VB_MR_RFP_Questions_and_Answers.pdf

RFP FA8003-18-R-0001

Questions & Answers

Vehicle Barriers Maintenance and Repair (VB M&R) Services Request for Proposal (RFP) FA8003-18-R-0001

Questions & Answers (Q&As)

Technical Q&As

1. Is that two hours response time for a service call response? Is the after-hours service call to go to our service number and during business hours to the direct line?

Answer: Yes, the service call response time is two (2) hours per Performance Work Statement (PWS) Sections 1.3.1.4 and 8.1.1. Regarding the second question, the Contractor may elect to have different telephone numbers for business hours and after duty hours, as long as the appropriate Lead Technician responds to the designated base point-of-contact (POC) within two (2) hours of the initial notification made by the Contracting Officer (CO) or Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) per the aforementioned PWS Sections.

2. How is parts cost determined? Are they invoiced? What if the aggregate cost is more than the $50 limit?

Answer: See PWS Section 1.3.1.7 for explanation of the minor repair parts threshold for Preventive Maintenance, PWS Sections 8.1.2 and 8.1.3 for explanation of the minor repair parts threshold for Service Calls, and PWS Appendix A for a definition of “minor repair/parts threshold.” Note: Refer to the updated PWS dated 25 September 2018 per RFP Amendment 0002. Per PWS Appendix A, the minor repair parts threshold will be based on the unit price of the parts/materials per the invoice/receipt (i.e. use the invoice cost before markup). When the invoiced cost of parts exceeds the aggregate threshold (see example in PWS Section 1.3.1.7), the Contractor shall submit a Service Order to the CO for evaluation and approval for the remaining parts and materials cost under the Additional In-Scope Work contract line item number (CLIN).

3. The scope for the work regarding corrosion control is very detailed. What is going to be the requirements at the task level two for corrosion control? Will sandblasting be required at this level, as it increases cost by a lot. Is it the same outlined in the PWS at the IDIQ level?

Answer: The requirements for corrosion control at the Task Order level are stipulated in PWS Section 1.3.1.6 paragraph 1, specifically “The Contractor shall clean (pressure wash), remove corrosion, and apply primer and topcoat compatible with the barrier surface in compliance with industry and safety standards” and “Barrier systems, both active and passive, shall be maintained and protected from corrosion with high adhesion paint such as Grip-Tite® paint or an equivalent adhesive paint.” Regarding sandblasting at the Task Order level, per PWS Section 1.3.1.6 paragraph 3, “If the vehicle barriers require sandblasting of non-galvanized surfaces in lieu of pressure washing, the Contractor shall submit a Service Order (SO) under the Additional In-Scope Work contract line item number (CLIN X004) for

CO evaluation and approval (see PWS Section 8.2).” The base CO may also request sandblasting as a Service Order at any time during the life of the Task Order under CLIN X004 (Additional In-Scope Work).

4. What if a particular base only has one lane for in and out that needs PM or repair? Will this be a separate task order charge, as it will effect cost for that barrier with additional personnel.

Answer: The requirements at the base Task Order level will include specifics for the work involved such as schedule or duty hour information, planned closures or base-related restriction periods, non-peak hours and working days, etc. This information will be provided to the Offerors prior to receipt of proposals so pricing can be reflective of the specific requirements of that base. Bases will be reminded of these items to include in their Task Order Proposal Requests (TOPRs) via the Ordering Guide that will be provided to the bases for use of this MAC IDIQ.

5. Are contractors responsible to modify or upgrade control sequence standards?

Answer: Yes, Contractors are responsible for modifying and/or updating the controls IAW DoD criteria and manufacturer’s standards, per PWS Section 1.2 paragraph 3, Appendix C, and Appendix E #21. Some barrier systems will be modifiable and some will not be modifiable without component replacement. Any material, part, or component that exceeds the aggregate minor repair threshold will be addressed using the Service Order procedure.

6. What is the goal as to when the Government wants to see all 66 bases on this contract?

Answer: See the Pre-Performance Conference Briefing, slide 10, regarding the Air Force’s goals with the Vehicle Barriers Maintenance and Repair enterprise sourcing initiative (e.g.

ensure compliance with Air Force Instruction 32-1001, increase lifespan of vehicle barriers across the Air Force, etc.). Per the Government’s last data call of the 66 bases that will be under the mandatory use policy (to be issued after award of the contract by the Air Force Civil Engineer Center), the Government expects most of the 66 bases to be on contract by the second year. Note: This estimate is highly dependent on the contract award date in relation to the annual budget submission.

7. Can you elaborate on the mission essential statement within the RFP? How does this effect the work?

Answer: Please note that the requirement for a Mission-Essential Contractor Services Plan is now a required proposal item under Volume I – Contract Information, instead of Volume II – Technical (see RFP Amendment 0002). Per the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Section 5.2.7 (via RFP Amendment 0002), DFARS Provision 252.237-7024 requires that Offerors provide with their offer a written plan describing how they will continue to perform essential Contractor services (as described in RFP Attachment 7) during periods of crisis (i.e. all services required under this contract). Per DFARS Provision 252.237-7024 paragraph (b)(2)(i), the intent is to ensure that the Contractor plans for any challenges associated with performing and maintaining essential services during an extended event, such as a “pandemic that occurs in repeated waves” or a natural or manmade crisis or emergency such as a fire, flood, or terrorist activity. During such an event, the Contractor would still be responsible for performing the required quarterly maintenance and other contract requirements. The Contractor’s plan shall address how they would provide the required services during times of crisis (see the Mission-Essential Contractor Services Plan Template at RFP Attachment 6).

