Attachment_13_-_Questions_and_Answers_(rev_01).pdf

FA4855-17-R-0008-0003

Attachment 13

12 June 2017

NO. REF. PARA. NO

ISSUE / COMMENT

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

1 RFP 3.16

3.18

The RFP had a “DRAFT” watermark. Additionally, the vendor wanted more information regarding an industry day, and a questions deadline.

Is the solicitation a draft or final solicitation? ? FBO notes it is the final, however the document has a watermark for the draft. Is there an industry day planned. If so, please confirm when registration is due. When is the deadline for questions.

Answered in Amendment 01 This is not a draft solicitation. The 1449 was updated to remove the watermark; no changes in information.

A pre-proposal site visit will be held on June 2, 2017 at 0900 MST IAW the RFP.

3.18 Notice of Pre-proposal Site Visit

A pre-proposal site visit will be conducted at MAFR for the purpose of answering questions regarding this solicitation. It will be held on the day and time indicated on the solicitation announcement on the FedBizOpps website.

Submit the names of all attendees (not to exceed 3) to the POCs listed in section 3.3.

This information must be provided in advance in order to ensure access to the military base/conference site and adequate seating for the conference attendees.

Offerors are requested to submit questions to the point of contact noted above not later than 5 days after the pre-proposal site visit. Information provided at this conference shall not qualify the terms and conditions of the solicitation and specifications. Terms of the solicitation and specifications remain unchanged unless the solicitation is amended in writing. If an amendment is issued, normal procedures relating to the acknowledgment and receipt of solicitation amendments shall apply.

3.16 Request for Proposal (RFP) Technical Clarifications Offerors who determine that the technical requirements of this RFP require clarification(s) in order to permit submittal of a responsive proposal are requested to submit all questions in writing within 10 business days from release of the RFP. These questions shall be directed to the POCs identified in section 3.0.

MELROSE AIR FORCE RANGE (MAFR) OM&S

FA4855-17-R-0008

Questions and Answers Revised 12 June 2017

12 June 2017

NO. REF. PARA. NO

ISSUE / COMMENT

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

2 RFP 3.16, 3.18

Clarification of dates for technical questions.

3.16 Request for Proposal (RFP) Technical Clarifications

This paragraph states Questions are due in writing within 10 business days from release of the RFP.

3.18 Notice of pre-proposal site visit

This paragraph states Questions are due not later than 5 days after pre-proposal site visit.

Question: Please clarify these questions due dates.

Answered in Amendment 01 Paragraph 3.16 refers to questions relating to technical requirements of the RFP that require clarification, they are due within 10 business days from release of the RFP. The pre-proposal site visit is scheduled on 2 June, any questions that result from that site visit that have not previously been asked in writing (IAW 3.16) or asked at the site visit (IAW 3.18) are due 5 days after the site visit (IAW 3.18). The intent of these differing due dates is to allow for the Government to provide timely responses to all questions.

3 RFP 3.3,3.3.4,

3.3.6

Within the RFP documents, dated 22 May 2017, Regarding Section 3.3, Volume IV Past Performance Factor (page 55-57) describes a list of past performance requirements which must be met by the prime vendor in order to receive either a Very Relevant or Relevant rating. Specifically, to receive a VERY RELEVANT rating, Page 55, paragraph 3.3.4, Table 5 requires the prime vendor to have past performance in all nine performance requirements. To receive a RELEVANT rating, the offeror needs to demonstrate past performance in eight of the nine performance areas listed.

Further, page 57, paragraph 3.3.6 states that “Past performance regarding predecessor companies or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will not be weighted as heavily as past performance information for the prime Contractor.”

In section 52.212-1, “Instructions to Offerors” Paragraph 1.0, it states, “Market research confirmed that subcontracting and teaming arrangements are likely due to the broad scope of the contract requirements; therefore such arrangements are encouraged to ensure mission success.”

Question1A: As the Government acknowledged market research indicates subcontracting and teaming will be likely due to the broad scope and encouraged small businesses with only partial capabilities to respond, was it the intent of the Government, in the Evaluation Criteria, to require that the Prime vendor have the dominant past performance, rather than considering the past performance of the totality of the team to increase the competitive pool of offerors?

Question 1B: Based on Instructions to Offeror’s Paragraph 1.0, will the Government consider totality of past performance of Prime/Subcontractors in overall relevance assessment rather than each individual citation, as very few 8(a)s will have demonstrated capabilities to reach the “Relevant” Past Performance Rating?

