QA_COCESS.doc

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

4TH FIGHTER WING (ACC)

SEYMOUR JOHNSON AIR FORCE BASE NC

14 Dec 12

MEMORANDUM FOR ALL PROSPECTIVE BIDDERS

FROM: 4TH CONTRACTING SQUADRON/LGCB

1695 Wright Brothers Avenue

Seymour Johnson AFB NC 27531-2459

SUBJECT: Solicitation No. FA4809-12-R-0008, Contractor Operated Civil Engineer Supply Store (COCESS), Questions and Answers

1. Questions regarding the subject solicitation were due by 10 December 2012. Several questions were submitted regarding Exhibit A. A notice was posted on www.fbo.gov on 10 December 2012 stating that Exhibit A questions were being researched and that the due date for questions regarding only Exhibit A will be extended based on the amount of time the Government takes to research the questions.

2. The COCESS solicitation resulted in the following questions (Q#). The Government’s response (A#) is posted after each question.

Q1: The evaluation criterion listed under 52.212-m(a)(4)(i) only includes an evaluation of Acceptable/Unacceptable for Past Performance Evaluations. We submit that the operation of a COCESS is complex and that the successful operation of such a facility requires some experience. As written, this evaluation criteria gives equal weight to both a bidder with no experience in the operation of COCESS and one with decades of experience. (Note: Prospective bidders with this question cited specific Government contracts with alternate past performance evaluation methodology. Prospective bidders then requested an alternate means of past performance evaluation.)

A1: The evaluation criteria are in accordance with the mandatory DoD source selection procedures dated 4 March 2011. These procedures are in effect and applicable to competitive solicitations with an estimated value exceeding $150K issued on or after 1 July 2011. Therefore, the DoD source selection procedures are applicable to FA4809-12-R-0008.

The evaluation methodology referenced by the prospective bidders is longer authorized for the COCESS.

Based upon the size, type and complexity of this requirement, the Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the Source Selection Authority and with the approval from the Acquisition Plan approval authority, determined that conducting this acquisition using the Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable (LPTA) method was the best authorized strategy. LPTA requires both technical and past performance to be evaluated as acceptable/unacceptable. Grading past performance beyond this is not authorized.

Furthermore, the DoD Source Selection procedures require companies to receive a neutral Past Performance rating if they do not possess any relevant and recent past performance as defined in the solicitation instructions. The DoD Source Selection procedures stipulates that neutral ratings are considered as an acceptable rating for evaluation purposes.

The Contracting Officer can not make any of the suggested changes to this solicitation to evaluate past performance on a graded scale.

Q2: (Solicitation) Page 27, FAR 52.212-1 paragraph (b)(6) states CLIN X001 through CLIN X003 of the bid schedule shall not be priced, as the government will provide estimated pricing at time of award. Please clarify are offerors required to price CLINS 1001, 2001, 3001, and

4001.

A2: Evaluted pricing for CLIN X001 (Including 0001, 1001, 2001, 3001, and 4001) will be calculated by the Government using the pricing proposed in Exhibit A. See page 31 of the solicitation, Addendum to 52.212-2 (a)(1), which states: “For evaluation purposes, the Government will establish each offeror’s total proposed price for the base period by taking unit price provided for all items from Exhibit A for the base period and multiply that unit price by the items estimated quantity to calculate the extended item price. This will be done for all items on Exhibit A and all item’s extended prices will be added together to calculate the total price for the base period (CLIN 0001). This process will be repeated for each subsequent option year. The base price, plus all option prices will be added to calculate the total evaluated price for all CLIN X001. Then, the Government will add the proposed price for all CLINS X004 and X005 together to establish the total evaluated price for these CLINS. CLIN X002 is reserved and will not be a factor in the total evaluated price. CLIN X003 will be predetermined by the Government and will not be a factor in the total evaluated price. CLIN X001, CLIN X004 and CLIN X005 will then be added together to calculate the total evaluated price. This total evaluated price will be used for ordering of offerors by price for evaluation purposes only.”

The resultant contract will have a “Not to Exceed” amount, predetermined by the Government, on CLIN X001. The terms X001, X002, X003, X004 and X005, when shown, mean the base period and all option periods for that respective CLIN. For example, CLIN X001 refers to ALL CLINs 0001, 1001, 2001, 3001, and 4001. Offerors are required to provide a price for all items on Exhibit A for the base period and all option periods, as well as pricing for CLINs X004 and X005.

Q3: Page 33 (of the solicitation) states "Past/present performance information regarding ... subcontractors, orteaming contractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will be taken into account when such information is relevant to this acquisition." Page 34 states that "an overall past performance rating for only the primary representing business will be assigned during the evaluation process". Please confirm that Past/present performance information regarding teaming contractors will be taken into account during evaluations.

A3: From page 33 of the solicitation, “Past/present performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will be taken into account when such information is relevant to this acquisition. Past/present performance information may include data on efforts performed by other divisions, critical subcontractors, or teaming contractors, if such resources will be brought to bear or significantly influence the performance of the proposed effort.” As an example, if “Company A” is the prime contractor, the Government will consider their subcontractors’ or other teaming contractors’ (as stated in the solicitation) past performance, in “Company A’s” overall assessment, but only “Company A” will receive the rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable.

Q4: Please confirm that the only required deliverables in the Technical Proposal are the Web

Address for the Web Based Purchasing System and the Management Plan.

A4: Confirmed. The deliverables for the Technical Proposal must meet the stated evaluation criteria in 52.212-2, including the addendum.

Per the Instructions to Offerors (page 29 of the solicitation): “Offerors must demonstrate the ability to provide a fully functional web-based purchasing system and catalog by providing access to an Internet web address. The web address will be used for evaluation purposes of each offeror’s proposal and shall be submitted at the time proposals are due. The web address shall provide the evaluation team the capability to evaluate the proposed web-based purchasing system against the functionality referenced in the addendum to FAR Clause 52.212-2. Offerors shall have a fully functional web-based purchasing system at the time of this evaluation. The internet web address and log-in/password shall be provided as part of the proposal for evaluation proposes. Reference Statement of Work Section 1.5.”

“Offerors must submit a management plan which outlines how this requirement will be managed. The management plan shall consist of the following in sufficient detail for the government to determine the feasibility of the management plan. The management plan is limited to four pages; single sided, which including a Management Plan cover page for a total of five pages, and shall address the below 3 topics. Company name shall be indicated on the top of each page.

i. Onsite management/staffing sufficient to meet contract requirements in accordance with the Statement of Work paragraphs 4.3.2.1, 4.3.1.1, and 3.2.2.

ii. Inventory Control Procedures in accordance with the Statement of Work paragraph 1.7

iii. Staff knowledge level and ability to provide training for all items provided under this requirement.”

Q5: We operate several other COCESS contracts with language identical to paragraph 1.10.4. At all of these installations, this language has been interpreted to apply solely to emergency requirements. Is that the interpretation of Seymour Johnson AFB?

A5: That is a correct statement. Statement of Work, paragraph 1.10.4 only applies to emergency items needed by CE personnel.

Q6: (Prospective bidder) requests that the page limitation be increased to at least 50 pages for the Technical Proposal- Web Based Purchasing System and at least 45 pages for the Technical Proposal – Management Plan. This will allow offerors adequate pages to detail their proposals without being too extensive to the government for review of the proposals. The Web Based Purchasing System, as stated in the Statement of Work, is a complex On-line Ordering System that was developed for the Civil Engineers of numerous Air Force bases. To limit the pages to a singular page of Web Address with log-in at the end of the Bid Schedule on page 17 of the SF1449 is insufficient to describe the evaluation factors as set forth on page 32 of the SF1449.

A6: The Web Based Purchasing System deliverable consists of the logon information to be provided (on the bottom of page 17 of the solicitation) for the active Web Purchasing System proposed for use on the potential resultant contract. The web address shall provide the evaluation team the capability to evaluate the proposed web-based purchasing system against the functionality referenced in the addendum to FAR Clause 52.212-2. Offerors shall have a fully functional web-based purchasing system at the time of this evaluation. The internet web address and log-in/password shall be provided as part of the proposal for evaluation proposes.

Based on the above, no additional technical proposal documentation is required for the Web Based Purchasing System evaluation. The online system will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis as described in the addendum to FAR 52.212-2:

“Offerors must demonstrate the ability to provide a fully functional web-based purchasing system (Reference Statement of Work section 1.5) by providing access to an Internet web address and log-in which can be accessed at time proposals are due. This proposed web-based purchasing system must represent the system proposed for use upon contract award and show the items available for purchase via the web-site. The Government evaluation team will log into the system and review its capabilities to evaluate technical proposals on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. The web-based System will be rated Acceptable if it meets the following requirements:

1. The offeror’s web-based purchasing system clearly demonstrates the ability to transmit/receive transactions via the Internet, primarily through a point and click method.

