Consolidated_Response_to_Industry_Questions_as_of_18_Mar_14.pdf

Question Response We will need to know whether we have to maintain material inventories to support all priorities or just the one we are ultimately tasked with.

The actual material level is a business decision that the Service Provider must make in order to meet the Government's current priorities. Materials will be funded through a cost reimbursable CLIN and should not present any issues in the pricing Tiers.

Reference file name “VNC Draft 11 05 Operations Workload Appendix 11-B.docx,” Paragraph 11.B.2 Operations, Pages 11B-6 through 11B-8: This file provides three years of Workload Data for Emergency, Urgent and Routine Service Orders in hours.

Question: What are the numbers of Service Orders for Emergency, Urgent and Routine for the three years?

The data will be reviewed and updated as applicable.

Reference file name “DRAFT_B-X_Tier_Pricing_10_Dec_13.docx:” This file identifies a tiered pricing model for certain CE functions to allow for flexibility in scope of work to be performed. The CE functions represented in the five (5) tiers are: O&M Sustainment, Electrical Distribution System, Water Distribution, Water Plant Operation, Sewer/Waste Water System, Sewer/Waste Water Plant Operation, Electric Generating Plant Operation, Gas Distribution System, Heat Generating Plant Operation, Pavement Clearance, and Pest Control (Entomology). Based on CE work priorities (Attachment XX), the Offeror shall provide a price for each individual function within each tier, as well as a total tier package price.

File name “CE_Work_Priorities.docx” identifies Work Priorities 1, 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, 3C, 4A and 4B.

File name “DRAFT_Tier_Pricing.xlsx” identifies the required Work Priorities for each of 5 Tiers.

However, the Workload Data contained in the DRAFT does not break out data according to these new Work Priorities. Without that data, Offerors will not be able to provide a realistic Firm Fixed Price for each individual function within each tier, as well as a total tier package price.

Question: Please provide Workload Data structured to match the pricing requirements in the final solicitation.

The workload categories are a consolidation of the work listed in Section 11. Further, the current work description are crossed referenced to the new Work Priorities in the Legacy to NexGen Bridging Table provided.

Will the AETC's Tiered Pricing Strategy be applied only to the 11 functional areas identified in the, "Draft Tier Pricing" spreadsheet, or can we expect other functional areas to be added in the final RFP?

The AETC Tiered Pricing Strategy will only be applied to the Sections of 11 identified.

Within the Tiered Pricing Approach defined by AETC, should contractors assume that Tiered Pricing for the Base Year and Option Periods be ordered as a whole; with all functional elements purchased at the same Tier (1-5), or does AETC intend to mix the Tier Level among individual functional elements for any given option period of the base period?

The Government anticipates utilizing a single tier for each performance period and does not intend to “cherry pick” functions from different tiers.

For the Work Priorities 3A, 3B, and 3C shown in "MS/Word CE_Work_Priorities", will AETC assign specific equipment and/or functions to each sustainment category (High, Medium or Low), or will it be up to the contractor to interpret/assign workload data in each category? Leaving this interpretation to the contractor could substantially bias pricing strategies among competing contractors and result in unbalanced pricing comparisons at the CLIN level. Also, leaving these items to contractor interpretation strongly favors the incumbent who maintains a current understanding of AETC's approach in this regard.

The equipment and/or function will be assigned to each sustainment category IAW Government directives.

For the Base Year of the Contract, will the Tiered Pricing approach be defined by AETC in the final RFP or will those assignments be made post-contract award? In the file, "MS/Word Draft_B-X_Tier_Pricing 10_Dec_13, Section 3, Tier Pricing Execution", the government does not specifically identify when the "Base Year" will be defined. We recommend AETC define/assign the Base Year Tier Pricing Strategy in the RFP. This approach will provide non-incumbent contractors a much better understanding of initial costs and level the playing field with respect to the incumbent contractor whose major start-up costs have already been absorbed in the existing contract.

