J-C24_RFI_Responses_(3rd).xls
XLS spreadsheet 49 KB Posted
- Attached to
- BOS, Hybla Valley and USCAAF Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- HQ0034-14-R-0002
- Issued by
- DOD Washington Headquarters Service
About this file
RFI responses
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 50
BOS, Hybla Valley and USCAAF has more files on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
RFIs
| RFIs | HQ0034-14-R-0002 | Attachment J-C24 |
| # | Question | Answer |
| 1 | We need to request that you look at the answer to Q&A #11 in Amendment 0009 as we believe the stated requirement for 24/7 manning of the water treatment plant at Hybla Valley may be a mistake. These systems monitor themselves with sensors that maintain a certain conductance level. Conductance is an indicator of mineral build up in the loop water. When levels rise above set thresholds a valve opens and water is flushed, then chemical treatment is added by the monitoring equipment to maintain the proper requirements. This monitoring equipment is preferred because it is continuous. Cooling systems are seasonal and have two loops. The chilled water side of the system is closed loop and requires the control of rust and mineral build up (thus the conductance monitoring which is automatic in the system). Since this is not a potable water system, only a cooling tower, water treatment itself does not require 24/7 manning. The system isn’t even running all the time so 24/7 staffing does not seem a viable approach. Additionally, it is our understanding that this cooling tower has never been staffed 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. Boiler systems (i.e., steam plants) are typically tested on each shift and " blow down" of the water performed as needed. Boilers are more critical because the water is hotter and corrosion is accelerated. The boiler at Hybla Valley is not a size that would typically necessitate 24/7 staffing which you have confirmed in the questions asked about the boiler system. However, is this the area of the contract which you desire an engineer be on site at all times 24/7 versus the cooling tower water treatment? | This area of the contract does not require 24/7 manning. After core hours, the Project Manager will respond within 20 minutes and required personnel will be on-site within 1 hour of service call from the Government representative. Section C-5.1.2.4.1 has been updated accordingly. Q&A #11 in Amendment 0009 has been rescinded. |
| 2 | The revisions contained in Amendment 009 are quite extensive. This information must be processed by ourselves and our subcontractors. Therefore, we are requesting the proposal due date be extended to 31 January 2014. In addition, there remains a need for an exterior site visit. The subcontractors pricing the Grounds Maintenance work need to view the existing conditions. | The proposal due date is changed to 01/22/2014. |
| 3 | Amendment 0009, RFI’s Attachment, Question #28: Mark Sexton, Representative of the International Union of Operating Engineers, they currently have (1) Engineer and (1) HVAC Mechanic at each facility (Hybla Valley and USCAAF). This appears to be in conflict with the minimum requirements outlined in the response to Question #28. Can you please clarify this matter? | Question #28 provided a response to the needs for the future contract and does not represent the current contract. |
| 4 | Amendment 0009, RFI’s Attachment, Question #25: As stated in the question, the CBA with the Service Employees International Union only covers the janitorial staff at Hybla Valley. Is the janitorial staff at USCAAF covered by a different CBA or represented by a different Union? | The Government has provided all the current contract CBAs. |
| 5 | Amendment 0009, RFI’s Attachment, Question #27: The response indicates “The contract requires only one dedicated QC inspector to cover both buildings. What is your definition of dedicated? Are you expecting a QC inspector to be on site during the core hours? | The QC inspector is dedicated to both buildings and should be on site at either building, as needed. |
| 6 | Amendment 0009, RFI’s Attachment, Question #11: The response indicates the water treatment plant is to be manned 24/7. Is the water treatment plant equipped for remote monitoring which can be responded to after core hours or are your expecting a (3) shift on-site manned monitoring? | The Government will monitor the water treatment plant after core hours and will contact the contractor if needed during non-core hours as detailed in #1 above. |
| 7 | I wanted to inquire if there will be a further Amendment issued to solicitation HQ0034-14-R-0002 that will change the current closing date of Friday, January 17th? In addition to the clarification sent to you yesterday relative to the Water Treatment Plant, we have discovered that some requirements made in Amendment 0005 were not incorporated with the Amendment 0009 revisions. This includes the PWS and various Attachments. At this point, we are not clear on what we are to propose since revisions made in Amendment 0005 have been reversed in Amendment 0009, which we think may be an oversight instead of the government’s actual intent. |
If there will not be a forthcoming Amendment with an additional extension, we must mail our proposal today which is based on the changes made in Amendment 0005. The mailing cut-off is 3:00 today to ensure our Project Manager receives it and can hand deliver it by the current closing date of Friday, January 17th.
