Questions and Answers (1 of 2) - CE BOS.pdf

Sol No. FA4814-23-R-0001 CE Base Services, MacDill AFB

Questions and Answers (1 of 2)

No. RFP Reference Page Question Answer 1 Attachment 34, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Section 4, 4.3.2

11 Section 4.3.2 states, “Submit PPI on no more than five (5) recent contracts. Offerors who are in

Mentor-Protégé arrangements may submit PPI showing that the parties to the arrangement aggregately demonstrate the past performance, experience, business systems and certifications necessary to perform the contract. For all other offerors, no more than two (2) of the contracts may be as a prime contractor where efforts were performed by major or critical subcontractors, teaming partners and or joint venture partners.”

The allowance of five (5) recent PPI contracts for offers in Mentor-Protégé arrangements and no more than two (2) contracts for all other offerors as prime contractors appears to favor bidders under Mentor

Protégé arrangements and may create an unequal playing field. Will the Government allow five (5) recent PPI contracts (prime or subcontracted) for all offerors (prime offeror, major or critical subcontractors, teaming partners and or joint venture partners) regardless of their teaming arrangements?

The questioner seems to misunderstand the instructions by perceiving that non-Mentor-

Protégé primes are restricted to only two PPI contracts. This is not the case. Offerors not in a mentor-protégé arrangement can submit no more than five, but of the five only two can be for contracts where ”efforts were performed by major or critical subcontractors, teaming partners and or joint venture partners.”

The Government does not intend to change this requirement.

2 Attachment 30, CE Services PPQ, Sections 1-

N/A The PPQ form contains a number of comment boxes that appear to be internal to the Government. Would the Government please confirm that this is the final version of the PPQ form? Are offerors instructed to delete those comment boxes before distributing the

PPQ form to their POCs or will the Government be releasing a revised version? We ask that the

Government provide a clarification as soon as practical so that offerors can distribute their PPQ requests timely.

This was caused by a system glitch; Document has been cleaned up.

3 Attachment 34, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Section 4.3.2

11 Section 4.3.2 states, “This may include a discussion of efforts accomplished by the offeror to resolve problems encountered on prior contracts as well as past efforts to identify and manage program risk.”

Please confirm that in this instance “prior contracts” refers specifically to the Past Performance

Information reference contracts.

Correct, this refers specifically to the Past

Performance information referenced contracts.

4 Attachment 34, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Section 4.2

11 Would the Government please consider allowing 10 pages for the Volume III Past Performance

Executive Summary? This will allow offerors to

The Government intends on leaving the requirement as is.

provide all relevant information for the roles of the

Offeror and partners.

5 Attachment 35, Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Section 2.1.3, Recency

9 Section 2.1.3 states, “Recent” is defined as current performance or performance that has occurred within three (3) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. To be considered “recent” the Offeror must have at least one (1) year of documented performance history within the recency window and only performance occurring inside of the three-year window will be considered. Mentor-Protégé arrangements must have at least six (6) months of the effort’s period of performance performed during the past six (6) years from date of issuance of this solicitation.”

The allowance of six years recency for Mentor-

Protégé JVs vs. only 3 years for other offerors, and only 6 months of experience as opposed to a year for other offerors appears to favor bidders under

Mentor-Protégé arrangements and may create an unequal playing field. Would the Government please consider one recency definition that will apply equally to all offerors?

The Government does not intend to change this requirement. Please reference GAO case:

Innovative Now, LLC, B-419546, April 26, 2021), in which the GAO sought SBA’s input to interpret the intent of its regulations, specifically regarding the application of 13

C.F.R. § 125.8(e) which states: "A procuring activity may not require the protégé firm to individually meet the same evaluation or responsibility criteria as that required of other offerors generally. The partners to the joint venture in the aggregate must demonstrate the past performance, experience, business systems and certifications necessary to perform the contract."

