H0114-R-0005_Amendment__002.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION (Nonappropriated Funds) PAGE 1 OF 1

1. AMENDMENT NO.

2. EFFECTIVE DATE

02 November 15

3. REQUISITION/PURCHASE

REQUEST NO.

4. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

Golf Course RFP

5. ISSUED BY

Headquarters, United States Marine Corps

NAF Business and Support Services Division (MR)

Attn: Procurement Branch (MRB)

3044 Catlin Avenue, Quantico, VA 22134-5099

6. ADMINISTERED BY (if other than block 5)

Attn: Mr. Jamie Fullinwider Tel: 703-784-3804

Fax: 703-432-0041 e-mail: fullinwiderjl@usmc-mccs.org

7. CONTRACTOR NAME AND ADDRESS (Include Street, City, County, State, and ZIP Code)

8. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION

DATED:26 October 2015

No. H0114-R-0005

9. THIS BLOCK APPLIES ONLY TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in block 11. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers

_X_ is not extended, is extended to . Offerors must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation, or as amended, by one of the following methods: (a) By signing and returning 1 copies of this amendment; (b) by acknowledging receipt on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) by separate letter, fax, or email which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT

THE ISSUING OFFICE PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If, by virtue of this amendment, you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by letter, fax, or email, by referencing the solicitation and this amendment, and by sending for receipt prior to the opening hour and date specified.

10. NO APPROPRIATED FUNDS OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL BECOME DUE, OR BE PAID, THE CONTRACTOR BY REASON OF THIS CONTRACT.

11. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT

Amendment 002 is being issued to answer questions for the pre-proposal conference on 02

November 2015. Questions not answered will be answered by COB 13 November 2015.

1. Question: Properties lost approx. 690k last year combined, with only Camp Pendleton and Barstow showing a Net Income Before Depreciation. Did the government consider an initial management approach that would decrease the risk to the contractor, permit them to advise and guide the MCCS, then ideally move into leasing agreements once risk is completely identified and a mitigation plan can be put into effect?

Answer: Management agreements were considered. MCCS will evaluate all bids based on what is considered to be in the best interest of MCCS.

2. Question: Will the government, under any circumstances, re-consider permitting contractors to bid on individual properties, or regional properties, as opposed to all eight?

Answer: MCCS desires a single entity to operate all eight (8) golf operations. However, Offerors may bid on individual courses, regionally, or on the entire portfolio of eight

(8). MCCS will evaluate all bids based on what is considered to be in the best interest of MCCS.

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in block 8, as heretofore changed, remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

12A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

13A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

Mrs. Leah Woodley

12B. OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

12C. DATE SIGNED 13B. SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER 13C. DATE SIGNED

3. Question: Will the government consider alternatives to the 10-day requirement to pay for existing pro shop inventory and food, beverage consumables and supplies?

a. Would the government consider liquidating the above existing inventories prior to contractor assuming responsibility, thereby removing this purchasing requirement from the contractor?

Answer: The evaluation panel may consider this when reviewing the technical factors of each proposal in response to this solicitation and may allow it if is in the best interest

4. Question: Based on MCCS control over rates, pricing methodologies, base access concerns and restrictions, and a myriad of government labor regulations, a contractor is at serious risk under the “lease style” agreement proposed in this RFP. Will the government consider alternatives to “stated percentage of gross income collected and/or a specified annual amount subject to a minimum fixed base floor amount”, such as, but not limited to, “% of net profit”?

Answer: The evaluation panel will evaluate the proposals on the merits of the technical and composite revenue responses. MCCS reserves the right to award to other than the

Offeror with the highest percentage return of revenue alone if it is in the best interest

5. Question: Attachment J-2 identifies, by property, a few planned capital improvements.

Can the government confirm this information is inclusive and, if not, please identify of

ALL known potential, planned, proposed, bid, or existing capital improvement projects that are in-work, or have been considered in the last 5 years, regarding improvements to the courses and facilities in the future (2015 and beyond)?

Answer: All existing and planned capital projects, as known to us, are included.

6. Question: Will the government consider contractor use of existing technology and POS systems at each site for a 6-mos period to facilitate transition?

Answer: We do not have a problem supporting the existing systems for a period of time but we would then have to have SLA’s with the vendors to align expectations.

7. Question: For 2014, and 2015 to date, can the government provide the # of rounds played at each property under the “civilian access waiver” to better clarify current state of rounds generated by that demographic?

Answer: Unable to answer at this time. Data will be compiled and released by 13 November

2015.

8. Question: Can the government provide actual utility rates for the last 5 years, including 2015? Information will permit contractor to see trend in rates. Utilities, per paragraph C-11.2 include electrical, communication, gas, water, sewer, and trash removal).

9. Question: Are meters and devices to monitor utilities not already installed on the properties? Please clarify the requirements of paragraph C-11.2 of the RFP.

10. Question: Sales taxes are state and local jurisdiction. While the NAF enjoys immunity from such taxes, will that immunity confer to the contractor in all cases?

Answer: The operator will have to pay all applicable sales tax.

11. Question: It is our understanding the current NAF employees must be offered "right of first refusal" for employment with the contractor.

a. Are any RFP locations part of a collective bargaining agreement for these NAF employees?

Answer: The following installations have CBA: Cherry Point, Camp Lejeune, Miramar, Camp

Pendleton, Quantico, and Parris Island.

12. Question: Due to the range of operational differences at each location, and based on our experience, a phased approach to the start date at the various properties would provide the most seamless, and least risky transition for a new operator, and be in the best interest of the customers. Would the government consider this?

Answer: Yes, the evaluation panel would consider this during the technical review as part of the review of the Implementation Plan required in Section One if this is in the best interest of MCCS.

13. Question: With respect to the Data Call and Finances:

a. Does the utility bill include water to maintain the course?

b. Confirm listed wage rates are exclusive of Health, Welfare and Fringe payments?

c. What is going into “other income” on the provided finance sheets?

Answer:

a. Payment for water on the course currently varies from installation to installation.

When operations are turned over to a third party operator they will be responsible for all utility expenses to include water on the course. Currently MCAS Miramar, MCB Camp

Lejeune, and MCB Camp Pendleton pay for water to maintain the course.

b. The wage rates listed excludes Health, Welfare, and Fringe benefit payments. The Marine Corps uses a base 32% for these types of payments when estimating benefit payments.

c. Other income includes revenue such as food and beverage, lesson/instructional commissions, sponsorship income, insurance payments, room rental fees, and in some cases

Appropriated Funds.

14. Question: Why are F&B and Banquets not listed at Cherry Point? Is the “Wings

Restaurant” not currently associated with the golf operation at Cherry Point?

Answer: Although it is located adjacent to the golf course, “Wings Restaurant” is the part of the Consolidated Club at MCAS Cherry Point and is not part of the RFP.

15. Question: Why is F&B not listed at Barstow, even though they have a snack bar? Assume this is because it is so small it is just grouped under Golf Ops?

Answer: MCLB Barstow does not have a snack bar. They only sell “grab and go” food items , the sales for which are included in the Golf Operations income.

16. Question: Does MCCS, on any level, intend to contribute any operating funds at all to the operation of the properties after the contractor takes over?

Answer: No

17. Question: Is MCCS interested in partnering on the operation of these golf courses, vice placing all risk on the contractor?

Answer: The evaluation panel will evaluate all bids based on what is considered to be in the best interest of MCCS.

18. Question: Our golfer development model involves utilization of 1099 consultants to teach and fit. A % of their revenue goes to the club. Can we employ consultants who would not fall under the SCA?

Answer: Unable to answer at this time. Will have answer by 13 November 2015.

19. Question: Do golf professionals, who currently instruct, share their revenue with the properties and at what level, or %?

Answer: All income from lessons/instruction belongs to MCCS. Commissions are paid to Golf

Professionals and the rates vary by golf course with a maximum distribution of 90% to the respective Golf Pro.

20. Question: Will the government permit site visits to be coordinated beyond the dates in the RFP, such as within the 1st two weeks of December? The proximity of the site visit dates to RFP release and the pre-proposal conference provides a small window for contractors to adequately assess bid-no bid decisions.

Answer: In order to keep to the timeline provided to the MCCS Board of Directors all site visits must be conducted according to the schedule outlined in the RFP.

21. Question: In the absence of an applicable Occupational Code, Title, or Description for a required billet in the SCA WDs, is it acceptable for the Contractor to utilize the existing (in use) NAF Job Descriptions and associated Pay Bands for listed billets? For example, a golf course is normally led by a General Manager, Property Leader, or Head Golf

Professional (semantics), and there are no such Occupational Codes in the SCA that would be usable for a Conformancy Request.

Answer: From a NAF HR perspective, we see no problem with using the NAF PDs, but we don’t know if it complies with the SCA. We will provide further clarification by COB November

13th.

22. Question: In essence, if we are obliged to use the SCA, if there is no applicable

Occupational Code, what is the basis of our rate structure to ensure a smooth transition?

It is our understanding, a Conformancy Request is made when there is an SCA Occupational

Code that is relevant, but not the same.

Answer: We will provide further clarification by COB November 13th.

23. Question: If there is not such SCA code, are we, in theory, "creating" new codes for future WD's by adopting NAF rates, $10.10 minimum we assume?

24. Question: It is our understanding that each service has a personnel manual, or instruction, that lists NAF Job Descriptions, and associated Pay Bands linked to those

JDs? Can the government please provide this reference, under the assumption that all billets listed on the provided spreadsheets would be in that manual/instruction?

Answer: NAF personnel policy is established by DoD Instruction 1400.25, Volume 1401 through 14071 (http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/html/CPM_table2.html) and reinforced by Marine Corps Order P12000.11A, with changes 1-5

(http://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/MCO%20P12000.11A%20W%20CH%205.pdf) The paybands established for each wage area is published by DoD Wage and Salary Division after conducting a wage survey. NAF payband wage schedules may be found on the Defense Civilian

Personnel Advisory Services’ website (http://www.cpms.osd.mil/Subpage/NAFWageSchedules/)

25. Question: If no such manual/instruction exists, or does not cover all current billets listed, can the government provide the Job Descriptions and associated NAF pay bands, for the billets listed in the 8 property spreadsheets? This would seem to be the only logical basis to account for appropriate wage rates not governed by the SCA.

26. Question: Can the government please verify that, even if a contractor is working only

20 hours per week, the SCA makes no distinction from Full or Part time, and that employee would have to be paid at 50% of the SCA established Health and Welfare benefit (50% of

$4.27). If this is the case, multiple potential employees, currently getting less than

$10 per hour, would get significant pay raises, and be well above the industry norm for those employees.

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/html/CPM_table2.html http://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/MCO%20P12000.11A%20W%20CH%205.pdf http://www.cpms.osd.mil/Subpage/NAFWageSchedules/