Amendment_5__Responses_to_Offerors_Questions.pdf

HSCG23-16-R-PFP021: SOLICITATION QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

# PWS Section QUESTION ANSWER

Technical Exhibit 4 (TE-4) (a) Are all incumbent personnel qualified in accordance with all

‘Required Training’ as listed in this exhibit?

(b) If there are incumbent personnel who are not qualified to the standards set forth in TE-4, will the government consider a 90-day period, following the beginning of full performance, to train incumbent employees?

(a) Not all incumbent personnel are qualified in accordance with this solicitation's training requirements.

(b) Please see the amended Performance Work Statement (PWS) Section C-3.1, "EMPLOYEE REQUIREMENTS", and Technical Exhibit 7 (TE-7).

All Would the Government please confirm that there are no Collective Bargaining Agreements for personnel covered by the

RFP?

There are a total of three (3) Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs).

These CBAs apply to the current security guard contracts in the following three (3) locations: Elizabeth City, North Carolina; San Juan, Puerto Rico;

and Air Station Borinquen, Puerto Rico.

Due to proprietary information in the CBAs, only the Department of Labor (DOL) is authorized to publish the CBAs.

These CBAs will be posted shortly to the following Department of Labor website: https://www.dol.gov/olms/regs/compliance/cba/

No specific date is set for the next posting of Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) on the DOL Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS) website.

In the interim, if a copy of a CBA is needed, it can be obtained as shown below:

U.S. Department of Labor Office of Labor-Management Standards 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Room N-1519 Washington, DC 20210 Telephone: (202) 693-0125 Fax: (202) 693-1344

The OLMS Public Disclosure Room hours of operation are from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.

Requests for copies of CBAs may be submitted in person, by mail, by telephone at 202-693-0125, by fax at 202-693-1344, or by email at OLMS- Public@dol.gov. Although there is a duplication cost of 15 cents per page for printed CBAs over 30 pages in length, that price should not apply here, as each of the 3 CBAs is roughly 25 pages.

Solicitation L-7 Volume 2 (a) (b)

L-7, Volume 2 para (a) instructs offerors to “provide detail…utilizing the RFP Attachment C…”

L-7, Volume 2 para (b) states “not provide any completed Attachment C forms beyond the first page. Any page after the first…”

Limitation to one page in Attachment C per contract reference would provide inadequate space for Offerors to provide detail demonstrating relevance.

Would the Government please consider permitting Offerors to include the detail (item a) in a narrative in the past performance volume, in addition to and separate from Attachment C, page one?

Alternatively, if the detail is to be provided in Attachment C only, Section A, please confirm that detail may be longer than one page per reference as long as it utilizes the format of Attachment C, Section A.

This was addressed in RFP Amendment # 1, posted to FedBizOpps on 29

AUG 2016.

Solicitation L-7 Volume 2

Would the Government permit offerors to provide a brief introduction at the beginning of the Past Performance volume?

Yes. Please see the amended RFP Section L-7, "IDIQ Proposal Submission Instructions", particularly "Volume 2 - The Past Performance Volume."

Solicitation L-7 Volume 1, para three (formatting details)

Are 11X17 pages permissible in the Technical Volume (e.g. for Transition Plans)?

Yes.

Attachment D Offerers are to use Attachment D to submit IDIQ pricing on October 7. Are offerers to also use Attachment D for Task Order Pricing to be submitted on October 20?

Yes. Please note that per RFP Section L-8, the offeror only needs to provide complete pricing for the task-order-specific CLINs. For example, in the Task Order # 1 proposal, offerors only need to provide completed pricing for Task Order # 1 CLINs. Any discounts applicable to the IDIQ contract shall be indicated in the task order proposal(s).

PWS Enclosure 1 to Contract – Post Manning Sites

USCG Headquarters, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave, Washington, DC, is listed in the West Region and the Northwest Region. Should not the USCG HQ be listed in the East Region with Maryland and Virginia locations (and CT, MA, NC & MI)?

No. The USCG Headquarters address was tied solely to the Security Clerk. That labor category and the USCG Headquarters address have been eliminated from the solicitation. Please see the amended RFP Section H-14, "Key Personnel", and PWS Section C-3.6, "SITE SAFETY

AND HEALTH OFFICER (SSHO)."

Attachment D Will the Government please explain why the Security Clerk is listed as Task Order 1, CLIN 00001A and Task Order 2, CLIN 0001A instead of as a CLIN in Task Order 3 corresponding to the East Region

Please see the answer to Question # 7.

PWS Attachments – Enclosure 1 to Contract – Post Manning Requirements Summaries

PWS Attachments 4, 10 and 19 appear to have incorrect hour totals.

1. Attachment 4 – Holiday hours do not appear to be included in the total.

2. Attachment 10 – The total weekly hours appear to be 336 instead of 308.

3. Attachment 19 – Total Hours (Non Overhead) for Armed Guard – Guard Level II from the Post Manning Requirements appear to be 218 as opposed to the “WEEKLY” total of 336.

4. Will the Government please confirm these discrepancies and make corrections to the noted Attachments?

Please see the amended PWS Enclosure 1, "Post Manning All Sites".

Technical Exhibit 8 & RFP Attachment A

Will the Government certify that all listed Government-owned vehicles are “…in good working order to provide continued security 24 hours a day”?

Technical Exhibit 8 & RFP Attachment A

Will the Government confirm that the listed vehicles (either “All Terrain Vehicles” or “Motorized Security Vehicles”) are sufficient to meet the security requirements of each location?

Yes.