8. If an AFB location is not currently compliant with the references listed in the PWS, Appendix C & this site request a PM contract at the Task Order Level, will there be an Automated Vehicle Barrier System evaluation performed by the Government prior the first scheduled quarterly maintenance?

Will the contractor need to anticipate performing an AVB system evaluation during our first scheduled quarterly maintenance trip?

Answer: No, the Government will not perform or provide an evaluation of the barrier condition prior to issuing a Task Order. Per the Ordering Guide that will be provided to the bases for use of this multiple award contract indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (referred to as a MAC IDIQ), the bases will provide site visit information within the TOPR if a site visit will be held prior to the proposal due date to allow Contractors to visit the site and evaluate the condition of the barrier systems before submitting their proposal. Contractor attendance at a Task Order site visit will be optional. If a site visit is not held, the Contractor should anticipate performing the vehicle barrier system evaluation during the first scheduled quarterly preventive maintenance trip. In either scenario, per PWS Section 7.1.1, the Contractor shall record the vehicle barrier condition in the first quarterly report and update the condition evaluation in each subsequent quarterly report.

9. 3.2 of the PWS requires the Lead Technician “shall be trained on the specific barrier(s) at the military base and have no less than three (3) years minimum of experience inspecting and maintaining barriers, barrier control systems, and military safety barrier control systems. The Lead Technician’s experience in barrier control systems and safety control systems must include documented experience in troubleshooting, modification, maintenance, and repair of barrier and traffic control systems. The Contractor is required to submit to the CO/COR a list of employees certifying proof of qualifications within five (5) calendar days prior to contract performance. A Lead Technician possessing the required qualifications shall oversee all the work including the work of Barrier Technicians on the site. The Lead Technician must be present when work is being performed for PM, Routine and Emergency Service Calls, and Additional In-Scope Work.

Section 8.1 of the PWS requires the lead technician to answer all emergency calls within 2 hours and be personally onsite within 6 hours for an emergency service call. As the Service Contract Act requires employees to be afforded vacation time and, furthermore, it is not reasonable to assume that any employee can be on call 24/7 365 days per year, these requirements together effectively necessitate the Contractor have at least two lead technicians assigned to each site and physically located so as to allow them to travel safely to the site within 6 hours of an emergency service call.

As personnel with the qualifications required for Lead Technician are scarce, would the government consider allowing either a lead technician or a barrier technician to answer routine and/or emergency service calls?

Answer: The contract requirements for the Lead Technician’s responsibility as stated in PWS Section 3.2 will not change. As such, the Government understands if Contractors need to have more than one Lead Technician on staff and/or need to collaborate with other companies to meet the PWS requirements.

10. The PWS and RFP in general is silent on materials required for routine maintenance that are not considered “repairs.” For example, some hydraulic operable vehicle barriers require oil filters or hydraulic fluid itself to be changed periodically as a preventative measure and not due to barrier malfunction or in-operation. Futurenet GRAB barriers maintenance requires shear pins and cotter pins to be replaced once annually, even if not causing in-operation or malfunction.

Will these types of scheduled parts replacements be considered “minor repairs” for the purposes of this contract and, if not, how will they be accounted for in pricing?

Answer: No. Per PWS Section 1.3.1.7 paragraph 2, “Minor repair parts do not include items identified and required for the quarterly or annual maintenance function identified in the PM O&M Plan (see PWS Appendix E).” However, per PWS Section 1.2 paragraph 1, “The Contractor shall provide all personnel, labor, equipment, supplies, tools, materials, supervision, travel, periodic inspection, minor repair, and other items and services necessary to provide maintenance for Air Force (AF) vehicle barrier systems.” Therefore, when the manufacturer requires replacement of certain parts/materials (e.g. hydraulic oil, filters, shear pins, etc.) as part of their service manual, those items are not considered minor repair parts but are items that should be included under preventive maintenance. All miscellaneous consumable parts that are required to complete preventive maintenance should be built into the sample Task Order’s pricing within the Pricing Matrix under the Other Direct Cost area of CLIN X001 (Preventive Maintenance). Offerors are encouraged to consolidate these parts and their costs under the title “Miscellaneous Material Required for PM” which has been pre-populated in worksheets “4-9. Sample TO” of the Pricing Matrix.

11. In discussing some concerns with other potential prime contractors, one of which is that we are all small businesses and most of us will have difficulties being able to fulfill the solicitation requirements for all 66 Mandatory Use Locations and the 86 potential Non-Mandatory Use locations (Specifically being able to provide a Lead Technician on the ground within 6 hours of every potential location).

Would the government consider dividing the lower 48 into 4-6 regions (similar to the Draft RFP Map) with similar requirements of bidding 80% of the Task Order level in those 2-3 designated regions?

Answer: No. This was considered during development of the RFP. During the market intelligence and acquisition planning phases of the acquisition, the Government asked this question of prospective Contractors via four Requests for Information (RFIs), the Industry Day event in January 2017, and the Draft RFP in September 2017 and the majority of small business respondents stated that they could meet the requirement for a nationwide contract without regions, so the Government proceeded based on this confirmation. Based on these responses and the market research conducted, the Government determined a nationwide approach is preferred to a regional approach in order to maximize competition in all areas of coverage, and not only those most desired areas. IAW the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Section 5.2.6, Offerors are encouraged to consider teaming/joint venture agreements in order to meet all requirements under this contract.

