RFIPosted-7Oct04.xls

RFI POSTED 6OCT04

RFI POSTED 4OCT04

RFI POSTED 28SEP04

RFI POSTED 31AUG04

MBD00DB8FCC.doc C-H-161

F41689-02-R-0048

COMMENT/QUESTION:

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.

Attachment 2 to Section J

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.

MBD00F6C03F.doc T-04-146

COMMENT/QUESTION FORM

Keesler PAB Cost Study

BIG BOS

Please submit this completed form electronically to Dora Mata, dora.mata@randolph.af.mil and Ron Mortag, ron.mortag@randolph.af.mil.

Keesler RFI #: FRFP (BB) 24

TYPE QUESTION: ___ Contracting __X_ Technical ___ Miscellaneous

PAGE REFERENCE: _____ PARAGRAPH REFERENCE:

ADDITIONAL/CROSS REFERENCE (as applicable):

COMPANY NAME: __Keesler MEO_ POINT OF CONTACT: MaryAnn Robinson

PHONE: _597-9327_______ E-MAIL: MaryAnn.Robinson@keesler.af.mil

DATE SUBMITTED: ___24 Aug 04________________

COMMENT/QUESTION: Keesler RFI Database/Q&A 20 (Posted on Feb 03,2004) Question # C-B-031 stated the following:

COMMENT/QUESTION: CLIN X010 requires (in SubCLINs) the costing of the non-appropriated fund funded portion of Community Services and Marketing & Publicity consistent with AFI 38-203. However, the PRD does not appear to clearly segregate the APF vs. NAF workload so this segregation of costs can be done accurately. It does appear to be clear with respect to the Library (100% APF, PRD Paragraph 4.1.3 and 4.4.1) and might be clear with respect to the Community Centers (PRD Paragraphs 4.1.2.3, 4.1.2.4, and 4.4.1) and Fitness Centers (Paragraphs 4.1.4 and 4.4.1) but it gets muddy with respect to varsity sports which are accomplished in combination with APF, NAF, commercial sponsorships, and team fundraisers (PRD Paragraph 4.1.4 and 4.4.1). With respect to Marketing & Publicity, can't determine APF vs. NAF from the PRD. ANSWER: The table in PRD Section 4.4.1 (shown below) provides the category A, B and C breakout. The barber shop was added to the end of the table and will be incorporated into a forthcoming amendment.

APF Support

Facility

Category

APF Funding

Library

A

100%

Fax and Copier Service

C

0%

Fitness Centers

A

100%

Varsity Sports

B

As available

Pro Shops (2ea)

C

0%

Community Centers

A

100%

Cybernet Café

C

0%

Coffee Bar

C

0%

Barber Shop

C

0%

AFI 65-106 defines Varsity Sports as a category B activity. As such it is accomplished in combination with APF, NAF, commercial sponsorships, and team fundraisers. The next two tables reflect Keesler’s current funding mix.

Varsity Sports Financial Support

NAF

$2,164

Commercial Sponsorship

$694

Team Fundraising

$1,221

APF

$4,000

Totals

$8,079

Marketing & Publicity is also a Category B activity:

Marketing & Publicity Financial Support

NAF Salaries (2 employee’s)

$67,000

NAF Products (Scoop Magazine)

$49,875

NAF Supplies

$8,972

NAF Postage

$1,000

NAF Copier contract

$1,536

APF Salary (1 employee)

$55,022

APF Supplies

$8,862

Totals

$192,267

When will this be incorporated into a forthcoming amendment?

Response: The Barber Shop to table titled APF support will be published in Amendment 16.

MBD00F70421.doc T-00-145

Please submit this completed form electronically to Dora Mata, dora.mata@randolph.af.mil and Ron Mortag, ron.mortag@randolph.af.mil.

Keesler RFI #: FRFP (BB) 23

TYPE QUESTION: ___ Contracting __X_ Technical ___ Miscellaneous

DATE SUBMITTED: ___16 Aug 04________________

Solicitation F41689-02-R-0049

Please refer to www.keesler.af.mil/A76pubs/Contracts/A76%20option%20prices.pdf Need clarification on the period of time and costing data listed on the Protective Coating contract (F22600-03D-0005) for the Basic Period, 1st Option, 2nd Option, 3rd Option and 4th Option. 1st Option shows ($1,024,731.20) and assumes cost for 1 yr, but the 2nd Option ($1,199,998.98) 3rd Option ($1,235,123.84) and 4th Option ($1,3999,999.94) are similar in costing amount but are suppose to be for a 6 months period. Additionally, need clarification for Paving and Utilities (F22600-00-DM001). The Basic period (6 mos) shows $931,176.55, 1st Option (1 yr) shows $843,339.13, and the 2nd Option (6 mos) shows $1,023,002.55. The time periods are different but show similar costs. Also, need dollar amounts for the 3rd and 4th Options and time period.

