Questions_ _Answers_-_Dive_Locker.pdf

Dive Locker Maintenance

Solicitation # FA4890-13-R-0103

Questions from interested offerors for the 3 Oct 2013 pre-proposal conference

1. Reference: Page 75. The solicitation states, “Do NOT submit any documents in PDF format that are copied as “images” of Windows Photo Gallery etc. PDF files shall enable textual search and copy functions.” Do original signature page PDFs need to also be searchable?

Answer: No

2. Are tables and graphics inserted into the proposal given the same font size exceptions as charts? Reference: RFP Page 74, paragraph 73. “NOTE: The font size requirements do not apply to charts however the font size must be reasonable and easily readable.”

Answer: No

3. Reference: Page 75. The solicitation lists the time the PPQs and proposals are due at 5:00

EDT on 17 October 2013, yet on the SF1449 in box 8 it lists 12:00 PM 17 October as the time the proposals are to be received. What is the correct time the proposals are due?

Answer: Proposals are due 24 Oct 2013 at 12:00 PM EDT.

Amendment 0001 - the RFP will be amended accordingly.

4. Reference: Page 80 Instructions for Volume III Price Proposal, paragraph 11.1. “On the

SF1449 continuation page of the RFP, offerors are required to complete item no. 11 for their G&A costs to be applied towards cost reimbursable CLINS.” Can you please explain this statement and are you referring to CLIN 0011?

Answer: No, item no. 11, refers to Pg. 39 SF1449 continuation sheet. G&A costs should be filled in for each contract year in the space provided.

5. Reference: PWS page 21, section 13.2. Living Quarter Allowance (LQA) is an ODC, but in the RFP, Living Expenses are on FFP CLIN (CLIN 0104, 0107, X004, X007). Was this a mistake and it should have been a COST CLIN? If not, do you still require back-up justification for living expenses?

Answer: The CLINs are intended to be FFP and back-up data is required per para

11.3. of the provision ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1 - INSTRUCTIONS TO

OFFERORS – COMMERCIAL ITEMS (Feb 2012) to the RFP.

6. Is Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) still authorized in addition to LQA?

Answer: All living expenses will be captured in the FFP CLINs for USAFE and

PACAF. PWS 13.2 states LQA should not exceed the annual cap as posted on the

Department of State website.

7. Is LQA the same as traditional Housing Overseas Living Allowance (HOLA)/COLA?

Answer: Please refer to PWS Para 13.2 which references LQA. HOLA & COLA are not used in this solicitation.

Amendment 0001 - PWS para 13.2 will be amended to refer to the correct

Department of State link http://aoprals.state.gov/Web920/allowance.asp?menu_id=95

8. Will OCONUS positions be given HOLA/COLA up to Dept. of State limit of $61,200 at

Kadena and $53,900 at Lakenheath annually?

Answer: LQA costs should be included in your FFP CLINs. Please reference the revised Department of State link within PWS 13.2 as a result of Amendment 0001.

9. The Dive Supervisor CLINs are listed as COST CLINs with a not to exceed amount of hours. Are we to propose a not to exceed estimated cost based upon hour ceiling for each location at a unit price we deem appropriate?

Answer: Propose the total unit price per hour, and total CLIN cost for each Dive

Supervisor CLIN based on the number of hours provided in each CLIN description.

Amendment 0001 – An error was discovered in the number of estimated Dive

Supervisor hours at PACAF and ACC. The estimated number of Dive Sup. hours given in the CLIN descriptions for PACAF CLINs: 0106, 1006, 2006, 3006, 4006 has been increased from an estimated 15 hours to estimated 40 hours per year and ACC

CLINs: 0103, 1003, 2003, 3003, 4003 have been increased from an estimated 100 hours to estimated 120 hours per year.

10. Please confirm NATO Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) is not granted for USAFE and PACAF as it was previously authorized at Kadena. These tax burdens previously exceeded $123K over 18 months at Lakenheath.

Answer: NATO SOFAs are not granted for USAFE and PACAF at this time. See

PWS para 13 (second to last sentence) which requires the prime contractor to cover the tax burdens.