If our proposal is mailed before an Amendment is available for download from FBO, will you return our proposal in sufficient time for us to make necessary revisions and resubmit?
| Any information you can provide would be much appreciated. | The proposal due date is changed to 01/22/2014. | ||
| 8 | Amendment 0009 revised section L.5(c) to require one original and three copies of Volume II and Volume III. Section L.7(a)iv and L.7(a)v still state that Volumes II and III require one original and one copy. Please clarify which requirement is correct. | L.5(c) is correct and L.7 is updated accordingly. | |
| 9 | Amendment 0009, RFI #19 and #46 – Attachment J-C22 was questioned and the answer stated this attachment would be removed. However PWS section C-5.1.2.4.1, Steam Heat is still included in the RFP, which references the previous attachment J-C13, Boiler Operation Attachment. Will this section be removed under a separate amendment and a corrected PWS provided? | This section is removed from the PWS. | |
| 10 | Amendment 0009, RFI #1 states “Section C-5.1.1.1.12 Quality Control Manager has been added to the PWS.” This reference cannot be found under section C-5.1. It is, however, found under section C-5.4. Shouldn’t this be numbered C-5.4.1.1.12? Will a corrected PWS be provided? | The correct reference is C-5.4.1.1.12 | |
| 11 | Amendment 0009, RFI #1 and #7 both state that the Quality Control Manager is no longer considered a key position. However, section M.3, Evaluation Factors, was not revised to remove the Quality Control Manager from the Key Personnel section. It is our experience that the RFP documents prevail over the RFI’s. Will a corrected M.3 be provided? | This has been corrected. | |
| 12 | Amendment 0009, RFI #33 states that section C-5.3.2.1 would be revised to reflect the correct amount of $150,000. This change was not made to the revised PWS. Also of notable importance, section C-2.1, Acronyms and Definitions, shows under the definition of Major Repair that estimated costs of $2,000.01 to $100,000… Shouldn’t this also be $150,000? Will a corrected PWS be provided? | This revision has been made. | |
| 13 | Amendment 0009, RFI #6 asked about the written record of site visit as well as a list of site visit attendees. The answer states “This information is provided as J-L3.” Attachment J-L3 does not include the list of site visit attendees. Will this be provided under a separate amendment? | No list of site visit attendees will be provided. The information on the site visit itinerary was provided. | |
| 14 | Amendment 0005 deleted PWS paragraph C-5.1.8 Component Replacement and subsequently renumbered all the PWS paragraphs. Amendment 0009 added the Component Replacement paragraph back into the PWS (C-5.1.8) and again renumbered the remaining PWS paragraphs. As such, we revised our proposal paragraph references based on the change made in Amendment 0005 and now must go back and include the Component Replacement requirement and renumber the paragraph cross references again. This is very time consuming. Please clarify whether Component Replacement is now once again a requirement. Additionally, if it is not a requirement, please provide a corrected PWS with corrected paragraph numbering. | Component Replacement is not a requirement and this section has been removed from the PWS. | |
| 15 | We respectfully request that future revisions to solicitation documents include “tracked changes” that note all revisions with a sidebar line and the changed/inserted text in a different color so that it is easily delineated. Amendment 0005 and Amendment 0009 did not include any indication of the changes which required offerors to review the 54 page PWS and various revised Attachments word-by-word to ascertain what actually was modified. This is extremely time consuming particularly given the short extensions provided to the closing date. If the government cannot or is unwilling to provide revised RFP documents that clearly outline the changes, then we request a minimum of one week extension of the closing date so that offerors have adequate time to review the revised documents. | Changes can be compared using features available on Microsoft Word. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .