Attachment 7 - Responses to Questions-Comments from Industry - Second Draft Solicitation for HE1280.pdf

Attachment 7

Questions in Response to 2nd Draft Solicitation for HE1280-11-R-0001

Mediterranean School Maintenance Program (MSMP)

1) Subject: Solicitation HE1280-11-R-0001 / MSMP – Italy, Spain & Portugal

No offeror wants to be known as a complainer; however, each offeror wants to have a fair chance to provide a proper offer at a fair price to deliver the services the customer desires.

Offerors should not be asked to guess or anticipate what is required.

Background: The second draft for Solicitation HE1280-11-R-0001 still lacks sufficient details for an offeror to provide a proper proposal. The offeror is asked to guess what tasks are to be performed under the Firm Fixed Price routine CLINs. Further, the offerors are asked to submit a fixed price to perform the proposed routine tasks only to be told that 45 days after contract award a new comprehensive maintenance program for the routine tasks is to be developed and negotiated – again without knowing the customer’s desires or requirements. Such a strategy may be acceptable in a cost plus environment but we believe, is certainly not acceptable in a fixed price ID / IQ environment.

An analogy can be made. The customer desires that all offerors provide a fixed price for the purchase of a motor vehicle. The evaluation criteria provided merely states that the motor vehicle must meet the performance standard of transporting a person or persons from one point to another. Here the offeror must guess whether the customer wants a new or used car. The next question is whether it should be an automatic or a stick shift, or a diesel or gasoline motor. Should it have a radio, air conditioner, navigation system, back-up winter tires, three, four, or five doors, etc. The list goes on and on and greatly affects the final price of the offered motor vehicle. For virtually each decision there are plus and minus aspects and both short and long term considerations. In the end the customer is asked to make a choice which “offered” motor vehicle is the best value; however, the evaluation criteria is so nebulous that virtually all offered motor vehicles can transport a person from one point to another. The analogy may go a bit far; however, the draft solicitation also leaves offerors guessing what the DODDS customer requires.

Another aspect which is difficult to quantify or evaluate is varying frequencies for performing certain tasks. Take for example the issue of glass, i.e. window cleaning. One offeror never mentions this work is included in the offer; the next offeror proposes to perform the glass or window cleaning once during the spring or summer recess and the other offeror proposes to perform the task twice – once during the spring or summer recess and once during the fall recess. Which offer is the “best value” for the DODDS customer? The most probable, more costly, two window cleaning offer or the most probably lower cost offer that proposes to negotiate the window cleaning as part of the non-routine tasks. Maybe DODDS is happy or can accept only one glass window cleaning.

Again, although the both analogies and examples maybe stretching the line, the draft solicitation does not provide sufficient information to make a proper offer.

The solicitation provides certain “historical” incumbent data on routine and non-routine work performance; however, at the site visit it was clearly stated that the customer was not satisfied with the current performance. Does this statement mean that the customer expects or would like to see the frequency of the current work performance activities increased?

The incumbent has the frequencies of each task required and performed under the current contract.

This information must also be provided to each offeror or the solicitation could be conceived to provide an unfair advantage to the incumbent – since the Government is not willing or unable to provide a list of tasks to be performed and the number of times these tasks must be completed to be considered “satisfactory performance”. The ambiguous performance standard that “the contractor should implement the approved XYZ maintenance plan” cannot be considered acceptable for a proper proposal evaluation.

Question: Please provide the Government, i.e. DODDS requirements for each school.

RESPONSE: As this is a Performance-Based Work Statement for industry standards to be provided;

requirements for each school will not be provided.

2) The Government may have misinterpreted the question. The question should have read “is there a separate Government Contract Manager (COR) in each country.” If the answer is no, where is the Government’s Contract Manager (COR).

RESPONSE: There will be one Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) in Vicenza, Italy. We anticipate appointing Quality Assurance Evaluators (QAE) to assist the COR. The QAEs will be located in schools throughout the Mediterranean District.

3) Government Response to GENERAL 3. General Comment

Background: The draft solicitation provides information on the number of routine work hours provided by the incumbent during a recent 12 month period. The Government then cautions offerors that the hours are only estimates and each offeror is expected “to meet the objectives of the PWS based on the information provided”. The solicitation does not define in anyway what these hours contain. Do the hours include any (1) travel time, (2) material location and acquisition time; (3) time for meetings with Contracting Officer, COR, DODDS officials; (4) excused absence, i.e. sick, (5) vacation; (6) holiday, (7) safety meetings. Please be more specific on the historical hours expended.

The draft solicitation does not define in any way the Government’s requirements or the frequency that work must be performed to be considered “satisfactory”. Further, no performance standards are provided. Please provide the frequency and type of routine tasks required by the Government so that all offerors can provide an offer for the same requirements. As the solicitation is now written each offeror is required to “guess” the Government’s requirements for the fixed price work. Without specific details on square feet, number of times a task is to be performed, or type of floor or wall surface it is not possible to prepare a proper offer.

Question: Insufficient Data for Proper Offer. Please provide the Government’s requirements for routine work

RESPONSE: Historical hours are based on the technician being on-site and the technician’s labor expended. General DoDDS standards are ceramic/vinyl tiles throughout with the exception of libraries which are to have carpet; however, this was enacted a few years ago. Some carpet is still in classrooms in the older schools. Carpet is being replaced in the older schools with tile. Offerors attending the site visits attained a view of the different types of flooring.

4) Government Response to GENERAL 3. General Comment

Question: Acquired Rights

Background: Virtually all European Community countries have acquired rights laws that require a successor contractor to take over incumbent contractor personnel. Since the Government provides the successor contractor with the same facilities as the incumbent, these acquired rights laws come into play and the successor contractor must take over all eligible incumbent personnel covered under the law and employ them for one year with all their rights and privileges. In order that each offer complies with these local laws as required by the solicitation, please provide by school location the listing of affected personnel by craft skill, not by name of the individual. The exact salary to include all benefits, i.e. vacation, overtime, shift pay, use of company vehicle, etc must be provided for each position. The age of the person, in years, and the date of initial employment must also be provided.

We are fully aware that compliance with the law is the responsibility of the contractors; however, the solicitation issuing agency must provide each offeror with the required information, which can only be supplied by the incumbent to the Government in a properly certified manner.

RESPONSE: It is the Contractor’s responsibility to comply with local laws.

5) Solicitation Page 115 of 204, DFAR 252.222-7002, Compliance with Local Labor Laws Overseas (Jun 1997). See also DFAR 252.222.7004 (Page 116 of 204)

Question: Please provide the incumbent employee data so that all offerors can comply with European and local labor laws. (See our question 2)

RESPONSE: See response to Question 4.

6) Government Response to GENERAL 8. On pages 92 and 98 of 204 in the second draft solicitation there are references to FAR 52.202-1. The FAR permits contractors to provide a different price for subcontracted specialty or proprietary work that cannot be performed by the in-house work force. Since there is now a separate rate for subcontractor work, the use of a “blended” rate is no longer necessary.

Question: Is our assumption correct that a blended rate is no longer required?

RESPONSE: The response provided to Question 8 on Attachment 6 that was released with the second draft solicitation stated, “We have updated Exhibit R to include a “Specialty Services” labor category. I could not find FAR 52.202-1(iii)(d) and (IV). Please resubmit a question if your reference is incorrect.”

The Specialty Services labor category is for services that are usually not performed in-house, such as elevator maintenance, asbestos, etc. (Exhibit R provides examples). This is not meant to be a general subcontractor labor category. We still expect the Offeror to provide “Composite Rates” – for clarity, a composite rate is defined as: A rate that represents one rate per labor category which is comprised of the prime, subcontract and/or intercompany rates.

7) Subject: Questions to Solicitation Number HE1280-11-R-0001referring to question answered in the second draft solicitation 9. In Reference to the General Performance Requirements, I would like to know if in all the following CLINS (and so on for all locations) material is 0001AA – Routine Facilities PM, Maintenance & Repair 0001AB – Routine Ground Maintenance & Interior/Exterior Pest Control 0001AC – Routine Custodial (soap, toilet paper, cleaning products etc.)

“RESPONSE: No.”

I understand that material cannot be included in the first two Clin, but Is your “No” applying also to Routine Custodial Material (since in the Custodial Clin are listed the materials instead that should be part of the Clin)? (Usually in custodial contracts material is included on the firm fix price.)

RESPONSE: Yes, the response also applies to Routine Custodial Maintenance.

8) Performance Work Statements. The Government responded in Response 16 that contractors are required to remove trash / recycling containers to a central trash / recycling dumpster on each installation.

