Tools listed in appendices XX-FD necessary in the performance of this contract shall be procured by the service provider and funded against CLIN X008 with no fee. Does this mean that if certain tools are not listed in appendices XX-FD, but are necessary in the performance of this contract, that the service provider may procure those tools and fund it against CLIN X008?

ANSWER: CLIN X008 is solely for the replacement of any tools that are provided to the service provider in the initial Government inventory. Based on the service provider’s approach in performing the PRD services, if any tools other than what the Government is providing are required, the service provider must cost those tools in CLINs X003 or X010.

MBD00DBC1FD.doc C-J-132

The Cost Model worksheets provided in Amend. 0005, dated 8-22-03, has an error. On the page 1-of-11, within tab titled “Prices,” the X003 CLINs are incorrectly named (i.e., not the same as on all other pages of the worksheet. Offerors do not make changes to Government-provided forms; will the Government replace the page with the correct CLIN titles? If not, will the Government issue instructions for offerors to correct the page?

ANSWER: This error was corrected in the Cost Model posted with Amendment 9 on 26 Jan 04.

MBD00DBDEB1.doc C-J-133

There are separate Item Numbers in the Section B as well as separate worksheets in the Workforce Matrix and Cost Model for PRDs 2 through 19. There is not a separate Item Number, nor separate worksheets in the Workforce Matrix and Cost Model for PRD 1, ‘Summary of Expectations’. There will be site management Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs), their costs, and non-labor costs such as equipment, that cannot be directly attributable to a single PRD (2 through 19). Without a CLIN and separate worksheets for PRD 1, site management FTEs, their costs, and non-labor costs that are not PRD-specific will need to be allocated over PRDs 2 through 19. Allocating FTEs would result in the undesirable situation of fractionalizing site-management FTEs. Will the Government please add a ‘Summary of Expectations’ CLIN under CLIN X003, and separate worksheets in the Manpower Matrix and Cost Model for PRD1, Summary of Expectations? If not, please explain where and how the Government would like to see the site management FTEs, the site management labor costs, and non-labor costs that cannot be directly attributable to a single PRD?

ANSWER: A subCLIN will not be established under CLIN X003 for PRD 1, nor will a worksheet be added to the manpower matrix or cost model. The requirements of PRD1 are applicable to all other PRDs (2-19) and any perceived costs for PRD 1 should be dispersed appropriately across all service areas. Any non-PRD specific requirements should be included under PRD2 “All-Service Requirements.”

MBD00DBA610.doc C-H-162

Section H-936 states, “The Government shall not reimburse the service provider for any vehicle purchases or any leases with option to purchase,” which leads the offeror to believe that it cannot include the cost to replace vehicles through a purchase of any kind. Is leasing the only permissible method of proposing vehicle replacement in order to receive reimbursement? Typically, it is less costly over the long-term to own vehicles than to lease them. Will the Government revise paragraph H-936 to allow reimbursement for vehicles purchases and leases with option to purchase?

ANSWER: The change to allow for purchase of vehicles was made in Amendment 0010, however based on the current changes made to vehicle requirements in Amendment 0011, the MEO nor contractors are required to price in replacement of Government-furnished vehicles except as stated in H-936.

MBD00DB4BE7.doc

This paragraph states that the Air Force-owned vehicles will be made available to the Service Provider at contract start, yet performance by the Service Provider begins during the Transition period. Will the Government make the vehicles available at the start of the Transition period instead?

ANSWER: The first sentence to para H-936 of the RFP was changed as follows in Amendment 17: “As identified in the Performance Requirements Document (PRD) and the Transition Plan (para 5), the Government will make available to the service provider those vehicles that the Air Force owns and which the Air Force leases.”

MBD00DB7264.doc C-H-160

Section H-935 (c) states, “Procurement of all new or replacement Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) necessary in the performance of this contract shall be procured by the service provider and funded against CLIN X008 with no fee.” Does this mean that if certain pieces of equipment are not listed in PRD appendices XX-FB and XX-FC, but are necessary in the performance of this contract, that the service provider may procure that equipment and fund it against CLIN X008?

ANSWER: CLIN X008 is solely for the replacement of any GFE that is provided in the initial inventory. Based on the service provider’s approach in performing the PRD services, if any equipment other than what the Government is providing is required, the service provider must cost that equipment in CLINs X003 or X010.