12. The management plan requires the Prime contractor to obtain a lot of detail about a subcontractor in the RFP. We will not know this level of detail or who they will be until the task order details come out.

Answer: Per the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Section 5.3.2.1, “Work actually performed or subcontractors actually used during performance of the contract may differ without permission from the Government as long as the Offeror is in compliance with FAR 52.219- 14.” Further, instructions also state that “At the time of Task Order award but before work commences, all required certifications or other technical requirements for the Contractor or subcontractors must be met.” The Government understands that during the course of this five-year contract, subcontractors and personnel will change over time and as each Prime Contractor is awarded work in different areas of the country. Per the requirements of Technical Subfactor 3 (see the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Section 5.3.4), it is important to the Government for the Prime Contractor to demonstrate in their proposal for the MAC IDIQ that they have criteria for determining acceptability of subcontractors, followed their own pre-qualification process for subcontractors they plan to use for work on this contract (as of today), and that they have a plan for managing subcontractor performance. The Management Plan does not need to include information for all subcontractors eventually used over the life of the contract.

13. Proposal Instructions 5.3.3.3: How many Lead Technicians and how many Barrier Technicians must the offeror present qualifications for? Can any of these be subcontractor personnel?

Answer: Per the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Section 5.3.3.3 within the RFP, there is not a specific number of Lead Technicians or Barrier Technicians that the Offeror must provide details on. Regarding whether these employees can be subcontractor personnel, the Offeror should keep in mind FAR Clause 52.219-14 which is part of the list of clauses within the RFP and is also referenced in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Section 5.3.2.1 regarding the limitations on subcontracting (at least 50% of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel shall be expended for employees of the concern). As long as the contract requirements are met, the Contractor has the flexibility to manage their workforce as they wish, keeping the limitations of FAR 52.219-14 in mind.

14. Proposal Instructions 5.3.2.1: Please clarify the self-performance requirements.

Answer: The self-performance requirements are based on the requirements of FAR Clause 52.219-14, included in the RFP’s list of clauses, which state that “By submission of an offer and execution of a contract, the Offeror/Contractor agrees that in performance of the contract in the case of a contract for services (except construction), at least 50 percent of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel shall be expended for employees of the concern.” During contract performance, the Government will monitor the Contractor’s self-performance via the Self-Performance Report under CDRL A003 (Status Reports – MAC IDIQ). CDRL A003 has been updated (per RFP Amendment 0002) to reflect that the Task Order Participation Report and Self-Performance Report are now due quarterly (versus annually) at the MAC IDIQ level, and the corresponding change has been made to PWS Section 5.4 (see the revised PWS dated 25 Sep 2018). The performance requirements under FAR 52.219-14 and CDRL A003 are separate from the performance requirements for the evaluation under the Management Plan (within the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Section 5.3.2.1) and the Preventive Maintenance Plan (within the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Section 5.3.3.1). Per the Management Plan, “The Offeror must indicate a minimum of six (6) bases where they will self-perform the work (PM, Emergency Service Call, and Routine Service Call), which is for evaluation purposes only” which does not commit the Offeror to self-performing at these six (6) locations, but is meant to show the Government that the Offeror could handle self-performance at at least six (6) locations. Per the Preventive Maintenance Plan, “The Offeror’s Plan must address the elements below for work that the Offeror identified in RFP Attachment 2: Management Plan as being self-performed (minimum of six (6) bases), particularly how it will self-perform PM and repair at those bases throughout a 12-month period” which is only meant to show the Government that the Offeror has a plan in place to self-perform the required work at the bases where they plan to self-perform the work. The Offeror has to propose 100% self-performance for at least six (6) bases within the Management Plan (RFP Attachment 2). The requirement to identify at least one subcontractor within the Management Plan is an overall requirement, meaning at least one of the bases represented on the Management Plan must indicate the name of the subcontractor that the Offeror will potentially subcontract work at that location to.

15. Proposal Instructions 5.3.2.2.1: Are there specific roles (key personnel) that the offeror is to present qualifications for?

Answer: Per the Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 Section 3.2.2.1.2.1 within the RFP, key personnel for the Qualifications and Administration Plan refers to those “as described in PWS Sections 3.2 and 3.3,” i.e. Lead Technician and Barrier Technician.

16. Proposal Instructions 5.3.3: Is the self-performance plan to be developed under the assumption that the offeror is awarded all 66 of the mandatory sites or just a reasonable share of those sites assuming that the other 7 MAC contract holders will win a share of them? As a small business, it may not be practical to perform on all 66 sites.

Answer: The Self-Performance Plan under Technical Subfactor 2, specifically the Preventive Maintenance Plan under the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Section 5.3.3.1, is meant to describe the Offeror’s “plan for providing all personnel, labor, equipment, supplies, tools, materials, supervision, and reporting for conduct of PM, periodic inspection, and repair for

VB systems at each of the bases where the Offeror indicated they will self-perform under their Management Plan.” Whether this is 10 bases or 66 bases, the Self-Performance Plan should address the Offeror’s plan for handling the self-performance workload at those locations. See the response to Question #14 above for additional information, specifically regarding the requirements under FAR 52.219-14 that the Contractor is responsible for meeting during performance of the contract.

