Solicitation_Questions_for_JBLE_2014.docx

Questions for FA4800-14-R-0001 Joint Base Langley Eustis Grounds Maintenance Contract Attn: TSgt James Pilkington james.pilkington.1@us.af.mil Capt Casey Walterscheid Casey.walterscheid@us.af.mil

Question:

The current contract consists of a six month base year with four twelve month additional option periods.

During the site visit contractors were given a value and told it was for five years.

What is the correct duration of contract performance?

Answer:

The duration for the new ground maintenance contract, FA4800-14-R-0001 will be a 6-month base period with 4-12 month option periods.

Question:

What is the total with all options value of the current Grounds Maintenance Contract?

Answer:

$6,564,014.00; however, keep in mind that the requirement has changed since the previous ground contract was awarded.

Question:

The current contracts First Option Period is October 1, 2013 through September 30, 2014.

Answer:

Correct; however, we chose not to exercise the option period and merely extended services for 6 months instead.

Question:

What is the reason the current Ashley Marie Group contract is being terminated?

Was it Contractor performance issues?

Answer:

The previous contractor was unable to continue performance at the price originally proposed. The current contract is not being terminated, but the decision to not exercise the option is within the best interest of both the Government and the Contractor. Additionally, the USG has re-evaluated this requirement and has reduced scope significantly. Potential Offerors should focus on meeting this current requirement as stated in this PWS and solicitation.

Question:

Is the current contract being terminated for convenience early or by default?

Answer:

The current contract is not being terminated.

Question:

Since the current contract began on April 1, 2013 and is only six months into performance, then the total five year contract value that ended on March 31, 2013 at Langley AFB contract was $3,795,379.25 would still be relevant, correct?

Answer:

The new grounds maintenance requirement has changed since the current grounds contract was awarded

Question:

The Two year that ended on March 31, 2013 total for the grounds maintenance portion of the current Ft. Eustis contract was $2,729,317.81 would also still be relevant, correct?

Answer:

Again, the new grounds maintenance requirement has changed since the current grounds maintenance contract was awarded.

Question:

The Improved grounds and Semi-Improved requirements at Ft Eustis is increasing by almost 150 acres, Is the Hospital complex, which is not in the current contract, a part of this increase?

Answer:

Yes it is

Question:

Evaluation Method and Criteria of the solicitation 3.0. Factor 3 – Past Performance: states in part - “Past performance will be rated as stated in the table below. Please note that no past performance is considered neutral and will be rated as acceptable.” And the description of an acceptable Rating states in part “Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown.

How is it an inexperienced offeror without any past demonstrate a necessary reasonable expectation of successful performance to the Government?

Answer:

Federal Acquisition Regulation Subpart 15.305(a)(2)(iv) states that an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. This FAR guidance is used in drafting our evaluation factors and based on the FAR information and as stated in the solicitation, no past performance is considered neutral and will rated as acceptable.