MBD00DB19AA.doc

Reference Section H-936. Approximately one-third of the Government-furnished vehicles are currently at the end of their useful life. Will replacement of these expended vehicles take place prior to Mobilization/Transition?

ANSWER: Please refer to Amendment 11. The government will replace the vehicles identified by a B, C, D, E, or L Registration Number at their discretion. The government will replace the vehicles currently leased contingent upon the terms of the GSA lease agreement. If any are replaced prior to mobilization/transition, an amendment to the RFP will be issued.

MBD003845D3.doc W-11-161

PRD 11, Operations and Maintenance states that “The service provider shall: Perform Operations & Maintenance of all buildings/facilities on and annexs of Keesler AFB to include all medical facilities.” In addition, paragraph 11.1.2.5 states that “Keesler AFB Medical Center Facilities shall be maintained by fully trained and documented personnel. Medical air/gas/vacuum systems shall be maintained by a certified craftsman.” However, the workload data available in the electronic technical library and other documentation available do not provide information about the specific workload at Keesler medical facilities. While limited workload data are provided for preventive maintenance of equipment, there is no breakout for work orders by craft for Real Property and RPIE Maintenance Repair, Alterations, and Operations in the medical facilities.

Will the government identify specific workload for the Keesler AFB Medical Center Facilities to assist offerors in developing staffing for the medical facilities?

ANSWER: Maintenance of the air/gas/vac systems in the medical center is currently contracted out. The contracts and workload data, posted in the Technical Library, provide the information requested. Contract numbers are: FA3010-04-P-0042 (Hospital Pneumatic Tubes Maintenance) and FA3010-04-P-0003 (Medical Gas). Workload data can be found in the Big BOS technical information under Operations and Maintenance.

MBD00417E07.doc C-H-168

2.3 Government Furnished Property (GFP) And Services

2.3.3.5. The service provider will be issued a Department of Defense Activity

Address Code (T-DODAAC), which allows the service provider to purchase fuels from the government at the government's cost. The service provider will be billed directly by Defense Energy Support Center (DESC). The service provider shall pay the fuel bill and file for reimbursement. The service provider shall exercise prudent use and conservation of provided fuel and shall use the fuel only in the accomplishment of work in the Performance Requirements Document.

H-923

GOVERNMENT PROVIDED FUEL

The service provider is authorized to use the Supply (PRD 17) self-serve base service station on Keesler AFB to refuel Government-furnished and service provider acquired vehicles and equipment that are used solely to perform the requirements of this contract. This fuel is considered Government-furnished. Government furnished fuel is not authorized for any vehicles or equipment replaced in excess quantities over the initial GFE inventory, unless approved by the contracting officer.

Question: Will the Fuel Cost be a part of a Gov’t Reimbursable CLIN to be added later – or – should the service providers include cost for fuels used in Gov’t Provided or Contractor replacement Vehicles in CLIN 0003?

Question: What period of time (in days?) will it take the government to provide the Fuel Bills from DESC, and what amount of time (in days?) will it take the Government Contracting Office to Reimburse the contractor?

RESPONSE: The fuel cost will not be a part of a Schedule B reimbursable CLIN. The reference in 2.3.3.5 in regards to the service provider being billed by DESC was removed. Amendment 19 (Big BOS) and 17 (Little BOS) incorporated the changes to paragraph 2.3.3.5 to read as follows:

2.3.3.5. The service provider will be issued a Department of Defense Activity

Address Code (T-DODAAC), which allows the service provider to purchase fuels from the Government at the Government's cost. The service provider shall exercise prudent use and conservation of provided fuel and shall use the fuel only in the accomplishment of work in the Performance Requirements Document.

MBD00DA91F8.doc

The Cost Model and Section B do not agree. We believe that the cost model numbers are correct as section B did not change from previous editions. Please advise as to correct numbers.

ANSWER: This error was corrected in the Cost Model posted with Amendment 9 on 26 Jan 04.

