Additional_industry_Q As_29_May_2013.pdf

1. Reference: CLINs 0006 and 1005

Discussion: CLINs 0006, 2005, 3005, 4005, 5005, 6005, 7005, and 8005 read, in part “ … this

CLIN will be used for non-recurring services …“ CLIN 1005, reads, in part, “ … this CLIN will be used for services …“

Question: Will the Government remove “non-recurring” from CLIN 1005 description?

Response: The description of CLIN 1005 has been corrected via Amendment 0002.

2. Reference: CLIN 0011

Discussion: CLIN 0011 includes Base Year Mass Severance estimate by contractor and the

Government Pre-priced “Normal Severance” (EUR 1,182,115.07). The Base Year Mass

Severance is part of the Government Evaluated price CLIN and the Normal Severance is not ( ie, Non-Evaluated).

Question: Will the Government consider a separate CLIN/SubCLIN for the Base Year “Normal

Severance?”

Response: No, a separate CLIN/SubCLIN for “Normal Severance” is not considered.

3. Reference: Attachment 7, Sep 2012 Turkish National Employee Listing, Attachment 8, Sep

2012 Spanish National Employee Listing, and Section L-3 C.4. and E.4.

Discussion: Attachments 7 and 8 are in .pdf format. Paragraph L-3 C.4 states, in part, “The electronic copies of the proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft (MS)

Word 2007, MS Excel 2007, MS-PowerPoint 2007, as applicable.” Paragraph L-3 E.4 states, in part, “The offeror shall mark the last columns of both tabs dated Sep 2012 to identify the positions that are up for severance and return a copy as part of their price proposal.

Question: Will the Government accept the Attachments 7 and 8 mark-ups returned in .pdf format with the last column marked, or is the offeror expected to transform the tabs into one of the MS formats?

Response: Clarifying language has been added to Section L via Amendment 0002.

4. Reference: Section I, page 76 of 118, FAR 52.245-2 (APR 2012)

Discussion: (Question is restated from set submitted on 17 April, with typographical error corrected in question.) This clause indicates that the Government will provide all GFP in as “As is, where is” condition and will bear no responsibility for repair or replacement. In the event the equipment is required to be replaced the Contractor would be required to do that on a non-reimbursable basis with the Contractor then having title to the property. In accordance with FAR

45.107 (b) this clause would be used only when the property would be provided for initial provisioning. Considering that this solicitation has cost-plus CLIN for Materials and Equipment it is assumed that replacement property would be considered US Government provided with the

Government retaining title. The question on title was asked during the pre-proposal conference, as follows: Question (9Q) Will the property belong to the contractor or the Government when replaced? Answer: “upon purchase, the equipment will become Government property.”

Question: Considering that the replacement equipment will be Government Property and is not intended to be for the initial provisioning, will the Government remove the FAR clause 52.245-

2?

Response: In reference to former Question and Answer #10 posted on FBO 06 May 2013, as well as former Question and Answer #181 posted to FBO on 15 Mar 2013, the contractor is held liable for Government Furnished Property according to the terms and conditions in the solicitation.

5. Reference: Section H, Special Contracts Requirements, Clause H-3 Initial Adjustment for

Incumbent Turkish/Spanish National Labor Cost.

Discussion: (Question is restated from set submitted on 17 April.) In accordance with the 2009

Collective Bargaining Agreement in Spain, there is a “Longevity” cost for Spanish workers. In accordance with the 2012-2014 Collective Bargaining Agreement in Turkey there are “Step

Increases” for Turkish workers.

Question: Should the contractor incorporate its “Longevity” cost for the Spanish workers and its

“Step Increase” for the Turkish workers in its price, or will this be applied as part of the “Initial

Adjustment?”

Response: In reference to question and answer #14 posted to FBO on 06 May 2013, the purpose and intent of H-3 is to account for potential differences in the Spanish/Turkish national workforce that may occur between proposal submission and the time of award.

The contractor is responsible for submission of the request for adjustment consistent with the terms and conditions in place at time of award.

