Update Attachment 7 - COCESS QnA.pdf

Contractor Operated Civil Engineering Supply Store (COCESS) Questions and Answers:

Q: Can you confirm the deadline for questions? I noticed it’s listed as October 8, 2024.

A: Update to the COMBO has been posted on SAM.gov. The new deadline for all Questions and Answers is set for 18 October 2024.

Q: The period of performance is stated as 2 years, while the current contract with SpendSmart Group LLC lasts 5 years and expires in September 2026. Is there a reason for the shorter term in the new Solicitation?

A: Due to the scope of work changing and the ceiling of the requirement being reached prior to the end of the contract. It was necessary to resolicit this requirement. The purpose for the contract being 2 years is due to the volatility of the market.

Q: Why is this requirement only posted for 30 days if you are looking for competition and not awarding the incumbent. IAW SOW 4.8 the need for a minimum of 30 days preparation from the start of a COCESS operation.

A: The due date for the quotes has changed to 07 November 2024.

Q: Why is this solicitation titled “99 CES COCESS Recompete”

A: That is the nomenclature chosen for this requirement due the need to recompete prior to the current IDIQ expiring in 2026.

Q: Is there an incumbent COCESS contractor in place?

A: Yes – FA486121D0008

Q. If yes, will incumbent personnel be made available for potential employment with an awarded non-incumbent?

A: That is something that would need to be discussed amongst the contractors. That is not something the Government will orchestrate.

Q: If yes, what racks, fixtures, material handling equipment, inventory, and other incumbent owned material would be available for purchase?

A: That is something that would need to be discussed amongst the contractors. That is not something the Government will orchestrate.

Q: What is the area (sq. footage) available for an awarded non-incumbent contractor to perform the COCESS contract.

A: est: 6200SF

Q: Are there Government Owned desks, chairs, and tables that will be available for use by the COCESS contractor.

A: Yes

Q: Are there Government Owned racks and fixtures that will be available for use by the COCESS contractor.

A: Yes, but the contractor might want to bring their own shelves depending on how they want to set up the store.

Q: Question 1: The statement “The 99th Civil Engineering Squadron (CES) has a requirement for Vertical Transportation Equipment Maintenance, Repair, and Inspection services for Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada.” does not seem to apply to a COCESS contract. Was this included in error? If so, it should be removed to avoid confusion with respondents to the PPE.

A: Removed

Q: Question 1: The Government chosen databases for HVAC/Controls, Structures, and Utilities are either invalid database, do not have full market based pricing information, or are inadequate to encompass the fullest product offering that is used by the CE shops listed.

Example:

HVAC/Controls Primary Dayton (Specific Brand to Grainger) – Should be changed to Grainger

Structures Primary 3M (Manufacturer and very specific products and does not have pricing information – Should be changed to Grainger

Secondary Wooster (Manufacturer and very specific products (Paint brushes and accessories) and does not have pricing information – Should be changed to MSC Direct

Utilities Primary American Standard (Manufacturer and very specific products (Toilets, Sinks and Faucets) and does not have pricing information

– Should be changed to Grainger

Secondary Anvil (Manufacturer and very specific products (rough plumbing fitting and valves) and does not have pricing information – Should be changed to Supply House. “Should be Changed” remarks are based on other COCESS contracts utilizing these databases under the new COCESS formats that CCD has been operating for the past five (5) years. These databases have pricing and contain a broad range of products to encompass most of the items needed for those individual CE shops.

A: The Database listing is an example. The contractor can choose whichever vender they prefer.

Q: Question 1: All of the items within Attachment 3, SPI List can be found within one of the databases proposed in Attachment 2, Pricing Discount Coefficient Table. CCD suggests that pursuant to SOW 1.4.3 and subparagraphs that the SPI List be grown to add the “High-Use” items that cannot be found in databases throughout the performance period of the contract. If the current Attachment 3, SPI List is not changed, contractor proposed pricing will have to include any anticipated (but potentially not realized) cost increases. This will cause the Government to potentially pay more for an item during the contract performance periods than they would if the items utilized Attachment 2, Pricing Discount Coefficient Table. In reverse, keeping the current Attachment 3, SPI List could subject the contractor to unnecessary risk and burden for a loss due to market increases.

A: 1.4.3

Q: On line 125 of the SPI list, there is not a Mfg (manufacturer) or Part #. On lines 5-13, 122-124, and 126, the part number listed is not Mfg Part#’s. Failure to identify the correct Mfg Part # could result in an incorrect pricing proposal, if the current Attachment 3, SPI List is not changed.

A: 1.4.3.1

Q: Question 1: Attachment 2 – Pricing Discount Coefficient Table and Attachment 4 - FFP Coefficient Application has a listing for “Utilities”, which is not listed in section

1.3.3 of the SOW. The assumption is that “Water and Fuels System Maintenance” is the correct category?