MBD00DAC2B1.doc COMMENT/QUESTION: In Reference to Solicitation No F41689-02-R-0049 Keesler Little BOS, please note an error in a formula within the file: "2LittleBosjul04.xls", on the "PRICES" tab, cell C 31; which contains the formula for "TOTAL ESTIMATED CONTRACT PRICE-MOBILZN & TRANSITION AND BASIC PLUS OPTIONS". Formula within the file you provided is as follows: =+C9+C29. In order to reflect the total price, the correct formula for the formula in cell C 31 should be as follows: =+C7+C29. As the formula is written in the model you provided, the "TOTAL ESTIMATED CONTRACT PRICE-MOBILZN & TRANSITION AND BASIC PLUS OPTIONS" would be counting only 65% of the Mobilization and Transition price. Note that the formula in cell C 32 correctly reflects the "TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE-MOBILZN & TRANSITION AND BASIC PLUS OPTIONS" for all Periods.

ANSWER: The above information is correct. The formula for "TOTAL ESTIMATED CONTRACT PRICE-MOBILZN & TRANSITION AND BASIC PLUS OPTIONS," cell C31, under the “Prices” tab was posted in error and was corrected on a prior amendment.

MBD00DA3B49.doc

In cross referencing the REP CD to AFI-24-301, paragraph 6.21, the code indicates that for P Life expectancy in years will be reached within 2 years. Does this mean that the service provider and MEO will need to replace these vehicles at contract start in 2005?

ANSWER: Para H-936 was revised in Amendment 11, providing an answer to this question.

MBD00DA6DA8.doc COMMENT/QUESTION: Are the costs relating to CLINs X005 through X008 to be used in determining indirect cost for CLIN X003? Are these costs all inclusive of the “Other Direct Cost” section of the Cost model to include supplies/material, equipment, training, travel and miscellaneous. Please provide the breakout of those amounts in CLINs X005 through X008 to the Sub-CLINs of X003.

RESPONSE: In proposing indirect costs the Offeror(s) should pay close attention to the statements provided in CLINs X005 thru X008.

X005, Government Directed Travel cost reimbursable CLIN, no fee—reimbursement is limited to total allowable cost only, G&A and applicable overhead shall not be included in this CLIN. Include G&A and applicable overhead in CLIN 0003. [See NTE amount in Section B and cost model by period]

X006, Facility Projects. FFP Projects over $100,000 and under $500,000. G&A and applicable overhead will be negotiated on each project. Projects initiated during this contract period shall be firm fixed price. (IAW H-924). . [See EST amount in Section B and cost model by period]

X007, Modernization of Government Furnished Information Technology (IT) Equipment under $100,000, Cost Reimbursement CLIN, no fee. This CLIN will also be used to repair GFE when approved by the ACO. G&A and applicable overhead will be negotiated on each purchase. IAW H-934. [See EST amount in Section B and cost model by period]

X008, Replacement of Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) under $100,000, cost reimbursement item, no fee. G&A and applicable overhead will be negotiated on each purchase. IAW H-935. [See NTE amount in Section B and cost model by period]

Additionally, the offeror should carefully consider the costs related to the Cost reimbursable, CLINs X005-X008, to avoid duplication of costs in the transition and estimated costs. The Offeror should exercise normal estimating practices when proposing other direct costs. A breakdown is not necessary.

Finally, offerors should pay particular attention to Section L, para L-901(h)(1)(viii) & (ix) when developing ODCs.

MBD00418B2C.doc T-00-134

Under the guidelines of OMB Circular A-76, will the MEO be expected to not only price, but to have on-board all required personnel to support the Basic Year work effort as stipulated by the Performance Requirements Document (PRD)? In a similar A-76 procurement using the same OMB guidelines as exist in this solicitation, the MEO was able to prorate the cost of various positions in the first performance period to account for a 90 day in-processing period (security clearances, specialized orientations) because they were considered as not being on the payroll. In effect, this equated to entering .75 FTEs into COMPARE for each FTE required, allowing the MEO to reduce costs by 25% on positions affected by the 90 day hiring process.

Under this current Keesler procurement the same standard must be applied to all providers competing for this contract as the requirement to meet the workload stated in the PRD should not be mitigated or relieved by any internal restrictions on hiring.

Question: How does the government plan to ensure that the MEO’s projected costs are fully representative of the effort required to meet the requirements of the PRD?

ANSWER: The AFAA has been charged by USAF with the responsibility to ensure all costs in the MEO management plan are an accurate and complete representation of the effort required. Additionally, the AFAA will certify that no costs have been left out.

MBD00DA2AF5.doc

Paragraph H-936 indicates that the service provider is not responsible for special vehicles as listed in Section 2, Appendix FF. Does this mean that all vehicles listed in table 2.FF are special vehicles, and if not, which are considered special vehicles?