For the purpose of evaluation and obtaining tiered pricing, the Government will weight all tiers based on its expectation of most likely future tier transition scenarios, given information known at time of solicitation release. The base period effective tier will be identified in the solicitation.

Will AETC provide additional information regarding the role of, "(Notional) Weighting" shown in the file "MS/Excel Draft Tier Pricing" spreadsheet? It is not clear to us what the impact of weighting might be on our operational and pricing approach.

The “notional” weights provided under the RFI that generated this comment were for concept illustration purposes only. Under the eventual RFP, for the purpose of evaluation and obtaining tiered pricing, the Government will weight all tiers based on its expectation of most likely future tier transition scenarios, given information known at time of solicitation release. The base period effective tier will be identified in the solicitation. Ultimately, the Government will have the unilateral right to transition among Tiers IAW the proposal price model and the terms and conditions of the contract.

With materials, vehicles, and particularly Other Direct Costs, included in the Total Evaluated Price, the incumbent has a huge pricing advantage due to the fact that they have already capitalized those costs. To support a fair competition, would the government consider using “plug” numbers for materials, vehicles, ODCs or perhaps place those CLINS outside of the Total Evaluated Price?

Materials will be funded through a separate Cost Reimburseable CLIN. ODCs and vehicles should be based on the offers technical approach and business decision.

Will AETC consider establishing a single Management Cost CLIN to ensure equitable comparisons among the Tier Levels and all functional elements not covered under the Tiered Pricing Approach?

Separating direct Management costs from operational costs within the Tiered Pricing approach would give AETC insight into competitor contractor management approach and ensure an equitable comparison of competitor costs within each tier.

The Government is not comparing offerors’ tier pricing alone. The tiers roll up into the overall TEP. Management of each function/tier shall be a part of the tier pricing as the Government is procuring, on a FFP basis, the results of the services and not the management of the work. Additionally, this is not the entire CLIN; there is a management CLIN that is not part of the Tier Pricing approach.

Additional clarity on a number of smaller issues is also highly desirable.

1. The spelling out of acronyms throughout referenced documents

2. A thorough review of all workload data to ensure competitors have information of a quality equivalent to the incumbent in order to support a fair competition

3. Additional information on how “priorities” (1, 2, 3A, 3B, etc.,) relate to the “tiers” with, perhaps, your examples of various priority work applied to each tier

1. The Government will review and update acronyms as needed.

2. The Government will evaluate all proposals based on the information and workload provided in the PWS.

3. Please refer to attachment CE Work Priorities posted 10 Dec 2013

Can acronyms be provided for the RWP.txt file? Example what does TY/NR mean, etc.? Rationale: need to understand all acronyms and meaning to adequately assess workload. Without the acronyms and definitions, a non-incumbent could misread the intent of the data provided.

Acronyms for RWP file will be provided.

Are all MAS and workload data provided for all CE work scope? Rationale: The MAC numbers within the MAS sheets have missing numbers (i.e. there are MAS19 and MAS21 in cost center 454 but not MAS20). In an LPTA FFP environment all of the detailed data should be provided. If not, it favors the incumbent as they know the work while the others won’t have accurate assessment capabilities.

The current MAS and workload data are provided.

What is meant by the general data factor (GDF)? Can EPS be spelled out? Rationale: Each MAS sheet has the following note. *NOTE: EPS hours have not been multiplied by the general data factor (GDF).

This multiplication occurs when the hours are copied to the RWP record. All offerors need to understand all acronyms and meaning to adequately assess workload. Without the acronyms and definitions, a non-incumbent could misread the intent of the data provided.

Clarification and acronyms will be provided.

Table 1 of the VNC Additional CE Workload Data has asterisks by work priority 4a and 4b but there is no definition for the asterisks. Is the asterisk in error? If not, please provide the reason these priorities have an asterisk. Rationale: All offerors need to understand all acronyms and meaning to adequately assess workload. Without the acronyms and definitions, a non-incumbent could misread the intent of the data provided.