2. The offeror’s web-based purchasing system clearly demonstrates the ability to provide user access to purchasing functionality via a web browser without requiring client software.

3. The offeror’s web-based purchasing system clearly demonstrates the ability to view order history, live order tracking/status and modify/cancel orders not shipped yet by individual work order number.

4. The offeror’s web-based purchasing system clearly demonstrates the ability to attach notes to the purchase order (for internal use only, not transmitted with the purchase order).

5. The offeror’s web-based purchasing system clearly demonstrates the ability to delete purchase orders either singularly or by “batch” prior to release.

6. The offeror’s ability to provide customer with suppliers, current pricing and specifications of product to precisely meet requirements.

7. The offeror’s ability to display multiple products with descriptions, photos if available, and product options (color, size, weight, length, finish, style…).”

Q7: Further noted is the limitation of 5 pages on the management plan that must be submitted to meet the following requirements:

1. Onsite management/staffing sufficient to meet contract requirements in accordance with the Statement of Work paragraphs 4.3.2.1, 4.3.1.1, and 3.2.2.

2. Inventory Control Procedures in accordance with the Statement of Work paragraph 1.7

3. The management plan must demonstrate staff knowledge level and experience to show the ability to successfully meet the requirements of the Statement of Work.

The Management Plan Technical Proposal required under 52.212-1(b)(12)(2) is restricted to only five pages. We submit that the details for the items that need to be explained to fulfill the requirements of the Statement of Work are more complex and require more exposition. We request that the number of pages allowed under this requirement be increased to ten. (Another prospective bidder requested 45 pages under question 6 above) A7: The Government agrees to increase the page limit of the management plan to a total of ten pages, which includes the cover page.

Q8: We note that a Site Visit has not been scheduled for FA4809-12-R-0008 COCESS. Because every COCESS operation is unique in its complexity, (prospective bidder) respectfully requests that a Site Visit be scheduled to review the operation. This will help clarify offeror’s submissions of their Technical Proposal – Management Plan, which is not currently covered by the Statement of Work and to give a full understanding of the operations of the Civil Engineers requirements at Seymour Johnson AFB. We request that a site visit be scheduled to view the operation of the current COCESS at Seymour Johnson AFB. It is very difficult to get a true grasp on the costs inherent in the operation of a COCESS without the opportunity to see the operation prior to submitting a proposal.

A8: The Government does not believe there is a need for a site visit. The square footage of the facility available to the contractor is provided in the solicitation. Seeing how the incumbent contractor meets the requirements of the previous contract is not a necessity for bidding on this solicitation. The SOW provides sufficient information to understand the requirement to properly price the effort along with the material pricing required by Exhibit A.

Q9: Is this a service contract act requirement? If so will the government be providing the applicable wage determinations? (Called out on page 52)

A9: Air Combat Command coordinated with the Department of Labor (DoL) on the COCESS requirement requesting the DoL issue a determination on whether COCESS is a service or supply requirement. The DoL made the determination that the COCESS is a supply requirement not a service requirement. The provision on page 52 is a standard non-changeable clause, which requires flow-down of specific clauses to subcontractors if applicable, which the service act is not.

Q10: Prosbective bidder requests an extension of the deadline for questions beyond Monday, 10 December 2012.

A10: Based on the posting made on 10 Dec 12 on www.fbo.gov, and the time taken to conduct research for the questions submitted, the Government agrees to extend the date to submit questions pertaining to Exhibit A to 4:00 pm EST on 21 December 2012.

Q11: With the approaching holidays and time commitment needed to create a proposal, we would like to request an extension of the due date (after January 4, 2013).

A11: Based on the questions received, the Government will extend the solicitation response date to 4:00 pm EST on 11 January 2013.

Q12: Page 7 of the SOW, section 1.5.3.4 states the contractor must produce labels with bar codes for EMIS products. Please confirm the government will supply the contractor with the computer, printer and software for the EMIS labels.

A12: The Government will provide the computer, printer, software and network access for the contractor to be he contractor to be able to access EMIS. The contractor employee(s) must have a favorable NACI (see SOW 4.3.2.6) in order to obtain a Government-issued Common Access Card for access to the network.

