Questions_Answers_for_FBO.pdf

Section L, Part III ‐ Technical Proposal, Subfactor 1: Subfactor 1 states:

(2) Provide a brief narrative regarding the Top Level manning requirements in the Work Breakdown Structure that explains the necessity of the position to the contract. (i.e. 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, etc.)

Section M is nearly identical, replacing “explains” with “demonstrates” We believe that 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, etc. refers to the PWS: 3.1 = Project Management, 3.2 = Project Management – EAS, 3.3 = Project Management – KS, and 3.4 = Project Management – WI

We are uncertain of the scope of the discussion for “Top Level manning requirements”. All positions?, Key positions?, Work Center level lead positions?

Section L is an instruction that tells offerors what they shall provide as their proposal, or elements thereof. Section M is the instruction that says what that proposal, or element, shall demonstrate regarding how the plan is going to be implemented therefore, the proposal should state what positions will be required to fill requirements of the PWS and then explain what those positions will contribute towards the contract. This allows the government a way to understand the approach being proposed and the ability to determine its necessity.

FAR 52.222.16, Approval of Wage Rates: This clause is applicable to Cost Reimbursement construction contracts, not FFP (as the Over and Above projects are expected to be). We request that this be removed because it requires approval by the Head of the Contracting Activity [PACAF or AFICA?], for any wage rates that exceed the Construction Wage Rate Requirements [formerly Davis‐Bacon Act Wage Determination].

Agree, this clause has been removed.

FAR 52.247‐17, ‐27, and ‐68: Please verify whether these clauses are applicable, per the relevant prescribing paragraphs in FAR. These clauses are normally for use in contracts for acquisition of transportation services. The ISS2 PWS indicates the Contractor is a “customer” of transportation services, such as the annual remote resupply sealift program, or other transportation of goods, such as the Government‐furnished airlift of O&M supplies/materials. The ISS2 Contractor is not the provider of transportation, so the FAR Part 47 clauses cited are not applicable. Can these be removed?

Agree, removed these clauses. The original intent was that thte contractor would be responsible for shippiing procedures for food supplies, equipment parts (sometimes), and any other method of obtaining goods at the locations.

4.2.12: Can the AGE CA/CRL R14 list be provided? The AGE R14 CA/CRL lists will be attached to the RFP.

PWS 3.2.7.1/3.3.7.1/ 3.4.7.1: After the required container count is met for the resupply barges, will any unused capacity be made available for the ISS2 contractor’s phase‐in supply including equipment and vehicles?

The government is still researching this question.

SF33: The SF33 states to submit the proposal in original and 2 copies, however section L (pages 1339, 1343‐1344 of 1414) states to submit 2 electronic copies. Does the government want hard copies in original and 2 hard copies, or 2 electronic copies only, or both (1 original, 2 hard copies, and 2 electronic copies)?

The intent is to receive one "original" digital version and two (2) additional copies electronically.

PWS: PWS Item 3.X.6.5 ‐ The Contractor shall operate and maintain Communications Infrastructure, PWS item 3.2.6.5 specifies "Communications Infrastructure" while PWS Items 3.3.6.5 and 3.4.6.5 do not specify "Communications." Is it the government's intent to mean "Communications" infrastructure in these items?

Yes, the government's intent is that the heading for these sections, 3.3.6.5 & 3.4.6.5, should read Communications Infrastructure.

L‐6.B.3(C): RFP states: "The offeror shall provide an approach that achieves the technical requirements of operations and maintenance at the remote sites identifiedin PWS 1.3 with an emphasis on the following…" Does the Government require offerors to address all technical requirements in the PWS, or just the PWS requirements identified in PWS 3.2.6, 3.3.6, 3.4.6 and PWS 3.2.3.19.1 and 3.4.3.19.1?

The government's intent is that the contractor provides an approach that addresses all of the requirements listed in PWS 1.3, as stated, but needs to provide more detail regarding PWS 3.2.6, 3.3.6, 3.4.6, 3.2.3.19.1, and 3.4.3.19.1 which would equate to more "emphasis". This would highlight these areas as Section L is requiring. These areas are important and the government needs to ensure understanding of the contractor's approach which is why there is a need for emphasis.

Section I Section I includes clause FAR 52.219‐28: Section I includes clause FAR 52.219‐28. Per this clause’s paragraph (b)(3), would the Government find the awarded contractor ineligible for performance of option periods after the fifth year, if the contractor revises its status to other than small? If the contractor remains eligible, would they then be required to complete a small business subcontracting plan consistent with FAR 52.219‐9?

Clause 52.219‐28 is inserted by FAR requirement in 19.309 c. Any necessary changes per the FAR requirement are not under the government's control.

