Comment_Matrix_28_Feb_19.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 21 KB Posted
- Attached to
- AFICA/AFGSC Technical Order Library and Maintenance Data Support (TOLMDS) (formerly FA6800-18-R-0002)
- Solicitation number
- FA6800-19-R-A001
About this file
Comment Matrix 28 Feb 19
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Comment_Matrix_07_March_19.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| FA6800-19-R-A001-0004_07_March_19.pdf | ||
| FA6800-19-R-A001-0003_28_Feb_19.pdf | ||
| Comment_Matrix_25_Feb_19.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| FA6800-19-R-A001-0002_25_Feb_19.pdf | ||
| Comment_Matrix_13Feb19.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| FA6800-19-R-A001-0001_13Feb19.pdf | ||
| A001_CDRL.PDF | ||
| Attachment_3_-_FTE_Resume_Certfication.docx | DOCX document | |
| A004_CDRL.PDF | ||
| Attachment_2_-_TOLMDS_DD_254_-_Solicitation.pdf | ||
| WD_2015-5405_FE_Warren_AFB.pdf | ||
| Attachment_1_-_TOLMDS_PWS.pdf | ||
| A011_CDRL.PDF | ||
| A002_CDRL.PDF | ||
| FA6800-19-R-A001--TOLMDS.pdf | ||
| A012_CDRL.PDF | ||
| A003_CDRL.PDF | ||
| WD_2015-5647_Vandenberg_AFB._pdf.pdf | ||
| A007_CDRL.PDF | ||
| A010_CDRL.PDF | ||
| WD_2015-5383_Minot_AFB.pdf | ||
| A006_CDRL.PDF | ||
| A013_CDRL.PDF | ||
| A005_CDRL.PDF | ||
| WD_2015-5391_Malmstrom_AFB.pdf | ||
| A008_CDRL.PDF | ||
| A009_CDRL.PDF |
Show all 28
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
USG Answers to Questions Type of Question/Comment Solicitation Volume Name of Document Page Paragraph Number, or
| Section of Document | Industry Comment/Question | Government Response | ||||
| Request for Clarification | Other | N/A | N/A | We are unable to locate the deadline and format to submit questions regarding the active solicitation. Can you advise? | A comment matrix has been uploaded for your use in submitting questions. This matrix includes questions the USG has received to date. The USG requests that critical comments be provided within 5 working days so that we have time to amend the solicitation, if necessary. (Ref: Amendment 1) | |
| Request for Clarification | Attachments | N/A | N/A | Can you confirm that there is no Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) in place for the existing AFICA/AFGSC Technical Order Library and Maintenance Data Support (TOLMDS) contract? | CBAs were omitted by mistake. They have been incorporated into the solicitation as Attachment 6. Please note that there are two CBAs, one of which has three addendums. Attachment 6 is uploaded as ONE portfolio document. You can access the individual documents using the right-hand sidebar. You must open the document to access this feature. (Amendment 1) | |
| Request for Clarification | Solicitation | Solicitation | Page 72/74 | |||
| Paragraph Number 4.3.8 | TOLMDS, Section 4.3.8. states “Past Performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractor that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirements will be considered as past performance information for each offeror.” Question: Does the term “key personnel” refer to a) candidates being proposed to work on this particular effort, or does it refer to b) key staff within the bidder’s organization? | “Key personnel” refers to candidates (i.e., program managers, etc.) that will be working on the effort. You may also provide information on key staff within your organization if that information is relevant. | ||||
| Other | Section L | RFP 52.212-1, Instrs., Conds., and Notices to Offerors | Volume 1, Technical Requirements, Subfactor B, Staffing Plan | RFP stipulates "Ensure that all certification, resumes and/or training verification for each employee is included with the Technical Proposal." Section M stipulates "…provide one resume per FTE". The requirement to provide a resume for each FTE violates the Competion in Contracting Act. Will you remove these requirments? | Attachment 3 has been omitted. | |
| Other | Section L | 52.212-1, RFP, Instrs., Conds., and Notices to Offerors | Volume 2, Past Performance, Vol 3, paragraph 8.3 | As noted above, the RPF requires submission of a resume for each FTE. The RFP also requires that the awardee offer a job to each current FTE. See FAR 52.222-17. Why are you requiring resumes when you are also requiring that we hire the incumbent's employees? This contractor held this contract for more than 9 years and it is our understanding that the majority of our former employees are still working on this contract. The requirement to provide resumes is unnecessary and eliminates competition. Will you remove the requirement to provide resumes? | Attachment 3 has been omitted. | |