11. Reference: Attachment 4, US Dept. of Labor Wage Determinations. The Wage

Determinations list a labor category of Small Engine mechanic, and it appears to be relevant to this requirement. Boat Operator and Small Engine Mechanic occupations are very different. This seems to be an incomplete assessment of reasonable salary/compensation. Small Engine Mechanics are not experienced and certified to operate a boat (PWS 3.2.2), especially during night operations. Does the Government believe this contract requirement to be governed by SCA? If so, employee classification

23910 is insufficient to accomplish the requirements of PWS section 3.2.

Answer: (See Q16) PWS para 3.2.21. on page 12 lists the required qualifications for contractor personnel, which is separate from the employee classes listed under clause 52.222-42.

http://aoprals.state.gov/Web920/allowance.asp?menu_id=95

12. Is the contractor required to fund a return CONUS trip for the overseas incumbents to renew work VISAs during Phase-In?

Answer: PWS Para 13.0 (final sentence) states: “Prime Contractor will be responsible to ensure that their employee has a valid “Work Visa”.” If required, these costs should be included in the FFP CLINs and will not be paid from the NTE cost reimbursable travel CLINs.

13. Does the loss of USAFE and PACAF SOFA authorization affect the Command

Sponsorship (PWS page 21, Paragraph 13.0) program for contractors and their dependents?

Answer: No, as long as the employee and their dependents are determined to be command sponsored per PWS para 13.0.

14. What SCA skill category, if applicable, corresponds to the Master Diver occupation?

Answer: This occupation is considered professional and is therefore exempt.

15. Reference: Section 7-Evaluation Criteria, section 1.0. This section states, “This competitive best value source selection will be conducted using the LPTA source selection process.” Paragraph 3 again states, “This is a best value procurement….”

In our experience LPTA and Best Value are not synonymous with each other. According to Acquisition.gov (a government website) Best Value is defined:

"Best value" is a process used to select the most advantageous offer by evaluating and comparing factors in addition to cost or price. It allows flexibility in selection through tradeoffs which the agency makes between the cost and non-cost evaluation factors with the intent of awarding to the contractor that will give the government the greatest or best value for its money.”

Note that "the rules" for the best-value and tradeoff process (and the degree of documentation required) depend on two factors: the rules for the specific acquisition process being used and the rules the agency sets in the solicitation. For example, when conducting a negotiated procurement, the complex processes of FAR Subpart 15.1.

Given these two acquisition methods, the statements appear to be contradictory. Section

7 Evaluation criteria cites an LPTA source selection process using a best value source selection. Which method of source selection will be used for this solicitation?

Answer: Para 1.0 of the RFP provision 52.212-2 states this source selection will use the LPTA process and refers to the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection

Procedures effective 1 July 2011. The DoD Source Selection Procedure provides a best-value continuum for both the tradeoff and LPTA processes in para 1.2. Refer to the below excerpt from para 1.2 for the LPTA process:

Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) Source Selection Process (see FAR

15.101-2). The LPTA process is appropriate when best value is expected to result from selection of a technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price. The application of LPTA is discussed in Appendix A. In addition, the general principles outlined in the body of this document also apply to LPTA (see preface to Appendix A for exemptions).

16. The RFP references DOL WDs and identifies on Page 57, in 52.222-42 STATEMENT

OF EQUIVALENT RATES FOR FEDERAL HIRES (MAY 1989) employee class 23910

- Small Engine Mechanic. This labor category does not appear to represent the higher labor qualifications and certifications required of PWS page 12, 3.2.21. Please confirm if this is the appropriate SCA category referenced by the incumbent contractor or if a different one should be used.

Answer: PWS para 3.2.21. on page 12 list the required qualifications for contractor personnel, which is separate from the employee classes listed under clause 52.222-

42. If an offerors strategy includes an employee that performs only small engine repairs, the WD is applicable. Employees will be exempt from the DOL WD’s if they are cross-utilized to an extent that they perform significantly different duties.

17. The RFP references DOL WDs but does not identify the employee class for the Master

Diver, and no appropriate category exists on the WDs. Similarly, no employee class exists for the Dive Supervisor. Please confirm that these are not a SCA labor category, or provide a Conformance.

