CE_ _Cadet_Support_RFP_Questions_10_March_2014.pdf

10 March 2014 FA7000-14-R-0004

CE & Cadet Support Services Questions

Reference Comments Question/Answer 1 Attachment 19, Cadet Support Only Bid Excel

Spreadsheet, Base Year Tab CLINs are listed as 0019 through 0023. Per the SF 1449

Continuation Sheet, these should be 0020 through 0024.

Would the Government please issue a corrected Attachment 19?

Response: Attachment 19 has been corrected and posted to FBO on 7 March 2014.

2 Attachment 20, Combined Proposal Bid Excel Spreadsheet, Base Year Tab

Cell F10 is linked to Attachment 18, Civil Engineer Only Bid Excel Spreadsheet. It should be linked to cell E8 on the Coefficient Tab of Attachment 20, Combined Proposal Bid Excel Spreadsheet. Would the Government please issue a corrected Attachment 20?

Response: Assuming the intention was for Cell F12 and not cell F10. F12 has been corrected and uploaded to FBO on 7 March 2014.

3 RFP During a recent audit, DOL took exception to the “32 hour”rule contained in DFAR Clause 222.402-70. Please provide the Air Force policy/procedure associated with the applicability of DFAR Clause 222.401-70 in support of Air Force requirements on this procurement?

Response: Installation Support Contracts normally require both the Service Contract Act and Davis-Bacon Act because they usually include requirements for substantial and segregable amounts of construction, alteration, renovation, painting, or repair work as well as maintenance and other services work (DFARS 222.402-70 .

This guidance requires SCA and DBA on many Operation & Maintenance and Base Operations Support contracts, as well as on contracts for Military Family Housing Maintenance and Civil Engineering Services. SCA is applied to contract work involving services such as custodial work, maintenance, pest control, etc. DBA is applied to construction requirements such as roof shingling, hardwood floor refinishing, building structural repair, paving repair, etc. DFARS guidance instructs the use of "a less than 32 work-hours (SCA)" vs. "32 or more work-hours (DBA)" work hours test (200 or more SF for painting) only when it is unclear whether the work is SCA-type maintenance or DBA repair.

4 3.5.5 Cross Reference Matrix (Attachment 13).

As part of offeror’s proposals, a separate cross-reference matrix may be submitted with Volume I – Technical.

It is unclear whether this matrix is required or only suggested.

Is this matrix required?

Response: The matrix is not required, it is a tool to assist the offeror in the proposal prepartion process.

5 RFP 3.6.1 Contents In addition to providing a volume for past performance, offerors must use the PPI Tool (Attachment 19) in order to electronically submit the PPI portion of the Past Performance Volume in accordance with the

RFP.

In response to question #47 on the Questions/Responses dated March 3rd 2014, the Government stated that the 5 page limitation for the Past Performance Information Sheets does not apply to the past performance information entered into the PPI Tool.

Please clarify. Does the Government require that the info entered into the PPI Tool should be identical to the info provided on each Attachment 15?

Response: Information in the PPI tool should match that of Volume II (Past Performance).

6 Answers to Questions provided by the Government on 3/4/14.

Does the government clarification in their response to question # 54 regarding position descriptions apply to the requirement in the RFP para 3.5.6.2.1 for position description for the event scenario?

Response: The government does not need position descriptions for job titles already listed in wage determinations or the CBA being proposed in performance of the contract. The purpose of requesting position descriptions is to gain understanding of skills required for job titles which are unique to the offeror or members of their team. Again, only those titles which are not already in the WD or CBA need be addressed.

7 Q&Rs dated 3 March 2014. In responses to questions the Government refers to folders in the TECH_LIBRARY_DOCUMENTS_3MAR_2014 zip file.

The folders referenced in the responses are not part of the zip file, please provide.

Response: Documents in the zip file labeled TECH_LIBRARY_DOCUMENTS_3MAR_2014 were documents that were not in the technical library during the site visit. Those documents that were in the technical library during the site visit will not be posted to FBO.

The technical library will be opened from 12-13 March

2014. See FBO posting posted on 7 March 2014 for details.

8 Paragraphs 4.1.2.2, Subfactor 2: Quality Control Plan (Cadet Support Services) and 4.1.1.2 Subfactor 2: Requirements Planning and Execution. A: Quality Control Plan (Civil Engineering):

Amendment 1 deleted the first bullet in Paragraph 4.1.2.2, Cadet Support Services. When Amendment 2 was issued, it was noticed on the Change Summary document that the first bullet was also missing in Paragraph

4.1.1.2 A: Quality Control, Civil

Engineering. We can find no mention in Amendment 1 or 2 that deletes that evaluation factor for Civil Engineering.

Is it the Government's intent that the evaluation factoring Paragraph 4.1.1.2 regarding the approach for compliance with the time constraints associated with service calls and preventative maintenance (PM) scheduled work also be deleted for Civil Engineering?

Response: The first bullet should not have been deleted from the CE evaluation factor for Quality Control. This bullet will be added back into section 52.212-2 and an amendment will be posted to FBO.

9 Attachment 20, Combined Proposal Bid Excel Spreadsheet, Option Year 1 Tab

Cells E23 and E24 are read only, which prevents Offerors from inserting their proposed Unit Prices for CLINs 1019 and 1020. Would the Government please issue a corrected Attachment 20 with these cells unlocked?

Response: Attachment 20 has been revised and was uploaded to FBO on 7 March 2014.

10 Davis Bacon Act Will the government provide the FAR clause that defines and is applicable to Davis Bacon work for this contract?

What is the Air Forces interpretation of the application of said clause?

Response: FAR clasue 52.222-6 will be incoporated into the RFP and an amendment will be posted to FBO.

11 3.1.6.7 Past Performance Questionnaires Will the Government accept Award Fee letters in place of CPAR data? If so, will PPQs still be required?

Response: Award Fee letter will not be accepted in place of CPAR data and the PPQs are required.

12 RFP Section 3.6.1.3 Recency is defined as "performance or performed during the past 3 years".

Since this is a small business set-aside contract, will the Government change the definition of Recency to "performance or performed during the past 5 years"?

Response: The definition for recency will not be changed.

To further clarify, “performed during the past three years” is work that has been completed within the past 3 years.