The astrisk has been removed, Table 1 has been revised and will be provided in the final

RFP.

In the CEMAS workload average table of the VNC Additional CE Workload Data file the turn-in row as a number of .77 is that meant to be a percentage number? To avoid confusion, can units be provided when possible? Rationale: It appears as though all other rows are raw numbers and this row seems to be a percentage. To avoid confusion, can units be provided when possible?

The data will be updated; units will be provided.

Several places in the VNC Additional CE Workload Data file it references one to the HHQ PWS. Will that PWS be made available and will it have the expected Vance workload requirements? Rationale: A non-incumbent needs all data to ensure proper workload assessment is provided on this LPTA FFP opportunity. The incumbent will be aware of the scope of work covered in the HHQ PWS where a non-incumbent would not, and could therefore, over or under bid the work scope required.

The PWS is located in the Technical Library.

Does the RWP.txt file show a year’s worth of work for each task? Rationale: To allow a non-incumbent to adequately bid the right work scope, the RWP file should reflect a FY worth of scope.

The data provided in the RWP.txt is for the period indicated in the file.

In table 11B.2 Operations, how do the various hours columns relate to the priority and tier schemes provided? Can a cross reference be provided? i.e. does Emergency hours = Tier 1 or Tier 3a or both?

What is the relationship to work order hours and routine or RWP hours? Rationale: The workload tables don’t easily translate into the new Tier and priority schemes which make it difficult for a non-incumbent from discerning the appropriate hours workload to the right tier/priority. This in turn creates an advantage to the incumbent as they will know the translation as it relates to the PWS.

A cross reference is provided in the Legacy to NexGen Bridging table.

Will the Government’s Tiered Pricing Strategy be applied only to CE as defined in the, "Draft Tier Pricing" spreadsheet, or can we expect other functional areas to be added in the final RFP? Rationale:

Knowing whether the CE tiered pricing strategy will be employed on the remaining CLINS will enable a contractor to perform addition work in advance of the FRFP.

The AETC Tiered Pricing Strategy will only be applied to the portions of Sections 11 that are identified.

Will the Government identify which equipment sets/items have the level 3 priorities (low/med/hi)?

Rationale: Leaving this interpretation to the contractor could provide the incumbent with an advantage as they already understand which equipment sets/items have higher priority.

The equipment and/or function will be assigned to each sustainment category IAW Government directives.

For the Base Year of the Contract, will the Government define the initial (base year) Tiered Pricing approach in the final RFP or will those assignments be made post-contract award? Rationale: In the file, "MS/Word Draft_B-X_Tier_Pricing 10_Dec_13, Section 3, Tier Pricing Execution", does not specifically identify when the "Base Year" will be defined. We recommend the Government define/assign the Base Year Tier Pricing Strategy in the RFP. This approach will provide non-incumbent contractors a much better understanding of initial costs and level the playing field with respect to the incumbent contractor whose major start-up costs have already been absorbed in the existing contract.

For the purpose of evaluation and obtaining tiered pricing, the Government will weight all tiers based on its expectation of most likely future tier transition scenarios, given information known at time of solicitation release. The base period effective tier will be identified in the solicitation.

Has the Government considered using “plug” numbers for materials and ODCs or at least establish these CLINS outside of the TEP? Rationale: By placing materials, and particularly ODCs, into the TEP the incumbent has a huge cost advantage as their ODCs (particularly vehicles) have already been capitalized on the existing contract. By placing an unbounded ODC cost into the TEP, the non-incumbents are severely penalized on a LPTA evaluation.

Materials will be funded through a separate Cost Reimburseable CLIN. ODCs and vehicles should be based on the offers technical approach and business decision.

Will the work load data for priorities 3B and 3C be further broken out? Without this additional information, the pricing of Tier 3 vs. Tier 4 in the matrix may rely heavily on individual assumptions from the offerors.