Answered in Amendment 01 It is the Government’s intention to encourage offerors’ with partial capability to provide past performance references of all teaming partners, subcontractors, and joint venture partners for evaluation. 52.212-1 para 7.0 Volume IV – Past Performance describes the Government’s intent to evaluate the past performance information of “the offeror and all subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners who are proposed to perform as documented in Attachment 1 Contractor Team Organization.” Amendment 01 revises the addendums to 52.212-1 and 52.212-2 to clarify the Government’s intent and to ensure that interested and capable 8(a) companies have to ability to provide relevant past performance information for themselves, their joint venture/teaming partners, and their subcontractors. The following paragraphs have been revised:

52.212-1 paragraph 7.1.3.

52.212-2 paragraph 3.3.4., including Table 5. Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method 52.212-2 paragraph 3.3.6.

52.212-2 paragraph 3.3.7.

52.212-2 paragraph 3.3.9

12 June 2017

NO. REF. PARA. NO

ISSUE / COMMENT

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

4 RFP

52.212-2 3.3.4, Table 5

Section L 2.0 Basis for Award and Section L 3.3.4 and Table #5 Relevancy Assessment. Section L 2.0 provides details indicating that the technically acceptable proposals will be evaluated on a Best Value basis with “Past Performance evaluated on a basis significantly more important than price considerations.” Section L 3.3.4 states “A more relevant past performance record will be weighted more heavily than a less relevant performance record. The Government will use the degrees of relevancy in Table 5 Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method when assessing relevant ratings to references.” Table #5 provides the requirements for obtaining three levels of “relevancy” for contracts submitted as past performance references. In order for an individual contract to receive either Very Relevant, Relevant, or Somewhat Relevant they must have provided Range Control Officer and Wildland Fire Operations plus experience from either ALL 7, 6, or 4 other service categories, respectively. This currently stated relevancy criteria provided in Table 5 provides an unfair competitive advantage to the incumbent. If not modified, the incumbent will be the only possible bidder that can obtain the Very Relevant rating since this is the only DoD contract that provides the Range Control Officer and Wildland Fire Operations plus experience ALL 7 of the other service categories. Many companies may have all or most of these elements covered in several separate contracts, but as currently written, all the elements have to be within an individual contract in order for them to be assigned a relevancy rating.

Please amend Section L 3.3.4 and Table 5 Relevancy criteria to allow the Relevancy evaluation on a cumulative basis across multiple contracts versus an individual contract.

Amendment 03 revises the addendum to 52.212-2 to clarify the Government’s intent and to ensure that interested and capable 8(a) companies have to ability to provide relevant past performance information for themselves, their joint venture/teaming partners, and their subcontractors. The following sections have been revised:

52.212-2 section 3.3.4., including Table 5. Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method.

5 To be answered in follow-on amendment 6 To be answered in follow-on amendment 7 To be answered in follow-on amendment 8 To be answered in follow-on amendment 9 To be answered in follow-on amendment 10 To be answered in follow-on amendment 11 To be answered in follow-on amendment 12 To be answered in follow-on amendment 13 To be answered in follow-on amendment 14 To be answered in follow-on amendment

12 June 2017

NO. REF. PARA. NO

ISSUE / COMMENT

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

15 To be answered in follow-on amendment

16 Att 3

PPW

Attachment #3 Price Proposal Workbook, RFP Section L Volume III L.6.1.5.2.

Attachment #3 Price Proposal Workbook cell C8 shows 2080 hours but Column C is titled FBLR which we interpret as Fully Burdened Labor Rate. FBLR are multiplied by productive hours not the full 2080 potential hours in a year (52x5x8). Again RFP Section L Volume III L. 6.1.5.2 does not permit changing of prepopulated area done by the Government. Multiplying FBLB by 2080 overstates the proposed price.

Please address the issue of 2080 versus productive hours for multiplying by FBLR.

Amendment 03 revises Attachment 3, Price Proposal Workbook (rev 01) to incorporate a change allowing for productive hours to be input by offerors. On the “TEP” tab, the column marked “Hours or Qty” has been revised from a “pre-determined value” of 2080 to a blank “Fill-in Field(s)” for labor categories associated with CLINs X001, X002, X003, X004, and X008. The “Instructions” tab has been updated to revise instruction #2 to include the requirement for offerors to provide productive hours for the labor categories/CMEs for CLINs X001, X002, X003, X004, and X008.

