Q A_6.pdf

Question Number Question Answer

Would the government consider including FAR 52.251-1 and allow the successful offeror to lease vehicles through a GSA schedule lease?

Use of government sources is governed by FAR 51.101; and while this clause mentions reimbursable contracts, it does not preclude its’ use on other cost types. The government is allowed to exercise initiative as part of an acquisitions strategy per FAR 1.102(d)). Allowing access to government sources falls within allowable initiative and sound business judgement. Allowing access to a lease schedule would benefit th government. It would minimize some of the incumbent’s advantage in having vehicles on site already, thus improving competition. It would also allow offeror to minimize these costs, allowing the submission of a leaner price. Upon award the contracting officer would only need to issue a letter authorizing access to GSA lease schedules.

Unfortunately the government cannot provide access to GSA Fleet vehicles. This contract does not fulfill all the requirements to allow a contractor access to the GSA Fleet.

l.2.11.12 states, “The offeror shall submit volumes I through IV in electronic format. Each volume shall be submitted on a separate CD.”

There are only four volumes listed in the Table in L.2.11.3. Please verify that volumes I through IV should be submitt

Contractor constructed facility is not cost reimbursable. The proposed site is identified in the appendices. The Government will provide required utilities.

Standards and guidebooks the contractor shall comply with in the commissioning.

ASHRAE 202-2013 is the source for the procedures/process. Retro commissioning can be more complicated than construction commissioning due to the potential level of unknowns. The original mechanical engineer may not be available to provide insight on how the systems were supposed to work. Often, original plans and specs are not available and if they are, they may not have enough detail on how the systems were supposed to function. Extensive field work may be required to “as-built” what’s installed. Also, there may not be anyone who currently operates and maintains the building controls. Based upon the above referenced PWS Section extent of the actual scope can vary the costs greatly. A basic scope might be simply performing a maintenance check on the equipment to ensure belts are tight, bearings are lubricated, sensors are reading accurately, and the systems operate in all modes. A much more extensive scope would be to include an engineering analysis on the building envelope, how spaces are used today, and comparing them to the existing system types and capacities in order to provide recommended changes to the building where necessary.

Can the Government provide a better description of what exactly the number of buildings to be completed will be, this can better define manpower requirements. This will require a medium size engineering firm with high pay rates.

ASHRAE 202-2013 is for the general commissioning process for new facility construction. The Government intent for retro commissioning is to identify existing facility deficiencies related to energy efficiency and take corrective actions to save energy.

The Government vision is to allocate an engineer and three technicians to perform this assessment using existing available resources.

The contractor shall submit a retro -commissioning plan explaining the process for Government approval. Plan shall include but not limited to; facility assessment process, schedule, method of corrective actions, etc.

Civil Engineer (CE) Services- Operations Management FA8101-15-R-0007 (after presolicitation conference)

Questions & Answers #6 3 Aug 15

Over time, there have been significant changes in the solicitation. Some of the questions we previously answered are now irrelevant due to changes in the contract type. Please disregard answers that are no longer applicable. Thank you.

*Note: The Government is working on all other questions submitted and not included in this document. If clarification regarding an answer is necessary, please reference the question number.

Questions/answers are purposely omitted; therefore, question numbers may be missing in each document posted, as those are questions with answers pending.

2.11.12 Electronic Offers

The content and page size of electronic copies must be identical to the hard copies. When discrepancies exist between the written hard copie and those provided in electronic format, the written hard copies will take precedence in all cases. For electronic copies, indicate on each compact disc read only memory (CD-ROM) the volume number and title. Use separate files to permit rapid location of all portions, including subfactors, required plans, exhibits, appendices, and attachments, if any. The offeror shall submit volumes I through V in electronic format. Each volume shall be submitted on a separate CD. Electronic files submitted in any compressed format will not be considered in the evaluation. The electronic copies of the proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Word 2007/2010, MS Excel 2007/2010, MS-Project 2007/2010, and MS-Power Point 2007/2010, or Microsoft Office XP as applicable

From the above comment, it sounds like the document will have to be separated instead of delivering one word document. For example, Technical contains four subfactors. The “usual” request is to use tabs in the printout copy to separate the subfactors and to print single-sided What is being stated is separating all the sections and providing them independent of one another which conflicts to an earlier statement regarding cross referencing.

2.11.6 Cross Referencing

Offerors shall write each volume on a stand-alone basis so that the Government may evaluate its contents without cross-referencing to other volumes of the proposal. Information required for proposal evaluation, which is not found in its designated volume, will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal. Cross-referencing within a proposal volume is permitted when its use would conserve space without impairing clarity.

If they are doing an independent electronic review of the four subfactors and we mention, see subfactor x, in the subfactor y section, will the reviewer have access to subfactor x since we’re cross referencing in the volume both subfactor are contained in?

What they are asking for can be done at the end when we have a final version. I would suggest providing a complete word document along with the independent sections. This requires each Subfactor to start on a new page in order for it to work correctly which will impact the writers.