17. Proposal Instructions 5.3.3.4.3: Is a system specific description solicited for this item? Service requirements to maintain proper barrier functionality vary somewhat significantly depending on the system being maintained and the location of that system.

Answer: The Government has removed the Quality Control Plan as a deliverable/item under Technical Subfactor 2 within the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Section 5.3.3.4 and corresponding evaluation criteria under the Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 Section 3.2.2.2.4, since the Quality Control Plan is already a requirement at the MAC IDIQ level after award per PWS Section 6.2 (Note: The requirement for a Quality Control Plan within the PWS at RFP Attachment 1 remains unchanged). The removal of the Quality Control Plan under Technical Subfactor 2 is reflected in the updated versions of the Addenda to FAR 52.212-1 and -2 within the RFP, issued under RFP Amendment 0002.

18. Proposal Instructions 5.3.3.5.1.3: Please confirm that this emergency response requirement is to be met by the offeror’s direct labor employees for this plan, and that this item applies only for the 6 sites and not every single one of the 66 mandatory sites.

Answer: Per the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Section 5.3.3.5.1.3 within the RFP (which is now Section 5.3.3.4.1.3 based on RFP Amendment 0002), the response should “Describe the sources…required to simultaneously respond to each base where the Offeror is self-performing the emergency service call when given notification of an emergency service call in the same hour.” The definition of “self-perform” within the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Section 5.3.2.1 is “work under the scope of this effort conducted by the Offeror’s own labor force (employees on the Offeror’s payroll).” Per the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Section

5.3.3.5 (which is now Section 5.3.3.4 based on RFP Amendment 0002), the Offeror’s Emergency Service Calls Plan must address the elements for work the Offeror identified in RFP Attachment 2: Management Plan as being self-performed. The requirement under Section 5.3.3.4.1.3 would therefore apply to however many bases the Offeror stated they would self-perform under their Management Plan (RFP Attachment 2), which must be a minimum of six (6) bases per the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Section 5.3.2.1.

19. Proposal Instructions 5.3.3.6.1.3: Please confirm that we are to demonstrate how the offeror’s direct labor must meet a simultaneous routine repair call at every one of the 66 mandatory sites.

Answer: Per the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Section 5.3.3.6.1.3 within the RFP (which is now Section 5.3.3.5.1.3 based on RFP Amendment 0002), the response should “Describe the sources…required to simultaneously respond to each base where the Offeror is self-performing the routine service call when given notification of an routine service call in the same hour.” The definition of “self-perform” within the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Section

5.3.2.1 is “work under the scope of this effort conducted by the Offeror’s own labor force (employees on the Offeror’s payroll).” Per the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Section 5.3.3.6 (which is now Section 5.3.3.5 based on RFP Amendment 0002), the Offeror’s Routine Service Calls Plan must address the elements for work the Offeror identified in RFP Attachment 2: Management Plan as being self-performed. The requirement under Section

5.3.3.5.1.3 would therefore apply to however many bases the Offeror stated they would self-perform under their Management Plan (RFP Attachment 2), which must be a minimum of six

(6) bases per the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Section 5.3.2.1.

20. Proposal Instructions 5.3.3.7: Since the additional in-scope work is undefined, how are we to present a schedule for this work on an annual basis? And again, is this for 6 sites or all mandatory sites?

Answer: The Government has removed from evaluation some of the items under the Additional In-Scope Work Plan within the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Sections 5.3.3.7.2 and 5.3.3.7.3 and corresponding evaluation criteria under the Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 Sections 3.2.2.2.7.2 and 3.2.2.2.7.3 because there is no value added in asking for a schedule for work that will happen in the future and/or may never happen, as well as asking for a description of or sources of parts for work that have not been identified (since Additional In- Scope Work is not part of the sample Task Order for purposes of this evaluation). Note:

Removal of these items under the Additional In-Scope Work Plan within the RFP evaluation does not change any of the requirements for Additional In-Scope Work required by the PWS.

This change is reflected in the updated versions of the Addenda to FAR 52.212-1 and -2 within the RFP, issued under RFP Amendment 0002.

21. For Emergency Service Orders (8.1.2) and Routine Service Orders (8.1.3) please confirm that the following should be included in the FFP pricing:

o Lead Technician telephonic support o Lead Technician travel time and expenses to the site o Six (6) hours of Lead Technician labor on site o $100 of minor parts o Development of repair plan and estimate if (c) and (d) above do not resolve the failure o Lead Technician time and expenses on site for up to 48 hours while the repair plan and estimate are developed o Lead Technician travel time and expenses from the site

Answer: Service Calls under PWS Section 8.1 should include the following in the FFP pricing: Lead Technician telephone support (per PWS Section 8.1.1), Lead Technician travel to/from the site (per PWS Sections 8.1.2 and 8.1.3), $100 for minor parts (per PWS Sections