Answer: The Master Diver and Dive supervisor responsibilities are considered professional and is therefore exempt.

18. The RFP on page 49 references FAR 52.222-17 Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers

(Jan 2013) (E.O. 13495) as applicable, but does not do so on page 55. Please confirm if this clause is applicable, and to which labor categories.

Answer: This clause is applicable to the contract.

Amendment 0001 - Para (c) of 52.212-5 incorporated by full text is amended by an

“x” annotated next to (7) 52.222-17 and the latter clause is removed by reference.

19. The RFP on page 80, paragraph 11.1 of Instructions to Offerors, references “Section 3” of the solicitation being required for submission. Please confirm if this is to actually be

“Section SF 1440, pages 3-38”

Answer: Submit your pricing for the CLINs listed on pages 3-38 of the SF 1449.

Amendment 0001 – Section 3 is incorrectly referenced (3) times in the RFP. Section

3 typically refers to the Continuation Sheet Schedule of Supplies/Services (CLINs) on Pages 3-38 of the RFP. The contract writing system no longer allows for a Section

3, the following references were adjusted:

1. Continuation Sheet item 4 (pg. 39)

2. INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS Section 6a, Para 7.5 (pg. 74 & 75)

3. INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS Section 6a Para 11.1 (Pg. 80)

20. The RFP on page 5, Item No 0103; page 7, Item No 0106; page 8, 0109; and page 10, Item No 0112 identifies Dive Supervisor Labor. Please confirm if these labor hours are to cover "additional" hours for the Master Divers to provide Dive Supervisor/Dive Med

Tech support that are identified in 3.1.16.2 of the PWS.

Answer: The Dive Supervisor Labor CLIN provides additional hours (as needed) for any referenced training or operational dives when active duty personnel are in the water, (and an active duty military Master Diver is not present) either at home station or TDY locations. PWS 3.1.16.2 outlines the main use of Dive Supervisor hours. The Dive Supervisor Labor CLINs are additional hours to be used as directed by the GA RQS commander, and are not to exceed the given number of hours for each MAJCOM.

21. The PWS on page 7, paragraph 3.1.16.2 identifies a Diving Medical Technician, but the

RFP does not. Please confirm if a Diving Medical Technician is required and if required identify the estimated labor hours.

Answer: There is no requirement for a Diving Medical Technician, this is an active duty military position.

Amendment 0001 – PWS para 3.1.16.2 has been amended to remove the reference to a Diving Medical Technician (this is an active duty military position).

22. Please provide the current level of effort by location and labor category. At which location does the Air Force “Guardian Angels” envision the Lead Master Diver (3.1.22.

Subtask, page 9 of 38) to act as a focal point for all GA dive issues.

Answer: Refer to the tables in section 3 of the PWS: 3.1 Task 1 and 3.2 Task 2 for the estimated number of active duty personnel to be trained. The employee performing Task 1 at each location should be capable of completing Dive Supervisor responsibilities as directed by the GA RQS commander at each location.

23. Reference Reimbursable Travel Expenses Page 69 of 110. Please confirm that reimbursable travel expenses include the contractor’s indirect cost burden in accordance with their approved accounting system.

Answer: G&A is included in the estimated travel CLINs. Use the NTE values provided in the descriptions, and complete Pg. 39 COST REIMBURSABLE CLINS by filling in G&A rates for the Travel CLINs. Please refer to Section 4a 52.212-4

(Pg. 69) Para. REIMBURSABLE TRAVEL EXPENSES: “No profit shall be paid in support of cost reimbursable CLINS.”

24. The PWS on page 5, paragraph 3.1.11.1 identifies the contractor shall be a DOD certified

Master Diver. Please confirm if the Master Diver is required to maintain diving qualifications, medical and physical requirements in order to dive with GA unit.

Answer: The Master Diver must have minimum 3 years’ experience as an

Operational Master Diver but does not have to maintain current physical and medical qualifications IAW DOD standards as they will not be entering the water.

