FA4417-14-R-0010_BASH_Questions_ _Answers.docx

Questions and Answers Solicitation FA4417-14-R-0010 Bird/Wildlife Hazard Control and Hangar Pigeon Control At Hurlburt Field, FL

The solicitation states that this contract is 100% set aside for small businesses. However, due to the very specific past performance requirements of the contract there is insufficient competition to justify such a set aside.

Question 1. Would the government reconsider this set aside?

Answer: The Contracting Officer has determined this requirement fulfils the requirements in FAR 19.502 with regard to the 100% Small Business set aside.

The contract PWS states (section 1.1 Specific functions) that:

“This complex program combines several different measures to reduce the attraction of wildlife to the airbase and seeks to deny the use of airspace in the vicinity of the airfield to birds. These measures may include but are not limited to the use of trained working dog(s) (i.e. Border Collies), radio controlled (RC) vehicles/aircraft, harassment, trapping, relocation, depredation, removal, disposal, airfield patrol, perimeter fence monitoring, etc.”

This sections suggests what MAY be used but not what must be used. It fails to reference pyrotechnics which are later listed as a requirement (section 1.9.2 equipment – “The contractor shall also maintain a suitable supply of pyrotechnics used for harassment.”)

Question 2. Are pyrotechnics a requirement of the contract?

Answer: No. IAW the Hurlburt Field BASH Plan and as indicated in the amended Performance Work Statement (PWS) paragraph 3.1.2, pyrotechnics will be provided by the Government for use.

Question 3. Is the use of animals a requirement of the contract?

Answer. No. The verbiage used by the Government says "may include" which does not indicate that it is mandatory. Paragraph 1.1 of the PWS has been revised to read as follows:

“These measures may include, but are not limited to, the use of trained working dog(s), radio controlled (RC) vehicles/aircraft, non-lethal harassment (pyrotechnics), trapping, relocation, depredation, removal, disposal, airfield patrol, perimeter fence monitoring, etc."

Question 4. Do these animals have to be working dogs? Do these dogs have to be Border Collies?

Answer: No. The verbiage used by the Government says "may include" which does not indicate that it is mandatory. Paragraph 1.1 of the PWS is revised to read as follows: "These measures may include, but are not limited to, the use of trained working dog(s), radio controlled (RC) vehicles/aircraft, non-lethal harassment (pyrotechnics), trapping, relocation, depredation, removal, disposal, airfield patrol, perimeter fence monitoring, etc."

Reference to any specific breed of dog or animal has been removed.

Question 5: The PWS is inconsistent with regard to required use of Working Dogs, animals and Border Collies. Can the PWS focus on Service levels required?

Answer: The PWS has been revised via Amendment 02. Reference to any specific breed of dog or animal has been removed.

Question 6. Can the government explain why the section in paragraph 1.3 (Pigeon Control) has been cut and pasted from the incumbent contractor’s website and why there is reference to the release of pigeons?

Answer: It appears parts of the PWS may be found on contractor’s websites in the same form as they are listed in the PWS. The PWS has been revised, specifically, paragraph 1.1. The revised verbiage represents the intent of the Government requirement which affords fair and open competition to the greatest degree in an effort to receive best value. The verbiage is not restrictive to favor or preclude incumbent or potential offerors. This verbiage may be used in other commercial or Government requirements or by service providers.

Section 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 read:

1.3.1. Pigeon Trap Utilization. The contractor shall be responsible for the removal of all trapped pigeons and area sanitization surrounding the trap(s). In addition, the contractor shall monitor airfield pigeon activity and seek out new areas in which the contractor can place trap(s) to increase the effectiveness of pigeon control, including baiting, trapping, as well as cleaning, sanitizing and removal of trapped pigeons.

1.3.2. Scheduled Service. The contractor shall perform pigeon control services on a daily basis. In the event a holiday, local disaster or a crisis according to DoDI 1100.22, or any other required absence for an extended period of time, it is understood that the contractor, the day before the event or the day immediately following the event, must remove any and all trapped pigeon(s) and then lock out all traps to prevent any pigeon(s) from entering the traps.

Question 7. The material in these sections has also been taken directly from the incumbent contractor’s website with only very minor changes to the wording. Please explain this

Answer: It appears parts of the PWS may be found on contractor’s websites in the same form as they are listed in the PWS. The revised verbiage represents the intent of the Government requirement which affords fair and open competition to the greatest degree in an effort to receive best value. The verbiage is not restrictive to favor or preclude incumbent or potential offerors. This verbiage may be used in other commercial or Government requirements or by service providers.

Section 1.3.3 reads:

1.3.3. Pigeon Traps. Each trap shall have an extensive food and water supply to support all trapped pigeon(s) for a period of no less than one month without intervention. The trap shall consist of two distinct compartments -one to trap pigeon(s) and one to house and maintain pigeon(s) on a long-term basis. Traps shall not be single compartment trap(s). The contractor shall list the name and address of its company on the traps and shall follow the outline for scheduled service unless directed otherwise by the Airfield Authority.