6. Reference: Section I, page 66 of 118, FAR 52.245-1 (Apr 2012) Alt 1

Discussion: (Question is restated from set submitted on 17 April with error corrected in question.) With the inclusion of Alternate 1 in the basic Property Clause 52.245-1, the Contractor assumes the risk of, and shall be responsible for any loss, theft, damage or destruction of

Government Property. Under this condition the Contractor would have to purchase insurance to cover the risk of loss or self insure.

Question: Taking into consideration that this solicitation is Cost-reimbursement and Fixed-price and in keeping with FAR 45.104 and 45.107, will the Government consider revising this to remove Alternate 1?

Response: See response to question #4 above.

7. Reference: Section J, Attachment 1- PWS, 3.20 Pg 17

Discussion: (Question is restated from set submitted on 17 April.) Referenced paragraph states, in part, “Effectively manage manpower and resources to operate, maintain, inspect, repair, overhaul, install, construct, demolish, and logistically support real property (see AFI 32-9005), infrastructure systems, real property installed equipment (RPIE), Equipment Authorization

Inventory Data/Document (EAID), and Non-Real Property Equipment/System.”

Question: No Real Property Installed Equipment (RPIE) list was provided in the RFP. Will the

Government provide a listing of RPIE in order for contractors to provide pricing for this requirement?

Response: A complete list of real property equipment is not available.

8. Reference: Section J, Attachment 1- PWS, 3.20.1 Work Beyond In-Shop Capability, Pg.18

Discussion: (Question is restated from set submitted on 17 April.) The referenced paragraph states,” The contractor shall review and confirm the quality of work completed meets proper standards for subcontracted work that is outside the contractor's in-house capabilities but within the scope of the contract. Examples of this type of work include, but are not limited to, elevator maintenance, sliding door maintenance, pop up barrier maintenance, crane inspections, hoist inspections, compressor inspections, etc.

No listing of this equipment, especially hoists, elevators, pop-up barriers, and sliding doors, is available in the solicitation to determine which will require host nation certifications conducted by Government Officials.

Question: Please provide a listing of the items with quantity applicable under this requirement.

Workload is needed in order for contractors to price this requirement.

Response: See response to question #7.

9. Reference: Section J, Attachment 1- PWS, 3.29.1, Pg. 26

Discussion: (Question is restated from set submitted on 17 April.) Referenced paragraph is titled, “(Ankara ASF, Izmir, and Incirlik Only).”

Question: Who is responsible for oil/water separator and grease trap maintenance at Moron?

Response: The PWS specifies the locations work associated with this question are required for. No changes have been made as a result of this question.

10. Reference: Section J, Attachment 1- PWS, 6.1.1.1 Paint and Body Shop, Pg. 58 in part, “The Vehicle Management Section is required to provide body work and body repairs to

GOV vehicles …” No workload information about the number of vehicles that will require body and/or paint work at Moron is provided

Question: Will the Government provide an estimated number of vehicles that will require body and/or paint work at Moron?

Question: Does the Government have an approved vendor for the body and paint work that has been inspected and meets standards required by the US Government?

Responses: In reference to the question and answer #62 posted to FBO on 06 May 2013, the

Government has provided all information that is currently available; it is the offeror’s responsibility to propose a solution to meet the contract requirements. No changes are made as a result of this question.

11. Reference: Section J, Attachment 1- PWS, 6.13.2 Freight Traffic Supervisor, Pg. 69, and

PWS, 6.13.4 Passenger/ Personal Property Supervisor, Pg. 70

Discussion: (Question is restated from set submitted on 17 April.) Referenced paragraphs state that these positions require American Nationals (ANs). The previous contract does not seem to specify ANs for the positions in Turkey.

Question: Will the Government confirm that the positions in Turkey must be ANs?

Response: In reference to question and answer # 115 posted to FBO on 15 Mar 2013, the offeror is expected to meet all qualification standards for the mandatory positions in the

PWS.

