HAMS RFP QA V10_27 Mar 2012.pdf

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

FA8052-12-R-0004 HAMS RFP

28 March 2012

VERSION 10

QUEST

ION #

RFP QUESTIONS GOV'T RESPONSE

1 2. PART II – TECHNICAL – States to place company CAGE and

DUNS in the top right corner for identification purposes.

HAMS Q&A Dated 7 Feb 12, #8

Q: Should all other references to the company name be left out of the text and any headers or footers?

A: Offerors may include company name in the header/footer of their proposal.

HAMS Q&A Dated 21 Mar 12, #3

Q: Is the offeror also permitted to identify itself by name?

A: No, Offeror is not permitted to identify itself by name on the top right corner of the technical proposal.

The answers above need clarification to ensure correct preparation of the technical proposal. The intent for the CAGE and DUNS on each page for identification purposes seems to indicate company name is to be removed from the proposal content, thus rendering technical proposal content anonymous to evaluators. Answer #8 permits company name in header/footer, but doesn’t address the company name within the text. Answer #3 doesn’t permit the company name in the top right corner, but doesn’t address the company name placed anywhere else.

Q: Is the CAGE and DUNS placement for identification purposes because the company name is to be removed from all page content including header, footer, and text so proposals are rendered anonymous, or is not the intent and anonymity is not necessary so company name in content is permitted?

The technical proposal shall contain the Offeror's CAGE and DUNS on the top right hand corner of each page of each copy of the technical propopal for identification purposed. This is only for the Technical Proposal. The technical proposal should not include the company name in the header and footer or text.

Other proposal volumes (Administrative, Price, Past Performance) can include the company name in the header and footer, and text.

2 1. PART I – ADMINISTRATIVE

b. …A Matrix shall be included cross referencing each paragraph of the

PWS… Q: The PWS content is generic applying to all facilities, and the IMFE content is site specific. Since the MFAM is tailored for

Keesler AFB shouldn’t the Matrix cross reference the Keesler IMFE requirements too?

Offerors can, but are not required to, cross reference the sample task IMFE.

3 PWS 2.1.11.1.5 – Provides for the use of wet moping with two-bucket/wringer practice.

CIMS-GB, LEED, and AHE “green” environmental cleaning guidelines replace the wet mopping bucket./wringer practice with the use of micro-fiber equipment and procedures. Q: Are there any facilities that permit the continued use of wet mopping procedures in critical care, patient use, and/or ancillary areas, because the wet mopping bucket/wringer procedure is still an acceptable practice?

The 2 bucket system is the back up to the sprinkle/wet Vacuum system in case of failure of the wet Vac. Any back up system will probably be acceptable if it is documented in a written work instruction and is part of the MFAM. The

Infection Control Nurse Practioner and the Facility Managers review the written work instructions. The government reserves the right to ask for corrective action to ask a contractor to expand on (or delete) any practice deemed harmful to the patients or the facility.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

FA8052-12-R-0004 HAMS RFP

28 March 2012

VERSION 10

QUEST

ION #

RFP QUESTIONS GOV'T RESPONSE