17 To be answered in follow-on amendment 18 To be answered in follow-on amendment 19 To be answered in follow-on amendment

20 Att 12

CBA

CBA is underfunded

Will the Government please clarify the contractor’s financial responsibility, if any, with regards to an underfunded pension plan as referenced in the Union Pension Plan

The Air Force does not have any knowledge of what the contractor’s financial responsibility would be should the pension plan become underfunded. That would be predicted and mandated under the Pension Protection Act regarding the establishment of a rehabilitation Plan in order to make the plan solvent. Any pension surcharges mandated per a rehabilitation plan per the Pension Protection Act would not be reimbursed by the Air Force under an FFP contract since the Department of Labor does not deem a pension surcharge as a bona fide fringe benefit. Nothing precludes a prospective offeror from contacting the union for such information since they are the ones administering the pension plan.

21 RFP 52.212-1

Glossary, Volume IV Past Performance

Table 1 Proposal Organization - No glossary for Volume IV

3.12 Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms indicates Volumes I-IV shall contain a glossary. Please clarify

IAW 52.212-1, Instruction to Offerors, Table 1, Tab 10 of Volume IV is a Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms.

22 RFP 52.212-1

3.8

Fold-outs used for charts, tables, or diagrams, which may not exceed 11 x 17sheets.

(Charts, tables or diagrams embedded with printed text material shall be printed on 8 ½ by 11 sheets only).

Typically, tables contain printed text. Please clarify if charts, tables or diagrams with text are limited to 8.5x11 only

IAW 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors, Section 3.8, a page that contains text material shall be printed on 8 1/2 x 11 sheets, including those pages with text material with embedded charts, tables, or diagrams. Separate charts, tables, or diagrams may be printed as fold-outs on 11 x 17 sheets.

12 June 2017

NO. REF. PARA. NO

ISSUE / COMMENT

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

23 RFP 52.212-1

7.0

RFP 7.0 Volume IV – Past Performance para 7.1.1 “The Government requests offerors to submit their past performance volume seven (7) days prior to the date set for receipt of proposals.”

Please advise if this is a “request” or a “requirement”.

The Government requests that the Volume III Past Performance volume be submitted early, if possible, so that the Contracting Officer may retrieve PPIRS and CPARS information needed for the past performance evaluation and to ensure that all PPQ are received.

24 RFP 52.212-1

7.0

RFP 7.0 Volume IV – Past Performance para 7.1.5.2 Reference (Attachment 4). The Offeror shall use the past performance information reference form for submitting relevant and recent past performance contract information. The Offeror shall use a separate copy of the form for each reference tab in the Past Performance Volume.”

As Attachment 4 is a fillable PDF, in what format would the Government prefer the response documents be included in Volume IV (i.e., jpeg)

Electronic versions of documents shall be submitted IAW 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors, section 3.14. "Submit portable document format (PDF) documents using Adobe Acrobat 9.0 only. DO NOT submit any documents in PDF format that are copied as images. When creating PDF files, the offeror shall create the file to enable textual search and copy functions."

25 Att 4

PPIR

“Provide the information requested in this form for each one of the present or past contracts identified as recent and relevant for this solicitation. Provide a separate completed form for each contract identified. Attach one separate sheet if additional space is needed.”

Is “one separate sheet” interpreted as one side of an 8.5 x 11, or the front and back of one 8.5 x 11?

IAW 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors, Section 3.8, a page is defined as one face of a sheet of paper containing information. When both sides of a sheet display printed material, it shall be counted as two pages.

26 To be answered in follow-on amendment 27 To be answered in follow-on amendment 28 To be answered in follow-on amendment

29 Att 9

PWS 1.9.4.5

PWS 1.9.4.5 EMPLOYEE SECURITY REQUIREMENTS

Employee identification badges shall indicate access level, as required

Are badges contractor or government provided?

Contractor identification badges shall be contractor provided.

30 Att 12 CBA Art 15

Article 15 Severance Pay employees who are discharged from the Company, for reasons other than for just cause or because the Customer modifies the scope of work, will be paid a severance package as specified below

In the case of Customer modified scope of work, are these Government-reimbursable costs?

Severance pay is normally not reimbursable on a FFP contract but would be independently evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

12 June 2017

NO. REF. PARA. NO

ISSUE / COMMENT

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

31 Att 12 CBA Art 35

Article 35 HEALTH INSURANCE AND OTHER BENEFITS The Company will continue to sponsor the current Group Medical equivalent policy and Dental, Vision insurance, 401(k), and life insurance plan for the employee and dependents. The Union has the authority to negotiate with another Group Medical, Dental, Vision Provider if one is found to have better coverage or rates

There are apparently two medical policies available to employees. Please provide current company medical plan policy, rates, and coverage levels to adequately bid this contract

As it relates to the incumbent contractor’s Health Insurance and other benefits, the Air Force does not have said information to provide since this is deemed as proprietary information. The Air Force is not required to request such information for bidding purposes unless the incumbent contractor has already voluntarily provided it. As it relates to the health insurance provided by the union, should employees opt out to the contractor’s provided insurance, the Air Force does not have said information to provide unless the incumbent contractor has already voluntarily provided it. However, nothing precludes any prospective offeror from contacting the union for such information since they are the ones administering the union’s Health Insurance and other benefits identified in Article 35 of the CBA.

32 Att 12 CBA Art 35

CBA Article 35 HEALTH INSURANCE AND OTHER BENEFITS The Company will continue to sponsor the current Group Medical equivalent policy and Dental, Vision insurance, 401(k), and life insurance plan for the employee and dependents. The Union has the authority to negotiate with another Group Medical, Dental, Vision Provider if one is found to have better coverage or rates

Typically, CBAs offer company or union benefits. Is it a requirement of this contract to offer both plans?

Per Article 35 of the CBA, employees can either elect to choose the company provide health insurance or opt out and receive the cash equivalent in lieu of and or opt out and directly purchase health insurance offered by the union’s benefit trust fund.

33 Att 9

PWS 1.7.6.3

The Government will provide some heavy equipment/vehicles to aid in the performance of this PWS

What heavy equipment does the Government provide?

Attachment 11 - Consolidated Government Furnished Property lists all heavy equipment provided by the Government.

34 Att 3

PPW

There is a 30 day transition period before contractor’s full performance. However, there’s no separate CLIN for the transition Period listed in Schedule B nor in Attachment 3 Price Proposal Workbook.

Please clarify which CLIN to assign costs occurred during transition

The transition/phase-in period is not separately priced. Any anticipated cost for the transition/phase-in period should be considered in the offeror’s pricing strategy and applied to the priced CLINs of the offeror’s choice.

12 June 2017

NO. REF. PARA. NO

ISSUE / COMMENT

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

35 Att 9

PWS 4.4

Chief RCO is listed as one of the Key Personnel but only listed as Range Control Officer (RCO) in the Price Proposal Workbook (Attachment 3)

Chief RCO is listed as one of the Key Personnel but only listed as Range Control Officer (RCO) in the Price Proposal Workbook (Attachment 3)

Attachment 3 – Price Proposal Workbook includes an “Instructions” sheet that states under Instruction #1: “If the offeror's technical proposal includes labor categories outside of those listed, the offeror shall insert those labor categories (in column B) and include the FBLR for those labor categories as well. Additionally, Instruction #4 states “Use the "TEP" sheet to insert any additional pricing that is applicable to the offeror's proposal. This may include additional labor categories if inserted in the "Summary" sheet or additional equipment/material pricing not already associated with

CLIN X001.”

36 To be answered in follow-on amendment 37 To be answered in follow-on amendment 38 To be answered in follow-on amendment 39 To be answered in follow-on amendment

40 RFP 52.212-1

7.1.4

Categorize relevant information into the specific service categories used to evaluate the proposal IAW Table 5 Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method.

Service Categories differ in Attachment 1 and Table 5. Please verify use of service categories listed in Table 5 for past performance evaluation

52.212-2, Evaluation Factors for Award, Table 5 contains the service categories that will be used to evaluate past performance. Attachment 1, Contractor Team Organization contains the same service categories. In the event of any discrepancy, Table 5 will take precedence.

41 RFP 52.212-1

7.1.5.3 a "roadmap" describing all such changes in the organization of the company

Is the Organizational Structure Change History requirement for the Prime Offeror only, or all teaming partners?

The Organizational Structure Change History will be used IAW 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors, section 7.1.5.3 to clarify any organizational changes of the company with an explanation for how these changes impact the relevance of any efforts the offeror identified for past performance evaluation/performance confidence assessment.

Therefore, this should be accomplished for teaming partners if their efforts are part of the offeror's relevant past performance submitted for evaluation. A pamphlet or other commercial document describing such reorganizations may suffice.

