Questions and Answers 25 Feb 20.pdf

FA2823-20-R-0010-0001

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS #1

25 February 2020

Question 1: RFI:Section L p.5.2 states "As soon as practicable, offerors shall complete section

1 of the attached past performance questionnaire (ITO - 1.3) and e-mail it to all POCs the offeror has listed in the past performance citations. The POCs will complete the questionnaires and forward them by email, directly to anthony.gray.15@us.af.mil and timmothy.allred@us.af.mil."

but the Cover Letter and PPQ states to have the POC return the PPQ's to Mr. Ronald Wilson.

Please advise as to the correct person to have completed PPQ's forwarded to.; Capt Gray or Mr.

Wilson.

Answer: Captain Anthony Gray is the Contracting Officer for this requirement. Please have all

PPQs sent to him at anthony.gray.15@us.af.mil and timmothy.allred@us.af.mil. Mr.Ronald

Wilson’s email address and other contact information was included in error. This has been corrected as part of Amendment 1. It is not necessary to resubmit PPQs that were already submitted. Mr. Wilson will provide all PPQs received to Captain Gray.

Question 2: What Volume are we supposed to include the ITO Attachment 2 Financial Reference

Spreadsheet in?

Answer: In accordance with FAR 9.104-1(a), the Contracting Officer must make a determination that a prospective contractor has adequate financial resources to perform the contract or the ability to obtain them prior to award. As early as possible, the Government requests a copy of this information submitted by the offeror on the Financial Institution

Reference Sheet (ITO Attachment 1.1) via email to anthony.gray.15@us.af.mil. If it is not possible to submit an advanced copy, please include the completed attachment in Volume I of your proposal. The information submitted on ITO Attachment 1.1 will not be evaluated under

Section M. Rather, this information is requested in order to assist in the Contracting Officer's determination of contractor responsibility.

Question 3: 0005 AX Line item appears to be a typo it only says government in the description?

Answer: 0005 AX was included in error. This has been corrected as part of Amendment 1.

Question 4: We do not see the wages in the attachments as indicate in Section J.

Answer: The wage determinations have been added as part of Amendment 1.

Question 5: In Section 4.1.2 Solicitation/Contract Form (Section A) it states: In accordance with block 13 of the SF 1442 a Bid Guarantee is required (See contract clause 52.228-1). The

Bid Guarantee shall be 20% of the offered amount or $3,000,000.00 whichever is less and must mailto:anthony.gray.15@us.af.mil mailto:timmothy.allred@us.af.mil mailto:anthony.gray.15@us.af.mil mailto:timmothy.allred@us.af.mil accompany the proposal submission. However, on PAGE 92 OF 105, under FAR Clause 52.228-

1 Bid Guarantee. 1996-09 (c ) is states “The amount of the bid guarantee shall be 20 percent of the bid price or $500,000, whichever is less”.

Please clarify if a bid bond is required and if yes – what dollar amount should be used?

Answer: Yes, a bid Guarantee is required. The Bid Guarantee shall be 20% of the offered amount or $3,000,000.00 (whichever is less) and must accompany the proposal submission. FAR clause

52.228-1 of solicitation has been corrected to reflect the correct amount as part of Amendment 1.

Question 6: Item 0004AX and each equivalent year's CLIN- states "Government " in the description with 2440 SF. Please provide clear description.

Answer: See answer to question 3.

Question 7: Item 0005AU & 0005AV and each equivalent year's CLIN states "LOT". Please quantify a LOT. Is it per day, week? etc.

Answer: The unit of issue has been changed from “Lot” to “Days” for these CLINS, as part of

Amendment 1. See new quantity for these CLINS, as well.

Question 8: Is the offer acceptance period 90 calendar days after the receipt of proposals

(reference SF 1442, 13.d.) or 120 calendar days after the receipt of proposals (reference page 93,

2.0 General Instructions and Information, 2.2. Acceptance Period and again at reference page 95,

4.0 Volume I--Contract Documentation, 4.1.2, "Completion of blocks 14 - 20c of SF 1442...."

Answer: The offeror shall make a clear statement in Section A of the proposal documentation volume that the proposal is valid for the period of 120 calendar days from the deadline for receipt of proposals. Block 13.d has been corrected as part of Amendment 1.