The government provided percentages for 3B and 3C in the 7 Feb FBO posting.

There does not appear to any workload for priorities 4A and 4B. Workload for priorities 4A and 4B is provided in Section 11-05 and in the additional workload data provided.

The manner in which work load is provided does not provide sufficient detail to cost out CLINs 02,03,04,06,07,08,and 09. For example under the work load category of Electrical how much is for Electrical Distribution systems and how much is for interior electric, airfield lighting systems, alarms etc. Shouldn’t the work load categories more closely mirror the categories of work listed in section 11?

The workload categories are a consolidation of the work listed in Section 11. The potenital offeror will need to utilize the additional workload data to develop their staffing for electrical distribution and sustainment. Same applies for other categories that are not broken out.

Is LUC 19 data included in the workload under RWP? If not, then where is it included? The data provided under RWP is RWP. The workload is captured in Section 11-05 and the additional workload documents.

Will AETC provide additional information regarding the role of "(Notional) Weighting" shown in the file "MS/Excel Draft Tier Pricing" spreadsheet? Tier with the most weight will most likely be the tier awarded

The “notional” weights provided under the RFI that generated this comment were for concept illustration purposes only. Under the eventual RFP, for the purpose of evaluation and obtaining tiered pricing, the Government will weight all tiers based on its expectation of most likely future tier transition scenarios, given information known at time of solicitation release. The base period effective tier will be identified in the solicitation. Ultimately, the Government will have the unilateral right to transition among Tiers IAW the proposal price model and the terms and conditions of the contract.

Will AETC's Tiered Pricing Strategy be applied only to the functional areas identified in the document "Maxwell CE Staged Tier Workload,” or can we expect other functional areas to be added to the tiered pricing strategy in the final RFP?

The AETC Tiered Pricing Strategy will only be applied to the portions of Sections 11 that are identified.

Will a tier be directed by the government in whole--with the same tier assigned to all functional elements--or does AETC intend to establish different tier levels among individual functional elements?

The Government anticipates utilizing a single tier for each performance period and does not intend to “cherry pick” functions from different tiers.

On page 24 of the file “MAX Additional Operations Workload.docx” the government references a 60/40 % split between 3B/3C workload and 90/10% split between 4A/4B. It is not clear to us if that is fact, or a notional example. If it is fact, does the ratio of percentages hold constant across all functional areas and systems? If the ratios mentioned above are notional, we request the government provide workload ratios and/or data specific to each functional area and system that reflects historical levels of effort within each “priority” to allow us to accurately price our proposal. Without this data, the incumbent will have a considerable advantage in pricing the various tiers. Please refer to the PWS these percentages are to be use by the contractors when preparing their proposals

The reference split in the "MAX Additional Operations Workload.docx” is intended to represent the ratio of percentage across all functional areas and system. It is the Government's intent that the ratios serve as a common baseline.

To what extent does the government intend to define category 3A (formerly Urgent DSW)? Will the government provide a list of mission-critical facilities defined as 3A? Does the government expect the amount of hours to be greater than what is provided in historical data as “Urgent” when executing at Tier 5? “3A” is a classification of work the same as “Urgent” and is not consolidated list of facilities

Category 3A is defined in the PWS and in the Additional Workload data. 3A does not define mission critical facilities; 3A (formerly Urgent DSW) is a classification of work. Historical data is not an indication of future hours; the number of hours for 3A (formerly Urgent DSW) work maybe greater, less than, or equal to the historical hours. A cross reference is provided in the Legacy to NexGen Bridging table.

Per the Tier explanations in the file “Maxwell CE Staged Tier Workload,” Tiers 4 and 5 exclude work categories 4A and 4B (work orders/Planned work). However, in the file “Sample – Maxwell CLIN X016,” the calculation of hours still includes work categories 4A and 4B. Specifically, the formula in cell E11 starts with the total hours for the classification and subtracts 3257.2 hours for work category 3C.