Technical Exhibit 8 & RFP Attachment A

Will the Government crosswalk the “List of Vehicle Locations” (TE 8) and “Post Manning Requirements Summary” Attachments (Enclosure (1) to Contract (Attachments 1-28)? There are numerous discrepancies between the two documents, for instance, one (1) Motorized Security Vehicle is listed in Technical Exhibit 8 as being available at “TRACEN Petaluma, CA”, whereas the Post Manning Requirements Summary TRACEN PETALUMA does not indicate a requirement for a vehicle as staffing is shown only as “Main Gate” “Fixed”.

Please see the amended PWS Enclosure 1, "Post Manning All Sites", and the amended TE-8, "List of Vehicle Locations".

Technical Exhibit 8 & RFP Attachment A

Will the Government indicate those vehicles and locations where the Government will provide acceptable vehicles for the security requirements as part of this RFP, instead of at award of each task order? Alternatively, will the Government provide an explanation of how pricing will be evaluated given the uncertainty of the provision of government furnished vehicles as given in the current RFP language?

(1) TE-8, "List of Vehicle Locations", provides the list of all vehicles and locations where the Government will provide acceptable vehicles for the security requirements.

(2) Please see the amended RFP Attachment D, "Pricing Spreadsheet".

All vehicle CLINs in that attachment will be evaluted as stated in RFP Section M-4.1.3, "Price."

Please note also that all vehicle CLINs are optional CLINs to be exercised solely at the Coast Guard's discretion.

Attachment D, Technical Exhibit 8 & RFP Enclosure 1 - Attachments 1-28

Is it the Government’s expectation that offerors price in Attachment D the cost associated with all vehicles shown as required in the PWS Post Manning requirements in Attachments 1-28, or should offerors rely on information provided in Technical Exhibit 8 and only price costs for locations where government provided vehicles are not shown available?

Per RFP Section L-7, "IDIQ Proposal Submission Instructions", particularly "Volume 3 - The Price Volume", offerors shall provide pricing for all CLINs. The vehicle requirements have been cross-referenced across PWS Enclosure 1, TE-8, and the pricing spreadsheet to ensure proper alignment.

RFP Attachment A Will the Government provide discrete Phase-In CLINS for each

Task Order?

No.

RFP Section L-4

The RFP states “Offerors shall submit permits and license for each state in which a permit and license is sought in accordance with the Performance Work Statement (PWS) Section C-2.2, “PERMITS

AND LICENSES”.”

Section C-2.2 of the PWS states “C-2.2 INSURANCE, PERMITS AND LICENSES. The Contractor shall obtain all required permits, licenses, and authorizations and comply with all the applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations.”

In those cases where a subcontractor is employed in a prime/sub relationship, is it the entity actually performing the services that must hold the applicable licenses for the state in which services are provided?

We recommend the RFP be changed so that a subcontractor is permitted to be the license holder in the state in which it will be peforming work. Permits and licenses of any subcontractors would be included in the offeror’s submittal of permits and licenses due November 3, 2016.

Please see the amended PWS Section C-2.2, "Insurance, Permits, and Licenses."

Multiple

We have identified several items in the RFP we consider anti-competitive or biased toward large businesses. Some of these items by themselves cause significant concern. In the aggregate, however, the RFP conveys an alarming message that the USCG has been significantly influenced by large businesses who have driven requirements to ensure their place on a winning team.

We urge the Coast Guard to reassess these items to remove any perception of such influence and to restore small business confidence in this RFP. These items are listed below:

· PWS C-2.2/L-4 requires the contractor to furnish proof that an application for a permit and license was submitted to the state in which a permit and license is sought, submitting application documentation prior to contract award no later than November 3, 2016 even though the earliest date of site takeover will be May 1, 2017. This is no problem for large security contractors performing work in most states, but it represents a large and early cost to 8(a) primes who must obtain licenses in all RFP contemplated jurisdictions even though they are not afforded the opportunity to perform in all of them.

· PWS C-2.6.2 provides for a 30-day transition-in when the new Contractor will be allowed access to facilities to become familiar with Government interfaces and procedures, but “access will be limited to management personnel and shall not interfere with the incumbent's ability to provide services until the end of the current contract.” Because of the introduction of 148 hours of initial training (3.7 weeks), the introduction of shotgun/M-16 training, and the introduction of physical fitness i i b d ill b lifi d f d l

Through extensive market research, the Coast Guard has identified a number of 8(a) firms that could suitably meet the PWS requirements. As such, the Coast Guard has set-aside this procurement entirely for 8(a) firms.

Additionally, a number of the incumbent contractors providing these guard services are 8(a) firms. Per Federal Acquistion Regulation (FAR) 19.203(c), once a requirement has been accepted by the Small Business Administration (SBA) under the 8(a) Program, it must remain in the 8(a) Program unless SBA agrees to release the requirement. Given the number of potentially suitable 8(a) firms, the Coast Guard has agreed to keep this work within the 8(a) program.

Regarding licensing, please see the amended PWS Section C-2.2, "INSURANCE, PERMITS, AND LICENSES" and the amended RFP Section L- 4, "Permits and Licenses Submission".

Regarding personnel, please see the amended PWS Section C-3.1, "EMPLOYEE REQUIREMENTS".

Regarding Regional Program Coordinators (RPCs) and Site Safety and Health Officers (SSHOs), please see the amended PWS Sections C-3.4, "REGIONAL PROGRAM COORDINATOR (RPC) AT THE TASK ORDER LEVEL" and PWS Section C-3.6, "SITE SAFETY AND HEALTH OFFICER (SSHO)."

Regarding Shift Leads, the PWS Enclosure 1, "Post Manning All Sites", contains the Coast Guard's minimum staffing requirements at each d it

(Continuation of Question # 1) ability to provide services until the end of the current contract.”

Because of the introduction of 148 hours of initial training (3.7 weeks), the introduction of shotgun/M-16 training, and the introduction of physical fitness testing, incumbent guards will not be qualified for duty. Only the largest security companies who have been preparing for such an RFP could develop a pipeline of personnel trained to meet such requirements 30 days after receipt of a task order.

· PWS C-3.4 requires Regional Program Coordinators to have performed as site Safety and Health Officers (SSHO) in the offeror’s employment for five years on contracts of similar size and complexity, and to have a substantial five year record of OSHA safety training. We are aware of two large security businesses who incorporate such training in their regional staff.

Most 8(a) contractors have corporate SSHOs who ensure OSHA compliance across all contracts, many of which are not even guard related. The specificity of this requirement and the timing of its addition to DPWS v 1.9.2 in the Presolicitation Notice are strikingly peculiar.

· PWS C-3.5 identifies “Shift Leads” as the most senior person responsible for site supervision, but they are also SCA Guard II personnel and work as uniformed guards. We noted in previous correspondence that this conflicted with the enclosure 1 listings of site positions, which included separate site leads/managers. The final RFP has removed site leads/managers, eliminating a key supervisory position for 8(a) companies. Larger security companies can assign staff id d li d l guard site.

(Continuation of Question # 1) supervisory position for 8(a) companies. Larger security companies can assign staff managers to provide decentralized personnel management functions such as hiring, discipline, etc.

18 C-3.4

The requirement that the SSHO shall have completed 5 years of satisfactory experience in preparing and enforcing the Contractor’s safety program is overly restrictive, unnecessarily limits competition and is outside of what can reasonably expected of an 8(a) Prime contractor. As written this would require the SB prime to already have in their employment all four of the RPC/SSHO’s for at least a 5 year period. In our opinion no 8(a) contractor would be able to have these four personnel in these specific regions already “sitting on the bench” ready to be bid for this program. The only way we see that any bidding team could potential meet this requirement would be to utilize Large Businesses with greater geographic foot prints to fill all or most of these positions. As these are critical positions, this requirement would in effect create a potential for the bidding 8(a) to be put in a position of true ostensible contracting.

Will the Government consider removing the requirement that the 5 years of specific experience must be with the bidding contractors organization? Will the government consider an alternate approach/removing this requirement? Will the government change the requirement to a single SSHO or a corporate SSHO that has oversight?

Please see the amended PWS Sections C-3.4, "REGIONAL PROGRAM COORDINATOR (RPC) AT THE TASK ORDER LEVEL" and PWS Section C-

3.6, "SITE SAFETY AND HEALTH OFFICER (SSHO)".

19 C-3.5

Did the government intend to eliminate a contractor Site Manager by shifting those responsibilities to multiple Shift Leads?

The Coast Guard's requirement for staffing is contained in the PWS and particularly, the requirement for shift leads is detailed in PWS Section C-

3.5, "SHIFT LEADS".

20 Technical Exhibit 4

Are 100% of all incumbent contract Guards required to have passed all new required training prior to starting duty or day 1 of contract take over?

When will the government provide incumbent training records?

This is critical for transition planning and pricing.

Please see the amended PWS Section C-3.1, "EMPLOYEE

REQUIREMENTS".

The Coast Guard will not be providing the incumbent training records, as doing so would violate the individuals' right to protected personal information (PPI).

H-14 Key Personnel

In some instances key personnel could resign their position with no advance notice and the contractor may need to replace them as soon as possible. Would the Government please consider changing this language to read, "Before replacing any individual designated as Key by the Government, the Contractor shall notify the Contracting Officer as soon as possible of the required personnel action and when possible no less than 14 business days in advance and provide the name and qualifications of any proposed substitute(s)."

Please see the amended RFP Section H-14, "Key Personnel".

C-2.2/L-4 Permits and Licenses Submission

The due date of November 3 2016 (several months before the anticipated award), the level of effort, and cost of obtaining state security licenses prevents qualified companies from continuing pursuit of this opportunity – significantly limiting the competition. Large businesses with current nationwide security contracts (and a presence in each of the USCG states) are the only firms who can easily make this deliverable. Furthermore, offerors will be required to make this investment without knowing whether or not they have an award. Obtaining licenses in some states (e.g. Washington) is relatively easy and can be done in the 30 day transition period of a task order award. Others will require more advance work (e.g. Hawaii) and offerors may be willing to make the advance investment in these states. Will the government reconsider the security license deliverable of November 3rd to be a deliverable at task order start date.

Please see the amended PWS Section C-2.2, "INSURANCE, PERMITS, AND LICENSES" and the amended RFP Section L-4, "Permits and Licenses Submission".

23 C-1.4

Not all sites will perform all 84 specific tasks. For example, many sites only perform access control and would never perform control center operations.

Are 100% of guards required to be qualified to do all 84 specified tasks? How will training of 84 Task handled on sites that do not require those tasks be handled?

(1) Yes. All guards should be qualified to do all tasks identified in the amended PWS Section C-3.2.1, "SPECIFIC TASKS AS SHOWN PER CORE

AREAS (6 FUNCTIONS / 84 SPECIFIED TASKS)".

(2) Training needs are dictated by the manning requirements. For example, if a guard site does not require an Alarm Control Monitor, the guards do not need to be trained as Alarm Control Monitors. Please see the amended PWS Section C-3.2.1.

24 C-2.4, C-7.1

Request that USCG provide a bidders library and copies of all local USCG regulations and procedures as soon as possible.

Please provide copies of all referenced USCG and DOD regulations referenced in the RFP?

All referenced regulations are provided in the PWS, the Technical Exhibits, or the USCG Physical Security Manual (RFP Attachment B).

25 C-2.4

It is our understanding the USCG desires standardization across all locations. As this is a multiple award contract, this can only be accomplished if the USCG provides a standard curriculum for all offerors to base their training approach.

Per TE-2, "PHYSICAL FITNESS PROGRAM…" and TE-4, "Training", the Coast Guard has identified its curriuculum needs and all training plans must meet that curriculum, thus ensuring standardization.

26 C-2.4

The contractor has no way of knowing what rules and regulations may change or be added by time of award.

Therefore as written now there is extreme risk in pricing for the bidders. Please consider changing this requirement to state "as of the final proposal submission date"

Please see the amended PWS Section C-2.4, "INSTRUCTIONS, DIRECTIVES, AND REFERENCES".

27 C-3.1

Based upon the level of effort and cost associated with this will the government consider changing the requirement from semi-annual to annual PFRT qualifications?

Please see the amended TE-7, specifically deliverable C-3.1, "Physical Fitness Documentation", and PWS Section C-3.1, "EMPLOYEE

REQUIREMENTS."

28 C-3.1

(1) May the contractor use government facilities for PFRT?

(2) May the contractor use classrooms for training on an as available basis

(3) may the contractor use government armories/ranges for weapons qualifications purposes?

(1) No.

(2) Yes.

(3) No.

29 C-3.2

The RFP requires all guards to be armed. It has been discovered at the site visits that many posts are currently unarmed. The conversion to armed guard will significantly impact cost and schedule of transition, training, recruiting, and daily operations.

Will the government please identify all currently unarmed positions that will need to be armed post award?

Due to national security concerns, the Coast Guard will not identify all currently unarmed positions that will need to be armed post award.

To assist with transition concerns, the phase-in of training requirements has been added to the amended PWS C-3.1, "EMPLOYEE

REQUIREMENTS".

30 C-3.4 In regards to the Safety and Health Office, is there annual or continuing education required? Will the USCG define these requirements?

Please see the amended PWS Section C-3.6, "SITE SAFETY AND HEALTH

OFFICER (SSHO)."

31 C-3.4

Does the Site Safety and Health Officer (SSHO) need to have worked for the respondent for the past 5 years or can they have 5 years experience implementing safety programs similar to the respondents Program?

This requirement has changed. Please see the response to Question # 17.

32 C-3.5, C-7.2 Will the government please provide a copy of all site Post orders and SOPS.

Please see RFP Amendment 2 for an example of post orders.

33 C-3.5 Did the government intend to call the Shift Leads, Site Leads? Yes, "Shift Lead" is appropriate. Please see PWS Section C-3.5, "SHIFT

LEADS".

34 C-3.5 Are Shift Leads expected to stand post as described in enclosure 1 and if so, who will manage emergency work without leaving post?

Yes. Shift Leads are expected to stand post. Please see PWS Section C-

3.5, "SHIFT LEADS".

C-3.5 Shift Leads/ Enclosure 1

It appears the government has removed all previously identified supervision from enclosure 1, is the language in C-3.5 to be interpreted such that each contractor should include supervision (shift leads), outside the mandated levels of staffing in enclosure 1?

PWS Enclosure 1, "Post Manning Requirements All Sites", states the Coast Guard's minimum staffing requirements. Per PWS Section C-3.5, "SHIFT LEADS", each site shall have Shift Leads designated by the Contractor.

36 C-3.6

Clerk Security Enclosures 1 Attachment 28, USCG HQ specifies this position as a General Clerk II which is a $16.24 per hour WD? The job description provided for C-3.6 does not align with the WD General Clerk II (01116). The RFP job description is written to a much higher WD than the current requirement.

Please see the answer to Question # 7.

37 C-3.6.3/.4/.5/ Please clarify what is meant by the use of the word "incumbent"?

An "Incumbent" refers to the current contractor performing the work.

38 C-5.1.1 Requires a badge on the uniform, what is required of contractors in states that do not allow security to wear badges?

Please see the amended PWS Section C-5.1.1, "UNIFORMS".

39 C-6.1.2

It is impossible to reinforce "all" the initial training requirements during the 16 hours of annual refresher and maintain adequate proficiency. Is this the normal USGC practice? If so, please provide the training curriculum.

The Contractor should demonstrate in the training plan a method to conduct refresher training that meets the requirements of PWS Section C-

6, "TRAINING".

40 C-6 The RFP does not require a Training Plan to be submitted. How does the government intend to evaluate this item?

Please see the amended TE-7, "DELIVERABLES", particularly Section C- 6.1.1, "Training Plan and Training Records".

41 C-6 Is the government going to require an approved training plan for each site?

No. Each Contractor will have a contract-wide training plan that meets the curriculum requirements outlined in the PWS, TE-2, and TE-4.

42 C-6

It is not feasible to conduct 148 hours of training for incumbent/new hire personnel during transition. Will the government allow a phased training over the 1st six (6) months of the contract?

Please see the answer to Question # 17.

44 C-7.1 Please provide a complete list and copy of all applicable USCG procedures and policies?

Please see RFP Attachment B, "USCG Physical Security Manual".

(1) The training outline came from the DHS Best Practices for Guard Services and through an assessment of USCG's needs conducted by the program office. The DHS Best Practices for Guard Services is available here: https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/ISC- %20Best%20Practices%20for%20Armed%20Security%20Officers%20in% 20Federal%20Facilities%201s....pdf

(2) There is not a specific reference and/or criteria for each block of instruction identified.

(3) There is not a specific standard for each block of instruction identified.

(4) No.

(5) Not applicable.

(6) The Contractor shall deliver a training plan for Coast Guard review.

Please see the amended TE-7.

(7) Yes.

(8) For amended training requirements, please see the answer to Question # 17.

(9) Per TE-2, "PHYSICAL FITNESS PROGRAM…" and TE-4, "Training", the Coast Guard has identified its curriuculum needs and all training plans must meet that curriculum, thus ensuring standardization.

C.6/Technical Exhibit 4

Regarding initial training - Where did the 148 hours of training outline come from?

Is there a specific reference and criteria for each block of instruction identified?

Is there a specific standard for each block of instruction identified?

Is there an existing curriculum or USCG curriculum the training is based on?

If so, will a copy be provided to bidders?

Will the USCG require an approved Training Plan?

Will the USCG require copies of all course curriculum and training materials?

Will government consider breaking the 148 hours of initial training into a small initial training followed by a block of on-the-job training on post?

For example, communication skills is better taught in combination. How does the USCG intend to ensure standardization of skill sets across multiple contractors and subcontractors without first providing a detailed standardized training curriculum?

45 C-9.1.3 How many sites have a single master key that, if lost, would require the contractor to re-key the entire facility?

None.

46 C-9.1.4 Will the government provide ATV operator and safety (initial & reoccurring) training to contractor staff?

Yes. Please see the amended RFP Section C-9, "GOVERNMENT

FURNISHED PROPERTY AND SERVICES".

47 C-9.6 / C-9.7

It seems that the government is asking contractors to assume full responsibility of government facilities. Please clarify, this is unreasonable and out of scope for security work.

The Contractor is not fully responsible for Government facilities.

Rather, the Contractor is responsible for any extraordinary damage, repairs, etc., to their primary work areas allocated by the Government (e.g., the gate house, the closed-circuit television (CCTV) monitoring area, vehicles, break rooms, etc.) Normal wear and tear is expected in these areas, but the Contractor is expected to take reasonable precautions in line with C-9.7, "RESPONSIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY".

For more information, please see FAR clause 52.245-1, "Government Property".

48 C-10.2

Please define what specific items are covered under this requirement and their historical rate of consumption, e.g.

supplies for printing ID's and passes by location.

The Contractor is not responsible for providing supplies for creating and printing passes, identification (ID) cards, etc.

Rather, the Contractor is required to provide any standard stationary necessary for use in an every day work capacity (such as pens, pencils, note pads, sticky notes, markers, etc.)

Please see the amended PWS Section C-10, "CONTRACTOR FURNISHED ITEMS", for more information.

49 C-10.5 Please confirm that armed guards can be trained on and qualified with the type of weapon vs the serial number they are issued?

Correct.

50 C-10.7 Is it at the contractors discretion on which shoulder weapon to issue (12g or .556)?

The type of shoulder weapon is contingent on state and local law. Please see PWS Section C-10.7, "SHOULDER WEAPONS".

51 C-10.7 Is it the governments intent for contractors to issue a shoulder weapon to government personnel?

Contractors are not required to provide weapons to government employees.

52 C-12.1 The PRS does not require a specific standard that Guards will be measured against. What is the acceptable quality level standard established?

Please see the amended PWS Section C-12.1, "GENERAL".

53 C-12.1 Please align the performance standard to each of the 84 specific tasks?

Please see the answer to Question # 52.

54 C-12.1

Regarding Contract Payment Withholding/Fixed Fee Deductions and Withholding of Payment, does the government anticipate withholding money for rate issues? How will it be calculated?

Please give an example.

The Coast Guard reserves the right to withhold payment if the performance standards are not met. This is a matter of contract administration.

55 Enclosure 1/C-3

Enclosure 1 identifies post manning requirements. Are these mandatory or advisory requirements? If mandatory, these requirement require considerable clarification. For example the labor skill type has been identified as SCA Guard II yet we have discovered during the site visits that the guard services listed for each site cover SCA Guard II, SCA Alarm Monitor and exempt personnel. Specifically at Portsmouth the watch commander position was identified as alarm monitor and visitor control as the site manager. This also directly conflicts with section C-3.

Please reconcile enclosure 1, the SCA WD job descriptions, and the PWS.

The site visits were demonstrative of the Coast Guard's locations and procedures, but were not exact matches to the RFP and PWS.

The Coast Guard's minimum requirements are as indicated in RFP Enclosure 1, "Post Manning Requirements". Offerors shall propose staffing levels that meet the minimum requirements, but any staffing levels above the minimum is left to the discretion of the offeror.

56 Technical Exhibit 1

Based on the site visit at Seattle, visible tattoos and studs are appear to be acceptable. Is there a specific USCG regulation for appearance that will be incorporate into the RFP? If not please provide a specific standard.

There is not a specific Coast Guard regulation for appearance. However, guard appearance shall not detract from the performance of their duties (e.g., sloppy uniform, missing pieces of equipment of the uniform, etc.).

57 Technical Exhibit 1

Please define applicable CJCSI and provide a copy. The entire Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction (CJCSI) cannot be provided due to classification requirements. The section of CJCSI applicable to this procurement is unclassified and has been combined with TE-1.

58 Technical Exhibit 1

Please define "facet of appearance" that would create a negative appearance.

"Facet of apperance" is any manner of appearance that detracts from the performance of the Contractor's assigned duties. Examples would be an excessively dirty uniform, missing components of the uniform, not wearing the appropriate uniform, etc.