We understand other agencies may prefer one file with tabs, however, IAW 2.11.12, submit separate files for all portions, including subfactors, required plans, exhibits, appendices and attachments. Cross referencing is allowed in a volume, and we will open the appropriate cross referenced file if an offeror chooses to cross reference within a volume.

In CLIN 0007 PM for Facilities/Infrastructure – Base Wide (SRM) COLS 2 – TMDI (50-99) & ORM (>4) appears there are 9 HVAC/R missing. Noted section is attached. 9 HVAC/R positions are there. It is a formatting error and has been corrected.

Schedule B – CLIN XX19 ECP Snow/Ice Removal and CLIN XX20 Pavements Base Wide Snow/Ice Removal

These 2 CLINS have Quantity 5 months; but the COLS 1, 2, 3, 4 has a quantity of 12 months. Is this correct??

This is incorrect. The quantity should be 5 on all COLS under these 2 CLINS. Will correct in forthcoming amendment.

Q&A 4, Question 178; L 4.3.2

In the answer to question 178 (File Q&A_4.pdf) included with the final solicitation, the Government confirmed that in the specific content for past performance references should first address relevancy in terms of the Tinker PWS, including major services required in the PWS, and should then include a discussion of problems encountered organized by the technical subfactors.

Is this interpretation of the specific content organization still accurate?

ITO Attachment 1.1

In ITO Attachment 1.1, under the "Program Details Tab," offerors are instructed to "explain how your performance on this contract is relevant for each applicable factor or subfactor, as instructed under Past Performance in Section 52.212-2 of the RFP."

In the PPI Tool, is it the Government's intent that offerors address relevancy to the technical subfactors within the Technical volume, along with any problems encountered? Does the Government expect offerors to also include a discussion of relevancy to the PWS?

L 4.3.1; ITO Attachment 1.1

Is it the Government's intent that hard copies of the sheets generated by the PPI tool be included in the hard copy submittal of Volume 2, or should offerors only submit the file electronically?

L 4.3.2, ITO Attachment 1.1

Are offerors to assume that the information to be included under "Specific Content" (L 4.3.2) is the same information to be provided in the PPI Tool (ITO Attachment 1.1)? If not, will the Government please clarify the information to be included in the PPI Tool and the Specific Content section?

Yes, all interpretations are correct. Offerors should follow the instructions and there will be duplication of information in the past performance volume. Discussion regarding relevancy shall relate to the technical subfactors.

Reference Section L, 2.11.3 Proposal Organization and 6.0 Contract Documentation, May we submit RFP Sections (A – K) in PDF format in lieu of Word or Excel Format?

Please use only the formats identified in Section L 2.11.12.

Reference Section L, 2.11.3 Proposal Organization and 4.0 Past Performance, If we have a change to our Volume 2 Past Performance (that is submitted 15 days prior to solicitation closing date), are we permitted to submit “change pages” to the Past Performance Volume along with our Volumes 1, 3 and 4 this is currently due August 7th?

Yes it is permissible to submit modifications to your past performance proposals prior to the proposal due date.

When inserting numbers into the spreadsheet provided as part of the RFP, CLIN 0001 does not get included in the total evaluated price.

Please confirm this is correct.

The Pricing Matrix has been corrected to include CLIN 0001 in the total evaluated price

Some CLINS have multiple levels of service associated with them. When the evaluated price is calculated all of the levels are included in the total price. Is it the Governments intent to have the CLINS with multiple levels of service to be weighted as a higher percentage of the evaluated price? Would the Government consider taking the average of the various levels of service for each CLIN to get a more realistic estimated price for evaluation purposes?

As we don't have enough information to predict the probability of using each level of service, we have decided to make them all equal. The TEP is purely for evaluation purposes and the TEP has no bearing on the estimated cost of the contract. As discussed in Sections L&M we will evaluate balance, which will apply to all COLS levels to prevent any abuse.

L.2.11.12 states, “The offeror shall submit volumes I through IV in electronic format. Each volume shall be submitted on a separate CD.”

There are only four volumes listed in the Table in L.2.11.3. Please verify that volumes I through IV should be submitted in electronic format

Yes, Please submit volumes I-IV in electronic format

Block 9 of the SF33 does not indicate permission to hand deliver. Will the Government allow hand delivery of proposals? If so, will the Government verify where they want the proposals hand-delivered?

Due to force protection issues and base access, hand delivery of proposals will not be accepted

Section L.2.11.3 states “The contents of each proposal volume are described in the ITO paragraph as noted in the table below.” The table then lists Present/Past Performance Questionnaires (Atch 1.2) with ‘Tab Only’. Section L.4.2 provides directions for the questionnaires but does not provide any requirements for content related to the questionnaires to be included in the Past Performance volume. Is the Government requiring a tab labeled ‘Present/Past Performance Questionnaires’ within the past performance binder with no documentation behind the tab?