Section L: Requests for clarification The solicitation does not provide a deadline to submit questions to The Government. Is there a deadline for The submittal of questions/RFCs?

27 July 17 was the deadline, set by Amendment 0002

What is the distribution of the billeting and meal funds that are collected on site from visitors that are not using man‐days? The government is still researching this question.

Are all materials used for repair functions up to $3K funded by CAP? The government is still researching this question.

Are critical repair spares maintained in warehouse acquired using CAP? The government is still researching this question.

Are the 10 and 3 year paint plan considered in the FFP? The government is still researching this question.

Is it a requirement to maintain a primary and alternate FSO at the site locations? The government is still researching this question.

Are materials to perform bio‐security operations funded by CAP? The government is still researching this question.

Are visitors that are not counted against man‐days and lodging/meals are collected from are counted against man‐day count? If not, what is the historical visitor (e.g. support agreement visitors, non‐support agreement DoD visitors, Third Party Contractors) beyond the normal man‐day count.

The government is still researching this question.

3.4.7.2 (n) Is the funding within the FFP to provide expedite cargo services for all shipper’s incoming/outgoing WIRB cargo/vehicles in Hawaii between FLCPH Pier K11, Downtown Honolulu, Joint Base Pearl Harbor Hickam and Commercial Pier.

The government is still researching this question.

4.3.1 does the government have any intentions to install textile AAS at King salmon? The government is still researching this question.

Does the government intend in keeping the textile AAS at Eareckson? The government is still researching this question.

3.4.6.2 Please confirm that Wake Is has a FMQ‐23 or FMQ‐19? The government is still researching this question.

3.2.3.19.4 Please confirm that in addition to a BAK‐12 AAS at EAS, there is also a textile AAS system? The government is still researching this question.

Attachment 11: CBA has been renegotiated, The IBEW on Eareckson air station has recently completed collective bargaining agreement negotiations. Will the government publish the recently negotiated CBA?

If the SCA WD has been updated on the DOL's website then there is no need for the government to update this as any contractor will have access to the most up to date information and if is regarding a CBA (a contract between a union and a contractor) then that is out of the government's control. Any potential contractor should account for their wages respective of their employees and their intent based upon a full operational capability according to the timelines in the award.

Atachments 5‐13: Vacation accruals, The seniority of the workforce may significantly impact the number of vacation hours accruing to CBA and SCA employees. Will the government publish workforce demographics for the purposes of calculating vacation accruals?

It is not the government's intent to define the demographics necessary to accomplish the contract rather it is the contractor's responsibility to ensure that they hire the people necessary to meet their goals. The government understands that the current workforce may be rehired but the government has no control over that area of responsibility. This is for the contractor to determine and navigate around.

Attachment 5: SCA WD, A more recent wage determination for Wake Island was published on 3/28/17. Will the government incorporate the new WD into the solicitation?

If the SCA WD has been updated on the DOL's website then there is no need for the government to update this as any contractor will have access to the most up to date information and if is regarding a CBA (a contract between a union and a contractor) then that is out of the government's control. Any potential contractor should account for their wages respective of their employees and their intent based upon a full operational capability according to the timelines in the award.

PWS 4.4.6 & 4.6.5: On‐off island travel, The PWS indicates the contractor must reimburse the government for flights on/off island at Eareckson and Wake. What is the current or projected FY19 ticket price?

The government is still researching this question.

PWS 4.4.6 & 4.6.5: On‐off island travel, The price of travel to/from Eareckson Air Station and Wake Island is contracted by the government and therefore difficult for the contractor to predict and impossible to mitigate. Will the government consider establishing a reimbursable CLIN for on/off island transportation? (EAS/Anchorage and Wake/Honolulu)

Current passenger tariff rate FY17 is $1,504 one‐way for EAS//$777 for Wake Island; FY18 tariff rates and beyond will be determined by new contracts currently being awarded by TRANSCOM

PWS 3.1.12.4: Work History, Will the government provide work order history for Direct Scheduled Work? The only data that the government will release toward this effort has already been released.

Please understand that the data released is not all encompassing and should only be used as a reference and not an accurate, to the number, history.

PWS 4.4.6.2 & 4.6.5: Transportation of food, The PWS instructs the contractor to "Provide access to utilized Government TAC ISO O&M materials." Is subsistence (food) considered an O&M material that may be transported on the Government

TAC?

Yes the government TAC pays for food to be transported to the sites. Current utilization of Gov't TAC for subsistence is authorized.