6 Attachment 35, Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Section 2.1.3, Relevancy

10 Section 2.1.3 states, “The Government will evaluate recent performance information to determine how closely the services relate to the scope, magnitude, and complexity of efforts described in this solicitation. In determining relevancy, consideration is given to the effort, or portion of the effort, proposed by the offeror and/or proposed major or critical subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners. Performance efforts that do not meet the relevancy criteria in Table 4 will not be evaluated for performance quality.”

Section 2.1.3 also states, “In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this solicitation. Relevancy will be evaluated IAW relevancy matrix located in attachment 36.”

The government will follow the procedures set forth in the addendum to FAR52.212-2 and will evaluate PPIs relevancy according to the definitions of the relevancy matrix. Credit will be given based on how closely it meets the requirement within the definitions of the relevancy matrix.

Table 4 defines “Very Relevant” rating as

“Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.”

Would the Government please confirm that an offeror may earn a Very Relevant rating for the overall past performance volume by showing experience in the Attachment 36 relevancy matrix criteria in total across their PPI references?

7 Attachment 36, Past Performance Relevancy

Matrix, Section 4 Environmental Experience/

Real Property: Criteria A, B

2 Criteria A states, “Experience completing

Compliance submittals/filing for a Military

Installation with over 150 buildings.”

Criteria B states, “Experience completing Real

Property records for a Military Installation with over

1500 facilities.”

In order for offerors to determine the relevancy of the past performance information they provide will the Government please clarify if the “1500 facilities” is an error (i.e. 150 facilities) or if the

Government considers the definition of buildings different than facilities? If the definition is different, will the Government please provide the definition of both a building and a facility?

This is not an error. The definition of buildings is different from facilities in the real property data base. Each item in the real property data base has a facility ID and buildings are a subset of the facility inventory.

8 Attachment 30, CE Services PPQ, Environmental Performance Table EN1, EN2

5 EN1 states, “How effective was their performance completing Compliance submittals/filing for a

Military Installation with over 150 buildings.”

EN2 states, “How effective was the contractor in completing Real Property records for a Military

Installation with over 1500 facilities.”

In order for POCs to properly evaluate of an offeror’s past performance, will the Government please clarify if the “1500 facilities” is an error (i.e.

150 facilities) or if the Government considers the definition of buildings different than facilities? If the definition is different, will the Government please provide the definition of both a building and a facility for evaluators in the PPQ?

Same answer as question 7: This is not an error. The definition of buildings is different from facilities in the real property data base.

Each item in the real property data base has a facility ID and buildings are a subset of the facility inventory.

9 Attachment 34, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Section 4

Attachment 35, Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Para. 2.1.3, Relevancy

Attachment

34: 11

Attachment

35: 10

The Government’s definition of relevance addresses

Mentor-Protégé and Joint Ventures but does not address affiliate companies.

Historically, USAF and with the backing of numerous GAO decisions have made clear that procuring agencies may evaluate and credit an offeror with the past performance and corporate experience of affiliate companies where the offeror’s proposal demonstrates that the resources of the affiliate (e.g., workforce, management, facilities, or other resources) will be meaningfully contributed to contract performance. See GM–Bulltrack, B-

414591.6 (Comp. Gen. Oct. 30, 2018) (holding that an agency may properly attribute the experience or past performance of an affiliated company), and

Iyabak Construction, LLC, B-409196 (Comp. Gen.

Feb.6, 2014) (holding that the agency failed to articulate a rational basis for solicitation’s refusal to consider experience and past performance of affiliates).

1) Would the Government please confirm that the offeror may cite the prime contract past performance and experience of an affiliate company so long as the offeror demonstrates how the resources of the affiliate will meaningfully contribute to the performance of the opportunity?

2) If question 1 is confirmed, will the Government also confirm that affiliate Past Performance information will count towards the references allowed for the prime offeror?

3) Will the Government confirm that this required language is outside the allocated page count for the

Past Performance Volume and provide an additional

10 page limit?

1) Yes, affiliate companies are acceptable.

2) Yes, affiliate past performance is acceptable.

