Site Visit Questions-Responses.docx

Solicitation FA4855-10-R-0003 Wastewater Treatment Plant Operation and Maintenance Questions & Answers Cannon Air Force Base

SITE VISIT HELD ON 21 DECEMBER 2009

1. Question: Performance Work Statement, Para 1.4, – The CLIN references contractor will pay the first $1000 for each repair instance that exceeds $1,000. Does this include the materials and the labor force (up to 40 hours) already on site? How many of those instances occurred in the last contract? Could you give some examples?

Answer: As stated in the PWS, Para 1.4, the cost of materials up to $1,000.00 are paid by the Contractor. Any repairs exceeding the $1,000.00 are a reimbursement cost to the Contractor but have to be approved by the C.O. or QA prior to purchase/replacement. For example, if Contractor had to replace an auger control and it cost $1,054.75, the Contractor would pay the first $1,000.00 and the Government would reimburse the Contractor the $54.75. There have been approximately six instances which have occurred in the last year.

2. Question: Performance Work Statement, Para 1.4.1.1, – The replacement materials referenced in this section. Are they the materials that went over the initial $1000? Or does this include any other replacement parts? All the spare parts that were on the shelves in the blower building; were these purchased by the current contractor or Cannon AFB? Examples are belts, filters, etc.

Answer: As stated in the PWS, Para 1.4.1.1., the replacement materials are the materials that exceed the $1,000.00 limit. All consumable parts are purchased by the Contractor (i.e. belts, filters, etc.). All non-routine spare parts are provided by the Government. All spare parts remain with the contract.

3. Question: Can you please confirm that the contractor will be required to perform the WET test required within this current NPDES permit cycle?

Answer: The once/5 year WET test has not been performed. Per the NPDES permit, this test must be performed prior to permit expiration (31 Mar 2011). During the 10 Dec 08 NPDES Compliance Evaluation Inspection performed by the New Mexico Environment Department, on behalf of the US Environmental Protection Agency, the inspector stated that although the permit was not specific, such requirements (once/5 year period) typically insinuate that sampling should nevertheless be done “sooner rather than later.” No finding was noted. Nonetheless, the WET should be conducted in 2010, so that follow-on sampling, if required by the NPDES permit, can be performed during the permit cycle (e.g., before it expires).

4. Question: Will quarterly inspection and calibration of the Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) also be required as part of the routine preventive maintenance?

Answer: The Government is not aware of any “regulatory” requirement for such calibration. The NPDES permit, which became effective in April 1, 2006, and the state issued Ground Water Discharge Permit, which became effective on January 30, 2009 (amended on April 17, 2009), do include various calibration requirements; however, these requirements do not involve (or at least directly involve) the PLC.

5. Question: Is the contractor required to follow the schedule of testing that is included as Appendix ‘C’ of the Performance Work Statement which is over and above the NPDES permit requirements?

Answer: Yes, all testing identified in the PWS must be accomplished.

6. Question: Section 4.1.5 of the Performance Work Statement indicates that if the base exceeds a population of 10,000 people, a class IV certified operator will be required, will a level 3 laboratory technician also be required if the 10,000 person threshold is exceeded?

Answer: The Contractor is responsible for determining whether a Level 3 Laboratory Technician is required under the stated scenario, as per the applicable regulations.

7. Question: Since the corrective maintenance limit has been increased from $500 to $1000 under this solicitation, will there be a limit as to how many occurrences the contractor will be responsible for?

Answer: No.

8. Question: The VPP requires all liquids and powders to be itemized, approved and listed in the Government database, while being continuously updated, will this list of chemicals be required as part of the draft Quality Control Plan to be submitted with the proposal?

Answer: We do not see a need for the entire list, but need for you to include the requirement for a hazard communications program IAW the AFI and OSHA standards and once the contract is awarded that Contractor would need to comply with AFI 32-7086.

In accordance with AFI 32-7086:

Para 2.5. HAZMAT Determination and Authorization Process.

Para 2.5.1. No one may bring a HAZMAT onto an installation, or use a HAZMAT on an installation until they receive all required authorizations via the process described in this section. The IHMP will only track items determined to be a HAZMAT via this process.

In accordance with AFI 90-821:

Para 1.2.2. This AFI applies to:

Para 1.2.2.4. Contractor employees who are employed at Air Force-owned or operated facilities when authorized by the Contracting Officer in coordination with BE with the following exceptions:

Para 1.2.2.4.1. This AFI does not excuse contractors, as stipulated in their specific contracts, from their compliance obligations under OSHA's Federal HAZCOM regulation or any applicable State and local requirements.

Para 1.2.2.4.2. Contractors are required to train their own employees in accordance with Federal HAZCOM (29 CFR 1910.1200) and any applicable State and local requirements. Contractors are not authorized to use the AF HAZCOM Program for this purpose.

Para 1.2.3. The Federal HAZCOM Standard has primacy over state programs at Air Force installations even if the state has an OSHA-approved state program.

9. Question: Is it true that in addition to the certified operator requirement as indicated in section 4.3 of the PWS, all personnel performing laboratory analysis must also be level 2 certified laboratory technicians, as required by the State of New Mexico regulations effective January 1 2010?

Answer: Yes, laboratory and operator certifications are independent from one another.