Question 8. Will the government review this requirement in regard to handling of trapped birds, the use of bird traps and taking into account correct ethical and legal considerations?

Answer: The PWS has been revised via Amendment 02 to ensure it represents the intent of the Government requirement and complies with official guidance.

Section 1.3.4 reads –

1.3.4. Nuisance Wildlife Trapper Permit. The Contractor shall possess and maintain a Nuisance Wildlife Trapper permit with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission pursuant to applicable Rules in 68A of the Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). The contractor and contractor business owner shall possess, at the time of submission of the solicitation, a valid and current Nuisance Wildlife Trapper permit with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. The contractor and contractor business owner shall submit permit registration numbers at the time of solicitation submission. Any Contractor not currently in possession of valid and current Nuisance Wildlife Trapper permits for both on-site contractor and contractor business owner will be excluded from consideration for the solicitation. All captured pigeons to be removed during any visit shall be immediately removed from the traps and disposed in accordance with the instructions contained in the "NUISANCE WILDLIFE TRAPPER PERMIT".

Question 9. Will the contracting office please explain why the PWS is so heavily based on the content of the current contractor’s website?

Answer: See previous answer to question 7.

Question 10 (a). Will the contracting office please re-evaluate the requirements of permits in paragraph 1.3.4 taking into account the correct legal regulations that pertain to these activities?

Question 10 (b). To my knowledge there the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission doesn’t issue general Nuisance Wildlife Trapper Permits. (There is a voluntary Registration) The other types of nuisance wildlife permits are issued directly to the property owner not contractors. Please let me know if I am in error or missing something.

Answer for 10(a) & 10(b): The PWS has been revised with corrected information and citations with regard to required permits.

Question 11. Will the contracting office remove the requirement for permits that are not required under the appropriate (Federal) regulations?

Answer: See previous answer to question 8.

The requirement for prospective bidders to supply a fully detailed Bird/Wildlife Hazard Management plan is unduly restrictive to fair and open competition as it strongly favours the incumbent contractor.

Only the incumbent contractor or another local contractor (of which there are none that could realistically expect to meet the past performance and business set aside requirements of this contract) could realistically complete these sections of the required plan to the government’s expectations.

Question 12. Will the contracting office clarify where the responsibility resides in obtaining permits, the requirement to submit a Bird/Wildlife Hazard Management Plan and remove bias towards the incumbent contractor?

Answer: The PWS has been revised with corrected information and citations with regard to required permits. The requirement to provide a fully detailed Bird/Wildlife Hazard Management Plan with the proposal will remain in the solicitation. The offeror shall provide this as part of their Technical proposal. The awardee will be expected to update and amend to the changing situations or to bring the plan fully up to the actual conditions on Hurlburt Field.

Section 4.1 states:

“4.2.1. On-site Contractor Employee Qualifications. On-site contractor personnel must be at a minimum considered a “qualified airport wildlife biologist” ...”

Question 13. Will the contracting office revise the wording of this requirement for contractor employee qualifications to make it less restrictive to fair and open competition?

Answer: The PWS has been revised and represents the intent of the Government requirement which affords fair and open competition to the greatest degree in an effort to receive best value.

Question 14. Are the contractor qualifications listed in 4.2.1.1 and 4.2.1.2 an error or an omission or is this another example where the PWS requirement is matched to what the incumbent contractor is providing?

Answer: The PWS paragraphs 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 (previously 4.2.1.1 and 4.2.1.2) have been revised to not appear to be suggestive in any possible variations of proposed manning approaches.

Question 15. Will the contracting office revise the PWS contractor qualifications and remove the bias towards the incumbent contractor?

Answer: The verbiage in the revised PWS represents the intent of the Government requirement which affords fair and open competition to the greatest degree in an effort to receive best value.

Section 4.2.4 reads

“4.2.4. The contractor must be an ICAO-qualified professional in the area of bird control at airfields. Proof of qualifications must be included with the contractor’s proposal.”

Question 16 (a). Will the contracting office review the qualification requirement in paragraph 4.2.4 within the PWS and remove what is not relevant?

Question 16 (b). Is there a particular reason the ICAO qualifications are referenced rather than the FAA qualifications?

Question 16 (c). Currently there is no FAA or USAF BASH requirement for contractors to hold an ICAO certification. The question I have is how did such a requirement become part of a government solicitation?

Answer for 16(a), (b), and (c): Paragraph 4.2.3 (previously 4.2.4) has been revised PWS via Amendment 02 of the solicitation.

Section 4.2.6 states:

4.2.6. The contractor personnel shall be U.S. Citizens, have no criminal record, and be drug-free. The contractor must maintain sufficiently trained and qualified personnel to meet contract objectives.

Question 17. Will the contracting office review the requirement in paragraph 4.2.6 and include legal residents?

Answer: Paragraph 4.2.6 the PWS has been revised via Amendment 02.