12. Reference: Section J, Attachment 1 – PWS 3.22 Safe maintenance and repair, Page 21

Discussion: (Question is restated from set submitted on 17 April.) Referenced paragraph requires this service in Turkey and Spain. The previous contract appears to require it only for Turkey.

Question: Will the Government confirm that this PWS requirement will be applicable to Moron?

Response: Safe maintenance and repair must be provided according to the PWS requirements.

13. Reference: Section J, Attachment 1 – PWS 5.1.9.2 Contractor Personnel Meals, Page 46

“The contractor shall be responsible for collecting and transferring applicable food item surcharges to the government on a monthly basis.” Spanish Royal Decree states we must provide employees with lunches at a "reasonable price". Spanish Central Labor Court further clarified

"reasonable price" as "at cost". AFI 34-239 Attachment 9 shows DFAC meals as Discount Rate

(Cost of Food) and Standard Rate (Cost of Food with Surcharge).Question: Does this statement apply to Spanish employees, both the contractor’s and the governments?

Question: Should Spanish employees, rather contractor employed or US Government employed, be charged a surcharge?

Response: In reference to Question and Answer # 111 posted to FBO on 15 Mar 2013, Chapter 5 of the PWS has been revised. It is contractor’s responsibility to transfer applicable food item surcharge to the Government on a monthly basis and to calculate their fixed price accordingly.

14. Reference: Section J, Attachment 1 – PWS 3.26.2 Grounds Maintenance, Page 22

Discussion: (Question is restated from set submitted on 17 April.) The PWS and corresponding

Work Load factors (WLF) state that vacant housing unit grounds will be maintained in accordance to Housing brochure standards. The WLF indicates around 400 units at Incirlik will require Change of occupancy maintenance annually and thus the contractor would have grounds maintenance of these units for 7 to 14 days on average during the course of the year. However, what is not clear based on the PWS & WLF are the treatment of units that are being held vacant by the US Government because they are no longer required for use as housing units at Moron and Incirlik that where noted during the site visit.

Question: Will the Government please clarify what the requirement is in regards to grounds maintenance for the units that are vacant and not being utilized?

Question: Will the Government provide a listing of the vacant housing units by site or an estimated WLF by site that the contractor should use to price this requirement?

Responses: In reference to prior Question and Answer #110 posted to FBO on 15 Mar 2013 and according to PWS, Chapter 3, Grounds maintenance standards shall be maintained to housing brochure standards, regardless of occupancy status.

15. Reference: Section J, Attachment 1 – PWS 3.21.8 Housing Maintenance, Page 20.

in part, ”Perform housing maintenance and repair for MFH and unaccompanied personnel quarters as identified in housing inspections.” The workload factors (at Incirlik) indicate that an estimated 400 units per year require this maintenance. Also in this regard it is not clear if it is to be done via contract who is responsible for the cost of this contract.

Question: Will the housing units be cleaned by the departing occupant or via contract?

Response: Cleaning of housing units is not part of the contract requirements.

16. Reference: Section J, Attachment 1 – PWS 5.3 Bowling Center, Page 49.

Discussion: (Question is restated from set submitted on 17 April.) Referenced paragraph requires the maintenance of a 6-lane bowling alley. At the time of the walk-through visit, at least three of the six machines were inoperable.

Question: Will this facility be fully operational and in good repair at time of contract start?

Response: The incumbent is held responsible to provide maintenance and repair according to the standards in the current contract.

17. Reference: Section J, Attachment 1 – PWS 5.6 Fitness & Sports (Moron) Pg. 51/52

Discussion: (Question is restated from set submitted on 17 April.) Implement AFI 34-266, AF

Fitness and Sports Programs, by managing and maintaining the fitness center in a clean and safe manner.

Question: Is the contractor required to staff as mandated in AFI 34-266 or may best business practices be implemented?

Response: The contractor is required to comply with all PWS requirements.

18. Reference: Section J, Attachment 1 – PWS, Appendix A Workload Estimates, Pg. 32

Discussion: (Question is restated from set submitted on 17 April.) Among the workload depicted for aerospace ground equipment (AGE), periodic preventive maintenance inspections are to be performed on 124 pieces. There is no differentiation between powered and non-powered AGE.