Amendment 0001 – PWS para 3.1.11.1 will be amended to read

The Master Diver must have qualified and operated as Naval Enlisted Classification

(NEC) 5341 Master Diver as outlined in NAVPERS 18068F Vol II; must have minimum 3 years’ experience as an Operational Master Diver but does not have to maintain current physical and medical qualifications IAW DOD standards, as they will not be entering the water.

25. Are the required travel events (conferences and board meetings) identified in 3.1.1, 3.1.4 and 3.2.22 covered in the travel ODC CLINs?

Answer: Yes, Travel costs for these PWS tasks are included in the cost reimbursable travel CLINs.

26. Please clarify the requirements of paragraph 9.3.1. If on-site supervisor training hours are documented against the MAJCOM CLIN, which CLIN is used for the dive and travel to the site which are stated to be "normal labor"?

Answer: The FFP CLIN for each MAJCOM should include “The preparation for the dive and travel to the site will be documented as normal labor.” These preparatory hours should be included in the normal workload contained in the FFP

CLIN for each location. The hours actually spent during a training or operational dive will be as directed, and as such, will be against each MAJCOM’s Cost reimbursable Dive Supervisor CLIN.

27. Do training syllabi exist for the various training courses listed in 3.1.7 and its subparagraphs? If not, how do we charge for the development of a training syllabus?

Answer: Yes, syllabi exist and will be provided to the Dive Master on location.

28. Task 3.1.16.2 calls for a Diving Med Tech ( DMT) for training and operational dives.

However there is no line item for a DMT. Are we to hire a separate DMT or are the master divers to be dual qualified?

Answer: (See Q21) There is no requirement for a Diving Medical Technician.

Amendment 0001 – PWS para 3.1.16.2 will be amended to remove the Diving

Medical Technician reference.

29. Are we to propose a Master Diver and Engine Mech. for each site (3.2 task 2)?

Answer: Each offeror is expected to formulate an approach that meets all requirements of the PWS.

30. The AETC site is listed as optional in paragraphs 3.0, 3.1 and 3.2 but not on the pricing spreadsheet. Are we to price the AETC CLINs as if they are part of the Basic Year and

Option Years?

Answer: The AETC CLINs are listed as optional on the schedule of services, and should be priced just like any other CLIN.

31. Will there be a Phase in for AETC?

Answer: Please include any Phase-in costs for AETC in the AETC FFP CLIN.

32. Are the AFRC units at Portland and Davis Monthan full time units like the active duty units? If not, can you be more specific as to the support requirements for these units?

Answer: Yes, Air Force Reserves is a full time unit.

33. Is the Dive Supervisor envisioned to be a staff member who travels to the other units to conduct training and certifications?

Answer: No, Refer to the tables in section 3 of the PWS: 3.1 task 1 and 3.2 task 2 for the estimated number of active duty personnel to be trained. The employee performing task 1 at each location should be capable of completing Dive Supervisor responsibilities as needed.

34. Does AETC not require Dive Supervisor support?

Answer: No, this location was inadvertently included in the PWS under 3.1. The schoolhouse already has active duty master diver cadre as part of the teaching staff.

PWS task 3.2 will still be required at AETC

Amendment 0001: the PWS Task 3.1 will be amended to exclude AETC.

35. There are several references to certifications for boat operators/technicians found in paragraphs 3.2.13, 3.2.16 and 3.2.21.1. Can you be more specific as to the exact certification(s) required i.e. USPS certifications, state licenses, manufacturer's certifications, etc.?

Answer: Certifications in the subtasks are for the employee to prove that they have taken a small engine course and have the basic knowledge of the engines to be maintained. The training and certs that are required will be provided by the government at no cost to the contractor. Any travel required to complete certifications may be funded out of the travel CLIN.

36. Based on the time needed to adequately respond to the RFP, given the questions and answers are outstanding, we request a two week extension of the due date so we may submit a compliant and cost-effective proposal.

Answer: A 7-day extension to 24 Oct 13 at 12:00pm Eastern Time has been granted.

Amendment 0001: The Contracting Officer has extended the RFP due date by 7 days from 17 Oct 13 to 24 Oct 13 at 12:00pm Eastern Time. The response time/date has been updated in several places throughout the RFP, and includes the Past performance questionnaires.