Final_RFP_Questions_and_Answers_I_10_Jul_13.pdf

Request for Proposal (RFP) FA4890-13-R-0111

Questions & Answers

Q1. Follow up to question 83.

(Q83). Define the customers and locations at each site that the pickup and delivery service is now being provided and any changes with this contract.

A83. There are no changes based on this contacting action. Currently Sheppard, Vandenburg, Patrick/Cape that are operating some level of this service. Specific information will be included in site specific RFPs.)

New Question: Does the Tinker Type IIA PMEL have a pick-up and delivery service?

A1. Not that we are aware of at this time.

Q2. Follow-up to question 86.

(PWS 9.1.2: Fuel for any vehicles within CONUS used in the performance of the contract.”)

(Q86.) What is the historical data for annual mileage supporting the TFCU and onsite calibration support?

New Question: “No answer provided.”

A2. Do not have actual mileage numbers but can tell you that WPAFB PMEL averages 8 trips per quarter with their TFCU.

Q3. Follow-up to question 89.

(Q89.) Draft RFP FA4890-13-R-0111, Attachment 3, Collective Bargaining Agreements/Wage Determinations. It is not readily apparent what the PMEL job classifications and wages are for the Arnold, Vance, and Wright-Patterson

CBAs. Please provide.

A89. Arnold PMEL job classifications: PMEL techs are instrument technicians and in the dimensional area, they are designated as precision inspectors. Vance PMEL job classifications are currently Labor Grade 12 with a Lead as a LG13 Wright Patterson PMEL job classifications are Electronics Technician I, Electronics Technician II, Electronics Technician III, PQA Technician, and Production Control Clerk.)

New Question: Arnold only identified PMEL technicians, what about other labor categories?

Vance...how are minimum and maximum salary determined? Wright-Patterson...Is this the correct CBA for the PMEL? Will an updated attachment that defines all Labor Categories with their associated wages and job classification be provided for each individual site?

A3. An updated CBA will be provided for Wright Patterson.

Q4. Will the job classification and wage information for Andersen, RAF Feltwell and Thule be provided?

A4. WD for Anderson and Hickam (used in past) will be provided. Other two locations, being

OCONUS, do not fall under the Service Contract Act so do not have Wage Determinations. Job classifications for all sites are similar to those within the other PMELs.

Q5. Are Patrick and Cape Canaveral operated as one site or separate sites?

A5. Both facilities are still used however; they are being transitioned to being considered as one

PMEL.

Q6. CDRL A001. It appears the only data missing from what's being requested for this report is OWC information. Can the OWC data be loaded to the PAMS Reimbursable Report by the PAMS Office?

A6. Not completely sure what this question is actually asking, OWC information is already in

PAMS and not currently aware of any information required to complete the CDRL not being available but will research

Q7. Appendixes F, J, K, and L were not provided, but are referenced in the RFP and/or PWS.

Will these Appendixes be provided?

A7. Appendixes F and L are site specific and will be provided with site specific RFPs.

Appendixes J and K are proposal specific and will be incorporated based on the awarded offeror’s proposal.

Q8. Appendix D does not consistently provide ADPE and GFE (non-EAID) assets at all bases. Will this be provided?

A8. Inventories throughout this acquisition vary in levels of information available. All inventories will be updated during transition.

Q9. PWS Section A, 2.2.1.2. Are there any non-host MAJCOM AF units being supported that require travel associated with on-site calibration/maintenance?

A9. Looking at all 32 locations, there are locations that have calibration support for non-host

MAJCOM units which require on-site support.

Q10. PWS Section A, 4.1.5. Is the CO the sole approval authority for procuring additional

PMEL MIS equipment or is additional approval required (i.e., Comm Squadron)?

A10. Routinely, PMEL MIS equipment is provided through government channels at the base, this just provides an additional process should that method not be sufficient. PWS requirement shows that the CO is the final approval authority. There can be many that must be involved/coordinated with in the process.

Q11. Will the Depot IIA PMELs be converted to the PAMS MIS prior to issuing their task orders?

A11. It is the government’s intent that all non PAMS locations will be converted prior to performance beginning through this acquisition.

Q12. PWS Section A, 5.1.4. Does the SSO have the authority to grant calibration extensions for assets from another Command or will he/she coordinate this action?

A12. SSO is the single point of entry for providers for these requests, we will then coordinate specific actions with appropriate parties.

Q13. PWS Section A, 5.4. This conflicts with PWS Section A, 5.1.2.1. Can Government clarify definition of late delivery?

A13. 5.1.2.1 specifies when an item is considered “scheduled maintenance” versus “unscheduled maintenance.” This is only there to clarify PAMs entries. Not to cover overdue test equipment.

For overdue test equipment (late delivery) it is based on whatever routine delivery schedule is established with a customer or the item’s Date Due Calibration.