ANSWER: Para H-936 was revised in Amendment 11, providing an answer to this question.

MBD0041631C.doc C-L-126

Attachment 4 Section J, Manpower Matrix states that

(1) “Direct Labor - Direct labor involves those tasks that are readily identifiable with a work center's specific product or service. For example, fuels distribution or vehicle maintenance. Supervision of direct labor tasks is considered direct labor when direct labor encompasses fifty percent or more of the tasks.” and

(2) “Indirect Labor - Indirect labor involves those tasks that are not readily identifiable with a work center's specific product or service. The major categories of standard indirect work are: Directs work center activity, provides administrative support; prepares for and conducts/attends meetings; performs planning and scheduling; maintains system and equipment status, configuration, usage, location and historical records; administers training, quality, budget, data collection and analysis programs; manages supplies and tools, monitors and coordinates work center production, and performs clean-up. Supervision of indirect tasks is considered indirect labor when indirect labor encompasses fifty percent or more of the tasks.”

This implies that a supervisor who supervises personnel who perform direct labor (50% or more of the time) is considered direct labor, and a supervisor who supervises personnel who perform indirect labor (50% or more of the time) is considered indirect labor.

Conversely, the direction can be taken to mean that working supervisors who spend more than 50% of their working time to perform direct labor tasks are considered direct labor, and those who spend more than 50% of their working time to perform indirect labor time are considered indirect labor.

Which is correct? Please clarify the correct use of direct and indirect labor classifications.

ANSWER: Your 2nd assumption is false. The issue isn’t what type of work the supervisor is doing, but rather, what type and percentage of tasks require supervision: more than 50% of direct or indirect labor associated tasks.

MBD00416FC5.doc C-B-167

Question C-B-084 asked if a contractor could use a Small Business funded from CLINs X006, X007, or X008 (Facility Projects, Modernization of Government Furnished IT Equipment, and Replacement of GFE, respectively) during contract execution to receive Small Business Credit towards the Award Fee. The response was, “No. The contractor will not receive credit toward the 25% goal specified in H-920 or toward the Award Fee. See Clause H-920 and Award Fee Plan page 10.”

We would respectively ask the Government to re-consider. The RFP goal is 25% for Small Business subcontracting, and understandably this goal should be met from only CLIN X003 since this is all that there is assurance will be funded. However, there is a sizable amount of funds in CLINs X006, X007, and X008 ($3,374,592 during the base year, escalated by 4% in each of the following years) that are very appropriate for small businesses to fulfill; and in fact, Keesler is using small businesses for some of these purposes. The Government is not providing any incentive to a prime contractor to use a small business in execution of these CLINs with a very large SB subcontracting potential. These CLINs amount to over 10% of the overall contract value. Also, once funds are obligated/executed by the Government, they become part of the contract value. We fail to see the difference because these funds come from a different CLIN. Finally, if not all of the funds are executed in these CLINs there is no risk to the Government. The only risk is to a contractor’s award fee.

ANSWER: Section H: H-920, paragraph (c). This paragraph was revised in Amendment 18 by allowing the 25% small business subcontracting goal to be met with the plug-in CLINs X006, X007 & X008 as follows: “Note: The service provider may include the dollars in CLINS X006, X007 and X008 in meeting the 25% goal, however the total amount of these CLINs is determined by the Government and is subject to change as requirements fluctuate throughout the performance period. CLINs X006 and X007 are funded only as requirements generate.”

MBD00414D04.doc T-00-147

The Medallion Extended Warranty Agreement period, as stated in the “contracts” PDF file, is confusing. Please clarify the date in which the warranty took effect, and the corresponding completion date (assuming the 12-month service agreement). Also, please indicate whether this agreement has been/or will be renewed prior to completion of the A-76 cost comparison study and, if so, for what period.

This information is essential since this is a contract that the service provider will be required to take over on TSD.

ANSWER: The Medallion Extended Warranty Agreement is currently a maintenance service agreement with options that are renewed annually, versus a warranty agreement. The service provider will assume this responsibility on T-day.

MBD00379EF1.doc C-J-127

When reviewing the electronic cost model, furnished in Amendment 0005, named 1BIGBos8-22-03. Please reference the sheet tab PRICES, cells A10–A24. The CLIN’s and descriptions do not match the CLIN’s and descriptions in all of the option years throughout the rest of the cost model.