42 To be answered in follow-on amendment 43 To be answered in follow-on amendment 44 To be answered in follow-on amendment 45 To be answered in follow-on amendment 46 To be answered in follow-on amendment 47 To be answered in follow-on amendment 48 To be answered in follow-on amendment 49 To be answered in follow-on amendment 50 To be answered in follow-on amendment 51 To be answered in follow-on amendment

12 June 2017

NO. REF. PARA. NO

ISSUE / COMMENT

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

52 To be answered in follow-on amendment 53 To be answered in follow-on amendment 54 To be answered in follow-on amendment

55 Att 5

PPQ

Many large business (LB) prime contractors have been advised by their legal offices not to respond to Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) for fear of potential lawsuits is they rated a poor-performing subcontractor accurately. Based on this legal advice, many of our prime contractors have indicated that they will not respond to PPQs

Are the PPQs required, or will the Government accept an alternate method of verifying otherwise legitimate past performance?

IAW 52.212-1, Instruction to Offerors, section 7.0, the past performance evaluation will use data provided by each offeror in their Past Performance volume and data obtained from other sources in the evaluation of past performance. IAW 52.212-2, Evaluation Factors for Award, section 3.3.8., the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed in the past performance questionnaire, PPIRS information, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), interviews with Government customers and commercial clients. It may include interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the Government.

56 RFP 52.212-2

3.3.8

The Gov’t has no contract privity for subcontractors and CPARS are only provided for prime contractors.

How does the Gov’t plan to evaluate and assess subcontractor performance?

IAW 52.212-1, Instruction to Offerors, section 7.0, the past performance evaluation will include the recent and relevant past performance information on the offeror and all subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture prartners who are proposed to perform as documented in Attachment 1 Contractor Team Organization, identified in the Offeror‘s Management Plan. Offerors are cautioned that the Government will use data provided by each offeror in their Past Performance volume and data obtained from other sources in the evaluation of past performance. The past performance volume shall include Attachment 6 Subcontractor/teaming partner consent letter if applicable. IAW 52.212-2, Evaluation Factors for Award, section 3.3.8., the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed in the past performance questionnaire, PPIRS information, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), interviews with Government customers and commercial clients. It may include interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the Government.

57 To be answered in follow-on amendment 58 To be answered in follow-on amendment 59 To be answered in follow-on amendment 60 To be answered in follow-on amendment 61 To be answered in follow-on amendment 62 To be answered in follow-on amendment 63 To be answered in follow-on amendment

12 June 2017

NO. REF. PARA. NO

ISSUE / COMMENT

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

64 Att 3

PPW

Full Year Hours = 2080

Is 2080 hours all productive hours? If it is, how will offeror account for all leave hours such as vacation, holiday and sick hours (CBA)?

Amendment 03 revises Attachment 3, Price Proposal Workbook (rev 01) to incorporate a change allowing for productive hours to be input by offerors. On the “TEP” tab, the column marked “Hours or Qty” has been revised from a “pre-determined value” of 2080 to a blank “Fill-in Field(s)” for labor categories associated with CLINs X001, X002, X003, X004, and X008. The “Instructions” tab has been updated revise instruction #2 to include the requirement for offerors to provide productive hours for the labor categories/CMEs for CLINs X001, X002, X003, X004, and X008.

65 Att 3

PPW

# of CME

It is a requirement in Attachment 3 to populate the # of CME?

Is the government’s estimate 2080 hours equal to 1 CME?

It is a requirement of Attachment 3, Price Proposal Workbook, for offerors to include the number of CMEs (reference the Instructions tab. Amendment 03 revises Attachment 3, Price Proposal Workbook (rev 01) to incorporate a change allowing for productive hours to be input by offerors. On the “TEP” tab, the column marked “Hours or Qty” has been revised from a “pre-determined value” of 2080 to a blank “Fill-in Field(s)” for labor categories associated with CLINs X001, X002, X003, X004, and X008. The “Instructions” tab has been updated revise instruction #2 to include the requirement for offerors to provide productive hours for the labor categories/CMEs for CLINs X001, X002, X003, X004, and X008.

66 Att 3

PPW

Calculation of 1 CME.

How will the government calculate the number of CME equal to for the Site Manager where the employee entitled for paid holiday and vacation time?

Amendment 03 revises Attachment 3, Price Proposal Workbook (rev 01) to incorporate a change allowing for productive hours to be input by offerors. On the “TEP” tab, the column marked “Hours or Qty” has been revised from a “pre-determined value” of 2080 to a blank “Fill-in Field(s)” for labor categories associated with CLINs X001, X002, X003, X004, and X008. The “Instructions” tab has been updated revise instruction #2 to include the requirement for offerors to provide productive hours for the labor categories/CMEs for CLINs X001, X002, X003, X004, and X008.

67 Att 12

CBA

Vacation Accrual Based on Seniority Dates

In order for the offeror to accurately bid the vacation based on employees’ seniority dates, will the government release demographic information for personnel currently assigned to Melrose AFB Range contract?

The Air Force does not have said information to provide since this is deemed as proprietary information. The Air Force is not required to request such information for bidding purposes unless the incumbent contractor has already voluntarily provided it.

68 To be answered in follow-on amendment 69 To be answered in follow-on amendment 70 To be answered in follow-on amendment 71 To be answered in follow-on amendment 72 To be answered in follow-on amendment 73 To be answered in follow-on amendment

12 June 2017

NO. REF. PARA. NO

ISSUE / COMMENT

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

74 To be answered in follow-on amendment

75 RFP 52.212-1

RFP section 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors, section 6.1.5.2, Price Proposal Workbook (Tab 2) appears to be the method for accumulating and submitting all price data. Will the Government confirm that all pricing is provided through this workbook and that the SF 1449 Continuation sheets (CLIN schedule) is not to be completed and submitted as part of the proposal?

The CLIN schedule shall be completed and submitted as part of the Volume V - Contract Documentation. Reference 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors, section 8.1.2, SF 1449, Solicitation Contract Form and All Amendments (Tab 2): “Complete all sections of SF 1449, Solicitation/Contract/Order for Commercial Items with all blocks 12, 17, 24, and 30 completed with an original, authorized signature and the Contract Clauses section filled-in. In doing so, the offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in the RFP. These sections constitute the model contract.”

76 Att 3

PPW

RFP section 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors, section 6.1.5.2, Price Proposal Workbook (Tab 2) states that “Any attempt to reformat or remove cells is unauthorized and may be a reason to reject an offeror‘s proposal.” Within the referenced workbook, the cells for reporting the “% Subcontracted” are formatted as Currency and not Percentage. Is a change of this nature allowable or will the Government re-issue the attachment with proper formatting?

Attachment 3 - Price Proposal Workbook (rev. 01) has been revised to change the formatting in the “% Subcontracted” column from currency to percentage.

77 RFP 52.212-2 Will the Government accept Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARs) in lieu of Past Performance questionnaires?

The Government will review CPARS. Reference 52.212-2, Evaluation Factors for Award, section 3.3.8 Performance Quality Assessment. “For each recent past performance reference reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed in the past performance questionnaire, PPIRS information, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), interviews with Government customers and commercial clients.”

78 RFP 52.212-2

We appreciate the Governments warranted changes to the past performance relevancy assessment in para 3.3.4 and Table 5 included in Amendment 0001. However, because it is our strong belief that the incumbent contract is the only DoD contract that contains ALL 9 service areas, we believe that additional changes/clarifications are necessary to make the competition a level playing field for all potential bidders.

Question: Please clarify that that the overall relevancy rating will be based upon the culmination of services across multiple contracts, including those of teaming partners and subcontractors. For example, if a bidder provides three separate contracts that in total support all nine service area’s identified in Table 5 they will be rated as Very Relevant.

Amendment 03 revises the addendum to 52.212-2 to clarify the Government’s intent and to ensure that interested and capable 8(a) companies have to ability to provide relevant past performance information for themselves, their joint venture/teaming partners, and their subcontractors. The following sections have been revised:

52.212-2 section 3.3.4., including Table 5. Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method.

12 June 2017

NO. REF. PARA. NO

ISSUE / COMMENT

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

79 RFP

52.212-1 3.6, Table 1, Note 1, 1 Redacted copies shall be submitted in the same manner as original copies.

Information to be redacted shall include all references to the offeror’s company, i.e.

company names/ key personnel names and company logos/symbols.

Table 1 specifies submission of 1 hardcopy original and 2 copies of Volumes I and II.

The Note is the only mention of redacted copies in the RFP. How many redacted copies does the Government require? Does the Government require both hardcopies and an electronic version of the redacted Volumes?

Note 1 to the 52.212-1, Information for Offerors, Table 1 Proposal Organization applies to all copies annotated with a superscript 1 on the table. IAW Table 1, two (2) redacted hardcopies are required for Volume I and two (2) redacted hardcopies are required for volume II. The Government does require an electronic version of the redacted volumes. IAW 52.212-1, Information for Offerors, section 3.14 Electronic Offers, the content and page size of electronic versions must be identical to the hard copy versions.

80 RFP 52.212-1 Ad

The offeror shall fill in and provide corresponding technical proposal paragraph references in the column entitled ―Offeror‘s Technical Proposal Paragraph Reference in Table 2, Technical Proposal Cross Reference Matrix

Are the RFP paragraphs listed in Table 2 the only items the Government requires to be cross-referenced or is the Table intended as an example?

