Response to inquires_1 Feb 2012.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 18 KB Posted
- Attached to
- REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL HOSPITAL ASEPTIC MANAGEMENT SERVICES (HAMS) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA8052-12-R-0004
About this file
Q A for DRAFT RFP
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 50
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL HOSPITAL ASEPTIC MANAGEMENT SERVICES (HAMS) has more files on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Questions & Answers
| QUESTION # | RFP QUESTIONS | GOV'T RESPONSE |
| 1 | CIMS-GB certification. While we currently have our CIMS-GB, I’m concerned that a contractor may team/venture to circumvent the process by using another companies certification. In recent Army solicitations the CIMS-GB was referenced in the solicitation as follows (taken directly from the recent William Beaumont Army Medical Center solicitation # W81K04-11-R-0019 |
“(1) The Offeror shall possess a current ISSA CIMS-GB certification or shall have the capability to obtain ISSA CIMS-GB certification within 30 days of the contract’s start date. The Offeror shall provide a current ISSA CIMS-GB certificate or provide supporting documentation of capability to obtain ISSA CIMS-GB certification within 30 days of contract start date. The supporting documentation shall be of substantive, objective evidence (e.g., letter from ISSA) that the offeror will be ISSA CIMS-GB certified within 30 days of contract’s start date.
(2) The Offeror shall maintain ISSA CIMS-GB certification throughout the contract period.
(3) A team member or major subcontractor’s ISSA CIMS-GB certification may not be used to satisfy ISSA CIMS-GB certification for a prospective prime contractor.”
| Would this be something that you could or would add. | The contractor holder must have appropriate certificiation. Additionally, Section L states: "The Offeror must demonstrate that they either possess a current International Sanitary Supply Association (ISSA) Cleaning Industry Management Standard – Green Building (CIMS-GB) certification or equivalent, or shall have the capability to obtain an ISSA CIMS-GB certification within 180 days of the contract’s start date, evidenced by application. The Offeror shall maintain ISSA CIMS-GB certification throughout the contract period of performance. A team member or major subcontractor may not be used to satisfy the special standards of responsibility." The final RFP language will not be changed to incorporate the suggested Army language. | ||
| 2 | On the LEED Associate Certified member is that required at the time the bid is placed, or is it part of the bid, and/or can the certification be obtained within a period of time, for example by contract start date? | The offerors must demonstrate that they can meet the requirement of the PWS in their proposals. The PWS states "The Contractor shall provide, at a minimum, one (1) LEED Associate-certified member (corporate or staff) for the execution of “green” healthcare environmental services in MTFs." This must be submitted with the proposal. | |
| 3 | It appears that in the draft you are requesting a total of no more than 60 pages and are requiring that the contractor include a MFAM (which currently ours is more than 300 pages). Are you looking for information to provide proof that a contractor understands the requirements or are you asking for a MFAM be provided for your example contract and the MFAM be excluded from the page requirements? | The MFAM for the sample MTF is to be provided with the proposal. The MFAM for the sample MTF approach will be excluded from the 60 page limit. | |
| 4 | Under the Draft PWS, will all managers of housekeeping departments be required to be IEHA certified or will it depend upon the IMFE? For example currently some small clinics do not have the IEHA certification requirement but the larger clinics and hospitals due | The IMFEs state the requirements of the managers at the individual MTFs. | |
| 5 | With respect to the Instructions to Offerors, specifically Part II-Technical Approach, is the 60 page limit inclusive of all sections of Part II (i.e., work schedules, resumes, etc)? | This will be resolved at time the "Final" RFP is posted on FBO. | |
| 6 | Are there any page limits for any of the other sections other than Part II? | This will be resolved at time the "Final" RFP is posted on FBO. | |
| 7 | Will all the IMFE's be made available at some point prior to proposal submittal? | No, IMFE's will not be posted prior to the release of the "Final" RFP. | |
| 8 | For Part II - Technical Approach, is it the intention of the Government for the Cage Code in the upper right hand corner of each page to be the only identifier? In other words, should all other references to the company name be left out of the text and any headers or footers? | Offerors may include company name in the header/footer of their proposal. | |
| 9 | There are several references in the Instructions to Offerors to "Section J". Is Section J the actual IMFEs (for Keesler marked as Technical Exhibit 2)? | This will be resolved at time the "Final" RFP is posted on FBO. | |
| 10 | Pricing Schedule B – 5% Square Footage Rule. We have concerns about the 5% factor on plus or minus square footage. Presumably the goal here is to eliminate the smallish, nuisance value modifications for small amounts of square footage. However, a 5% threshold places a far greater financial risk on the larger facilities. Having to absorb a 5% sq. ft. addition at Eielson, for example est. $750.00 per month, is much different than having to absorb a 5% increase at Elmendorf, est. $9,000.00 per month. The 5% rule places a disproportionate financial risk on the larger facilities. Suggestions; (1) lower the 5% factor to 1% across the board; or (2) establish a sliding scale with lower percentages for larger locations; or (3) set a dollar amount, example; any sq. ft. changes with plus or minus $1,000.00 value do not require a mod. | Government concurs that % change in SF does not account for different sized facilities. Revised variation approach will be reflected in the "Final" RFP | |
| 11 | Please also address the cumulative effect of this policy. What happens if an MTF opens additional square feet in phases and (for this example) adds 4.5%, three months in a row. Each month would be under the 5% monthly limit, however the accumulations would far exceed 5%. Please also address if the Square Feet and Funding would be re-set at each Option Year ? This would alleviate some of the risk, depending on which month the changes occurred in. | If the cumulative effect of changes exceed the threshold, a contract modification will be initiated which will reset the contract at that time. | |
| 12 | Ultimately, the government should neither over pay nor under pay when changes occur, off schedule. Without the benefit of more explanations, the 5% rule poses some fairness questions for us at this time ? | Noted. "Final" RFP will reflect revision to address concerns. | |