8.1.2 and 8.1.3), and six (6) hours of Lead Technician labor on-site (per PWS Sections 8.1.2 and 8.1.3). Per PWS Sections 8.1.2 and 8.1.3, “If the barriers cannot be returned to operational status within six (6) hours and under the $100 minor parts threshold included in the FFP Service Call, the Contractor (Lead Technician) shall provide the CO/COR with a plan to repair before the Contractor leaves the site” – the development of the plan should be included in the Lead Technician’s six (6) hours on-site. The Lead Technician is not required nor intended to be on-site for development of the repair plan’s estimate and schedule. PWS Sections 8.1.2 and 8.1.3 have been clarified regarding this matter (see the updated PWS dated 25 September 2018 via RFP Amendment 0002), as follows: “After leaving the site, the Contractor shall provide the repair plan’s estimate and schedule for the proposed Service Order (per PWS Section 8.2) within 48 hours of the Lead Technician’s visit unless otherwise negotiated at the Task Order level.” Further, the Lead Technician shall not remain on-site during the Government’s review and approval of the repair plan and award of any additional in-scope work via a Service Order (see the response to Question #22 below).

22. For Emergency Service Orders (8.1.2) and Routine Service Orders (8.1.3) please confirm the timeline within which the Government will approve the SO and award additional in-scope work to repair a barrier system (above and beyond the 6 hours and $100 of parts) be awarded and paid?

Answer: Per PWS Sections 8.1.2. and 8.1.3 (updated via RFP Amendment 0002), “After leaving the site, the Contractor shall provide the repair plan’s estimate and schedule for the proposed Service Order (per PWS Section 8.2) within 48 hours of the Lead Technician’s visit unless otherwise negotiated at the Task Order level” which covers the Contractor’s portion of the required information for a Service Order. Further, the provided estimate/pricing must “be considered valid for ninety (90) calendar days after the initial approval unless documentation from the Contractor is provided to verify a price increase has been implemented” per PWS Section 8.3.2 paragraph 2 (Material Pricing). There is no timeline provided in the PWS for the Government’s portion regarding the issuance of a Service Order. If Additional In-Scope Work is required, then per PWS Section 8.3 paragraph 2, “the CO may issue a modification (Standard Form 30) to the Task Order using the appropriate ordering period’s Additional In- Scope Work CLIN (X004)” and “The CO will evaluate and approve a SO to execute the Additional In-Scope Work identified by the Contractor during scheduled PM or during the performance of a Service Call.” A timeline cannot be established due to the various factors involved with awarding additional in-scope work, such as “Additional In-Scope Work requests must be determined by the CO to be within the scope of the basic contract” and “the price of such work must be determined to be fair and reasonable by the ordering CO” as well as the requirement to obtain the required funding which cannot always be guaranteed in a certain timeframe based on fiscal budget constraints.

23. For Emergency Service Orders (8.1.2) and Routine Service Orders (8.1.3) what is the purpose of the Lead Technician remaining on site for up to 48 hours while the repair plan and estimate is being developed? Shall the Lead Technician then remain on site indefinitely while the Contractor awaits Government approval of the repair plan and award of that additional in-scope work via a SO? How will all of this time be compensated if the Contractor does not know how long the Lead Technician will be held on site until approval of the SO?

Answer: Please see the response to Question #21 above.

Pricing Q&As

1. This model has been used on other VB contracts. How will this contract hold a contractor accountable on service order cost if they are awarded the base contract?

Answer: Per PWS Section 8.3 paragraph 3, “All Additional In-Scope Work shall be authorized prior to performance of the work, and the price of such work must be determined to be fair and reasonable by the ordering CO.” Further, per the description of CLIN X004 in the RFP (Standard Form 1449), “Pricing for additional in-scope work under this CLIN shall be determined/negotiated at the Task Order Modification level on a firm-fixed-price (FFP) basis.” Further, per PWS Section paragraph 8.3, “Additional in-scope work exceeding $3,500 will be IAW FAR 16.505(b)(1)” which indicates that the ordering Contracting Officer must provide each awardee a fair opportunity to be considered for work exceeding $3,500, unless an exception to the fair opportunity exists and is justified (see revised PWS dated 25 September 2018 per RFP Amendment 0002).

2. Will the government allow market rate to be applied to parts for service orders?

Answer: No. Per PWS Appendix A (per RFP Amendment 0002, updated PWS dated 25 September 2018), the definition of “Minor Repair/Parts Threshold” states that “The minor repair parts threshold will be based on the unit price of the parts/materials per the invoice/receipt.”

3. Is there a labor markup rate?

Answer: Yes. Per Amendment 0002 to the RFP, FAR 52.212-1 Section 5.5.2.1 has been updated to state that “For CLINs X001, X002, and X003 for each ordering period, the Offeror must propose a NTE markup rate that will be applicable to labor and a NTE markup rate that will be applicable to materials, travel, and other direct costs.” Further, Section 5.5.2.1 also states that at the Task Order level, “the Contractor must propose NTE markup rates that shall not exceed the MAC IDIQ’s NTE markup rate for that CLIN, category (labor or materials, travel, and other direct costs), and ordering period” and “The markup rate for labor will be applied to the base hourly labor rates for each labor category proposed (which must meet (at a minimum) the wage rate for that labor category as established for the specific Task Order location IAW FAR 52.222-41, Service Contract Labor Standards, using the wage determinations as attached to the MAC IDIQ contract for that ordering period), and the markup rate for travel, materials, and other direct costs will be applied to the material costs, travel costs, and other direct costs.” The Pricing Matrix’s worksheet/tab “2. NTE Markup Rates” has been updated to state that “Each CLIN will have two separate markup rates: a markup rate for the labor associated with that CLIN and a markup rate for the material, travel, and any other direct costs associated with that CLIN” and to provide more fill-in areas for the two types of NTE markup rates for CLINs X001-X003 per ordering period. See RFP Amendment 0002, updated Pricing Matrix dated 28 September 2018.