Yes, Please include that Tab per section L, it will be used by the government to file past performance questionnaires

To date, we have not received an answer to many of the questions previously submitted, per the Note stated on the Q&As published on July 08, 2015. Additionally, with the Equipment Evaluation site visit being on the 24th, we need additional time to incorporate findings and update our proposal pricing. Will the Government extend the proposal to August 28th, 2015?

The proposal due date has been extended until 24 Aug 2015

Reference PWS 3.1.3 Contractor Constructed Facilities, we have the following questions:

1. What MTC positions should be utilized to build this this new facility?

2. What CLIN should the building material costs of the construction of this new facility and road be charged back to the government?

3. What type of road (asphalt, concrete, packed aggregate, etc.) should be built to the new facility?

4. PWS 3.1.3 indicates that this facility will become the Pavements Shop. Should office space be included within this facility? If so, how many offices? What square footage of office space?

5. Are restroom facilities expected to be at this new building?

6. What utilities are to be at this new facility? Electric? If so, what is the service voltage expected? Water? If so, where is closest accessible water main? Natural Gas? If so, where is the closest access to natural gas supply line?

7. Will government network/Internet access be required at this new facility? If so, what Tinker AFB office should be contacted about connection location and issues?

8. Have any Environmental Assessments and/or Environmental Impact Statements been completed on the sites for the new building and road? These Environmental surveys can take weeks to months to complete. If they have not been completed, how will this be handled with the expected construction start date being 180 days after award? Will the Government bear the costs of these environmental surveys?

9. Are there any alternate sites that contractors should review, should the designated site be deemed unsuitable for construction?

10. Are de-icing sand and salt piles designated to be stored in this facility? If so, how much?

11. Is this new facility designated to have concrete floors throughout? Can the vehicle parking area within the enclosed facility be packed aggregate?

12. This requirement references a Concept Drawing in PWS 4.7.13. Will the Government please provide this drawing as it is not currently in the RFP.

1. None should be utilized.

2. There will not be a separate CLIN item for this facility.

3. Airfield access road shall be at least 4" asphaltic concrete on a prepared subgrade and minimum 6" stabilized aggregate base.

4. There is office space available in B7028 or wherever the contractor determines.

5. There are restrooms in B7028.

6. See attachment showing utility locations (Appendix 4.5). OG&E will set a transformer as required for the building.

7. This is the contractor's choice. If required, CE will assist and fund if required.

8. An EA will be completed by the government.

9. There is not an alternate location.

10. Yes how ever much the contractor determines is required.

11. The floor must be concrete of suitable strength.

12. Drawing is included at Appendix 4.7.14.

PWS 3.1.6, Contractor Furnished Equipment, states that CSAG ramp equipment used in previous years is shown in Appendix 4.7.14. Will the Government please provide Appendix 4.7.14 as it is not currently provided?

The Appendix reference should be 4.7.13, which is provided.

PWS 1.2.2.10.4 states “The Contractor shall ensure that all electrical work is in compliance with the NEC, National Electrical Safety Code (NESC), and TAFB Electrical Standard. Contractor shall mark all electrical equipment, motors, and panel boxes to meet the requirements of the NEC.” This requires all electrical Panels on base receive a full ARC Flash Analysis performed which will include a short circuit study, a protective device time-current coordination study, a flash-hazard analysis and then the proper labeling of the panel. Will the Government verify that they expect a full ARC Flash Analysis to comply with the requirements of the NEC?

This is an ongoing effort and projects have been programmed to meet this requirement.

The contractor under this effort is not expected to perform a full ARC Flash Analysis.

In PWS section 1.4.2.1 it stipulates that purchases demand utilization of “competitive purchase procedures and cost realism.” If this purchase is from a vendor with GSA pricing for this material does the GSA pricing meet this “competitive pricing and cost realism” requirement?

No, purchases must be awarded to competitively sourced vendors. They may be GSA vendors or not.

References PWS 1.5.13 Outages, how are offerors to quantify costs associated with scheduled and unscheduled outages supporting CE Services concerning construction projects?

Workload data provided includes outages related to construction.

445 In regards to PWS 1.7.5.2, Non-duty hours, how are we to quantify costs associated with non- duty hours? Exercises are during duty hours.

" Because this is a unique requirement that we have not seen in the past, will the government provide more information on their intent/ what they are looking for in their evaluation?

Is it correct to assume that the government is looking for the offers entire cost model including all rate build ups, ODC build ups, vehicle details etc. or are there specific items that the government would like us to include to be able to track the unit pricing?"

Please include the entire cost model including rate build ups, ODC build ups, vehicle details etc..

In regards to Q&A 228, the government's answer included a reference "the contractor is required to have a supervisor to employee ratio not to exceed 1 to 15".

a. Is it correct to assume that this an overall ratio of the contract i.e. total workers divided by supervisors = the supervisor to employee ratio?

b. Or is this in reference to having no more than 15 employees under each direct supervisor? The 1 to 15 ratio applies to shop personnel only.