Question: Are these labels incorrect and will they be corrected in a future amendment to the RFP?

ANSWER: This was corrected with replacement of the Cost Model in Amendment 15.

MBD0037F7B7.doc C-X-150

COMMENT/QUESTION: After considerable research of the RFP, Amendments, and information sent, it is clear that the State of Mississippi tax of 3.5% must be applied to all contractor costs. In order to avoid a significant inequity, will the tax either (1) also be applied to the MEO for purposes of cost comparison; or (2) be removed from the cost comparison as a common cost; and (3) if service providers are required to apply the tax, will the Big BOS workbook have an additional amendment for inserting a line for application of the tax?

ANSWER: There's no tax on services contracts. However, in accordance with the Sales and Use Tax guide for Construction Contractors, the Mississippi Sales Tax Law levies a three and one-half percent contractor's tax on all nonresidential construction activities wherein the total contract price or compensations received exceeds $10,000.00. All out of state contractors are required to prepay or bond their contracts over $10,000. Mississippi contractors are required to bond or prepay their projects that are over $75,000.

Residential construction (homes, apartment complexes, condos, etc) is excluded from the three and one-half percent contractor's tax, but is subject to retail sales or use tax of 7% on purchases of materials and services.

For more information, contact the Sales and Use Tax Division, P. O. Box 1033, Jackson, MS 39215, (601) 359-1133.

MBD003826CE.doc

TP-021

IAW paragraph 8 of the M&T Plan, current contracts are scheduled to begin on transition start date. We have reviewed the entire list of current contracts, pertinent to the KAFB Big BOS contract. In attempting to accurately determine the costs associated with these contracts in the transition period, guidance is requested in the following area: Several contracts consist of a combination of DSW (direct scheduled work), PM (periodic maintenance), projects and IDIQ work. We understand we are not to price any IDIQ work. Will the Government provide the costs associated with non-IDIQ work in each of the applicable current contracts?

ANSWER: The government’s expectation is that offerors will price the cost of accomplishing all required services regardless of whether or not they are currently contracted based on the requirements of the PRD. All workload data that is available has been included in the PRD or is included in the contracts posted to the technical library. Our existing contracts are firm fixed price, and the government has no cost data. IDIQ workload is to be priced unless covered by separate CLINs in the bid schedule i.e. construction projects between $100K - $500K, etc.

MBD0037B598.doc C-J-130

Cell C473 is locked and does not allow for the correct roll-up of non-productive labor hours from a combination of SCA and Exempt workers. This cell is unlike the cells performing the very same function in other PRDs that have not been locked (PRD2 cell C137, PRD3 cell C179 et.al). Please unlock C473 across the Basic and all worksheets through Option 9.

ANSWER:

Please refer to cost 1BIGBosjul04 Cost Model, posted 21 Jul 04. Cell C473 is unlocked for Basic thru Option 9.

MBD003729B4.doc C-H-169

F41689-02-R-0048/9

COMMENT/QUESTION: The initial reference continues the requirement for contract conversion to fixed price award fee during Option Year Three. The additional reference appears to refer to the conversion in Option Year Four. Please Clarify.

ANSWER: The initial reference in H-938 is correct. The reference in the Award Fee Plan, paragraph 1a of page 6 of 24, 4th sentence, will be clarified by removing the reference to “option year 4 and all out years,” and making reference to H-938 instead. This change will be made in a forthcoming amendment.

MBD00377423.doc C-B-173

COMMENT/QUESTION: The current CBA for grounds maintenance at Keesler AFB, MS, provides a final set of salaries for October 1, 2005. Given the new contract start date of October 1, 2006, what rates should we utilize?

ANSWER: The October 1, 2005 rates are the latest rates available at this time and should be used for proposal preparation. If there are any updates to the CBA in the course of the evaluation process but prior to requesting final proposal revisions an amendment will be issued to incorporate any updates to the CBA. If a CBA update occurs prior to the start of performance, a modification will be issued to incorporate the change and the contractor can request an equitable adjustment. In accordance with FAR 52.222-41(f), the contractor will be required to pay no less than the wages and fringe benefits as required in the collective bargaining agreement (see below).