4. Do we use the exact SCA Wage rate? The SCA Wage rate is much different from the actual employees cost. Is this captured in the NTE markup rate?

Answer: No, Offerors do not have to use the exact SCA wage rate for purposes of pricing the sample Task Order. Per RFP Attachment 5: Pricing Matrix, worksheet/tab “3. Wages,” cell A2, “The labor category title shall be reflective of the exact labor category title and the base hourly labor rate (i.e. wage rate) must meet (at a minimum) the wage rate for that labor category as established for the area of Wright-Patterson AFB IAW FAR 52.222-41, Service Contract Labor Standards, using the wage determinations as attached to the RFP (see Attachments 8-13).” See RFP Amendment 0002, updated Pricing Matrix dated 28 September 2018.

5. Are prime and subcontractor employee’s labor rates include indirect costs such as fringe, benefits, etc.? Will this information be required from the subcontractor at the MAC IDIQ level?

Answer: No. Per RFP Attachment 5: Pricing Matrix, worksheet/tab “3. Wages,” cell B8, the Offeror shall enter a “Base Hourly Labor Rate” for each “Labor Category” identified.

Worksheet/tab “4. Sample TO – Base Year” (and subsequent worksheets/tabs for the out-years) indicate in cell F19 that the “Fully Burdened Hourly Labor Rate” is auto-calculated based on the “Base Hourly Labor Rate x NTE Markup Rate,” so an employee’s “Base Hourly Labor Rate” should not include indirect costs. Per the Addendum to 52.212-1 Section 5.5.2.1 within the RFP, “A NTE Markup Rate is expressed as a percentage (with no decimals) and is added to the cost/price incurred by the producer of a good/service in order to cover the indirect costs of doing business and create a profit.” Any subcontractor pricing information that the Prime Offeror wants to include in their sample Task Order pricing can be included in one of the applicable areas as provided on the sample Task Order pricing worksheets (worksheets 4-9), e.g. labor, materials, travel, and other direct costs. See RFP Amendment 0002, updated Pricing Matrix dated 28 September 2018.

6. Will the wage rates change according to each base? We will be required to give these details at the task order level also?

Answer: Yes, the wage rates will change according to each base. See the wage determinations at RFP Attachments 8-13. See FAR Clause 52.222-43, included in the list of clauses within the RFP, for details on price adjustments per updated wage determinations during the life of the MAC IDIQ.

7. How will travel come into play in the pricing?

Answer: RFP Attachment 5: Pricing Matrix, worksheet/tab “NTE Markup Rates,” cell A5 has been updated via RFP Amendment 0002 to indicate that the NTE markup rates are applicable to labor, materials, travel, and other direct costs. Worksheets/tabs “4-9. Sample TO” have been updated via RFP Amendment 0002 to include an area for travel costs. Per worksheet/tab “0. Instructions,” “Offerors should assume that the pre-populated travel costs will cover the cost of the Offeror’s travel to Wright-Patterson AFB, OH.” At the Task Order level, travel will not be pre-populated and will be priced per Task Order. See RFP Amendment 0002, updated Pricing Matrix dated 28 September 2018 and updated verbiage to the pricing area of the Ordering Procedures within the Addendum to FAR 52.212-4.

8. Will there be a maximum allowable mark-up percentage for parts/materials associated with minor correctives (under $3,500) or Service Orders (over $3,500)?

Answer: No, there will not be a maximum allowable markup rate/percentage for parts/materials associated with minor correctives or Service Orders, which are applicable to CDRL X004 (Additional In-Scope Work). Per the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Section 5.5.2.1, “The NTE markup rate shall be inclusive of all necessary elements per the description of work for Preventive Maintenance, Routine Service Calls, and Emergency Service Calls as described in the MAC IDIQ’s PWS as required for performance at all potential locations per the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Tables 1 and 2” meaning the NTE markup rates at the MAC IDIQ level are only applicable to CLINs X001 (Preventive Maintenance), X002 (Routine Service Calls), and X003 (Emergency Service Calls), whereas Service Orders are under CLIN X004 (Additional In-Scope Work). Markup costs (i.e.

indirect costs) associated with Additional In-Scope Work will still be part of the Offeror’s pricing for any work under CLIN X004 at the Task Order level, but there will be no maximum markup rate for work under CLIN X004 established at the MAC IDIQ level like there will be with CLINs X001-X003.

9. Please clarify how our barrier technicians’ travel & per diem will be bid for both the Tier 1 level, as well as the Task Order Level?

Answer: At the MAC IDIQ level (i.e. Tier 1), per RFP Attachment 5: Pricing Matrix, worksheet/tab “0. Instructions,” travel costs have been pre-populated for purposes of the sample Task Order on worksheets/tabs “4-9. Sample TO” and “Offerors should assume that the pre-populated travel costs will cover the cost of the Offeror’s travel to Wright-Patterson AFB, OH.” At the Task Order level (i.e. Tier 2), travel costs will not be pre-populated and Offerors will have to price travel per the specifics of the Task Order. See RFP Amendment 0002, updated Pricing Matrix dated 28 September 2018 and updated verbiage to the pricing area of the Ordering Procedures within the Addendum to FAR 52.212-4.