In the answer to question 178 (File Q&A_4.pdf) included with the final solicitation, the Government confirmed that in the specific content for offerors’ past performance references should first address relevancy in terms of the Tinker PWS, including major services required in the PWS, and should then include a discussion of problems encountered organized by the technical subfactors. Is this interpretation of the organization of the specific content still accurate? Yes

Is it the Government’s intent that hard copies of the sheets generated by the PPI tool be included in the hard copy submittal of Volume 2, or should offerors only submit the file electronically? Contractor's shall submit hard copies as well

Are offerors to assume that the information to be included under “Specific Content” (L 4.3.2) is the same information to be provided in the PPI Tool (ITO Attachment 1.1)? If not, will the Government please clarify the information to be included in the PPI Tool and the Specific Content section?

Offerors should follow the instructions and there will be duplication of information in the past performance volume.

The government’s response to this question indicates the contractor will receive the 1354 and O&M manuals, but failed to answer part of the question. New equipment required to be added to the RWP program is normally specified by manufacturer, make model, capacity, serial number, location (and other details) along with recommended MAS sheets. In most cases, the manufacturer’ recommended maintenance actions during the warranty period are specific to each piece of equipment and are significantly different than the existing MAS sheets which are by equipment type not for specific make/model/manufacturer pieces of equipment. What is the process to add the list of new equipment to the RWP program since the 1354 and O&M manuals will not provide sufficient detail in order for the technicians to accomplish the required RWP? Who is responsible to customize the MAS sheets to support the special RWP for each piece of equipment required during the warranty period?

New equipment will be inventoried by either the Engineering Contractor or Operations Engineering (Government) and appropriate PMTLs developed

The government’s response to this question indicates the government has contractual latitude to swap equipment provided the level of effort does not exceed COLs funded levels Will the swapping equipment process take into account differing shop rates, cost of subcontractor rates, special equipment rentals to support, etc? Depending on the size of the “swap” and manhours involved will the MTC be revised?

The Government will consider this on a case-by-case basis.

The government’s response to these two questions indicates a CLIN will be added for aerial infrared surveys and that the requirement is being removed. Please clarify?

The aerial infrared survey requirement has been removed from the PWS.

The government’s response to this question indicates the government the government is not willing to accept a CMRP accreditation for the licensed PE in section 1.2 (which the requirement was subsequently removed). Will the government be willing to accept a CMRP accreditation in place of the CRE in section 1.2.4.1?

No, the Government expects the contractor to provide a CRE to lead the PdM effort.

The government’s response to this question indicates the work will accomplished by WO. There are other PWS references to work being accomplished by WO. Is it the government intent that all WOs, regardless of the source of initiation, be considered part of the annual WOAP requirement or are some WOs considered to be outside this program? If not part of the WOAP requirement, can the government provide workload factors associated with the various types of WOs (special events, demolition, asbestos, annual Spring/Fall outage, etc)?

Yes, this is part of the WOAP requirement identified in the PWS if the work is in excess of DSW scope.

The government’s response to this question indicates WOs average 200 manhours. Is there an upper limit to the size of the WO the BMC will be required to execute? For example 125% of 200 or 250 manhours?

No, there is no upper limit for an individual work order. The upper limit is defined by the COLs level ordered.

The government’s response to this question indicates there is no historical workload for this requirement. Does this mean the manning associated with this workload is NOT part of the MTC workload calculation?

The workload provided includes all interior modular structure (white houses) work for each year. The manning is also included in

MTC.

The government’s response to this question indicated there were other service providers doing work on base, but this should not affect the BMC contractor. Does this mean that any RP maintenance requirements requiring proprietary software/certifications/agreements including Honeywell, ABS, final denial barriers, fabric hangar doors, etc are the responsibility of the government?

The contractor is responsible for RP maintenance requirements except as identified in updated Appendix 4.6.1.32 for accomplishment by others. Government will act as liaison as required.

The government’s response to this question indicates the contractor is required to have a supervisor to employee ratio NTE 1:15. This response conflicts with Appendix 4.9 MTC which states the minimum supervisor to employee ratio of 1 to 15. Please clarify.

The minimum supervisor to employee ratio is 1 to 15.

The government’s response to this question indicates administrative positions are not included in the MTC, but there are Work Control Clerks and Data Entry FTEs identified within the MTC. Can the government clarify what category these two work classifications fall in, if not administrative?

Government has identified only the certain key personnel including work control positions. This is not all the administrative positions required to meet the PWS.

The government’s response to this question indicates the contractor may be allowed to submit an REA for increased workload, but did not answer part of the question. How will the manufacturers’ recommendations, list of equipment, start of the warranty period, etc be communicated to the contractor for newly installed equipment?

New equipment should be inventoried by Engineering Contractor or Operations Engineering (Government) and appropriate maintenance assigned.