Q14. PWS Section A, 7.6.1.1. Is the repair estimate’s cost of labor the actual reimbursable rate for the location and not necessarily the DOL WD? Will the Government provide the reimbursable rates for each site each FY?

A14. Cost of labor should be the company’s actual rate for the location, government will not be providing those rates.

Q15. PWS Section C, 2.3.2. Please clarify if not available through supply and if organizational funds are not available for GFE replacement parts, expendable supplies, or ADPE admin supplies, will this be considered a reimbursable expense?

A15. These are considered reimbursable if other PWS paragraphs that specifically cover these classifications of purchases are followed.

Q16. For installations with contractor/Government combined workforce labs (i.e., Warner

Robins, Hill, Tinker, etc.), is the workload data provided for the joint effort or the contractor effort only?

A16. Workload data is contractor specific.

Q17. Should we assume that the Civil Service FTEs at labs will remain the same and are not to be part of the costing?

A17. Yes, currently there are no changes viewed.

Q18. Wage Determinations provided are June 2012 revisions. DOL has issued new wage determinations effective June 2013. These new wage determinations should be incorporated into the RFP for those sites not under a CBA.

A18. Updated WDs will be provided.

Q19. Each CBA is different. Many expire in 2013; the labor pay rates are effective either in

January, August or October; the H&W benefits effective dates also range from January –

October. According to the RFP the first task order is being issued in FY14, do we use current rates (which depending upon the CBA could date back to October 2012), or are we to use rates that would be effective in August 2013 or October 2013? If the site would not transition until

2015 are we to use rates that would be in effect for 2014? The contractors must be provided direction on what rates and benefit levels (effective dates) are to be used in pricing all CLINS or you will have one contractor using 2012 rates versus others using 2014.

A19. Answer pending…

Q20. If the CBA rates change in the middle of a performance period is the contractor to bid the increased rates for that period? For example: Robins CBA rates increase in August, the POP listed in the RFP is 31 Jan 2014 thru 30 Sep 2015. Is the contractor to bid the applicable rate for the period of January – July then increase the bid rates for August and September or will the contractor be reimbursed in accordance with FAR Clause 52.222-43 Fair Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Act – Price Adjustment?

A20. Answer pending…

Q21. Period of Performance. First task order is for Wright-Patterson, Peterson & Malmstrom with the Transition starting 14 Feb 2014 – 31 Mar 2014 and contract start date of 01 Apr 2014.

Clin 0009 through 0036 lists a start date of 31 Jan 2014 – 30 Sep 2014. These Clins start before the Transition Date of the first task order. Also, Clin 00030AB has a start date of 01 Jan 2014 should this be 31 Jan 2014, most likely a typo?

A21. Answer pending…

Q22. The RFP does not provide for a WD or CBA for RAF Feltwell, Anderson AFB, Guam or

Thule, Greenland. Questions and answers previously provided stated to use the RFP 52.222-42

Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires. The hourly rates can be used but for Fringe

Benefits (6) Retirement, what percentages are to be used by contractors in calculating these costs as they differ between CSRS and FERS employees?

A22. Answer pending…

Q23. Six Labs were not in the Final RFP, are these labs going to be closed and if so when?

A23. Those six locations are not currently part of this acquisition. We are not at liberty to disclose what is happening with those locations as part of this acquisition.

Q24. Will the ALC's contract take on the scheduling functions to include the pickup and deliveries?

A24. The intent is that scheduling functions will transition to the contract with the transition to

PAMS.

Q25. Will the contractors at the ALC's be using FEMS or PAM'S? If PAMS is going to be used, will the government convert the database before the start of the contract?

A25. It is the government’s intent that all non PAMS locations will be converted prior to performance beginning through this acquisition.

Q26. Will PAMS or FEMS be required to be used or can the contractor provide its own database system that will meet the requirements of the Air Force tracking system?

A26. PAMs shall be used at all locations.

Q27. We are formally requesting an extension on the proposal due date based on the lack of data and information to provide accurate pricing.

A27. Answer pending…

Q28. Once the award is made, will all six contractors be made aware of who won?

A28. Award results will be posted to FBO.

Q29. Does the Government intend to supply an updated Wright Patterson CBA for the PMEL work? The current supplied CBA is for Logistics and Supply.

A29. Updated CBA will be provided.

Q30. “Vol III – Sched B shall be submitted Microsoft Excel Only (ref: L 5.3.2).” Please clarify, can Microsoft Word also be used for justifation etc. or should a filled in copy of the provided spreadsheet (Attach IV – Sample Pricing Matrix Adden.) be the only thing submitted for Vol III?

A30. Excel should be used to provide pricing information however, other means may be provided as back-up data.

Q31. Has there been any consideration for potential changes (additions or deletions) to the originally proposed team structures in the IDIQ? Would changes be allowed with submitted justifications?

A31. Answer pending…