Question: Will the Government provide a listing of the identified 124 pieces of equipment to include equipment specifications and condition codes?

Response: In reference to question and answer #134 posted to FBO on 15 Mar 2013, the appendix A for AGE inspections has been updated. All available data has been added.

19. Reference: Section J, Attachment 1, Chapter 6, Pg 33 and PWS 6.6 , Material Management

Services (Moron) Pg. 61

Discussion: (Question is restated from set submitted on 17 April.) The Workload Load Factors for this PWS requirement appear to be incomplete. At a minimum the number of customers supported should be part of the provided WLF.

Question: Will the Government provide number of customers, as a workload factor for this PWS requirement?

Response: In reference to question and answer #63 posted to FBO on 06 May 2013, the

Government has provided all information that is currently available; it is the offeror’s responsibility to propose a solution to meet the contract requirements. No changes have been made as a result of this question.

20. Reference: Q&A #175 response indicates that all requirements addressed/described in the

PWS need to be complied with by the offerors and need to be considered in the fixed price

O&M calculations.

Discussion: (Question is restated from set submitted on 17 April.) We have identified select items for further clarification:

Medical exams of employees

Engine rebuild

Paint/auto body work in Spain

Elevator maintenance

Sliding glass doors

POP up barriers

Military Family Housing change of occupancy cleaning

Military Family Housing Vacant yard cleaning

Hood and duct cleaning

Air compressor inspections

Equipment calibrations

Mobile crane inspections

Hoist inspections

Steam boilers inspections

Question: Please confirm that all of the above items are to be included in the fixed price O&M calculations.

Response: In reference to Q&A #175 posted to FBO on 15 Mar 2013, all requirements addressed/described in the PWS need to be complied with by the offerors and need to be considered in the Fixed Price O&M CLINs calculation.

21. Reference: Section H, H-8. Adjustment for Fluctuations in Workload Estimates

Discussion: Referenced paragraph states that such a request can be made only annually and then only if the adjustment will increase contract value by more than 100K EUROS.

Question: If such a condition is discovered during the Phase-In of the new contract, will the

Government allow a request for fluctuation to be submitted to rectify any workload factor differentials during the Phase-In period (prior to contract start) assuming all the criteria of the clause is meet?

Response: In reference to question and answer #5 posted to FBO on 6 May 2013, the

Government’s intent is accurately stated in the clause language. Requests from the contractor should not be more frequently than annually based on actual workload performed. No changes are made to this clause.

22. Reference a: Section L; F. Part III Past Performance Information; Paragraph 4; “Past

Performance regarding key personnel (Program Manager, Alternate Program Manager, and/or

Site Manager) have relevant experience, …..shall be considered in the past performance evaluation for the principal offeror, as applicable. “

Reference b: Section M; Paragraph E, “....Past Performance regarding key personnel, who have relevant experience, ….shall be considered in the past performance evaluation for the principal offeror”….

Discussion: In contracts such as this, Industry has been known to submit resume’s of candidates that they do not currently employ nor have any guarantee of employment to execute future work.

Previous questions have asked about the allowability of using key personnel in Past

Performance and the Government has answered that with reference to the Section L and M criteria.

Questions:

a) If a key personnel resume is used in Past Performance, will the Government consider that resume as providing relevant past performance if that person is not currently employed by the principal offeror? It is our recommendation that those personnel not be considered in any fashion as there is no guarantee of their availability and no link between them and the offeror.

b) If the Government will consider resumes of non-employees, then will they weight them less than current employees and projects that show the principal offerors capability to perform?

c) Will projects performed by the principal offeror be weighted more heavily in terms of relevance and confidence then key personnel?

Response: Reference is made to question & answer #20 posted to FBO on 15 Mar 2013.

Past Performance Evaluation shall be performed in accordance with the evaluation criteria in the RFP. The Government shall consider past performance of key personnel, who have relevant experience, in the past performance evaluation as applicable.