Response:

The contract bid schedule identifies the periods of performance as follows:

F22600-03-D0005 - PROTECTIVE COATING:

Basic Period:

01 Apr 03 - 30 Sep 03 $ 359,455.00 6 months

1st Option:

01 Oct 03 - 30 Sep 04 $ 725,487.00

12 months

2nd Option:

01 Oct 04 - 31 Mar 05 $ 369,804.00

3rd Option:

01 Apr 05 - 30 Sep 05 $ 371,678.00

The A-76 Option Prices spreadsheet posted in the Technical Library has been updated.

The new Paving and Utilities contract has been posted to the Technical Library and the option prices included on the spreadsheet.

MBD00F70AC3.doc

TP-027

Please submit this completed form electronically to Dora Mata, dora.mata@randolph.af.mil and Ron Mortag, ron.mortag@randolph.af.mil.

Keesler RFI #: FRFP (BB) 24

TYPE QUESTION: _X__ Contracting __ Technical ___ Miscellaneous

DATE SUBMITTED: ___19 Aug 04________________

Solicitation F41689-02-R-0049

COMMENT/QUESTION: Amendment 14 to the RFP changed the Mobilization and Transition dates to 01 May 06 30 Jun 06 and 01 Jul 06-30 Sep 06 respectively. Based on those dates, the mobilization period is 61 calendar days and the transition period is 92 calendar days. However, Section J, Attachment 7, Mobilization and Transition Plan, shows the latest date of incremental assumption as T+90. Thus, there are 2 calendar days between the last day of incremental assumption (full performance by the Service Provider), and the first day of full performance for costing purposes (CLIN structure). How do we treat those 2 days for costing purposes? Also, must the Service Provider be fully operational on the date listed in the Mobilization and Transition Plan, or the following day? That is, if it shows a Transition Date of T+30, would the Service Provider be fully operational on 30 Jul or 31 Jul. This may seem obvious unless the Transition Date is the last day--that is, an assumption date of T+92. Since the CLIN structure lists the first day of full performance as 01 Oct 06, would a T+92 assumption actually mean they had to be fully operational a day early (30 Sep 06)? Obviously the answer to the first part of this question may affect this answer as well.

ANSWER: Please reference the following RFIs: TP-005, TP-009A, TP-009D, TP—14, TP-017, TP-018, and TP-019. Amendment 0007 posted on 2 Dec 03, included a replacement to Section J, Attachment 7. One significant change to the attachment was in Appendix A on pages 15 and 16. The new chart in Appendix A reflects approximately 2 months for the Mobilization period and approximately 3 months for the Transition period versus the original document which stated that the Mobilization and Transition periods are approximately 60 and 90 days, respectively. Incremental assumption is an over-the-shoulder review process incorporated into the Transition period. If the date of incremental assumption is T+45 days, then the service provider assumes full responsibility on day 46 and may have a Government advisor assigned for a period not to exceed 30days. However, when the service provider assumes responsibility on day 46, there will still be approximately 44 days left in the Transition period. Because the last sentence in Paragraph 4 of Attachment 7 states “The service provider must have a complete work force in place at the end of the incremental assumption period”, and the last part of the 1st sentence in CLIN 0001 states “to fully assume all work requirements IAW the timelines established in the Government Transition Plan”, then full performance will begin in the Transition period before starting the Basic Contract Period.

MBD00F6F375.doc Cube 13

F41689-02-R-0049

TP-013

Please submit this completed form electronically to Dora Mata, dora.mata@randolph.af.mil and Ron Mortag, ron.mortag@randolph.af.mil.

TYPE QUESTION: ___ Contracting _X__ Technical ___ Miscellaneous

PAGE REFERENCE: M&T 2

PARAGRAPH REFERENCE: 5

ADDITIONAL/CROSS REFERENCE (as applicable): Section J – Att 7 M&T Plan

COMPANY NAME: The Cube Corporation POINT OF CONTACT: Fred Bubenhofer

PHONE: 703-481-9101 E-MAIL: fred@cubecorp.com

DATE SUBMITTED: 29SEP03

COMMENT/QUESTION: Paragraph 5 states “Not later than five days prior to the service provider’s initial assumption of each functional area, the service provider shall ensure all inventories are complete for” GFP/M. “The service provider shall assume full responsibility for the Government-furnished property and material upon completion of the inventories. The PRDs with an IA date of TSD would require the inventory of GFP/M be completed five days before TSD and the assumption of full responsibility for GFP/M up to 90 days before assumption of full responsibility. We envision many problems when Cube is responsible for the property and materials and the Government is still responsible for performance. Can the inventory be scheduled to be complete five days prior to assumption of full responsibility? Additional reference: “H-935 (a) The Government will turn over the existing inventory of GFP, as listed in appendices F, at contract start date.” Is the plan to do a second inventory, just prior to contract start date? ANSWER: Once the service provider takes assumption of a service area, it is then the service provider’s responsibility to carry out full performance of that PRD as well as taking the responsibility of the respective Government inventory for that service area. The Government will only provide advisory assistance for up to 30 days after the service provider takes assumption. There will be no second inventory prior to contract start date. Paragraph (a) of H-935 will be corrected by removing the words “at contract start date” and replacing with “and in accordance with the transition plan” in Amendment 16.