59 Technical Exhibit 1 Excessive use of force as vaguely defined and is impossible to train or enforce. Please reference a specific Use of Force policy or fully define the standard.

Please see the answer to Question # 57.

60 Technical Exhibit 2 Are 100% of all incumbent contract Guards required to have passed the PFRT prior to starting duty or day 1 of contract take over?

No. Please see the answer to Question # 17.

61 Technical Exhibit 4

Regarding, 184 hours of required initial training prior to starting work, does the USCG intend to grandfather incumbent personnel from the new training requirement? If not do 100% of incumbents have to have the training prior to contract start date? If so, will the incumbent contractor be required to do the training or will awardee be expected to do the training during transition? How many of the incumbent personnel meet the new training requirements?

There are 148 hours of required training. Current employees will not be grandfathered in.

For when contractor personnel have to be fully trained, please see the answer to Question # 1.

With regard to incumbent personnel, please see the answer to Question # 17.

62 Technical Exhibit 4

Can the contractor use state required training as a sub to USCG required curriculum when the subject matter is equivalent?

Yes, assuming that the state-required training is fully discussed in the offeror's training plan, as noted in RFP Section L-7, Volume 1, Bullet (b), Item (iii), "Training requirements per PWS Section C-6 and TE-4."

63 Technical Exhibit 5

Requires two (2) non-lethal weapons (ASP & OC spray). Would the government consider dropping the ASP in favor of OC?

Giving training requirements and challenges in effective use, the ASP is less desirable.

No. Both items are required to meet the Coast Guard's minimum needs.

64 Technical Exhibit 5 A pistol lanyard and class 3 holster is redundant for shore duty.

Would the government consider dropping the lanyard requirement?

Yes. Please see the amended Technical Exhibit 5.

65 Technical Exhibit 5 No. 21 - Is contractor required to provide a holder for a citation book, or provide the citation books themselves?

The contractor has the option of providing a cover for the citation book.

Please see the amended TE-5.

66 Technical Exhibit 5

No. 15 - Are the minimum protection standards in section C TE 5 the mandatory minimum requirement for all body armor used on this contract

Yes.

67 Technical Exhibit 5

No. 15 - Is the level III Body Armor System an under or over the shirt system?

There were differences between this observed at different site.

It is an over-the-shirt system. The site visits were demonstrative of the Coast Guard's locations and procedures, but the Coast Guard's minimum requirement are as stated in the RFP and PWS.

68 Technical Exhibit 5 Item 20 and paragraph D - What ballistic rating standard must the light weight helmet (LWH) meet?

Please see the amended Technical Exhibit 5.

69 Technical Exhibit 5 Section C, Item No. 7 states that weapons retention training is mandatory. Is this a contract training requirement?

Weapons retention training is discussed in Section G, "Duty Holster / Levels of Reaction". Yes, weapons retention is a mandatory training requirement. Please see the amended TE-4.

70 Technical Exhibit 5 Are all items after section A (B through E) advisory or mandatory?

Advisory. The examples provided are not brand name requirements.

71 Technical Exhibit 5

TE 5 shows specific equipment by name and part number. Does the government require these specific items or are equivalent items acceptable? Brand name or equivalent?

Please see the answer to Question # 70.

L -52.212-1 Instructions to

Offerors -- Commercial Items

(Oct 2015) (a) North American

Industry Classification

System (NAICS) code and small business size standard

This paragraph states: "However, the small business size standard for a concern which submits an offer in its own name, but which proposes to furnish an item which it did not itself manufacture, is 500 employees.

This seems to contradict the block 10 information on the SF- 1449, which states that the NAICS for this procurement is 561612. That NAICS has a standard of $20.5M with no additional consideration for the number of employees. Please clarify.

Per the first page of the SF 1449, the NAICS code is 561612 and the small business size standard is $20.5 million.

For clarity, the "500 employees" sentence has been removed from the

RFP.

L-1.c Period of acceptance

The USCG has stated that the offeror agree to hold the prices in its offer firm for 30 calendar days, but the anticipated award date is more than 30 post submission. Will the USCG consider extending the Period of acceptance for offerors to account for the full evaluation period?

Yes. Please see the amended RFP Section L-1, "Standard Provisions", provision 52.212-1,"Instructions to Offerors -- Commercial Items", Item (c ), "Period for Acceptance of Offers".

74 L-7 Volume 1

The offeror is required to provide a detailed management approach and a technical capability discussion within 15 pages.

Will the government please consider a larger page count to allow the offerors to fully respond to all requirements? Offeror suggests 50 pages.

Please see the amended RFP Section L-7, "IDIQ Proposal Submission Requirements".

75 L-7 Volume 1.b

Section states that the offeror shall demonstrate its ability to perform all requirements in the PWS, but then lists 3 areas of importance. Is it the government's intension that the offeror only respond to the areas of particular focus or the entire PWS in their proposal response?

Per RFP Section L-7, "IDIQ Proposal Submission Instructions", "Volume 1", offerors shall demonstrate their ability to perform all requirements in accordance with the PWS. Offerors are advised to specifically detail their approach to meeting the areas of particular focus outlined in the aforementioned RFP section.

76 L-7 Volume 2

Will the USCG please clarify what the offeror is required to submit in Volume 2? Is the offeror only required to provide page 1 of attachment C or should there be a detailed reference of the work performed that demonstrates how the work is comparable is scope and complexity to the work described in the PWS?

Per the RFP Volume 2 instructions, the offeror shall provide the completed Section A for at least three (3) recent and relevant past performance efforts. These Section A documents shall provide the requested information noted in Section A along with an explanation of why the cited contract action is recent and relevant to this procurement.

If the offeror so chooses, the offeror may also include brief introductory remarks regarding its past performance in a Word document.

77 L-7 Volume 4.a

Will the USCG please clarify what should specifically should be the completed in the terms and conditions section of the Administrative Volume?

In Volume 4 (The Administrative Volume), the offeror shall include a completed copy of the terms and conditions, which are noted in the RFP as Section I, "Contract Clauses", and Section K, "Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors". The yellow highlights in these sections represent areas where the offeror may have to answer a question.

As noted in the RFP Volume 4 instructions, if all terms and conditions have been completed by the offeror and are available in the System for Award Management (SAM), the offeror may note that and shall not have to complete the same terms and conditions all over again.

The acknowledgement of all five amendments shall be included in Volume 4 as well.

M-4 Evaluation

Criteria

Under the evaluation criteria, there doesn't seem to be any defined criteria at all for the contractor to base its proposal on.

Section M doesn't tie back the requirements of section L in any measurable way. Evaluation criteria as provided here consists of only the definitions of the ratings with no clear information as to how each proposal section will be scored to achieve those ratings. This appears to only be a subjective evaluation. Please provide the specific evaluation criteria for each scored are of the proposal, with respect to the requirements stated in section L.

The first sentence of RFP Section M-4.1.1 says that "Offerors will be evaluated to the extend that their proposals meet the requirements outlined previously in this RFP and how well their proposals satisfy the PWS requirements".

For example, for a technical proposal, the Coast Guard will be evaluating how well the information submitted in the offeror's Volume 1 addresses the PWS requirements outlined in RFP Section L-7.

If, for instance, the offeror's technical proposal does not discuss its staffing plan, that is a material failure and a Deficiency.

79 Attachment D

In this pricing model, the contractor is required to bid a Security Clerk for the base year in TO’s one and two only. We need more information to better understand the Governments desire here.

Is this to be 2 FTE’s for only a single year? Is it for a single FTE bid at a half year for each TO? Does the requirement for this position end with the exercise of the first option year? If not, how does the Government intent to compensate the contractor for this position and these services?

Please see the answer to Question # 7.

80 CBA

It has been independently validated that there are sites other than Puerto Rico that have a CBA covered workforce. This lack of clarity presents a risk to the government and offerors, request the USCG verify by site the in place CBAs and provide copies.

Please see the answer to Question # 2.

81 N/A

Will the government provide contractor a letter of authorization to purchase equipment from GSA ?

No. FAR Part 51, "Use of Government Sources by Contractors", only allows contractors to use Government supply sources if the contract is wholly or substantially cost-reimbursement or if the contract is related to the Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled. As this is an entirely firm-fixed price (FFP) procurement not affiliated with the aforementioned Committee, the Coast Guard cannot authorize contractors to use Government supply sources.

82 N/A Will the government please provide all CBAs currently being used on the contract at any location?

Please see the answer to Question # 2.

83 N/A Do all sites have an approved weapons and ammunition storage location that will be provided to the contractor?

Yes. There will be Coast Guard space provided for the Contractor's weapons locker.

PW C-2.6 / RFP L-5

RFP L-6 / PWS C-

2.11

Does the 30-day Phase-In period begin prior to the Post-Award Conference where the Offeror meets with the KO, KS and COR for the first time?

The 30-day phase-in periods begin on the first day of the period of performance as detailed for each site in RFP Attachment D, "Pricing Spreadsheet." Please see the amended TE-7 for the new post-award date.

85 PWS Enclosure 1 CG Headquarters (in Washington, DC) is listed in both the West Region and the Northwest Region. Please clarify.

Please see the answer to Question # 7.

86 L-7 Are tabloid sized (11”x17”) pages allowed? If so, do they count as one (1) page?

Yes. Please see Question # 5.

87 RFP Section L

52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors -- Commercial Items (Oct 2015):

(b) Submission of offers. Submit signed and dated offers to the office specified in this solicitation at or before the exact time specified in this solicitation. Offers must be submitted on the SF 1449. As a minimum, offers must show --

(8) A completed copy of the representations and certifications at FAR 52.212-3 (see FAR 52.212-3(b) for those representations and certifications that the offeror shall complete electronically);

(9) Acknowledgment of Solicitation Amendments;

(11) Offers that fail to furnish required representations or information, or reject the terms and conditions of the solicitation may be excluded from consideration.

In which volume does the USCG want the SF 1449, acknowledgement of amendments, and representations and certifications?

Please see the answer to Question # 77.

RFP Section L :

52.212-1

Since IDIQ proposals are due October 7th, 2016, and the four TO proposals are due October 20, 2016, and contract award is anticipated on March 31, 2017 for all proposals, the process will take nearly 180 days from the date of proposal receipt until contract award. Pleased clarify for how long the offer agrees to “hold the prices in the offer firm?”

Please see the answer to Question # 73.

RFP , Page 34-35, I-

Are any of the employees in this solicitation currently covered by a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)? If so, would the government please provide copies of the prevailing bargaining agreement(s)?

Please see the answer to Question # 2.

Technical Exhibit 3

(TE3)

Is the incumbent workforce qualified to the Physical Requirements stipulated in TE 3?

The vast majority of the incumbent workforce are qualified to the Technical Exhibit 3 standards. However, please see the amended PWS Section C-3.1, "EMPLOYEE REQUIREMENTS", and Technical Exhibit 7 (TE-

7) for compliance to the requirements.