A: Water and Fuels System Maintenance are under Utilities

Question 1: Is the stated list missing a Federal holiday? Juneteenth National Independence Day – 19 June?

A: The SOW has been updated to add the aforementioned holiday.

Additional Questions: The due date has changed, but the period of performance has changed to 8 days after the due date. Why is a non-incumbent contractor not being afforded the need for a minimum of 30 days’ preparation from the start of a COCESS operation IAW 4.8 of the SOW?

A: The winning offeror will have 30 days from that date of award to have their COCESS operation up and running. The winner will have 10 days from date of award to provide the plan. The intent of this requirement is done in order to give time to the successful offeror and give all interested bidders an opportunity to ramp up operations if they are not the incumbent. This is intended to not give an incument contractor an unfair advantage over others.

Additional questions: If the current contract with SpendSmart Group LLC lasts 5 years and expires in September 2026, how is it possible to institute a valid recompete of the COCESS contract and still have an active COCESS contract in place? The only logical explanation is for awarding to the incumbent contractor, SpendSmart Group LLC, as the ceiling of the requirement has been reached and a follow-on contract with SpendSmart Group LLC will need to be established.

A: The current IDIQ has the last ordering period ending in Sept 26 or until the IDIQ Maximum Ordering Amount is reached. The government will not have an active COCESS contract in place when the government anticipates awarding a follow on COCESS requirement. The government does not intend to have two COCESS contracts in place. The resulting contract award based on the current solicitation will be the follow on COCESS operation for Nellis AFB - the previous COCESS contract would have reached its maximum and will be closed out.

Additional questions: Based upon the answers to the above questions, there cannot be a viable answer to the requirement of proposing a valid “detailed” transition management plan that addresses all elements outlined in paragraph 4.8 of the SOW IAW Combo Synopsis section 1:

Transition Management Plan How is Nellis Contracting addressing this requirement as it lends to bias against a non-incumbent contractor proposal?

A: 4.8 CONTRACTOR TRANSITION / 4.9 PHASE OUT PLAN

Additional questions: Based upon the answer to the above questions, the statement “The contractor can choose whichever vender they prefer.” Is insufficient to address the obvious errors in Attachment 2 – Pricing Discount Coefficient and subsequently will allow for unbalanced and unrealistic pricing on Attachment 4 – FFP Coefficient Application. Per the SOW 1.3.3: Online pricing databases or catalogues (referred to collectively henceforth as “databases”) shall be used to calculate sale prices of items found within the database(s).

Per the SOW 1.3.3.1: The sale price of each item shall be determined by calculating the categorically specific discount coefficient for the item using Attachment 2, Pricing Discount Coefficient Table. Attachment 2 will identify a primary and alternate database per category. If an item is located in the primary database, the item shall be sold for no more than the resulting categorical discount. If an item cannot be found in the primary database, the Contractor shall utilize the alternate database and sell the item for no more than the resulting categorical discount of the alternate database. See paragraph 1.4.2.2 for additional information regarding items not found in either the primary or alternate databases. The errors noted in HVAC/Controls, Structures, Utilities are valid. Attachment 2 – Pricing Discount Coefficient will be placed on the awarded offeror’s contract and be strictly enforced. Thus, negating the statement “The contractor can choose whichever vender they prefer.”.

Further, if the erroneous databases are utilized, Attachment 4 – FFP Coefficient Application will be invalid even though it will be utilized for the purpose of conducting a price evaluation between offerors proposals. This is unbalanced as an incumbent will be able to utilize their known discounts to invalid databases. Non-Incumbent proposers can offer 100% discounts for the invalid databases, further creating unbalanced and unrealistic pricing evaluation. Further, if the statement that “The contractor can choose whichever vender they prefer” is true, then any COCESS contractor may provide slightly unrealistic discounts to the government provided databases and utilize any database and discount for the duration of the contract. This put the Government at risk for unbalanced pricing. All proposers to the solicitation should be on the proverbial “same playing field”.

How is Nellis Contracting addressing the errors in Attachment 2 – Pricing Discount Coefficient and Attachment 4 – FFP Coefficient Application?

A: The database selection will not be used to evaluate the proposals. Only the percentage discounted per category will be evaluated.

Additional questions: The answer 1.4.3.1 in reference to the SOW is insufficient to address the deficiency within Attachment 3 – SPI List. How is Contracting addressing the missing information noted on the SPI list? Non-incumbent contractors will not be able to submit a proposed price for these items. Per the Combo Synopsis Factor 3 – Price: a requirement for a proposal to be considered is if the contractor provides pricing for all items in Attachment 3 – SPI List.

A: The SPI list is developed after contract award if needed. Part Numbers/Manufacturer for requested items will be provided to contractor.