(f) Successor contracts. If this contract succeeds a contract subject to the Act under which substantially the same services were furnished in the same locality and service employees were paid wages and fringe benefits provided for in a collective bargaining agreement, in the absence of the minimum wage attachment for this contract setting forth such collectively bargained wage rates and fringe benefits, neither the Contractor nor any subcontractor under this contract shall pay any service employee performing any of the contract work (regardless of whether or not such employee was employed under the predecessor contract), less than the wages and fringe benefits provided for in such collective bargaining agreement, to which such employee would have been entitled if employed under the predecessor contract, including accrued wages and fringe benefits and any prospective increases in wages and fringe benefits provided for under such agreement. No Contractor or subcontractor under this contract may be relieved of the foregoing obligation unless the limitations of 29 CFR 4.1b(b) apply or unless the Secretary of Labor or the Secretary’s authorized representative finds, after a hearing as provided in 29 CFR 4.10 that the wages and/or fringe benefits provided for in such agreement are substantially at variance with those which prevail for services of a character similar in the locality, or determines, as provided in 29 CFR 4.11, that the collective bargaining agreement applicable to service employees employed under the predecessor contract was not entered into as a result of arm’s length negotiations. Where it is found in accordance with the review procedures provided in 29 CFR 4.10 and/or 4.11 and Parts 6 and 8 that some or all of the wages and/or fringe benefits contained in a predecessor Contractor’s collective bargaining agreement are substantially at variance with those which prevail for services of a character similar in the locality, and/or that the collective bargaining agreement applicable to service employees employed under the predecessor contract was not entered into as a result of arm’s length negotiations, the Department will issue a new or revised wage determination setting forth the applicable wage rates and fringe benefits. Such determination shall be made part of the contract or subcontract, in accordance with the decision of the Administrator, the Administrative Law Judge, or the Board of Service Contract Appeals, as the case may be, irrespective of whether such issuance occurs prior to or after the award of a contract or subcontract (53 Comp. Gen. 401 (1973)). In the case of a wage determination issued solely as a result of a finding of substantial variance, such determination shall be effective as of the date of the final administrative decision.

MBD0036CD58.doc C-B-097

During the proposal conference/site visit, we asked a question pertaining to the addition of a plug number in Schedule B for material and supplies for work under $100,000. It was stated that an answer would be provided by amendment. We have not seen a reply to our query. Has one been issued? Please advise if it is still being worked.

ANSWER: We will not insert a plug-in CLIN to cover work under $100K. The Government has already provided sufficient information on the Technical Library: workload information in Operations and Maintenance under the Big BOS Technical Information, CEMAS FY02 historical issues, and FY02 expenditures for supplies. In addition, the Government also provided information in the ABC Cost Model posted on 8 Oct 02 and in an attachment to RFI C-B-064 posted on 4 Feb 04. Utilizing information provided, offerors are encouraged to develop their own business strategy or approach for estimating work under $100K.

MBD0036FFFE.doc C-B-148

The attachment for question # C-B-064 does not provide sufficient pricing guidance for service providers to estimate the cost of the less than $100,000 projects over a ten year period. The data provided reflects degrees of fluctuation that can prompt a bidder approach containing significant cost differences. This appears to make it very difficult for any evaluation board to equitably review. Our own tripartite analysis reflected millions of dollars in cost variance with no confidence that the “right approach” had been discovered.

One example of the enigma is the abatement contract information. Does the fact that no dollars were spent in FY03 indicate no further need for abatement and zero bid response for 10 years?

Additional examples are flooring and paving/utilities contracts with skyrocketing increases in FY03. How do they relate to FY06 to FY15? Is escalation warranted or should costs go down because work is not going to be at increasing levels of effort?

Pricing guidance is necessary to ensure a level playing field that service providers and the MEO can adequately respond to. That guidance should also be supported by objective evaluation criteria.

ANSWER: The information on previously awarded contracts for projects under $100K was provided to assist the offeror with additional information only and this data does fluctuate from year to year. The workload data posted in the technical library (workload information in Operations and Maintenance under the Big BOS Technical Information, CEMAS FY02 historical issues, and FY02 expenditures for supplies), the ABC Cost Model posted on 8 Oct 02 and the attachment to RFI C-B-064 posted on 4 Feb 04 will be the baseline for our evaluation. In addition, each offeror’s unique approach will be taken into consideration.