10. Currently the provided CLIN and sample Task Orders do not reference allocation or instruction for Travel. Can the government clarify how to incorporate travel into the sample response for the MAC

IDIQ.

Answer: Please see the response to Questions #7 and #9 above.

11. Currently the solicitation does not state how travel will be accounted for at the task/delivery order level. Can the government provide clarification on how the contractor will bid travel at the task/delivery order level.

Answer: Please see the response to Questions #7 and #9 above.

12. Can the government provide clarification on whether travel will be cost reimbursable or if travel can include (G&A and Fee)?

Answer: Per the list of CLINs on the RFP (starting on page 4), all CLINs are to be priced at a firm-fixed-price (FFP) level. Travel is not a separate CLIN, and instead is to be part of the FFP for each type of work specified on a Task Order. For purposes of the MAC IDIQ evaluation, per RFP Attachment 5: Pricing Matrix, the Offeror’s NTE Markup Rate for materials, travel, and other direct costs will be applied to the pre-populated travel costs as part of the Offeror’s sample Task Order pricing. Please see response to Questions #7 and #9 above as well. See RFP Amendment 0002, updated Pricing Matrix dated 28 September 2018.

13. (Markup NTE Rate / Referenced Multiple Locations) The government states that “The NTE markup rate shall be inclusive of all necessary elements per the description of work for Preventive Maintenance, Routine Service Calls, and Emergency Service Calls as described in the MAC IDIQ’s PWS as required for performance at all potential locations per the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Tables 1 and 2.” This is a very broad statement as to what NTE markup rate covers. We request the government to clarify the NTE Markup Rate and specify in accordance to FAR guidelines specifically what the NTE markup rate is applicable to and what are approved cost elements of the markup rate.

The way the language is currently written the NTE markup rate could include trucks, materials, PMO support, NSP CLIN(s) or any number of items required to support specified tasks. Additionally a cost basis is required to determine indirect cost associated with specified level of work. If the NTE rate is to include vehicles, tooling charges, PMO support, training, CDRLs, reporting, etc. the rate would not be fixed as the government has not specified a specific number of productive work hours.

(Contractor Recommendation - Contractor suggest government remove broad statements about NTE Markup rate and provides specifics language and applicability of the NTE Markup Rates. If the NTE Markup Rate is specifically for labor we request the government state such and include “fully burdened labor wrap rate inclusive of fringe, OH, G&A” all other indirect cost should be identified as applicable on the associated task / delivery order.)

Answer: The description/definition of the markup rate per the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Section 5.5.2.1 has been updated via RFP Amendment 0002 as follows: “A markup rate is expressed as a percentage (with no decimals) and is added to the cost/price incurred by the producer of a good/service in order to cover the indirect costs of doing business and create a profit.” Regarding the not separately priced (NSP) CLINs, per the CLIN descriptions for the NSP CLINs (X006, X007, X008, and X009) within the RFP: “This CLIN is not separately priced. Pricing associated with this CLIN shall be included in other, priced CLINs.” Work associated with a CDRL deliverable should be priced at the applicable CLIN level that that CDRL is tied to – see the Pre-Proposal Conference Briefing, slides 34-37, for a breakdown of the work required under each CDRL and which CLIN(s) that work is applicable to, for pricing purposes. Regarding training and reporting, see the Pre-Proposal Conference Briefing, slides 25-26, for a breakdown of the work required (by PWS Section) under Preventive Maintenance (CLIN X001), Routine Service Calls (X002), and Emergency Service Calls (X003). Regarding the applicability of the NTE markup rates, see the response to Question #3 above.

14. The Service Contract Act requires Contractors to reimburse travel to employees for not only travel expenses but travel time. As distances traveled to each base by each contractor may vary widely from base to base covered under this contract (an employee or contractor can be 5 miles away or 100 miles away and still safely comply with a six-hour response time), the NTE markup for the contract will either have to be for the highest cost base for each contractor or travel must be accounted for outside the labor markup rate. How can Contractors account for this variable cost in pricing individual Task Orders?

Answer: See the responses to Questions #7 and #9 above.

15. RFP Table 1: How is markup defied? Is this maximum profit, or is this a maximum total markup including G&A, labor burden, overhead allocation, etc.?

Answer: The description/definition of the NTE Markup rate per the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Section 5.5.2.1 has been updated via RFP Amendment 0002 as follows: “A markup rate is expressed as a percentage (with no decimals) and is added to the cost/price incurred by the producer of a good/service in order to cover the indirect costs of doing business and create a profit.” All direct costs are meant to be priced to the CLIN directly, as shown in the Pricing Matrix, worksheets “4-9. Sample TO” where there are pricing areas for labor, materials, travel, and other direct costs, to which the proposed markup rate(s) will be applied to each area to determine an overall FFP per CLIN. See RFP Amendment 0002, updated Pricing Matrix dated 28 September 2018.

16. Pricing: Are we to enter any pricing data for any CLIN at this stage since it is all task order specific?

Answer: No, Offerors should not enter any pricing data for any CLIN within the RFP (Standard Form 1449). However, per the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Section 5.5.1, “The Offeror shall populate the worksheets located in RFP Attachment 5: Pricing Matrix” and per Section 5.5.2, the Offeror shall provide pricing in the form of Not-to-Exceed (NTE) markup rates (percentages) and a sample Task Order (further defined in Sections 5.5.2.1 and 5.5.2.2).