10. Question: Is it the Governments understanding that wastewater personnel who are laboratory certified and are required to do testing during their shifts are classified as laboratory technicians under the wage determination and therefore are required to be paid the higher rate of laboratory technician?

Answer: It is up to the Contractor to provide the necessary required certified individuals needed to accomplish the job.

The below is from the SCA statute:

If a Contractor is working his employees at two different labor categories then he must separate those hours out for each job classification. If the Contractor fails to do this then per DOL regulations he must pay the higher rate for all hours worked. This in itself is not that big a problem - if because of the multi job tasking the Contractor is saving money and he passes on that savings to the government. Contractor employees need to be made aware of how they will be paid.

This is a Para from the law which talks about different rates of pay:

If an employee during a workweek works in different capacities in the performance of the contract and two or more rates of compensation under section 2 of the Act are applicable to the classes of work which he or she performs, the employee must be paid the highest of such rates for all hours worked in the workweek unless it appears from the employer's records or other affirmative proof which of such hours were included in the periods spent in each class of work. The rule is the same where such an employee is employed for a portion of the workweek in work not subject to the Act, for which compensation at a lower rate would be proper if the employer by his records or other affirmative proof, segregated the worktime thus spent.

11. Question: We understand that some of the generators are past there useful life but are still in operation, with the difficulty in obtaining and the high cost of replacement parts does the Government plan on replacing these generators under this contract?

Answer: No.

12. Question: The documents provided for this solicitation have different due dates for the proposal submittal. Form 1449 block 8 states 02:00 p.m. 11 Jan 2010. The handout provided at the site walk states 10 January 2010 and Attachment 1 to PEP page 6 of 6 III.A states 2:00 p.m. 31 December 2010. Can the CO clarify the proposal submittal due date?

Answer: The proposal receipt date is 11 January 2010 at 2:00 P.M. MST. The above documents have been corrected to read this.

13. Question: The PWS page 7 Paragraph 3 provides some of the government furnished property. Can the CO provide additional information for government furnished property such as hand tools, both power and manual and for other equipment for grounds keeping/maintenance and sludge/grit handling?

Answer: The Contractor shall provide supervision, personnel, equipment, tools and materials and whatever else is required to operate, maintain, and repair the wastewater treatment plant. These are not Government-furnished items.

14. Question: Atch 3, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, In Volume I, Subfactor 1: Corporate Profile/Statement of Qualifications, we are asked to include an organization chart and licensing/certification of our key personnel. This is asked for again in Volume I, Subfactor 3: Scheduling Methodologies. Is the government asking for the same documentation or is this different criteria?

Answer: This has been corrected under Subfactor 3 to “Reserved” and is only required under Subfactor 1, Corporate Profile/Statement of Qualifications.

15. Question: In Volume II, Past Performance Information, and associated Addendums Subfactors (Subfactor 1 – Schedule; Subfactor 2 – Quality of Service; Subfactor 3 – Management; and Subfactor 4 – Business Relations) are outlined as part of the PPQ (Attachment 6) but the government requests that our clients send PPQs directly to the government. In Volume II, should we include a copy of the (unevaluated) Past and Present Performance Questionnaire sent to our clients? If so, are these questionnaires included in the page count?

Answer: No, you will not need to include a copy of the Past & Present Performance Questionnaire that was sent to your clients. N/A as to the page count.

16. Question: In the file named “Atch_3_Addend_52.212-1” (Addendum to FAR Provision 52.212-1….), page 5 of 6 (Volume II) is outlined as follows: “iii. Additionally, offerors shall complete and provide with their proposal the Past and Present Performance References form…” which goes into more detail about using recent and relevant past references. This paragraph is followed by “iv. Recent and Relevant”. Should “iv. Recent and Relevant” be addressed as a stand-alone section or is it meant to be a part of Attachment 5?

Answer: Addendum 52.212-1, Para C, sub-paras iii & iv addresses what Recent and Relevant are that will be reflected in Attachment 5, Past & Present Performance References. This addendum also states that “Offerors are encouraged, for each reference, to identify how its work relates to each of the performance objectives identified in Section 2, “Services Summary”, of the PWS. If it is not evident how the past performance contract work is relevant, then offeror should state how it relates to each performance objective.”

17. Question: In the solicitation file named “Atch_3_Addend_52.212-1” page 3 of 6, the Safety and Health Plan is listed under Subfactor 2 – Draft Quality Control Plan. In another solicitation file, “Atch_4_Addend_52.212-2” page 2 of 7, next to Safety and Health Plan it says “Submit as a separate document.” Can this be submitted as its own tab within Volume I or should we submit it under separate cover? If so, do we need to make the required number of copies as outlined in the Instructions to Offerors?

Answer: The Safety & Health Plan will be submitted under its own tab within Volume I. The required number of copies will be the same as outlined in Instructions to Offerors.

18. Question: Will the Contracting Officer provide a copy of the existing Preventative Maintenance Inspection Plan?

Answer: No, each Contractor is responsible for developing and providing their own PMI Plan.

19. Question: Who currently has the contract for this service?

Answer: National O&M, Inc. out of Roanoke, VA.

20. Question: Please provide the current pricing for each CLIN item.

Answer: Current pricing is as follows:

1 Sept 09 thru 31 Jan 10 (5 month period) $228,670.16 If further pricing information is required, a FOIA request will need to be submitted to the FOIA office.