Attachment 18 WBS Roll Up: Cell D24 is labeled "WI Labor" but is linked to the King Salmon labor total. The spreadsheet is locked and the formula cannot be changed. Will the government please provide a revised Attachment 18 with the corrrect cell references?

corrected

Attachment 2 ‐ EAS GFP: Attachment 2 ‐ EAS GFP does not include equipment that is currently being furnished by the Government (i.e. Fire Trucks, Ambulances, R11 Refueled, etc.) Can the government provide a revised Attachment 2 ‐ EAS GFP that includes all GFP?

See comment below. The list will not be provided as the list of Government Furnished Vehicles was removed from this solicitation in the last amendment.

PWS 3.4.3.13.1: Paragraph 3.4.3.13.1 requires the contractor to maintain and repair mooring equipment, ship mooring/fuel transfer bouys, We have not been able to locate a USAF‐provided watercraft in the equipment list to accomplish the functions required by this paragraph. Does the Government have or is the Government intending to provide a watercraft for the contractor use at Wake Island?

The government is still researching this question.

PWS 3.4.3.13.1: Paragraph 3.4.3.13.1 requires the contractor to maintain and repair mooring equipment, ship mooring/fuel transfer bouys, We cannot find a reference for accepting fuel deliveries at Wake Island. Are fuel deliveries accomplished by use of the fuel buoys and using a floating fuel transfer hose, which would also require the use of a watercraft for hose delivery and boom placement?

The government is still researching this question.

PWS 3.4.3.13.1: In sub para H, there is a reference for maintaining the harbor depth at 10 feet at high tide but we did not find a task requiring a dredging operation., Is this a requirement for the contractor to maintain?

The government's intent is that the contractor will abide by the direction of the PWS. The government will not tell the contractor how to accomplish the task but will tell the contractor what the end result shall be and in this case it is to have a 10 ft depth at high tide.

IAW the new instructions provided on the SF 30 document, dated 24 July 2017, Block 14, Item 5, “Notify industry that ALL vehicles will be the responsibility of the awardee (vehicles have been removed from GFP listing for ISS2)

a) Since the contract phase in dates will not start until Oct 2018, purchasing or leasing actions cannot take place until the actual contract period of performance begins.

b) For specialty vehicles such as POL fuels trucks, the availability/delivery of these assets may not be sufficient to meet the barge planning and sailing dates for delivery to EAS and Wake Island. c) Snow Removal Heavy Equipment, for instance Plows, booms, rollovers, etc., normally experience an extremely long lead time for delivery and most likely will not meet the Spring 2019 Barge schedule. According to factory representatives we have spoken with while trying to source this equipment for other contracts, the normal lead time is no less than 6 months at a minimum and if ordered in Oct, would not be available until the summer of 2019, at the earliest.

d) Other heavy vehicles such as Fire Department Apparatus would most likely experience the same delays.Does the government foresee adding another barge to the shipping schedule to handle this additional amount of replacement equipment for the sites?

No additional barge is planned.

Does the government consider a watercraft at Wake Island for servicing the Fuel Bouys to be in the same category as a vehicle and therefore, contractor provided?

The AF does not look at watercraft the same as vehicles.

Does the government plan to update the SOW and remove the References to the OLVIMS System, the Vehicle Technical Orders, vehicle reports and GFP vehicles? The PWS will be updated to remove references to the OLVIMS system, vehicle technical orders, vehicle reports and GFP vehicles or state that this is only required if applicable.

For all the in place spare parts for the existing government fleet and the government fleet itself, does the government plan to retrograde these assets and if so, will shipping actions for this action be included in the FFP portion of the GSL ISS2 or will this action be accomplished at a later date through an IDIQ or O&A action?

Retrograde of Government vehicles and spare parts will not be included in the FFP of

ISS2.

Does the government intend for the contractor to replace the Crash Recovery Cranes at the ISS2 locations since this is not included on the vehicle lists either?

The Government intends for the contractor to have the appropriate equipment on location to meet the requirements as spelled out in the PWS.

SF 30 document, dated 24 July 2017, Block 14, Item 5, “Notify industry that ALL vehicles will be the responsibility of the awardee (vehicles have been removed from GFP listing for ISS2). Since the original solicitation did not include the GFP Vehicles at EAS, only the incumbent contractor on the current contract is aware of the vehicles at EAS that will need to be replaced under the new contract. Please consider providing this original list so all bidders have the same information to use in formulating their bid.

The list will not be provided as the list of Government Furnished Vehicles was removed from this solicitation in the last amendment.

Section J, Attachment 20, FA 5215‐17‐R‐9002, ISS CLIN Expenditures, ISS Operations Status (Recur5ring Maintenance), ISS Emergency Call Out Rpt. Does the ISS CLIN Expenditures Chart include any End of year funds within the totals?