Further, see the Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 Section 3.4.1.1 for a description of a complete Pricing Matrix.

17. Sample Task Order Pricing Matrix (Attachment 5): Where are travel costs and other direct costs to be entered into Preventive Maintenance and Service Call pricing? There are more costs that labor hours and the required material allowance that must be considered.

Answer: RFP Attachment 5: Pricing Matrix has been updated per RFP Amendment 0002 to add areas for travel costs and other direct costs under all three CLINs (Preventive Maintenance, Routine Service Calls, and Emergency Service Calls). Refer to the updated “Note” area of worksheet/tab “4. Sample TO – Base Year” for more information on the travel and other direct cost areas.

18. Sample Task Order Pricing Matrix (Attachment 5): Is it the Government’s intent that the Contractor provides all materials under this contract at cost with no markup?

Answer: See the response to Question #2 in the Technical Q&As area regarding the cost of minor repair parts. The materials area within the Pricing Matrix, worksheets/tabs “4-9.

Sample TO” is meant to account for the minor repair parts/materials IAW PWS Section

1.3.1.7. Within the Pricing Matrix, the “Note” at the top of worksheet “4. Sample TO – Base Year” indicates that “The material quantities and unit prices applicable to the sample Task Order have been pre-populated based on the minor repair NTE amounts as provided in the PWS, and the Offeror’s proposed NTE markup rate will be applied to material (no Offeror fill-ins are required for materials).” Regarding materials not pertaining to minor repairs, the Pricing Matrix has been updated to add an area for non-minor repair materials or any other direct costs necessary to complete the assigned tasks to be included under the Other Direct Costs section of CLINs X001, X002, and X003. Also, please note that the updated Pricing Matrix indicates in the “Note” at the top of worksheet/tab “4. Sample TO – Base Year” that one of the cells in the Other Direct Costs area has been prepopulated with the title “Miscellaneous Material Necessary for PM” which Offerors may use to consolidate all miscellaneous minor parts that are necessary to complete preventive maintenance, e.g.

hydraulic oil, filters, and shear pins. Any other other direct costs should be specifically identified under this area. Further, the “Note” has been updated to state that “For each ODC entered, the worksheet will automatically multiply the entered quantities by the entered unit price, then multiply by the NTE markup rate for materials, travel, and other direct costs to determine a total for each ODC.” See RFP Amendment 0002, updated Pricing Matrix dated 28 September 2018.

19. Sample Task Order Pricing Matrix (Attachment 5): Where can the Contractor itemize pricing within the PMI FFP pricing structure for equipment rentals (pressure washer) and materials that are required for proactive replacement (filters, hydraulic oil, shear pins, etc.) under the PMI?

Answer: RFP Attachment 5: Pricing Matrix has been updated per RFP Amendment 0002 to add an area for other direct costs under all three CLINs (Preventive Maintenance, Routine Service Calls, and Emergency Service Calls). Refer to the updated “Note” area of worksheet/tab “4. Sample TO – Base Year” for more information on the other direct cost area.

General Contracting Q&As

1. Explain the service call outside of periodic maintenance. Is it a FFP per call?

Answer: Refer to PWS Section 8 regarding Service Calls. Yes, routine and emergency service calls are Firm Fixed Priced (FFP) per PWS Sections 8.1.2 and 8.1.3 as well as the CLIN descriptions for CLINs X002 and X003. At the Task Order level, the base will specify in their Task Order Proposal Request how many Service Calls they want per year, to which the Offeror will provide a FFP per visit (see unit of issue for CLINs X002 and X003 in the RFP (Standard Form 1449)).

2. Can CAC card be issue at Task Level I so contractors will have them prior to Task Level II?

{Actual Submission}Will the program be able to issue CAC's for MAC contractors technicians?

Having these cards would greatly improve the emergency and normal response times by being able to avoid long inspection lines, POC and escort coordination, etc. This also gives the contractor increased flexibility on who they can send to a site. In our experience, having these cards greatly reduces coordination efforts on both sides saving both time and money.

Answer: No, CACs will not be issued per AFFARS 5342.490-2 due to the requirement that Contractor personnel meet one or both of the following criteria:

(a) Require logical access to Department of Defense computer networks and systems in either the unclassified environment or the classified environment where authorized by governing security directives; and/or

(b) Perform work which requires the use of a CAC for installation entry control or physical access to facilities and buildings.

AFFARS Clause 5352.242-9000, included in the RFP’s list of clauses, was included because this clause allows for Contractor personnel to obtain base identification and vehicle passes, if required, for all contractor personnel who make frequent visits to or perform work on the Air Force installation(s) cited in the contract.

3. Does the Government anticipate existing AVB contracts to be canceled?

Answer: For the bases that are already contracting this work, the mandatory use policy, to be issued after award by the Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC), will direct them to phase onto this contract after their current period of performance (PoP) has expired.

4. Are contractors still able to compete for non-operational barrier work that are not included in this contract?

Answer: Yes, participation in this MAC IDIQ would not impede a Contractor’s ability to compete for other barrier-type work.

5. Are contractors required to submit the entire SF1449 in the RFP?

Answe…