Table 2, Technical Proposal Cross Reference Matrix shall be filled in IAW 52.212-1, section 5.1.6. The table is only a tool to assist in the proposal process. The offeror is ultimately responsible for ensuring all areas are addressed fully and all requested information is completed IAW FAR 52.212-1 and 52.212-2 of the RFP.

81 To be answered in follow-on amendment

82 Att 3

PPW

For many of the CLINs, the Productive Hours applied to each category are 2080, a cell designated as a predetermined value.

Typically, 2080 is considered a full year (Productive Hours + Holiday Hours + Vacation Hours + Sick Hours), and the costs associated with Non-Productive Hours (Holiday, Vacation, and Sick) are incorporated into the offerors Fringe/Overhead rate.

Further, each classification of employee receives a variable amount of leave, so it is possible that not all employees will have the same Productive Hours.

If the Productive Hours in the evaluation do not match the Productive Hours used to develop the Fully Burdened Rate, (in this case) the Total Evaluated Price will be overstated. As such, we request the government permit offerors to adjust the Productive Hours per labor category in each CLIN.

Amendment 03 revises Attachment 3, Price Proposal Workbook (rev 01) to incorporate a change allowing for productive hours to be input by offerors. On the “TEP” tab, the column marked “Hours or Qty” has been revised from a “pre-determined value” of 2080 to a blank “Fill-in Field(s)” for labor categories associated with CLINs X001, X002, X003, X004, and X008. The “Instructions” tab has been updated revise instruction #2 to include the requirement for offerors to provide productive hours for the labor categories/CMEs for CLINs X001, X002, X003, X004, and X008.

12 June 2017

NO. REF. PARA. NO

ISSUE / COMMENT

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

83 Att 13 Q&A

In the answer to question 3, released on June 1, 2017, the Government stated in part:

“It is the Government’s intention to encourage offerors’ with partial capability to provide past performance references of all teaming partners, subcontractors, and joint venture partners for evaluation.”

in paragraph 3.3.2, the requirement that “A past performance reference in Volume IV must be relevant and recent to be evaluated” is established, however, Table 5 in the RFP appears to state that each contract submitted will be evaluated based on those criteria in the table. The result of this being that a past performance citation provided by a subcontractor where less than three functions are performed or where the functions are not performed on a DOD Facility (the Paramedic and the Wildland Fire Operations services specifically) is not relevant and will therefore not be evaluated pursuant to paragraph 3.3.2.

Amendment 03 revises the addendum to 52.212-2 to clarify the Government’s intent and to ensure that interested and capable 8(a) companies have to ability to provide relevant past performance information for themselves, their joint venture/teaming partners, and their subcontractors. The following sections have been revised:

52.212-2 section 3.3.4., including Table 5. Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method.

84 RFP 52.212-1

Regarding RFP reference 7.1.1 Early Proposal Information, for clarification, is it the government’s intent that contractors submit their entire Volume III Past Performance by physical (mail, or hand delivered) submission seven (7) calendar days prior to the date set for receipt of proposals?

Reference:

7.1.1 Early Proposal Information

The Government requests offerors to submit their past performance volume seven (7) calendar days prior to the date set for receipt of proposals.

The Government requests that the Volume III Past Performance volume be submitted early, if possible, so that the Contracting Officer may retrieve PPIRS and CPARS information needed for the past performance evaluation and to ensure that all PPQ are received.

12 June 2017

NO. REF. PARA. NO

ISSUE / COMMENT

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

85 RFP

We would like to confirm whether the Cannon AFB Contracting Office is allowing Similarly Situated Entities and the corresponding set of rules for purposes of calculating self-performance that were rolled out in the 2013 NDAA and the new version of 13.C.F.R. 125.6 that took effect on June 30, 2016. We understand that the FAR hasn’t caught up with this change, however the SBA is honoring these rules and has issued an opinion letter stating that Contracting Officers have the discretion to follow the 2013 NDAA and implementing SBA regulations if they chose.

In accordance with FAR 52.219-14(c )(1), included by reference in the RFP, at least 50 percent of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel shall be expended for employees of the concern. Performance by similarly situated entities will not be considered to be expended for employees of the concern.

86 To be answered in follow-on amendment 87 To be answered in follow-on amendment

88 Att 10

WD

Attachment 10, Wage Determination invokes Executive Order (EO) 13706, Establishing Paid Sick Leave for Federal Contractors. Under the EO we are required to provide up to 56 hours of paid sick leave each year. Attachment 12, CBA, Article 25, Sick/Personal Leave, allows for lesser amounts of sick leave for certain classes of employees. Will the Government please clarify which of these sets of rules we are to follow?

Executive Order 13706 applies to service contracts covered by the McNamara-O’Hara Service Contract Act (SCA) to new contracts and replacements for expiring contracts with the Federal Government that result from solicitations issued on or after January 1, 2017. The Executive Order requires certain employers that contract with the Federal Government to provide their employees with up to seven days (56 hours) of paid sick leave annually. If a CBA ratified before September 30, 2016 applies to an employee’s work performed on or in connection with a covered contract, and the CBA provides the employee with at least 56 hours (or 7 days) of paid sick time (or paid time off that may be used for reasons related to sickness or health care) each year, the requirements of the Executive Order and the Final Rule will not apply to the employee until the date the agreement terminates or January 1, 2020, whichever is first.

If the CBA provides the employee with paid sick time (or paid time off that may be used for reasons related to sickness or health care) each year, but the amount provided under the CBA is less than 56 hours (or 7 days), the contractor must provide covered employees with the difference between 56 hours (or 7 days) and the amount provided under the existing CBA in a manner consistent with the EO and Final Rule or the terms and conditions of the CBA.

89 To be answered in follow-on amendment 90 To be answered in follow-on amendment 91 To be answered in follow-on amendment

12 June 2017

NO. REF. PARA. NO

ISSUE / COMMENT

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

92 Site Visit Will there be an opportunity to submit questions on Monday (5 Jun 17)?

IAW 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors, Section 3.18, questions are requested to be submitted not later than 5 days after the pre-proposal site visit. The site visit was held 2 June 2017. Questions resulting from the site visit were received and accepted through 7 June 2017.

93 To be answered in follow-on amendment 94 To be answered in follow-on amendment 95 To be answered in follow-on amendment 96 To be answered in follow-on amendment

97 Att 4

PPIR

Regarding RFP Attachment 4, Past Performance Information Reference, the guidance does not directly stipulate any page limitation. Given the language in Attachment 4, Past Performance Information Reference, is the page limitation per citation three (3) pages?

Reference:

Attachment 4, Past Performance Information Reference

Attach one separate sheet if additional space is needed.

Yes. IAW 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors, Table 1 Proposal Organization, the only page limits associated with Volume IV, Past Performance are those documents dictated by the format provided for Tabs 1-8. The Attachment 4, Past Performance Information Reference is one of the documents provided for in Tabs 1-8. Attachment 4 is two (2) pages and includes the note “Attach one separate sheet if additional space is needed.”

98 RFP 52.212-1

Regarding 3.6 Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits for Volume IV Past Performance Footnote 2, and 7.1.5.2 References (Tabs 1-8), the language indicates that the offeror is required to submit copy of their PPQ as part of their individual contract references, in addition to the copy being provided by the offeror’s customer.

This will result in the government receiving two copies of the offeror’s individual PPQs. One version of the PPQ from the offeror’s customer, and one version directly from the offeror. Is this the governments intent? If not, will the government clarify the requirement?

The offeror shall include in their Past Performance volume copies of the Attachment 5, Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) sent to their customer(s). IAW 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors, Section 7.1.5.2, the Government requests that offerors provide their past performance volume be sent seven (7) calendar days prior to the proposal submission date to ensure all PPQs are received for a complete evaluation.

Additionally, IAW Attachment 5, completed PPQ are requested to be submitted directly from the POCs listed in the PPQ NLT the closing time/date of the solicitation.

The purpose of requesting PPQs in the past performance volume is to allow the Government the ability to acknowledge whether all PPQs submitted by offerors were received from customer(s) and included in the past performance evaluation.

99 RFP

We recently found a discrepancy with the solicitation documents in that the MOU adding the paramedics to the Union was not released along with the CBA. We contacted the union to obtain a copy of this MOU, but they advised we had to contact the Government. We are requesting a release of this MOU so that we may accurately price the costs of this labor category to include any personal clothing or equipment that we must provide.

The Government is not aware of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) for paramedics. The paramedics declined to join the Union.

12 June 2017

NO. REF. PARA. NO

ISSUE / COMMENT

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

100 RFP Given the outstanding questions, particularly regarding Past Performance (Volume IV due on the 14th of June), will the government extend the offeror submission deadline?

Amendment 03 extends the proposal due date from 1400 MST, 21 June 2017 to 1400 MST, 26 June 2017

Table 1