3) No, the quantity of pages remains unchanged.

10 Attachment 36, Relevancy Matrix N/A Relevancy Matrix requires Offerors to demonstrate experience providing support services for military installation(s) and squadrons. Will the Government consider broadening the criteria to include PP from other relevant agencies (e.g. NASA) that are similar in size/ scope/ complexity to the MacDill AFB CE

BOS PWS? This will benefit the Government by

Yes, other Government agency performance that meets the criteria is acceptable.

increasing competition and ensure enough competitive offers are received.

11 Attachment 33, Price Breakdown Worksheet N/A The escalation for non-labor CLIN X003AB -

CONTRACTOR ACQUIRED PARTS

SUSTAINMENT fluctuates up and down over the

10 years. Is this the Government’s intent?

The government will plug in the numbers for the base and every subsequent year.

12 Attachment 33, Price Breakdown Worksheet N/A We note that Column J on the base year is not summing. Would the Government please correct?

The government has cleared all tabulations & formulas: The contractor is responsible for ensuring all spreadsheet formulas calculate properly before submitting their price proposal. The government assumes no liability for mis-calculations, even for pre-populated formulas, other than amounts of multipliers that are dictated by the government (such as for the 6-month extension price).

13 Attachment 33, Price Breakdown Worksheet N/A The 6-month option to extend is escalated. This is contrary to the TEP description for which the 6-month option is equal to half the value of Option

Year 9. Please clarify which is correct.

This should be equal to the half value of

Option year 9; CLINs/SLINs 0001AD, 0001AE, 0003 AA-AC, 0005 & 0006 have been adjusted to .5

14 Attachment 33, Price Breakdown Worksheet N/A Will the Government be providing plug numbers for any of the CLINS marked as “Lot” rather than months?

Yes, the government will include plug numbers at the time of award.

15 Attachment 33, Price Breakdown Worksheet N/A Is it the Government’s intent to escalate Exempt, CBA, and SCA labor by 3% per year as currently factored in the Price Worksheet?

The Contract is a Firm Fixed Price. The rate of escalation for non-CBA/SBA is determined by the contractor.

16 Attachment 33, Price Breakdown Worksheet N/A The Government pricing template only allows bidders to enter base year values and then auto-populates OY1 - OY9 and the 6-month option to extend. Is it the Government’s intent to allow bidders to only enter values in the base year?

Bidders should enter values for the base and all subsequent option years.

17 Attachment 33, Price Breakdown Worksheet N/A The Government pricing template includes column headers such as “PE”, “RCCC”, “EEIC”, “OSC”, “Initial Distribution”, “Form 9 CLIN Funding”, and

“UFR”. Is it the Government’s intent that offerors provide information into these columns? If so, please provide direction on how to complete.

The columns have been deleted.

18 Attachment 33, Price Breakdown Worksheet N/A CLIN 0011 shows the unit as “MO.” Should this be

“Lot” as a unit instead?

Changed to “Lot”.

19 Attachment 32, IAMAW CBA N/A We understand that the Collective Bargaining

Agreement has been updated and was not included with the RFP. Please provide this document.

Updated CBA has been incorporated.

20 Performance Work Statement, Sections 2.8, 3.21, and 3.22

57-58, 104-

105, and 106

Is it the Government’s directive that Labor

Categories listed as “(KP)” with multiple Historical

Yes, the total number of positions listed as KP are to be considered Key Positions.

FTEs all be bid as Key Personnel, or just 1 of the

FTEs per Labor Category?

21 Performance Work Statement, Sections

4.2.17 and 4.2.19

155 & 159 PWS 4.2.19 provides qualification requirements for

6 labor categories (LCATS), PWS 4.2.19 shows historically 4 FTEs are required to fulfill the requirements. In order to be compliant, which PWS ensures compliance, the one referencing 6 LCATs or the one showing 4 FTEs?

The government expects that multi-tasking should be able to occur between the positions and position descriptions.