Q13: Exhibit A does not always provide a manufacturer for the items listed. As “substitutions are not acceptable for this solicitation – page 32 of 78 of the SF1449”, request that a Manufacturer be listed for all items contained within Exhibit A.

A13: Exhibit A has been updated and will be included in the amendment to the solicitation. A manufacturer column has been added, as well as a Unit of Issue. For those items without a specified manufacturer, the salient requirements are described in the noun.

Q14: Exhibit A does not provide a Unit of Measure/Unit of Issue for the items listed. It is important that this be specified on all items to reduce confusion of the amount of the item to be priced. There are many items within the solicitation that could be priced by a variety of measures (foot vs. piece vs. each vs. roll vs. pound vs. bag, etc.). The receipt of proposals pricing via differing units of measure will make the comparison of the prices virtually impossible. We request that a column/field for “Unit of Measure” be added to Exhibit A.

A14: Exhibit A has been updated and is included in the amendment to the solicitation. A manufacturer column has been added, as well as a Unit of Issue.

Q15: Exhibit A does not provide always provide a Part Number for the items listed. It is important that this be specified on all items so offerors will propose price on the same items as required.

A15: For those items without a specified part number, the salient requirements are described in the noun.

Q16: There are numerous commodity items that will fluctuate dramatically over the course of the contract. In particular, pricing on building products (plywood, lumber, gypsum/sheetrock) fluctuate dramatically depending upon several factors within the market place. The price of fuel, housing starts, and lumber production, all affect the pricing on these items. As such, pricing that will be proposed at the time of submission could potentially be significantly more within a few weeks, months or years as compared to the local market price. Request that these 24 CSL’s (Civil Engineer Material Acquisition System Stock Listing) be removed from Exhibit A and be allowed to be priced under section 5.13 FAIR AND REASONABLE PRICING and its paragraphs. This will still allow the government an adequate number of items to be evaluated to ensure the Government receives a fair, reasonable and balanced price over the entirety of the COCESS contract.

A16: Exhibit A illustrates the highest utilized items at Seymour Johnson AFB that will have fixed pricing for this contract. Prospective bidders must factor risk into their pricing as they deem necessary. No items will be removed from Exhibit A.

Q17 and A17: All of the following questions and answers refer to specific line items on Exhibit A:

Please confirm manufacturer and part number.

Part number should be 0400030

confirm part number and manufacture Should be Bigelow Commercial Carpet, New Basics, Level Heathered Loop, Color Selection: 7928 Majolica TIN.

confirmed description needed Part Number 22C, Description: CORE PINNING CAP USED TO COMBINATE INTERCHANGEABLE CORES

diameter and wall thickness of the

Aluminum Conduit and what type of coupling is to be included?

Please confirm part number and manufacturer.

See Q&A 13 and 15 above regarding part number and manufacturer.

Diameter is ¾”

16"X25"X2"

Please confirm manufacturer and part number.

Part number should begin with 0.

Please confirm manufacturer and part number.

Part number should begin with 0.

Please confirm manufacturer and part number.

Part number should begin with 0.

Please confirm manufacturer and part number.

Part number should begin with 0.

Please confirm manufacturer and part number.

Part number should begin with 0.

Please confirm manufacturer and part number.

Part number should begin with 0.

confirm item description and part number Continued Description: PREMIUM GROUNDING KIT INSTALL LIKE A TRADITIONAL KIT, BUT HAS A UNIQUE DESIGN POINT ALL OWING ONE KIT TO FIT ANY CABLE SIZE FROM ½” to 3”. IT FEATURE

confirm item description and part number Part numbers and manufacturers included on revised Exhibit A (Revision 1)

confirm item description and part number Part numbers and manufacturers included on revised Exhibit A (Revision 1)

confirmed description needed See Q&A 13 and 15 above regarding part number and manufacturer.

confirmed description needed Part Number is 22S. CORE SPRING USED TO COMBINATE INTERCHANGEABLE CORES

confirmed description needed Addition to Description: 1 ¼” Diameter

3. An Amendment to incorporate the revised Exhibit A, to extend the proposal due date and to extend the date for questions on Exhibit A is expected to be issued no later than1630 EST 14 Dec.

//signed//

//signed//

KRISTINE BALDWIN

KYLE G. DONAH

Contract Specialist

Contracting Officer

Global Power For America

PAGE