The government’s response to this question indicates there is a list of approved chemicals for use at Tinker but did not answer part of the question. Do environmental limitations allow the use of commercially available chemicals necessary to keep these systems free of deposits and scale? Are any of these on the list of approved chemicals?

Yes, as long as SDS information is provided and approved by 72 ABW/CEIE. Contractor will be required to input data into EESOH-

MIS.

The government’s response to this question seems to limit the contractor’s asbestos response to support of DSWs/WOs. Is it the government’s intent to limit the asbestos response to support of DSWs/WOs?

No, the contractor is required to respond to all service calls regarding asbestos. This work can be DSW, WO or WOAP scope.

The government’s response to this question limits the associated WO to $50K and 200 manhours. This WO definition differs from other parts of the PWS, is this intentional?

Correction to the previous response:

DSWs are limited to 80 man hours for new work and 200 man hours for repair work.

The government’s response to this question indicates there is no historical workload for this requirement. Does this mean the manning associated with this workload is NOT part of the MTC workload calculation? It is part of the MTC.

The government’s response to this question indicates there is no historical workload for this requirement. Does this mean the manning associated with this workload is NOT part of the MTC workload calculation? It is part of the MTC.

The government’s response to this question indicates there is no historical workload for this requirement. Does this mean the manning associated with this workload is NOT part of the MTC workload calculation? It is part of the MTC.

The government’s response to this question indicates there is no historical workload for this requirement. Does this mean the manning associated with this workload is NOT part of the MTC workload calculation? It is part of the MTC.

The government’s response to this question indicates there is no historical workload for this requirement. Does this mean the manning associated with this workload is NOT part of the MTC workload calculation? It is part of the MTC.

The government’s response to this question indicates there is no historical workload for this requirement. Does this mean the manning associated with this workload is NOT part of the MTC workload calculation? It is part of the MTC.

The government’s response to this question indicates there is no historical workload for this requirement. Does this mean the manning associated with this workload is NOT part of the MTC workload calculation? It is part of the MTC.

The government’s response to this question indicates there is no historical workload for this requirement. Does this mean the manning associated with this workload is NOT part of the MTC workload calculation?

It is part of the MTC.

Section 1.12.12 has been revised. A list of AMR meters and locations is included in appendix 4.6.1.18.

The government’s response to this question indicates there is no historical workload for this requirement. Is it the government’s intent that “anything” (including sticky notes, emails, personal notebooks, phone messages, etc) created in support of this document is Government property? This seems to be particularly burdensome as there are hundreds, possible thousands, of these items created per day. If there is something the government determines is valuable that is not already identified, they could add it as a record or a deliverable.

Clarification: Any documents generated in support of this contract does not have to be part of a submittal. However, if and when Government requests such information related to the contract, the contractor should be able to provide.

475 The government’s response to this question appears to be incomplete Is there additional explanation to complete this government response?

Government does not require access to contractor's internal financial, contractor's personnel property, human resource records used by the contractor to manage the labor force.

The government’s response to this question indicates the government is willing to support additional warehouse space to increase efficiency.

How much additional warehouse space is the government willing to provide? Will it be adjacent to the existing space in B1?

At the time of the contractor space request every effort will be made to accommodate the contractor's identified square footage and location requirement if available.

The government’s response to this question indicates the government’s intent to provide approval during the WRRB, but did not answer part of the question. Will there be a government POC to provide approval of emergency or ongoing work after hours?

The contractor is not required to notify the government during non-duty hours. Example, an emergency must be worked until mitigated.

Government should be made aware of the emergency and status the next working day.

The government’s response to this question indicates there is no historical workload for this requirement. Does this mean the manning associated with this workload is NOT part of the MTC workload calculation?

This is part of the MTC based on the old work classification structure.

The government’s response to this question indicates there is no historical workload for the non-RP facilities and equipment included in this requirement. Does this mean the manning associated with this workload is NOT part of the MTC workload calculation?

The Government provided equipment database (Excel) includes estimated man hours required for PM. MTC is based on RP and non-RP in the database (appendix 4.6.1.32).

The government’s response to this question indicates there are non-RP interior modular structures included in the contract requirement. Are there any workload factors or lists of any other non-RP facilities and equipment (beyond interior modular structures) included in this contract requirement?

Beyond interior modular structures, appendix

4.6.1.32 identifies non-real property in the PM program.

The government’s response to this question indicates there are non-RP interior modular structures included. Does this mean the manning associated with this workload is NOT part of the MTC workload calculation? MTC will be revised by 1.5 man years.

The government’s response to this question indicates there is no historical workload for this requirement. Does this mean the manning associated with this workload is NOT part of the MTC workload calculation? It is part of the MTC.

The government’s response to this question indicates the contract for barrier maintenance with Smith and Wesson will continue. Who is responsible to pay for this contract? What is the BMC responsible for?

The government currently has BPA to perform quarterly maintenance and emergency repair response. The contractor is responsible for providing these services upon contract award.