Therefore, the hours in cell E11 still contain the 537 hours of the work categories 4A and 4B (work orders). Also, the formula in cell E12 starts with the total hours for the classification and subtracts 8143 hours for work categories 3B and 3C. Therefore the resulting hours in cell E12 still contain the 537 hours of the work categories 4A and 4B (work orders). Understanding that this is intended as an example, it creates uncertainty in our minds as to what categories of work the government intends to include for Tiers 4 and 5. We respectfully request the clearest possible definition as to what work is included in each tier for each service area/system. Formulas have been corrected

The formulas in the table will be corrected. Note: The information in the table was intended as an example, of a potential method, to correlate the old and new work classification.

We request you clarify the roles and requirements for Service Provider, Contractor, and Utility Provider in document “Updated HHQ UP Workload.docx.” It is currently not clear to us what the breakout is between the various entities.

The roles for Service Provider, Contractor, and Utility Provider will be clarified in the “Updated HHQ UP Workload.docx.”

The Tiered approach is not yet captured in USAF or Base Regulatory documents. Do the Tiered approach and new AFCEC Sustainment Work Priorities take precedence over these other guiding documents?

It is unclear which other guiding documents are in question.

Will AETC consider establishing a single Management Cost CLIN to ensure equitable comparisons among the Tier Levels and all functional elements not covered under the Tiered Pricing Approach?

Separating direct Management costs from operational costs within the Tiered Pricing approach would give AETC insight into competitor contractor management approach and ensure an equitable comparison of competitor costs within each tier. The only than that is tiered is direct labor work, supervision and other indirect labor is not tiered.

The Government is not comparing offerors’ tier pricing alone. The tiers roll up into the overall TEP. Management of each function/tier shall be a part of the tier pricing as the Government is procuring, on a FFP basis, the results of the services and not the management of the work. Additionally, this is not the entire CLIN; there is a management CLIN that is not part of the Tier Pricing approach.

With materials, vehicles, and particularly Other Direct Costs, included in the Total Evaluated Price, the incumbent has a huge pricing advantage due to the fact that they have already capitalized those costs. To support a fair competition, would the government consider using “plug” numbers for materials, vehicles, ODCs or perhaps place those CLINS outside of the Total Evaluated Price? We have never done this before

Materials will be funded through a separate Cost Reimburseable CLIN. ODCs and vehicles should be based on the offers technical approach and business decision.

Our major concern is the lack of sufficiently defined workload tied to each of the five tiers, which makes it difficult to prepare a fixed price bid. It is our understanding that contractors are only being provided historical workloads (in terms of work hours) on which to base their cost. What if workload goes up or down from that? Will there be equitable adjustments if future workloads change from what was assumed? Under Section 11, para 3, the PWS states that there is no workload available for in-house labor “heavy repair,” since this function was not previously contracted. This lack of a well-defined workload, by tiers, makes pricing this proposal very difficult; bidders will be forced to make workload assumptions or bid in enough cost to cover worst case scenarios.

The historical workload will contain information in addition to the number of hours. Drastic workload changes will be addressed, and if warranted, the Government will consider an equitable adjustment. The information provided under Section 11, para 3 which states that there is no workload available for in-house labor “heavy repair,” is incorrect and will be revised.

It was not readily apparent from our read of the documents released on 7 February exactly how the scope of work would be reduced for each of the lower tiers. Will certain mission areas and associated facilities be de-scoped at each decreased level of support? This would need to be fully delineated in order to ensure all bidders are pricing the exact same workload. If not, every bidder may interpret it differently.

Changes from one tier to another will result in the workload priority addition or deletion in its entirety. The result would be a increase/reduction in work, not an increase/reduction in scope.

In order to level the playing field, the government must also provide all bidders a common starting point (tier level) on which to base their bid for the base period. Otherwise, bidders may assume different tiered starting points which will impact their overall pricing. That starting point must also contain condition codes on all facilities.

The base period effective tier will be identified in the solicitation.

It was not clear from the posted documents how the service provider would bid fixed price tiered levels of support not knowing what perturbations might take place in the future years. For example, if the tier level should be reduced for several years, then raised to a higher level two or three years later, how could the service provider be held to maintaining that higher level given all the deferred maintenance that accumulated during the lower tier level years? To cover this eventuality, additional cost must be added into the higher level tiers or the contractor would be at risk. Unless the “Over and Above” CLIN could be used to fairly compensate the service provider to repair all deferred maintenance from the lower-level years neglect, the earlier bid fixed price tier level may be insufficient to cover the work required once returned to that higher level. This would likely require bilateral modifications to the contract and may cause friction between the client and the contractor. Bilateral modification for increase of hours will be used.

The government appreciates the difficulty and appreciates the input. The government is considering options for the approach to resolve.

It is also not clear how the work hours are derived on Table 2 of the Sample-Maxwell CLIN X016. Are the percentages shown for Routine and Work Order hours provided by the government, or are they assumed by the contractor? If not defined by the government, there may be widely varying differences in pricing depending on the assumptions made by each contractor.

The hours used in tables were made up for an example only. The actual hours are provided in the workload data.

Please explain the relationships between the notional weights and the different tier levels in regards to pricing. Will the government establish a percentage of workload for each tier level and work priority classification?

The “notional” weights provided under the RFI that generated this comment were for concept illustration purposes only. Under the eventual RFP, for the purpose of evaluation and obtaining tiered pricing, the Government will weight all tiers based on its expectation of most likely future tier transition scenarios, given information known at time of solicitation release. The percent of historical workload for each tier will be provided.

Step 9 states; there will be NO deferred Recurring Maintenance (RWP) Predictive Maintenance 2A at any of the tiers; therefore there is no reduction of labor hours for this category. Is it the government's intent to perform recurring maintenance throughout all tiers? Will the government provide a CLIN or sub CLIN for RWP.

Yes, it is the Government's intent to perform recurring maintenance throughout all the tiers.

There will not be a separate CLIN for RWP.

In the Sample_Vance_CLIN_10, does Line 28, Column F & H equal to the following; Tier 3 equals 2A, 1, 3A, 3C and 60 percent of 3B or does Tier 3 equal to 60 percent of 2A, 1, 3A, 3B, 3C?

In the example, Tier 3 should equals 1, 2A, 3A, 3B, and 3C. The data provided in columns H, I, and J is incorrect

Can the customer please update the example provided with data that matches the PWS workload data? The example provided by the Government was a notional example only. Each offeror is expected to develop their approach by utilizing the data in the workload.

How were the numbers in Table 1 of the sample worksheet determined (i.e. RWP # Task/Hrs., Emergency # of/Hrs., etc)?

The hours used in tables were made up and provided as an example. The actual hours are provided in the workload data.

Are the percentages for 4a and 4b notional or is that the expected split of the work scope provided for all activities? Will these percentages change depending upon discipline? Are the percentages for 3b and 3c notional or is that the expected split of the work scope provided for all activities?

The reference split for 4A and 4B is intended to represent the ratio of percentage across all functional areas and system and will not vary from discipline to discipline. It is the Government's intent that the ratios serve as a common baseline.

Can the Government provide the expected division of both 4a and 4b as well as 3b and 3c within the various disciplines of the workload analysis?

The Notional example was updated to reflect percentages in the 7 February posting to the FedBizOps. The percent of historical workload for each tier will be provided.

The CLIN for All Services is no longer identified. Was this an oversight or does the Government now expect the All Service Activity costs to be spread over all the other CLINS?

The CLIN for All Services will be updated for Maxwell AFB; however will not be included for the Vance AFB effort.

CLINS 0026 and 0029 seem to cover the same scope area. Are these in fact redundant and, if not, can the Government please better identify what scope goes with which CLIN?

CLIN 26 is specifically for Civil Engineer NexGen requirements. CLIN 29 cover the base Comm and IT requirements

No where in the PWS does it define the exact hours of operation for Kegelman AAF or number of days/week. It only states during daylight. Can the Government more clearly define the daily hours of operation (i.e. will daily operations extend beyond 10 hours a day) and days/week (Is Kegelman expected to be open for 4, 5 or 7 days a week) as that has a huge impact on personnel staffing requirements?

The data for Kegelman will be provided in Section 18-1 Fire Emergency Services.

The new Section B example doesn't show a CLIN for material purchases. The previous DRFP Section B had CLIN 40 for CE material and supplies which indicated that no OH, G&A, or Fee. Is a material handling charge allowed?

There will be a Cost Reimburseable CLIN for CE Materials

Multiple places in the Feb 7 release talks to a Technical Library. When will be the library be made available?

For Maxwell the Technical Library document were posted on 7 Feb 2014 in a folder labeled Tech Library. For Vance there was no folder labeled Tech Library, however, the following items were provided that constitutes the tech library: 7115, Additional Workload Data, General Transformation info MOAs, MOUs, Support Agreements, Draft Schedule B, RWP and WBS Example.

Can the Government define the difference between a critical asset and priority asset for Vance and how that is manafested in the provided workload data?

The data and clarification will be provided in the final RFP data.

Does Step 10 require Offerors to determine what work is performed or not performed for each of the Tiers based upon the percentage of hours available?

Step 10 does not require the offerors to determine what work is performed or not performed for each of the Tiers. This step simply states that the Offeror is to use all the data provided by the Government to establish their technical approach.

To make priority decisions, will a Critical Asset List or Priority Asset List be provided by the Government?

A Critical Asset List and Priority Asset List will be provided by the Government.

The Tiered approach is not yet captured in USAF or Base Regulatory documents - do the Tiered approach and new AFCEC Sustainment Work Priorities take precedence over these other guiding documents?

It is unclear which other guiding documents are in question.

Does the work load data cover the entire scope of work for the contractor or just part of the work that has been measured?

The work load data provided covers the entire scope of work for the Civil Engineering portions of the contract.

Is the contractor required to track cost below the CLIN level as specified in the PWS? Contractors will not be required to track costs below the CLIN level.

The workload data in section 11B.2 for Electrical/Alarm appear to transcend multiple CLINS The workload categories are a consolidation of the work listed in Section 11. The potenital offeror will need to utilize the additional workload data to develop their staffing for electrical distribution and sustainment. Same applies for other categories that are not broken out.

The workload data in section 11B.2 for Plumbing/Fuels appear to transcend multiple CLINS The workload categories are a consolidation of the work listed in Section 11. The potenital offeror will need to utilize the additional workload data to develop their staffing for plumbing distribution and sustainment. Same applies for other categories that are not broken out.

Do the plumbing estimates include sewer/waste water systems, chilled water systems, and water distribution or are these estimates only for water distribution?

Yes, the data provided for plumbing includes all plumbing work.

It is assumed that the gas distribution system CLIN0004 is for both natural gas as well as fuels (aircraft, diesel, and gasoline). Is that a correct assumption?

The CLIN covers natural gas only.

If the correct assumption can the fuels estimates within Table 11B.2 be split to show the different activities?

The workload categories are a consolidation of the work listed in Section 11. The potenital offeror will need to utilize the additional workload data to develop their staffing for fuels distribution and sustainment. Same applies for other categories that are not broken out.

If not correct assumption, can the Government provide the workload estimates for these areas? The workload categories are a consolidation of the work listed in Section 11. The potenital offeror will need to utilize the additional workload data to develop their staffing for distribution and sustainment. Same applies for other categories that are not broken out.

Are the hours provided in Section 11 Table 11B.2 for pavement for sutainment, clearance or both? The hours provided are for all pavement activities.

Sheet1