Question 9: Is the Bid Guarantee 20% of the offered amount or $3,000,000.00 whichever is less

(reference page 95, 4.0 Volume I--Contract Documentation, 4.1.2) or 20% of the bid price or

$500,000.00, whichever is less (reference page 92, 52.228-1(c) Bid Guarantee.

Answer: See answer to question 5.

Question 10: The ordering period appears in two different places in the RFP with two different dates. (reference page 83, DFARS 252.216-7006, Ordering...states November 1 2019 through

October 31 2020 and reference page 4, The Schedule, CLIN 0001...Ordering Period 1 May 2020

- 30 Apr 2025 and again reference page 61, FAR 52.216-18 Ordering...states 1 May 2020 through 30 April 2025

.Answer: The ordering period will be 1 May 2020 through 30 April 2025. FAR 52.216-18 has been corrected as part of Amendment 1.

Question 11: Reference, page 61, FAR 52.216-22(d) Indefinite Quantity should read 31

October 2024 or 25 April 2025?

Answer: the Contractor shall not be required to make any deliveries under this contract after 30

April 2025. FAR 52.216-22(d) has been corrected as part of Amendment 1.

Question 12: Clarification for Minimum Order Amounts. Page 4, Section B Supplies or

Services and Prices/Cost, states minimum $1,000.00, and Page 96, 7.0, while Page 61, FAR

52.216-19 Order Limitations states minimum $2,000.00.

Answer: The correct minimum amount is $1,000.00. FAR 52.216-19 Order Limitations has been corrected as part of Amendment 1.

Question 13: Can you clarify the contents of the proposal Volumes required by Section L and

Section M of the solicitation. Specifically, paragraph 3.0 Proposal Organization/Preparation, Clarity of Proposal: states..."The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the

Government's requirements, but rather provide convincing rationale to address how the Offeror intends to meet these requirements. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of the Offeror's facilities and experience."

However this evaluation is based on:

Volume 1 - The Contract Documents (SF 1442, Section B, Reps & Certs) no limit on page count.

Volume 2 - Past Performance (ITO's 1.3, 1.4, 1.5), five (5) or more, but less than ten (10) recent contracts, page limitation 30 pages.

Volume 3 - Price Proposal (ITO 1.6) with Price Proposal Narrative, page limitation 30 pages.

There is not, or does not appear to be, a requirement for a Technical Volume as part of this Best

Value Trade-Off evaluation. Therefore, how does the Government envision the Offeror respond within the proposal to address the Government's requirements within the SOW? As stated, the proposal should provide "convincing rationale to address how the Offeror intends to meet the requirements". Is this supposed to go into the Past Performance Volume? Should it be addressed within the content of Past Performance Questionnaires or a separate document within

Volume 2?

With a page limitation of 30 pages in both Volumes 2 and 3 it appear to be impossible to have 10 recent contract past performance examples (each questionnaire is five (5) pages alone) and provide the narrative remarks the Government is seeking in response to the proposal / demonstrated understanding of the statement of work, without exceeding the page count.

It also seems inappropriate to place this information in Volumes 1 as well. Section M does not seem to clearly address this question either.

Answer: Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal represents the best value after evaluation, in accordance with the factors in this solicitation, over the entire period of performance. PPQs do not count towards the allotted number of pages. The basis of award will be a tradeoff between past performance and price. Past performance is significantly more important than price, but price will be a substantial factor.

Question 14: There appears to be a conflict with regard to the min/max amounts for the contract as indicated on Section B compared to the SF1442. Please clarify.

Answer: See answer to question 12.

Question 15: Section L, 3.2.8 – mention a Vol IV. It appears that 3 volumes are required. Please clarify.

Answer: This has been corrected as part of Amendment 1. The offeror shall submit volumes I through III in electronic format.

Question 16: Pricing Line Item Matrix, Item 0005AU, Lifts & scaffolding LS – Without knowing the specific work requirements (item description, conditions, duration, etc.) it is not possible to determine the type of equipment or associated costs for lifts and scaffolding. The rates for equipment would vary depending on the task requirements. Would it be possible for the government to specify an allowance or other method of pricing?

Answer: ITO Attachment 1.6 Line Item Pricing Matrix has been edited as part of Amendment 1.