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.

MBD00DC0ADB.doc C-J-139

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.”

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.

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.

MBD004D5008.doc

In review of the Government-provided cost model (amendment 0005), is it the Government’s intent to receive a composite labor rate/staffing for each PRD?

In the Cost Model, the number of man years priced (after lapse and overtime) should match the Manpower Matrix. The Cost proposal should contain complete and accurate cost details to reflect how the offeror arrived at the total costs expressed in the Cost Model. The cost model is intended to be a summary comparative document for Government use in evaluation which summarizes the labor amounts proposed. Offeror(s) should present detail supporting data of the cost model summary.

MBD00DB01AF.doc

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

MBD004FF720.doc

Generally, contract documentation such as SF 33, Acknowledgement of Amendments, Section K, and other contract fill-ins are required in either the Cost volume of a proposal, or a Contract Documentation volume of a proposal. The Offeror is directed to submit, Volume V, “Contract Documentation.” Further Section L guidance (Para. L-903) directs that Volume V is to contain “Business Systems Disclosures” with no mention of including the other contract documentation. Section 901.h, instructions for Cost Data in Volume IV of the proposal, do not specifically require the SF 33, Amendment Acknowledgements, Section K, and other contract documentation fill-ins. Please state where in the proposal response (Volume IV- Cost Volume or Volume V-Contract Documentation) that the contractual documentation” (SF 33, Acknowledgement of Amendments, Section K, contract fill-ins) is to be provided.

ANSWER: Page L-12, para L-903. The title for Volume V is changed from “Business Systems Disclosures” to “Business Systems Disclosures/Contract Documentation.” The following paragraph was added to the end of this section in Amendment 17:

Contract Documentation: Include the following documents:

a. A signed copy of the SF 33 including Sections A through M of the RFP and any applicable clause fill-ins, as well as the certifications and representations in Section K.

b. Acknowledgement of all SF 30 amendments.

c. Any other documentation not included in any other proposal volume.

MBD00502C6C.doc COMMENT/QUESTION: Below is an extract from the Schedule B forms that we are to fill out. The FICA payroll additive is in fact combined Medicare and FICA. (Medicare at 1.45% and no base and FICA at 6.2% with a base that increases every year from a current base that is nearly $90K)

The design of the worksheet will not provide for the proper calculation of FICA without additional cells that break out Medicare (without base) and FICA (with base).

PAYROLL ADDITIVES

FICA

7.65%

FUTA

BASE $

$ 7,000.00

0.8%

SUTA

BASE $

$ 7,000.00

2.7%

With the current schedule structure, in order to reach the proper FICA additive, the FICA dollar costs must be computed off model and inserted in the FICA amount cell. As a result, the FICA amount will not track to the percentage called out in the adjacent percentage cell.

The schedule and Government pricing visibility would be enhanced with the modification of the pricing worksheets. Recommendation: Add cells for percentages and amount of Medicare and include appropriate formulas for the computation of Medicare and FICA in the calculation of Payroll Additives in the appropriate areas of Schedule B.

ANSWER:The offeror has the flexibility to compute the actual FICA and Medicare costs separately and insert the combined totals into the FICA amount cell of the Cost Model. This cell is unlocked and therefore readily available to compute the total labor dollars times the combined FICA and Medicare rate (7.65%) if the conditions apply, otherwise, the Offeror may insert their actual costs without the use of the formula. We appreciate your recommendation; however, additional cells will not be added to the cost model.

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.

MBD004F84EC.doc COMMENT/QUESTION: As this is a small business set-aside, does that mean that the prime must be small business and that 51% of the work must be performed by small businesses (prime and subcontractors) ?

ANSWER: IAW with the clause 52.219-6 in section I of the solicitation, para (b)(1) states, “Offers are solicited only from small business concerns. Offers received from concerns that are not small business concerns shall be considered nonresponsive and will be rejected.” In addition, IAW the prescription located in FAR 19.508(e), “The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting, in solicitations and contracts for supplies, services, and construction, if any portion of the requirement is to be set aside for small business and the contract amount is expected to exceed $100,000.” For services (except construction), at least 50 percent of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel shall be expended for employees of the prime concern. This clause was inadvertently excluded from the solicitation and will therefore be inserted in the next amendment.

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. If there are significant changes in workload during performance of the contract, the contractor may request an equitable adjustment.

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).