29Feb08.doc

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

RFP FA8530-08-R-21758

29 Feb 08 Question: Reference Clause H-901 (f) at Amendment #6. As shown, the clause seems to discount the fact that the Sell Prices on contract do not disclose any price buildup used by any bidder or subcontractor during the basic contract proposal process. Hence, it would appear to be difficult for the Government to determine if any adjustments to labor prices are warranted. In addition, depending upon the geographical location from which a particular bidder may choose to provide service (other than a pre-determined Government site), there may be multiple wage determinations to consider. Given the unique nature of competitive task order bids, and taking into account the multiple facets of the Service Contract Act (including but not limited to pay and benefit amounts) as well as other contractual and financial considerations applicable to task order proposals such as overhead, G&A, and profit, we suggest that the clause be re-written to allow that if a bidder is to submit a proposal for an SCA covered task and subsequently submits a revised labor price or prices for that task order. Such labor prices would be submitted for appropriateness and review by the government. Further, given that there are additional proposal efforts required for such task order bids, we suggest that a more flexible approach such as doubling the proposal response time be adopted by the government.

Answer: The government has reviewed this proposed alternative; however, the original methodology is the one that will be utilized at the delivery/task order level: : upon the contractor’s identification at the order level that a wage determination or multiple wage determinations are applicable, the government will be responsible for adjusting the rates, if necessary, at that point in time.

Question: In the reply to questions on 7 Feb 08, it was stated, "Answer: The first sentence in G1.8.1 of the Minimum Capabilities Specification applies to both the Hangar and Paint/Depaint Facility Requirements. The second sentence in G1.8.1 of the Minimum Capabilities Specification only applies to the Paint/Depaint Facility requirements.”

Even though it stated that the 2nd sentence only applies to the Paint/Depaint Facility, the Specification has never been updated to move this requirement into H1 in the Specification, implying that even though the sentence is addressing Paint, does the government still want us to speak to this in the Ramp Service Carts area.

Is it the Government's desire for bidders to address the second sentence in their compliance write-up pertaining to Specification G 1.8.1 (Hangar/Ramp Space -- General Requirements/ Lighting, Electricity, & Compressed Air), or in their compliance write-up pertaining Specification H1 (Paint/Depaint Hangar/Enclosed Space)?

Answer: The MCM calls out G1.8.1 for both the Hangar and Paint/Depaint Facility.

When filling out the MCM G1.8.1 under the Hangar. The Prime or critical Subcontractor is only required to "possess ramp lighting, electricity, and compressed air IAW TO 00-25-172, TO 1-1-3, TO 1-1-300, NAS 3306, and NFPA 409 or equivalent."

When filling out the MCM G1.8.1 under the Paint/Depaint Facility. The Prime's or critical Subcontractors' Paint/Depaint Facility is required to possess ramp lighting, electricity, and compressed air IAW TO 00-25-172, TO 1-1-3, TO 1-1-300, NAS 3306, and NFPA 409 or equivalent. Also, the Prime's or critical Subcontractors' Paint/Depaint Facility must have explosive proof electrical wiring and forced ventilation sufficient to provide 100 linear feet per minute air velocity IAW TO 1-1-8 or equivalent.

Question: Amendment 07 revised clause H-910 (Consent to add subcontractors) from amendment 006. However the following wording from the amendment 006 version was omitted from the amendment 007 clause H-910 unless the proposed subcontractor was a critical subcontractor on another prime contractor’s team with rates established at the time of contract award. For critical subcontractors at the time of award who are being added to another prime contractor’s team after award, the critical subcontractors’ rates as established at the time of award will be utilized, without being subject to the median for the prime contractor to whose team they are being added.

Was this intentional or should the above wording (from amendment 006 H-910) be included in the final RFP?

Answer: The clause in its entirety, with all amended language included, will be included in the conformed copy of the RFP which is forthcoming.

Question: In the event a bidder is an international company with a composite rate approved by the British Ministry of Defense, Commercial Project Enabling Team Cost Assurance Service, and is equivalent to CAS compliant, will the government accept this evidence for such a composite rate?

Answer: If contractors cannot comply with the RFP in submittal of rates due to a government approved disclosure statement or equivalent, the document or evidence must be presented with the contractor’s proposal in explanation for deviation from the dictates of the RFP. Rates as submitted will be looked at for reasonableness and balance in a competitive environment regardless of whether the rate submitted is a composite rate or not.

Question: RFP Reference: Paragraph M900 2.c.iv.A @ Amendment 0007, as well as the government provided excel files to be used by Prime and Subcontractor Quotation. The referenced paragraph provides: and no more than one non-critical subcontractor as defined in RFP Clause L-900(2)(e)(iii). Our review of the RFP discloses that the definition cannot be located at that paragraph. Is this an oversight? Our interpretation of the various aspects of the amendment is that the government is allowing for one “NON-CRITICAL SUBCONTRATOR” to provide for the quotation of the additional labor categories embodied within Amendment 0007. We have also taken into account that the revised excel pricing files allow for up to a maximum of 12 CRITICAL SUBCONTRACTORS. Taking into account the following from the referenced paragraph. The percentages proposed by the prime contractor will be applied to the AF estimated number of hours to calculate the hours to be used for the prime contractor, its critical subcontractor(s) , and no more than one non-critical subcontractor as defined in RFP Clause L-900(2)(e)(iii). We are not certain that the additional labor categories are, or are not, a portion of the evaluated price to be determined by the government. It appears that the additional labor categories are not, in that those additional labor categories could be inclusively quoted by a NON-CRIITICAL subcontractor. However the additional labor categories could be quoted by a CRITICAL SUBCONTRATOR, with an allowance in the excel files for total evaluated price. Our interpretation concludes that the government is, in effect, allowing for a NON-CRITCAL subcontractor to quote NON-EVALUATED labor prices.

Answer: The definitition is located at L-900(2)(c) and states: a critical subcontractor is defined as any subcontractor whose capabilities are utilized by the prime contractor for purposes of completing the Minimum Capabilities Matrix. The additional labor categories are part of the total evaluated price; whether the rates are quoted by a critical subcontractor or a “non-critical” subcontractor, a subcontractor rate spreadsheet must be submitted for the subcontractor providing these rates.

Question: Amendment 0007's revision to H-910, Consent to Add Subcontractors, states:

"The only exception to this median rate restriction is for Labor Categories 79 through 84, as there will only be one prime/subcontractor per team with rates for these labor categories at the time of initial contract award. In the event that a prime contractor must add a subcontractor after award for Labor Categories 79 through 84, the proposed labor rates for the new subcontractor cannot exceed the labor rates for these categories that were incorporated at initial contract award for that particular prime contractor. “ Answer on 2/26/08 is as follows: “Answer: The rates for categories 79-84 are not different from any of the other categories of rates, meaning that the prime may provide rates for these categories from each critical sub who possesses the capability. Also, these rates may be provided by a variety of subcontractors; the only requirement is that at least one rate be provided for each labor category listed.” Does the 26 FEB 08 Q&A take precedence over the 22 FEB 08 Amendment 07 exception to the median rate restriction?

Answer: In answering the question above-referenced, the Government recognized that some offerors may have teams where the twelve critical subcontractors would include one or more contractors who could provide rates for the added categories, but that other offerors would have to utilize an additional contractor in order to provide those rates. For those teams that do not need to resort to the additional contractor to provide the rates, and who may have more than one contractor who can provide the rates, more than one rate may be provided for the labor categories 79-84. In the event that there is more than one rate per each of the 79-84 categories, if a sub is later added to those categories, his rate must fall below the median rate in order to be added. For those offerors who have only one team member, either one of the twelve critical subcontractors or the additional “non-critical”subcontractor which is allowed for this purpose only, only one rate will be incorporated for each labor category and therefore the median rate constraint would not be applicable (because there is no median when there is only one.) Therefore, in that situation, any subcontractor for which an add-on request is submitted after award must propose a rate for those categories which is below the rate already established at time of contract award.