The government’s response to this question indicates 8.4 FTEs are allocated for the two plants, but did not answer part of the question. This section indicates the contractor is responsible to man both of these plants but even when coupled with chilled water production FTEs (1.2.3.3) and compressed air loop FTEs (1.2.3.4), manning is not adequate. In addition, this section requires maintenance of all the plant equipment as well as the steam distribution, chilled water and compressed air loop systems with only boiler operator FTEs. There should be other work classifications FTEs to provide adequate equipment/distribution system maintenance. MTC will be revised by 2.0 man years.

The government’s response to this question indicates there is no historical workload for this requirement. Does this mean the manning associated with this workload is NOT part of the MTC workload calculation?

Please see revised PWS. The energy assessment requirement has been removed and will be performed by service contract. The tuning requirement is addressed by PMTL which is provided in the appendix.

The government’s response to this question indicates in the event of an emergency, the government emergency response contractor is responsible for pumping. Does this include emergency DSW responses?

The contractor is responsible for all DSW responses.

The government’s response to this question indicates there is no historical workload for this requirement. Does this mean the manning associated with this workload is NOT part of the MTC workload calculation? It is part of the MTC.

The government’s response to this question indicates in the event of a lift station failure attributed to process/customer, the government emergency response contractor is responsible for pumping. In some cases, the cause of the lift station failure will not be determined until after the pumping occurs. Will the BMC be able to recover the pumping costs resulting from process/customer?

Disregard previous answer to question 321.

The contractor is responsible for any pumping required. The contracting officer will determine if costs can be recovered on a case by case basis.

The government’s response to this question indicates there is no historical workload for this requirement. Does this mean the manning associated with this workload is NOT part of the MTC workload calculation? It is part of the MTC.

The government’s response to this question indicates the BAS requirement is a 24/7 monitoring requirement and the requirement is for a dedicated full time person. The MTC identifies 4 FTEs only for this effort. Is it the government’s intent that manning is adequate for this requirement considering the other additional responsibilities captured in section 1.2.5 beyond the monitoring requirement?

Yes. Government's intention is these positions shall be utilized for this function along with their other duties.

The government’s response to this question indicates there is no historical workload for this requirement. Does this mean the manning associated with this workload is NOT part of the MTC workload calculation? It is part of the MTC.

The government’s response to this question indicates there is no historical workload for this requirement. Does this mean the manning associated with this workload is NOT part of the MTC workload calculation?

The MTC is being modified to account for this effort.

The government’s response to this question indicates the mechanical rooms belong to CE and shall not be used to store materials, but did not answer part of the question. Will the BMC be responsible for cleaning up equipment, materials and debris as a result of the other contractors’/users/Facility Manager’s unapproved use of CE mechanical rooms?

The contractor is responsible for cleanup. It is the contractors responsibility to identify and bring to the Government's attention, when others are responsible for such conditions.

The government’s response to this question indicates the contractor will provide diesel and unleaded gas for vehicles Will the government approve a request for the BMC to install/construct refueling tanks on Tinker? The government will approve.

The government’s response to this question indicates the contractor can meet performance criteria using this MTC. The MTC calculation utilizes 2080 manhours as the FTE direct labor calculation which ignores indirect hours of vacation, sick leave and holidays. It also fails to identify supervisory position to meet the minimum supervisor to employee ratio of 1 to 15. It also avoids identifying all “administrative” positions to include procurement/buyers, HR, and other necessary functions. Does this mean the actual manning requirement will actually be much higher than identified in the MTC?

The Government did identify some key admin positions. However, it is contractor's responsibility to identify the required admin positions to fulfill the PWS requirements.

Clarification: The MTC identified the minimum manning requirements with out all positions required. 2080 is used for MTC.

The government’s response to this question indicates that not all required equipment is identified in the GFP list. Can the government provide historical information on equipment that the government has rented in the past to support the BMC efforts. Is it the government’s intent to continue renting this type of equipment?

The Contractor has the option of buying or renting as required to meet the PWS requirements. The Government is not planning to rent any equipment for contractor use.

The government’s response to this question indicates that not all required equipment is identified in the GFP list. Can the government provide a list of the current contractor’s special equipment/special vehicles, recognizing that the new contract is significantly different than the previous contract? We can't provide the current contractor's list.

Snow and Ice operational equipment is required to be stored in an enclosed facility to be sized and constructed by the Contractor.

Additionally, access to the airfield must be constructed. This construction shall begin within 180 calendar days after award (refer to Appendix 4.7.5 for equipment list). The construction shall meet all DoD, federal, state and local standards, codes, regulations and industry standards. The building and the airfield access becomes government property. The intention is for the Pavements Shop to be located within this facility. The Government will provide a site on west side of the airfield for this facility (See Appendix 4.7.13 Concept Drawing). All drawings shall be submitted to 72ABW/CE for approval before construction. We respectfully ask the Government to provide answers to the following questions regarding the snow and ice equipment storage facility:

� Who is the designer of record, for the storage building that is used in the storage of the winter equipment?