| Other | Section L | 52.212-1, RFP, Instrs., Conds., and Notices to Offerors | Volume 2, Past Performance, Vol 3, paragraph 8.3 | Past Performance Recency is defined as "...active contract performance (minimum of six (6) months) during the three (3) years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation." The recency requirement is unreasonably short at it excludes many service providers who have performed like services in the past. There is no reasonable rationale for the unusually narrow recency requirement as the work performed on this contract is not highly complex and has not become more technically challenging in the more than 2 decades that this work has been contracted. Respectfully request the recency criteria be expanded to the common standard of 5 years as this requirement ensures an unlevel playing field and potentially violates the Competition in Contracting Act. | The recency requirement has been modified to 5 years. | |
| Other | Section L | 52.212-1, RFP, Instrs., Conds., and Notices to Offerors | Volume 2, Past Performance, Vol 3, paragraph 8.3 | As noted above, the three (3) year recency requirement effectively eliminates competition. Under the current RFP language, this contractor is effectively eliminated from the competition. Will you expand the recency requirment to at least include the prior incumbent? | Similar work awarded by other contracts and/or other government agencies may be submitted as Past Performance. The recency requirement has been modified to 5 years. | |
| Request for Clarification | Other | Amendment 01, dated 02/13/2019 | Page 2 of 11, Summary of Changes, Clarification 1. | Are contract locations currently staffed so as to maintain contract Acceptable Quality Levels? | IAW Amendment 1, the offeror may propose the labor mix and hours it deems necessary to accomplish the mission requirements. | |
| Possible Error or Omission | Section L | Solicitation | Pages 64, 71 | With the inclusion of 52.222-17 (Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers) and the union workforce already in place, the successful offerer will be required to offer jobs to the current staff. However, the requirement in the Subfactor B: Staffing Plan requires resumes for each employee is included with the Technical Proposal, along with their consent for the offeror to use their resumes by providing one signed FTE Resume Certification Form (Attachment | ||
| 3) per FTE. Since only the incumbent contractor is able to have current employees in place, competitors are unable to provide candidates that will actually perform the work and be offered employment. We strongly urge the Government to remove this requirement to allow adequate competition. Initial attempts to contact current employees have been rejected due to employment restrictions from their employer, so we are unable to get resumes/completed Attachment 3s for existing staff that we will need to offer employment options after award. | Attachment 3 has been omitted. | |||||
| Possible Error or Omission | Attachments | Attachment 4 - Complete CBA Package_13 Feb 19 | CBA-2018-11166 (with addendums)_13 Feb 19 | The CBA Package provides the CBA Addendums for Malmstrom, Vandenberg and Minot AFBs but does not include the CBA Agreement between the incumbent contractor and LiUNA. Please provide the agreement. | The CBA has been uploaded. | |
| Possible Error or Omission | Attachments | Attachment 4 - Complete CBA Package_13 Feb 19 | CBA-2018-11163 IBEW-FEW | The CBA between the incumbent contractor and IBEW expired on 31 Dec 18. Is there a current agreement that has been negotiated between the contractor and IBEW? Any new terms negotiated are essential to proper pricing and contract execution. | In accordance with FA6800-19-R-A001-0001 (Amendment 1), Summary of Changes, these are the most current CBAs we have been provided; we have not received CBAs for 2019. | |
| Request for Clarification | PWS | N/A | PWS 1.4.1.1 and CBAs | The PWS paragraph 1.4.1 requires that we designate an on-site person who has “full authority to act for the contractor” within 10 days of contract award. The individual CBAs preclude Union personnel from providing task leadership, site management, and supervisory activities. Therefore, the on-site contractor who is acting for the company cannot be a union member. Does the Government require us to identify the non-union position at each site in our proposal? | Yes. This position would be considered a "key personnel." |
File details come from the government source that posted it.