Technical Exhibit 4

(TE4)

Is the incumbent workforce trained to the Training Requirements stipulated in TE 4?

Please see the answer to Question # 1.

At least one location (Miami) requires the guards to be trained and equipped with a Taser.

Question: Are these GFE or CFE?

A taser is not a requirement.

93 : C-10.7 Will the government define the requirement further or is it up to the contractor to decide?

Please see the answers to Questions # 50 and # 51.

Section C-6 Training, Page C-17

Reference:

Technical Exhibit

Four (TE-4)

Question 11a: Would the government please clarify which training elements are included in the refresher training and their recurrence?

Please see the answers to Questions # 43, # 61, and # 62.

Section C-6 Training, Page C-17

Reference:

Technical Exhibit

Four (TE-4)

Question 11b: Would the government please clarify which training elements are included in the initial training?

Question 11c: Does the incumbent workforce meet the training standards in this solicitation? If not, would the government please advise which elements are new?

Please see the answer to Questions # 1, # 43, # 61, and # 62.

96 Section C-8 Would the government please confirm there is no section C-8 included in this solicitation?

Enclosure (1) to Contract No.:

HSCG23-16-R-PFP-

021 Attachment 10

POST MANNING

REQUIREMENTS

SUMMARY USCG

ATC MOBILE, AL

The total weekly hours of posts 1-3 calculate to 336 hours, whereas Attachment 10 has listed 308 hours for Armed Guard – Guard Level II. Would the government please confirm the hours for this location?

Please see the answer to Question # 9.

Enclosure (1) to Contract No.:

HSCG23-16-R-PFP-

021 Attachment 19

POST MANNING

REQUIREMENTS

SUMMARY PORT

ANGELES, WA

The total weekly hours of the listed posts calculate to 386 hours, whereas Attachment 19 has listed 336 hours for Armed Guard – Guard Level II and 168 hours for Alarm Monitor. Would the government please confirm the hours for this location?

Please see the answer to Question # 9.

Task Order 1 Pages 5-6 / Attachment D

The Period of Performance for CLINs 00006 and 00007 and their subclins reference 11/30/2017 to 03/31/2018. Please confirm whether the base periods at the Barber’s Point, Hawaii and at Honolulu, Hawaii locations are only 4 months in duration for each site?

Yes. The base period of performance for CLINs 00006 and 00007 and Sub- CLINS under Task Order # 1 is four months.

Task Order 2 Page 3 / Attachment D

The Period of Performance for CLIN 00002 and its subclins reference 05/31/2017 to 03/31/2018. Please confirm whether the base period at the Seattle, WA location is only 10 months in duration?

Yes. The base period of performance for CLIN 00002 and its Sub-CLINs under Task Order # 2 is ten months.

Task Order 2 Page 4 / Attachment D

The Period of Performance for CLIN 00004 and its subclins reference 08/31/2017 to 03/31/2018. Please confirm whether the base period at the Ketchikan, AK location is only 7 months in duration?

Yes. The base period of performance for CLIN 00004 and its Sub-CLINs under Task Order # 2 is seven months.

Task Order 3 Page

3-4 / Attachment D

The RFP Period of Performance for CLIN 00002 and its subclins reference 08/31/2017 to 03/31/2018; however, Attachment D Pricing Spreadsheet references 5/31/17 – 3/31/18. Would the government provide the base period for the Baltimore, MD location?

Please see the amended SF 1449 for Task Order # 3. The base period of performance in Baltimore, Maryland, begins on 31 MAY 2017.

Task Order 3 Page

5-7 / Attachment D

The Period of Performance for CLINs 00006, 00007, and 00008 and their subclins reference 08/31/2017 to 03/31/2018. Would the government please confirm the base periods at the Cape May, NJ, New London, CT, and Detroit, MI locations are only 7 months in duration?

Yes. The base period of performance for CLINs 00006, 00007,and 00008, and their Sub-CLINs under Task Order # 3 is seven months.

Task Order 4 Page

2-4 / Attachment D

The Period of Performance for CLINs 00002 and 00003 and their subclins reference 08/31/2017 to 03/31/2018. Would the government please confirm the base periods at the Borinquen, PR and San Juan, PR locations are only 7 months in duration?

Yes. The base period of performance for CLINs 00002 and 00003 and their Sub-CLINs under Task Order # 4 is seven months.

Task Order 4 Page

4-6 / Attachment D

The Period of Performance for CLINs 00005 and 00006 and their subclins reference 11/30/2017 to 03/31/2018. Would the government please confirm the base periods at the Miami, FL and USCG Air Station – Miami, FL locations are only 4 months in duration?

Yes. The base period of performance for CLINs 00005 and 00006 and Sub- CLINS under Task Order #4 is four months.

SF1449 Section L-7

Volume 3 / Attachment D

: Please clarify which tabs from Attachment D should be included with the submission of the IDIQ-level proposal?

Per RFP Section L-8, "Task Order Proposal Submission Instructions", Item (c ), "the offeror only needs to provide complete pricing for the task-order specific CLINs." Only the task-order specific spreadsheets within Attachment D need to be provided. For example, in an offeror's Task Order # 1 proposal, the offeror would only need to provide the completed Task Order # 1 pricing spreadsheet. No other Attachment D spreadsheets would need to be provided.

Section L-7 Volume 3 / Attachment D

For all CLINs beginning “#0003A”, “#0004A”, and “#0005A”, would the government please advise whether the total hours are 0? If not, should bidders enter a quantity of 40 hours in accordance with the RFP section L-7 Volume 3, part j?

Please see the amended Attachment D, "Pricing Spreadsheet".

Section L-7…