The chart that was put on FBO, as stated on the chart, is merely a snapshot of a current approach and not in any way inclusive of all of the effort on the contract. It was put out for anyone's situational awareness as to some of the effort of work that is accomplished on the current contract. Funds for Over and Above efforts, or any other efforts, are not specified as End of Year funds and therefore the government cannot answer this question.

Please confirm that the current GFV will not be available to incumbent or successor for the follow on contract for any use at all.

The current GFV will not be available to incumbent or successor for the follow‐on contract.

If that is so, above question regarding GFV, will there be an exception to Specialized Vehicles (i.e. R‐12 Refuelers, Fire trucks at WI, EAS Snow removal, aircraft tugs, ambulance, etc.) because of the long lead time and barge time constraints?

No exception to Specialized Vehicles is planned as a 12 month Phase‐In period is sufficient to allow the awardee time to procure, stage, and transport all required vehicles to each location prior to Full Operational Capability at the start of Option Period 1.

OR will the GPV be available for the contracts use if they want in an "as is" condition or is the government going to remove all GFV at the end of the current contract thus requiring the awardee to replace all previous GFV?

The Government is planning to remove all GFV upon current contract completion.

Is the Air Force’s intention that all bidders include the price for all new vehicles needed to meet the PWS requirements? (Is the Air Force’s intention that all bidders include the price for all new vehicles needed to meet the PWS requirements?)

It is not the AF's intent that the awardee utilize "new" vehicles but rather that the awardee is aware that they will be responsible for providing safe and serviceable assets that will accomplish the effort set forth by the PWS, at each location. How the awardee is able to accomplish this is not something the government is mandating but rather stating that the awardee shall provide a vehicle, safe and serviceable.

Are all the vehicles used on the current contract owned or leased by the incumbent contractor? (The Air Force states “The purpose of this amendment is to:” “5. Notify industry that ALL vehicles will be the responsibility of the awardee (vehicles have been removed from GFP listing for ISS2).”)

The "white fleet" (general purpose vehicles) is owned or leased by the incumbent contractor. The specialty vehicles for the current contract were Government furnished.

If the vehicles used on the current contract are owned or leased by the incumbent contractor, will the Air Force consider removing the bidder’s Phase‐In price from the TEP? (The Air Force states “The purpose of this amendment is to:” “5. Notify industry that ALL vehicles will be the responsibility of the awardee (vehicles have been removed from GFP listing for ISS2).”)

Bidder's Phase‐In price will not be removed from the TEP.

We believe there is a typo in the Section_J_ Attachment_18_Work_Breakdown_Structure_Amend_2_July _24_2017 file. In the WI Tab, line 503, the PWS Reference is stated as “3.2.7.7.6 – Respond to servicing requests for organizational tanks”.

We believe the correct PWS Reference should be “3.4.7.7.6 – Respond to servicing requests for organizational tanks”.

Correct, this reference should read 3.4.7.7.6.

Does the government consider a watercraft at Wake Island for servicing the Fuel Bouys to be in the same category as a vehicle and therefore, contractor provided?

The watercraft at Wake Island is not in the same category as vehicles and will be Government Furnished Equipment.

Does the government plan to update the SOW and remove the References to the OLVIMS System, the Vehicle Technical Orders, vehicle reports and GFP vehicles?

The PWS will be updated to remove references to the OLVIMS system, vehicle technical orders, vehicle reports and GFP vehicles.

For all the in place spare parts for the existing government fleet and the government fleet itself, does the government plan to retrograde these assets and if so, will shipping actions for this action be included in the FFP portion of the GSL ISS2 or will this action be accomplished at a later date through an IDIQ or O&A action?

Retrograde of Government vehicles and spare parts will not be included in the FFP of

ISS2.

Does the government intend for the contractor to replace the Crash Recovery Cranes at the ISS2 locations since this is not included on the vehicle lists either?

The Government intends for the contractor to have the appropriate equipment on location to meet the requirements as spelled out in the PWS.

Since the Recurring Maintenance chart may not cover all the maintenance actions, will the Government consider using the workload data included on the monthly CDRLS from the current contract and/or the workload data contained on the Quarterly PMR Reports provided to the government?

The Recurring maintenance chart is in the same situation as the above answered question. This chart was not an all encompassing chart for someone to solely build off of. A contractor will need to examine the buildings, equipment, and any other item that is on site for each of these locations and then determine the level of effort necessary to conduct the Preventative/Scheduled maintenance for each. Refer to the PWS for all questions regarding the effort for Preventative/Scheduled maintenance (see column 1 of 3.1.12.3). For effort towards "unknowns" the contractor will need to reference 3.1.12.4 in the PWS and identify effort based upon the definitions of that section. If there are any other questions or clarifications needed please ask.