Question: Please provide exact location of each central facility and the number of kilometers distance from the school trash dumpsters to the central facility. Is the central facility location within the installation boundaries?

RESPONSE: All refuse containers/dumpsters are located within school boundaries.

9) Government Response to GENERAL 18. There is a response still pending.

RESPONSE: We understand, see response to Question 24.

10) Government Response to GENERAL 23. Is the assumption correct that there are no scheduled or unscheduled repair or maintenance work orders to be performed under the routine fixed price work CLINs?

RESPONSE: The Offeror is to prepare and provide the scheduled routine fixed price work. Any non-routine work will be separately billed.

11) Government Response to GENERAL 26.

Which schools currently have an active working school dude system?

RESPONSE: Aviano, Livorno and Vicenza.

Why are the other locations not using school dude?

RESPONSE: The other schools are serviced by a local agency and these agencies do not utilize SchoolDude as a work tracking tool.

How are the hours worked accounted for in other locations?

RESPONSE: Various work-tracking programs administered by the agency.

How was the historical work hours data prepared if it does not come from an approved Government system?

RESPONSE: The estimated historical work hours were provided by the various servicing agencies (Army, Navy, Air Force) and validated against DoDDS financial data.

12) Government Response to GENERAL 30. The Government states that the requirement to “provide and maintain fire extinguishers has been removed from the PWS under 5.2.8”. Is this work still required under the solicitation? If yes, under which CLIN will the work be performed?

RESPONSE: No, this work is no longer required under the solicitation.

13) Government Response to GENERAL 27. The incumbent has and the Government should have a listing of all routine preventive maintenance provided for the period from September 1, 2009 to August 31, 2010 by school facility. Why will the Government not provide this same information to all offerors? Just providing historical hours is not sufficient to prepare a proper offer.

RESPONSE: There is no specific incumbent for this contract as various contractors are utilized in all locations.

14) Government Response to GENERAL 31 and 31. There is insufficient information in the draft solicitation to prepare a proper offer. The incumbent knows the square feet of each classroom and the type of flooring. This information cannot be deduced from the school floor plans provided. From the plans it is often not possible to deduce the room usage. Frequencies for “desired” work are not provided. Please provide this information to all offerors. Again, exactly what service does DODDS expect the contractor to provide under the routine Fixed Price CLINs?

RESPONSE: DoDDS provided an opportunity for site visits so that potential offerors would have the chance to view examples of the types of schools being serviced. This is a performance-based work statement which expects the outcomes stated in the PWS.

15) Government Response to GENERAL 39.

Comment: If the Government does not require each offeror to submit “back-up” information how the Fixed Price and / or T&M prices, i.e. labor rates were calculated, please clarify how the prices will be evaluated, other than Company A is higher than Company B or vice versa, is lower.

RESPONSE:

G16) overnment Response to GENERAL 49. The incumbent knows what equipment is in the new

Vicenza ES / MS. The incumbent is, or should be, performing the work. Further, when the facility was commissioned, as-built were provided to the Government. Since there are certain specific requirements offerors must provide with their proposals, it is not fair to other offerors that this information is provided only to the incumbent. Please clarify.

RESPONSE: Offerors were given the opportunity to attend the site visits which included the Vicenza overnment Response to GENERAL 51. The invoice information, i.e. the SF 1034 submitted by to all

ES/MS and inspect equipment to gain further information.

17) G the incumbent must contain the historical amount spent for material purchases during a normal contract period. The incumbent and the Government must have this information. Please provide offerors.

RESPONSE: The current contracts do not use time and materials, therefore SF 1034s are not being eference: A. General, page 170/204, Volume Table.

We request a review of the 40 page limit for the entire Technical Proposal. Due to the amount of he submitted to the Government.

18) R information requested in the solicitation, 40 pages is not enough to clearly and concisely describe t technical processes, the seed project, sample PM schedule, detailed staffing/management plan, quality control plan, and the transition-in plan.

We recommend, at a minimum, the following:

Sub-factor 1 – Technical Approach

‐ Technical Approach to the Requirements – 100 pages o Seed Project – no limit o Sample Preventive Maintenance Schedule - 5

‐ Staffing/Management Plan - 35 ‐ Quality Control Plan – 20 pages ‐ Transition In Plan – 20 pages

Sub-factor 2 – Corporate Experience ‐ Relevant Contracts – 2 pages per contract ‐ Repair Projects – 1 page per project

We request the Government revise the volume table to reflect the page limits recommended above for Volume 1: Technical Proposal.

RESPONSE: We have increased the Technical Proposal page limit to 100 pages and allowed the Seed Project and Sample Preventative Maintenance Schedule to be unlimited pages. See FAR 212- 1(p)(A)(1).

19) Within the second DRAFT dated Apr 13 you have included a page limit for VOLUME I of 40pages.

(page 170 of 204)

Item 2 Sample of Preventative Maintenance Schedule of sub-factor 1 - Tech Approach (page 172 of

204) requires a schedule w/detailed listing of maintenance tasks for the equipment listed within Exhibit H for Aviano. They are approx 100 listed equipments.

Can therefore pages for Item 1. Seed project and Item 2 Sample Preventative…… NOT be considered within the 40page limit? and/or please provide instructions.

RESPONSE: See response to Question 17.

20) We request additional confirmation on the page limit of 40 pages for the Technical Proposal (Volume

1) as outlined on page 170 of the 2nd draft. As the technical proposal must include the QC Program, etc. and also includes the Seed Project (which alone is many pages with the drawings, etc.), does the 40 page limit include the attachments also? Or can the seed project and QC Program be submitted as attachments and if so, is there a page limit to the attachments?

RESPONSE: See response to Question 17.

21) Contract Cost Ceiling

Question: Is there a contract cost ceiling? Generally for ID / IQ type contracts there is a ceiling established in the solicitation and not after contract award and issuance of Task Orders. Contractors need to know the maximum or ceiling level when preparing an offer.

RESPONSE: Requirements contracts have “a realistic estimated total quantity in the solicitation and resulting contract. This estimate is not a representation to an offeror or contractor that the estimated quantity will be required or ordered, or that conditions affecting requirements will be stable or normal” (FAR 16.503). The cost ceiling will only be required for task orders issued for time and materials – see solicitation page 4, Cost Ceiling (T&M) and page 98, FAR 212-4 Alternate I.

22) Solicitation Page 101 of 204, Para (3)

Question: Please provide the ceiling price. The schedule does not mention a ceiling price.

RESPONSE: See response to Question 21.

23) Solicitation Page 100 of 204, Para (E) (1)

Question: Is it correct to assume that the only overtime work that might be required is as an emergency repair work order? All other necessary overtime work will be approved in advance by the Contracting Officer and an overtime (non-duty) time rate can be negotiated.

RESPONSE: It is not correct to assume that only overtime work might be required in the form of emergency repair; non-duty hours may be needed to accommodate school activities.

24) Reference: Page 151 of 214, paragraph 4.5

Question: Can we assume that no contractor employees or subcontractor will come in contact with school students? If no, what procedures must be followed to get a Host Nation background check? Is this background check the same check that is necessary to get an installation pass?

RESPONSE: The local background check for the installation pass is all that is needed.

25) Reference: PWS paragraph 5.1.3 (p. 153 of 214)

This PWS paragraph provides definitions on the different types of service calls, including “Routine Service Calls”.

• A Service Call is, by its nature, a non-routine activity. As such, any associated costs would be accounted for under non-routine services (CLIN X002). Please confirm.

• We suggest to rename “Routine Service Calls” for clarity and to avoid any confusion with the allocation to Routine or Non-Routine Services (perhaps “Standard Service Calls”)

RESPONSE: We have changed the names; please see 5.1.3 of the PWS.

26) Section 5.1.4.2

Labor: The proposal shall contain the number and labor category of Labor hours. The per-hour Labor rates shall be taken from the labor rates contained in the Pricing Spreadsheet. Labor hours shall be invoiced in increments of 15 minutes. Compensation begins with the technician’s arrival at the job site and terminates with the technician’s departure. Can you please explain increments of 15 minutes…

This means that if the W.O. is performed in 10 Minutes we will bill US Govt for hourly rate divided 4, if is between 15 and 30, we will bill half of hour rate etc….

RESPONSE: Yes, you are correct. The Contractor would round up to the next 15 minute increment (15 minutes, 30 minutes, 45 minutes, 60 minutes).

27) Solicitation Page 134 of 204, Lunch Room Services

Question: Exactly what lunch room services are required for each school?

RESPONSE: Lunchroom services consist of custodial services and movement of tables as required per school. This is why it has been listed under PWS 5.5, Custodial.

28) Solicitation Page 135 of 204, Repair

The definition for repair includes the word maintenance. Maintenance, by usual definition is not repair and, likewise, repair is not maintenance. Suggest that the word(s) maintenance be deleted.

RESPONSE: The word “maintenance” has been removed from the definition.

29) Solicitation Page 135 of 204, Routine Custodial

The definition seems to imply that routine custodial tasks do not require special scheduling. All custodial tasks in a school must be scheduled and coordinated with DODDS to ensure no interruption of school activities. Please clarify. Also the statement “on a frequent basis” is ambiguous. Does once mean frequent or is only two or more times considered “frequent”? Please clarify.

RESPONSE: The definition of Routine Custodial duties includes daily activities which should be done in a way as to not disrupt school activities. For a routine basis, planning shall be made in advance by the Contractor as to when these services occur. However changing school schedules or activities may give rise to coordination by the Contractor with the school. Frequent or repeated tasks shall be determined by the Offeror when submitting their proposal in order to meet the PWS requirements.

30) Solicitation Page 139 of 204, Para (5.1.4, Sub Paragraph 5.1.4.1)

We suggest that the Government review the statement “The Contractor bears the prime responsibility to identify and perform all work orders…” We suggest that the DODDS officials are in a better position to identify needs.

RESPONSE: The Contractor is responsible to provide facilities that “are fully and constantly operational, neat, healthy, sanitary and safe.” This includes inspections and walk-throughs; therefore, the Contractor is in a better position to identify work orders needing to be accomplished.

31) Solicitation Page 140 of 204, Para 5.1.5 Preventive Maintenance (PM) Initiatives

Question: Is the performance of the initiatives part of the contractor’s Firm Fixed Price and is the contractor expected to perform any initiative as part of the accepted (contract) Firm Fixed Price or is there a mechanism to negotiate an equitable adjustment if the initiative has an additional cost.

RESPONSE: The “list of non-routine preventative maintenance initiatives that will sustain or extend the life of installed equipment and facilities and/or reduce the cost of equipment operations and maintenance” should be part of the “Transition-In” since it is accomplished within forty-five (45) days of contract award. The work that may be requested based on this list is considered “non-routine” and therefore not part of the Firm Fixed Price Routine services. The “routine preventive maintenance action items schedule” would be considered part of the Contractor’s Firm Fixed Price Routine services.

32) Solicitation Page 141 of 204, Para 5.1.9 Technical Manuals

Question: Is there currently a Government Technical Library available for contractor use? If yes, will this library be provided to the successor contractor?

RESPONSE: All available information on file will be available to the awardee.

33) Solicitation Page 151 of 204, (eight bullet) “Maintenance Standards”

Question: Please provide the required “maintenance standards”.

RESPONSE: Maintenance Standards are defined for this purpose as equipment being maintained in accordance with manufacturer recommendations.

34) Reference: Attachment 6 to 2nd Draft, Q&A #23

With the response to this Question it was confirmed that all Work Orders (also the ones below 2,000 €) are non-routine work. Reference was made to a revised PWS.

• This revised PWS was not provided with the 2nd draft. Please provide revised PWS.

• Please confirm, that Exhibit U “Historical Data – Routine Maintenance” reflects this definition and does not include any work order hours.

RESPONSE: The 2nd Draft Solicitation did contain a revised PWS, please review the revised PWS.

35) Ref.: Non-Routine Pricing Spreadsheet (Exhibit R)

We have noticed, that the estimated number of hours for non-routine services in Italy and Spain are the same. Considering the unequal number of facilities and the associated workload in those countries, this seems unbalanced. Please confirm or revise the estimated number of hours in Exhibit R.

RESPONSE: Exhibit R has been updated.

36) Ref.: Solicitation, Schedule of Supplies/Services

The current Schedule of Services (2nd draft) only provides a Material CLIN in the non-routine sections of the schedule. Will a separate Material CLIN be added also in the routine sections of the schedule, or will all material and equipment costs be reimbursed under the existing material CLINs?

Please explain.

RESPONSE: All materials shall be provided by the Contractor for the Fixed Price Routine CLINs. The Materials CLIN in the solicitation shall only be utilized in conjunction with the Non-Routine Labor Hour CLINs for Non-Routine work.