� Where are the tie in points for the MEP utilities, in association with the new building location?

� Will the Structural steel Manufacture and Erector have to be AISC certified?

� To include a pavements shop, what is the intent for the pavement shop? Is it for more than a single person?

� Will there be a need of a service pit and or Lifts?

� Will there be a need for underground fuel storage? Will the storage area be conditioned for climate control systems?

� Provide sizes and measurements of all equipment to be stored in the new storage building.

� What size is the Pavement Shop?

� How far is the connection to have airfield access from the new Storage Building?

� Is there a GEO-TECH Report for the area for the location of the Storage Facility?

Contractor is required to provide a design to meet their needs.

Drawings will be provided for the area including utilities.

Steel Manufacturer and Erector do not have to be AISC certified.

The pavement shop make up is the contractor's responsibility.

The facility is owned by the contractor for his use and will be built to his specification.

The government will review the design and construction for code compliance only.

See revised 3.1.3 section of the PWS.

CLIN 1007, COLS 2- PM for Facilities/Infrastructure Total Full-time Equivalent (FTE) indicates 37 FTEs, but the details total 28. Can the Government please clarify the correct number of FTEs?

Refer to the revised MTC ( Table 1). FTEs are 37.

Government does not understand where 28 came from.

CLIN x009, COLS 3-PM for Facilities/Infrastructure US Navy Total Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) indicates 2.25 FTEs, but the details total

2.5. Please clarify.

Refer to the revised MTC ( Table 1). FTEs are 2.5.

1.1 states “The Contractor shall provide cost effective maintenance, repair, construction, operation, and service functions for Real Property (RP), Real Property Installed Equipment (RPIE), RP similar equipment, designated Equipment Authorization Inventory Documents (EAID) and non-RPIE equipment identified by the Government to a standard that prevents deterioration beyond that which results from normal wear and tear or prevents degradation of base mission. Contractor’s ultimate goal in performance of repair, maintenance, modification, operation, installation, and performance of scheduled maintenance/services on identified property and equipment is to ensure safe, efficient, reliable operation, and to precluding premature mission degradation of RP and equipment. 1) Does the workload factors provided include maintenance, repair, construction, operation, and service functions for non- RPIE equipment identified by the Government? 2) Does the Government standard replace equipment at the end of its life-cycle, or is the Contractor expected to maintain equipment well beyond its lifecycle to ensure safe, efficient, reliable operation, and to preclude premature mission degradation of RP and equipment? 3) Will all identified property and equipment be safe, efficient and operationally reliable to preclude premature mission degradation of RP and equipment at contract start?

1. Yes. Please refer to the appendix 4.6.1.32, CEMEA PM workload (EXCEL format).

2. Life cycle replacement will be accomplished as funds are available. It is the contractors responsibility to identify/repair and maintain all equipment regardless of age.

3. Real property equipment is in variable states of repair and operating condition.

1.1.2.1.1 FAS shall be notified of DSW work which will require more than 80 Man-Hours (MH). In addition, Contractor shall:

1.1.2.1.1.3 Work Order Allocation Program (WOAP-Over 80 man hours or $200K) 1.1.2.1.1 indicates that the FAS will be notified of DSW work requiring more than 80 man-hours, 1.1.2.1.1.3 indicates work over 80 man-hours $200K is a WOAP. Definitions provided for a DSW according to the appendixes is all work (excluding planning and estimating) up to 80 man-hours. A WO is more than 200 man-hours.

Considering these paragraphs, all work over 80 man-hours/$200K a WOAP. 1) Is this correct?

2) What is the work classification for work between 80 and 200 man-hours?

1. DSWs are up to 80 man hours for new work and up to 200 man hours for repair or replacement of RP.

2. If it is new work over 80 man hours, it is a Work Order. If between 80 and 200 man hours of repair or replacement, it is a DSW.

If repair or maintenance work is above 200 man hours, it is a Work Order.

1.1.2.1.5 Perform report runs in IWIMS or the most current Air Force database at request of Government to capture and validate work executed and scheduled. Weekly summary report of outstanding DSWs will be posted on a shared drive accessible by the Government at all times. The DSW report will be in queryable format, updated weekly, and include the following information at a minimum: DSW Number, Facility Number, Equipment UID, Location, Date Generated, Categorized Priority, Description, and Status. Also included in the report shall be the number of DSWs completed for each previous month with the total hours expended for each DSW. Equipment validation is not required at initial input, but actual equipment ID is required to be included in closeout of DSW. 1) Will the Gov’t provide UID format for non-equipment type real property i.e. wall, pipe, window, electrical outlet, floor, ceiling, baseboard, brick, diffuser, vent, sprinkler head, lightbulb, etc., for all potential repair requirements? 2) Is this requirement only for equipment, or all RP? The UID only applies to equipment.

1.1.2.2.1 Emergency CM Work. Emergency work represents immediate maintenance, safety, mission risk, or Tier 1 assets, and will always be accomplished before all other work. Admin work can be considered mission risk. 1) Can the Government define “mission risk?”

2) Will the government please provide some examples of Admin Work that is considered “Mission Risk?”

An "emergency" response example in administrative areas are situations that affect life, safety, or health.

1.2.1.4.3 In the event that any plumbing outage causes loss of service to the entire facility for a period exceeding 24 hours, or directly affects the facility mission, the Contractor shall be responsible for providing, cleaning, removing temporary portable sanitary facilities, and shall provide adequate supply of fresh potable water for facility occupants. Tinker facilities vary greatly in size and number of occupants. 1) Is there a standard that will be provided to quantify the number of potable water sources and portable sanitary facilities required for facilities based on occupancy? 2) Will the government provide facility occupancy information for the Contractor to estimate portable water requirements/portable sanitary facility requirements?

One sanitary facility per every 20 occupants.

This work will be covered under DSW or Work Order.

Control technicians shall be qualified and familiar with “Honeywell”, “ABS”& “JCI” control systems and maintenance Honeywell, ABS & JCT controls systems continuously evolve in hardware and software that require specialized training and new software. 1) Is the intent that the Contractor keeps current with all training and operational requirements for these control systems at Contractors expense?

Yes. The intent is that the Contractor keeps current with all training and operational requirements for these control systems at Contractors expense.

1.2.2.1 Pavements, Drainage and Fences. The Contractor shall inspect, repair, and maintain airfield pavements, road and bridge surfaces, curbs and gutters, sidewalks, parking lots, drives and driveways, guard rails, parking blocks, paths, trails, fencing systems, and airfield pavements to ensure maximum service life expectancy. 1) Does this requirement include control of vegetation?

2) Does this include removal of vegetation? Yes, if it affects the water flow. It includes both control and removal.

1.2.2.1.1 Maintenance and repair of airfield pavements shall be in accordance with Standard Practice for Sealing Joints and Cracks in Rigid and Flexible Pavements, UFC 3-270-01, Asphalt Maintenance and Repair, UFC 3-270-02, Asphalt Crack Repair, UFC 3-270-03, 29 Concrete Crack and Partial-Depth Spall Repair, UFC 3-270-04, Concrete Repair, UFC 3-270-07, O&M: Airfield Damage Repair, and UFC 3-270-08, Pavement Maintenance Management. Contractor shall coordinate and comply with Base Operations requirements when performing maintenance or repairs on the airfield. 1) Will the Government provide an approved list of concrete repair materials that is suitable for spall repairs on the airfield during emergency, extreme heat, cold, and extreme cold applications?

The Government is in the process of gathering information from other bases and HQ in regards to which material are preferred for concrete repair below 50F. This material will be purchased through CAP.

1.2.2.1.4 Maintain, repair, and install security fences and gates to meet the requirements of UFC 04-022-03, Security Fences and Gates, Contractor shall inspect, maintain, and repair masonry, chain link, metal, stockade, split rail, and any other fencing system. 1) Do the workload factors provided include inspection of masonry, metal, stockade, split rail and all other fencing systems? 2) Do PTMLs exist for these requirements?

1. This is part of the general workload data. It is not tracked separately.

2. PMTLs exist for security fencing. Other fences should be inspected by industry standard.

1.2.2.2 Pavements Clearance. The Contractor shall establish a snow and ice control program to provide continuous mission capability by removing snow and ice from airfield pavements, base streets, Entry Control Points (ECP) and driveways to meet the requirements of TAFB Plan 32-1002, Snow and Ice Control. The Government will provide fuel when commercial carriers cannot make deliveries due to hazardous road conditions. 1) What does “continuous mission capability” mean?

No missions cancelled, delayed?

No sortie generations cancelled/delayed?

No transient aircraft traffic affected?

No aircraft movement delayed?

2) Does the current equipment set that the Government identified in the Snow & Ice Plan (TAFBPLAN 32-1002) as acceptable if in good working order provide for no lost missions, sortie generations, transient aircraft traffic delays in support of the flying wing and safe movement of vehicles?

(1) The following will apply to “continuous mission capability”; the requirement is no missions cancelled or delayed, no sortie generations cancelled/delayed, no transient aircraft traffic affected and no aircraft movement delayed. Allowances will be made for extreme weather events that are non-typical for Central Oklahoma.

(2) If equipment is in good working order and in numbers shown in Appendix 4.7.5.1, the contractor shall be considered meeting mission requirements (Note: Much of the snow removal equipment is to be replaced by the contractor and the current equipment turned into DRMO).

1.2 OPERATIONS EXECUTION. Contractor shall provide at least one full-time dedicated person fully qualified to provide oversight of operations that will be available for open discussions with FAS when Government concerns and operations issues arise. 1) Is this FTE identified in the MTC? Yes. It is identified in MTC.

1.2.1 Facility Maintenance and Repair. If an outage cannot be scheduled during normal working hours, Contractor shall schedule the work to accommodate user at no additional cost to Government.