| 13 | DFAFT PWS 2.1.23.3. The paragraph suggests that the government may or may not provide certain immunizations. Employee health care is a significant cost item and we would request that this item be clarified either globally in PWS or on a site by site basis in the IMFE. | Draft PWS as written in 2.1.23.3 will remain. It is the discretion of the MTF to provide influenza shots to contractor employees. | |
| 14 | DRAFT Section L., Page 353, 1st paragraph. Re: advance pricing of CBA wages. Unless an incumbent has in place a CBA that projects all wages and benefits for five years in advance, it would not be possible to comply with this Schedule B requirement. Also, for locations that are non-union, the Dept. of Labor updates their wage determinations annually, not five years in advance. The wording in this paragraph sets up an unattainable requirement. | Noted. "Final" RFP will reflect revision to address concern. Offerors shall proposal wages in accordance with Service Contract Act and the Fair Labor Standard Act. Clauses will be referenced in the "Final" RFP. | |
| 15 | DRAFT Section L., Page 355, 2. Part II – Technical Approach “Limited to no more than 60 pages”. It is completely unrealistic to suggest that a detailed and comprehensive response can be made to all technical factors and sub factors in so few pages. Offeror’s should be given the maximum opportunity to put forth their best material, in an effort to achieve Technical Acceptability, without such limitations. In our view, the 60 page limit unduly restrictive. Please consider that this element (with everything riding on it) can be presented in unlimited page numbers. Our MFAM’s alone, including Procedures, Training, Quality, Equipment and Supplies can easily approach 500 pages. For consideration: We recently participated in an Army Hospital Housekeeping RFP, which followed essentially the same Steps in their Section L. The Army used a 50 page limit for the Technical Approach Section, however they exempted the following items from the page counts – Procedures, Policies, Staffing Plans, Work Schedules, Resumes, Charts, Graphs, Ledgers, Forms, Cover Letters, Tabs, Table of Contents, etc. When it was all said and done, the only things left that fell into the page number count was a narrative about our Management Approach and the Transition Plan. The Army recognized that the required manuals and submittals could not logically fit into 50 pages. However the process of setting a 50 page limit, then having to define all the exempted items caused some gray areas on whether or not certain items counted or were exempted. It would have been much easier to just have a reasonably higher number or no page limits at all. | The MFAM for the sample MTF approach will be excluded from the 60 page limit. The Government believes the technical proposal can be provided within the 60 page limit | |
| 16 | Repeating our concerns above, that HAMS Offeror's are getting one all or nothing shot here at Technical Acceptability, we respectfully urge, request and suggest that the Technical Proposal have no page limits. If for some FAR or other reason it is necessary to set a page limit, we suggest that Part II be allotted 750 pages. | Noted. | |
| 17 | 2.1.2.1 The Contractor shall either possess a current ISSA CIMS-GB certification or equivalent, or shall have the capability to obtain an ISSA CIMS-GB certification or equivalent within 180 days of the contract’s start date. Response: The requirement for not just a CIMS certification but requiring the additional Green Building certification is excessive and will limit the competition field. The seven page assessment checklist for a CIMS certification can be achieved by any company that has sufficient experience providing medical treatment facility experience, but the additional six pages of Green Building requirements is not something even an experienced company has needed to provide, and will take time to prepare the material. Since the majority of the locations considered for solicitation do not meet the LEED building standards due to age, the cleaning contractor shouldn’t need to meet a strict green requirement. As facilities get built or renovated to conform to LEED ratings, standards, etc. the additional green requirements of the Green Building certification should then be required in addition to a CIMS certification. Requiring the additional GB certification will increase the contract price with no measurable improvement in service provided. | CIMS-GB certification or equivalent is required. | |
| 18 | 2.1.3 LEED Associate Certification. The LEED Green Building Rating System™ is a voluntary, consensus-based standard to support and certify successful green building design, construction and operations. The Contractor shall provide, at a minimum, one (1) LEED Associate-certified member (corporate or staff) for the execution of “green” healthcare environmental services in MTFs. Response: This is excessive causing the contract prices to increase, and offers the AF no improvement in service provided. Contractors historically that to-date have provided industry qualified services meeting all regulating agency standards and have never been required to be LEED certified, or have a LEED person on staff. There is no benefit to the AF by requiring this position. | The Contractor shall provide, at a minimum, one (1) LEED Associate-certified member (corporate or staff) for the execution of “green” healthcare environmental services in MTFs | |
| 19 | 2.1.4.1 ISSA CIMS-GB certification is acceptable as a quality management standard; however, if not CIMS-GB certified, the Contractor shall be ISO 9001:2008 certified. Response: The CIMS Green Building certification is an additional certification following a CIMS certification, and the Quality Program assessment is addressed as part of the CIMS certification assessment. If a CIMS certificate has been achieved the ISO criteria has been achieved as there is no additional Quality material necessary for the additional Green Building certification assessment. The Green Building additional requirement to a CIMS certification should not be necessary, will increase the contract prices, will limit competition, and offers no increased benefit to the AF. In addition the AF facilities considered for solicitation are not applicable LEED current new facility standards. The GB additional requirement to a CIMS certification should be required when the facility is applicable to the new LEED standards. | Per the PWS, Section 2.1.2.1, the Contractor shall either possess a current ISSA CIMS-GB certification or equivalent, or shall have the capability to obtain an ISSA CIMS-GB certification or equivalent within 180 days of the contract’s start date. | |
| 20 |
&"Arial,Bold"&12QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS FOR DRAFT RFP
HOSPITAL ASEPTIC MANAGEMENT SERVICES
(HAMS)
7 Feb 12
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .