Amendment_7-Ansewr_to_Questions.pdf

June 3, 2015

ID08150033 - Medical Treatment Facility (MTF) Operations & Maintenance

Amendment #7- Questions/Answers

Question: On the McConnell AFB site visit, it was noted that all HVAC systems will be replaced.

a. Please confirm that the installation of these HVAC systems will not be the responsibility of this task order’s awardee.

ANSWER: The requirement to replace the HVAC systems is being executed through AFMSA

Engineering Branch and will not be the responsibility of the awardee.

Question: Performance Work Statement (PWS) paragraph 6.4.2 describes Emergency Technical

Instructions. Please clarify the following:

a.Attachment 3, Definitions and Acronyms, states for an Emergency: "Any work required to correct a condition which poses an immediate danger to life, health or safety or an emergency condition that is detrimental to the mission, posing an imminent safety hazard or reduced operational effectiveness and completed within 24 hours of notification. The definition of Emergency Response in Attachment 3 includes "Work required to eliminate an emergency condition within 24 hours of notification that is detrimental to the mission or reduces operational effectiveness." Yet for both Class 1 and Class 2

Emergencies, the PWS requires the Contractor to establish an FFP quote for the repair quote within 40 hours of the initial verbal authorization. Is the contractor to respond to Emergency repairs within 24 hours or after approval of the FFP quote provided within 40 hours?

a. Contractor is to respond to emergency classification of work within 15 minutes during normal duty hours and within 1 hour if outside normal duty hours in accordance of PWS section 6.4.9.1. when notified of emergency work. Contractor is to provide FFP Quote TI within 48 hours of initial verbal authorization on emergency works. Attachment 1 IDIQ PWS updated.

b.How are Class 1 and Class 2 Emergencies different from Emergency as defined in Attachment 3?

b. The difference of Class 1 and Class 2 Emergencies is who authorize Government approval. Emergency

Class 1 is for work below $2,500.00 which is within COR’s micro purchase authority to give approval.

Emergency Class 2 is for work above $2,500.00 which requires SRM/PM’s review for CO’s approval.

Contracting Officer can issue approval for both Emergency Class 1 and Class 2, but a delegated COR is only able to issue approval for Emergency Class 1 only.

c.PWS 6.4.9.1 states that emergency service calls must be responded to within 15 minutes during normal duty hours (on-site within 1 hour outside of normal duty hours) and completed within 24 hours. How does

Emergency response and Emergency Response Completion times correlate to Class 1 and Class 2

Emergencies?

c. There is no difference in Emergency response and Emergency Response Completion times between

Class 1 and Class 2 Emergencies. One should respond according to the timeline described in PWS

6.4.9.1.

d. What is the difference between "responding" to a Class 1 or Class2 Emergency within 24 hours as described at PWS 6.4.2 and "responding" to an Emergency within 15 minutes during normal duty hours

(on-site within 1 hour outside of normal duty hours) and "completing" within 24 hours as described at

PWS 6.4.9.1?

d. PWS 6.4.2 does not state responding within 24 hours. Contractor is to respond to each classification work in accordance with PWS 6.4.9.1 Response and Completion times.

Question: The flow chart in Attachment 34 for the proposed AMFSA Maintenance Plan states that emergencies are to be responded to within 30 minutes and urgent calls within 4 hours. PWS 6.4.9.1 states emergencies are to be responded to within 15 minutes during duty hours, within 1 hour outside normal duty hours; urgent calls, within 8 hours during normal duty hours, within the first hour the next duty day for other than normal duty hours. Please clarify the discrepancy in response times.

ANSWER: The response time noted in Attachment 34 flow chart is incorrect. The correct response and completion time is listed in PWS 6.4.9.1. The flow chart has also been revised and is attached with this amendment.

Question: Attachment 34, paragraph 2.3.4.1 states that Class I emergencies are equal to or less than

$2,500 and that a completed TI, including FFP quote, is to be provided no later than 48 hours after the verbal request. Attachment 34, paragraph 2.3.4.2 states that Class II emergencies are greater than $2,500 and that a completed TI, including FFP quote, is to be provided no later than 48 hours after the verbal request. PWS 6.4.2 defines Class 1 emergencies as being at or below $2,500 with an FFP quote required within 40 hours; Class 2 emergencies are also defined as being at or less than $2,500, but are for diagnostic failure determination, and FFP quotes are required within 40 hours. Please clarify the following:

a. How are Class I and Class II emergencies as described in Attachment 34 related to Class 1 and Class 2 emergencies described in the PWS?

a. Attachment 1, PWS section 6.4.2 has been updated. Class 1 & 2 changed to Class I and II. Also updated

Class II language – “Class II emergency maintenance orders are emergency orders exceeding Class I emergency threshold dollar amount which require initial authorization at or below the $2,500.00 micro purchase level for diagnostic failure determination from COR. Once the FFP TI quote is determine that cost exceeds Class I threshold, the work becomes Class II emergency for approval from Contracting

Officer.”

b. How will the Contractor know which set of dollar level restrictions and Ti/FFP quote response times apply, given that those described in Attachment 34 differ from those described in the PWS?

b. Attachment 1 section 6.4.2 and Attachment 34 have been updated to show same response and completion time for emergency classification work as stated in PWS section 6.4.9.1. FFP Quote TI is to be provided within 48 hours of the initial verbal authorization.

Question: Grounds maintenance and snow removal:

Please provide square footage or acreage for the sites requiring an estimate/pricing for grounds maintenance and snow/ice removal (Elmendorf, Fairchild, and McConnell).

ANSWER: At Fairchild there is 200,000 SF of parking and 10,000 SF of sidewalk for snow & ice removal only. This information was shared in the previous amendment.

Elmendorf

Name Estimated Grass Area (SF)

673 MDG 175,000

VA Clinic 11,000

Fisher House 10,000

176 ANG Clinic NIC

Total Campus 196,000

At McConnell, Grounds Maintenance entails only snow and ice removal for linear length footage at 2551 feet based on a 6 feet width wide sidewalk for a total SF of 15,306. See updated Site Specific PWS, Attachment 8 - Price Proposal - Site Specific FFP Services and attached McConnell diagram.

Question: Attachments 1-7, Site Specific PWSs – Section 1.5 Unscheduled Maintenance Performance and Subsection 1.5.1; Attachment 8: Price Proposal – Site Specific FFP Services

1) Please clarify if offerors are to include all cost for unscheduled maintenance action costing up to

$500.00 (or stated otherwise in Site Specific PWS) under CLIN X001 Scheduled Preventative

Maintenance.

2) If offerors are to include unscheduled maintenance action under CLIN X001, please provide the historical workload for unscheduled maintenance work orders for all sites.

ANSWER:

1) Yes, Scheduled Preventative Maintenance (CLIN X001) includes all unscheduled maintenance work costing up to $500.00 (or stated otherwise in Site Specific PWS).

2) Please see the historical workload here:

Site Annual # of unscheduled maintenance work orders covered under PM (under

TI $ threshold)

Altus 266

Eielson 231

Elmendorf 1,686

Fairchild 387

McConnell 271

Tinker 721

Vance 230

Question: Attachment 13, Optional Service #2 Grounds Maintenance

Please provide the workload data (Acreage/SF [square feet]/LF [linear feet]) for grounds maintenance at

McConnell AFB.

ANSWER: At McConnell, Grounds Maintenance entails only snow and ice removal for linear length footage at 2551 feet based on a 6 feet width wide sidewalk for a total SF of 15,306. See updated Site

Specific PWS, Attachment 8 - Price Proposal - Site Specific FFP Services and attached McConnell diagram.

Question: In regards to the Amalgam Separator, RPS #D209001499J, AMS, D20 Plumbing, D2090

Other Plumbing Systems, D209001 Special Piping Systems, can you please confirm at which sites (#1-

7) this is to be included in the Task Order Contract?

ANSWER: As part of the solicitation a Real Property Installed Equipment list was provided for each site.

The vendors should refer to this document for each site to determine if an Amalgam Separator is listed.

Question: Upon a Task Order Award will the Contractor be given the opportunity to perform a complete

Initial Inspection of all building systems for which maintenance coverage is specified, and provide a detailed written report of the findings? (Please refer to existing Contract, Section C.11.1 & C.11.2.)

ANSWER: The current contract Section C.11.1 & C.11.2. are not applicable to this solicitation.

Question: 1. References:

(a) Attachment 1, MTF O&M Performance Work Statement, paragraph 1.13, pg 12

(b) Attachment 1, MTF O&M Performance Work Statement, paragraph 5.6, pg 24

(c) Site Specific PWS (Attachments 1 through 7)

Discussion: Refs a. and b. require the contractor to operate building management system (BMS), direct digital controls (DDC) and energy management and control systems (EMCS).

What BMS and/or EMCS are installed at the eight sites covered under this solicitation? Please provide the manufacturer and type control systems, and whether the EMCS(s) are proprietary to the manufacturer.

ANSWER: All vendors should refer to their site visit notes as the equipment was made available to them during this time period. If a vendor failed to make the site visit then as part of the solicitation a Real

Property Installed Equipment list was provided for each site. The vendors should refer to this document for each site to determine if a BMS and/or EMCS are listed.

Question: Reference:

Attachment 5, Site Specific PWS - McConnell AFB KS, Optional Services 2 - Grounds Maintenance, pg

Discussion: Optional Service 2 requires grounds maintenance, but no specific scope of services required is provided.

Please provide the scope of ground maintenance services to be performed specific to McConnell AFB: (1)

Area (e.g., SF, Acre(s) to be serviced, (2) type service (e.g., lawn care, edging, plant bed maintenance, tree and shrub care, etc.); (3) frequencies of service.

footage at 2551 feet based on a 6 feet width wide sidewalk for a total SF of 15,306. See updated Site

Question: We have the following question for McConnell AFB:

1) Can you please provide the lines of demarcation for the grounds?

footage at 2551 feet based on a 6 feet width wide sidewalk for a total SF of 15,306. See updated Site

Question: There is currently no provision in the solicitation for overhead and profit markups on

Subcontracts and Materials TI’s. Please confirm that the only way for contractors to recover costs and to provide for margin is to do so through the site specific ceiling labor rates.

ANSWER: Contractors should not apply profit markups and overhead through site specific ceiling rates on TI subcontracts and materials. TI’s are independently requested, proposed, and authorized throughout the life of a site specific Task Order and at the time of each TI proposal the contractor should, at that time, apply and identify overhead and profit for any subcontracts or material proposed.

Question: Are we to provide IDIQ labor ceiling rates for both CONUS and OCONUS work as two separate documents?

ANSWER: Yes, Attachment 2 Price Proposal - IDIQ Ceiling Rates was updated. This document included a separate tab for CONUS and OCONUS rates. This attachment is uploaded with this amendment.

Question: There is no BAS or Elevator Mechanic category for the maintenance and repair services. These are common trades, generally subcontracted. Should all respondents to the RFQ include these rates?

ANSWER: Most sites do require some Building Automation System (BAS) services and few sites may need Elevator Mechanic services. Offerors should add these labor categories to Attachment 2 Price

Proposal - IDIQ Ceiling Rates as well as further identify BAS and/or elevator services on RPIE and/or site specific PWS and include the proper site labor on Attachment 9 - Price Proposal - Site Specific UM Labor

Rates.

Question: Should there be a Project Manager and Trade Supervisor rate in the construction Services form?

ANSWER: Yes, both of these labor categories have been added to Attachment 2 Price Proposal Ceiling

Rates and Attachment 9 - Price Proposal - Site Specific UM.

Question: At Fairchild the snow removal is to be priced per push. Does this apply to McConnell as well?

ANSWER: Yes, this also applies to McConnell. Please see updated Site Specific PWS, Attachment 8 -

Price Proposal - Site Specific FFP Services and attached McConnell diagram.

Question: Attachment 1 – PWS, page 31, it states the following:

6.4.3. Technical Instructions Website. The Government wishes to reduce the amount of paperwork burden on MTF site personnel. The Government has been successful on other Facilities maintenance IDIQ contracts by allowing the prime contractor to establish Technical Instruction web-based administration system that enable the Government point of service personnel and the contractor schedule and dispatch personnel to communicate through the internet regarding MTF maintenance service requests. The offeror shall establish a secure password protected website with industry standard SSL certificate to expedite the processing of Technical Instructions. The Government provides maintenance forms (TI & DD250) which the contractor implements into the website for generating Technical Instructions and DD250 for online approval. The website shall enable the authorized government personnel to view, provide comments and approve technical instructions and DD250s depending on their authorization level. The website must be able to track each user’s login information with date and IP address along with ability to notate approver’s digital signature and time the approval was authorized on both TI and DD250. The website should list all approved and pending TI status with ability to sort by following status – TI approved, TI pending approval, DD250 approved, DD250 pending approval, Invoiced, TI and DD250 approval date. This type of service has greatly enhanced the processing time required to deliver point of service requests from remote facilities maintenance sites, while reducing the paperwork workload.

Does the client require want each offeror to have their own TI website to meet the above requirements over and above what the DMLSS system already does to fulfill these same requirements?

ANSWER: Yes, all awardees are required to maintain and operate their own website that is capable to approving/tracking TIs and DD250s in accordance with the contract. DMLSS will not be accessible to

GSA nor CMM/Vendor to submit TI/DD250.

Question: Would the government provide an example or additional clarification concerning the

Elmendorf / VA split in cost?

EXAMPLE ONLY:

Also please reference Attachment 8: Price Proposal – Site Specific FFP Services and note example of cost split between Elmendorf and Elmendorf-VA.

Offeror ABC proposes a $100,000.00/per unit for Scheduled Preventative Maintenance for ELMENDORF

AF only and $70,000 for VA only. ABC also proposes $60,000.00/per unit for combined ELMENDORF and VA tasks. Elmendorf - 77% equals $46,200 and VA - 23% equals $13,800. Therefore Elmendorf total unit price is $146,200 and VA is $83,800.

Elmendorf-AF

CLIN TERMS DESCRIPTION QTY Unit Unit Price TOTAL YR

CLIN X001 FFP Scheduled Preventative

Maintenance (Elmendorf AF +

77% of shared Elmendorf-VA

Costs)

12 mo $100,000 +

$46,200 =

$146,200

Elmendorf-VA

CLIN TERMS DESCRIPTION QTY Unit Unit Price TOTAL YR

CLIN X001 FFP Scheduled Preventative

Maintenance ( (Elmendorf -VA +

23% of shared Elmendorf AF

Costs)

12 mo $70,000 +

$13,800 =

$83,800