Govt Resp 7 April 2010.doc

RFP M00027-10-R-0001/Amendment 0016 RFP M00027-10-R-0002/Amendment 0014

GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO

INDUSTRY QUESTIONS

C.3.4

J-13

J-13a

J-20

J-22 Question #1: Section C.3.4 NISH/Ability One Program Participation provides in part that “The contractor shall be responsible for incorporating the NISH effort at these mess halls within its proposal. This may include establishing contracts, or other agreements or relationships between NISH, and the NISH Community Rehabilitation Programs (CRPs) responsible for the work at specific mess halls. The Marine Corps will not play a role in organizing, managing or facilitating any arrangement between NISH and the Contractor.”

Since the March 24, 2010 Amendments deleted the NISH “plug price” (Attachment J-20), new offerors, like ourselves, are not prepared to incorporate the NISH effort into our proposals, because other than furnishing the “plug price”, NISH together with the designated CRPs or Nonprofit Agencies (NPAs) have not furnished pricing details that would permit us to incorporate “the NISH effort” within the time remaining under the current RFPs closing date of April 12, 2010.

Conversation with Mr. Kanady at NISH on March 25, 2010 revealed they were not prepared to discuss or relinquish any information that would be required to meet the requirement. When asked if the information would be available through the NISH office, he stated they were “regrouping” and any decisions would be sent to the Marines for distribution. Under these circumstances it is likely that the only offeror positioned to incorporate “the NISH effort into a proposal is the incumbent contractor. Will the Government afford offerors sufficient time and fair opportunity to establish the appropriate relationship with NISH and its NPAs to obtain sufficient pricing details to adequately cost their proposals, or re-establish the “plug pricing” to ensure fair and equal opportunity to all offerors?

Government Response: As a result of confusion arising from the AbilityOne subcontracting approach identified in a previous Amendment, the Government is revising the AbilityOne subcontracting approach in this Amendment. Through this Amendment, the Government is clarifying the approach intended by the previous Amendment. Notwithstanding any guidance previously provided, Prime Offerors are hereby instructed to establish, directly with the AbilityOne subcontractors listed in Attachment J-17, Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs) to be included within Prime Offeror proposals utilizing the labor category and rate information provided in Attachments J-22 and J-13A. AbilityOne subcontractor points of contact are listed in the revised solicitation paragraph C.3.4. Additionally, Offerors should portray, within their Management Plans, staffing requirements identifying the all-inclusive level of effort necessary to accomplish the specified contract performance requirements, using a combination of Prime Contract, subcontract (if applicable) and AbilityOne subcontract labor.

In order to provide adequate time for Offerors to develop MOAs and obtain level of effort information directly from AbilityOne subcontractors, the solicitation is being extended until 5:00 p.m. 14 May 2010.

The MOAs between Prime and AbilityOne subcontractors should demonstrate that the Prime Offeror and AbilityOne subcontractors have agreed on a scope of work and level of effort for each applicable Mess hall listed in Attachment J-17. Prior to beginning performance under the contract, once the successful Prime Contractor and AbilityOne subcontractor have agreed to a final price, the agreed upon price must be submitted to the Committee for Purchase for final validation and approval as the Fair Market Price, resulting in a fully executed subcontract.

To provide necessary pricing information, this Amendment presents a revised Attachment J-13A. The information in this attachment, generated by NISH on behalf of the AbilityOne subcontractors, provides fully-burdened AbilityOne labor rates along with supplemental pricing information. Within Attachment J-13A, depicted in [BOLD BLACK] are "Mandatory Labor Categories" from Attachment J-22. Depicted in [RED Italics] are additional labor categories and rates that AbilityOne subcontractors have traditionally performed under the predecessor contract at the specified locations. Prime offerors are encouraged to team with AbilityOne subcontractors to utilize these additional labor categories to the maximum extent practical. On selected Mess Halls, included within Attachment J-13A is a cost element entitled "Other Direct Costs" (ODCs), which include descriptions of cost elements and exclusionary items.

The revised approach mitigates concerns relative to the “plug pricing” concept and eliminates Prime Offeror and AbilityOne subcontractor concerns relative to the open communication processes. It permits Prime Offerors the opportunity to propose their own organizational staffing models to carry out operations most effectively and encourages Prime Offerors to team with AbilityOne subcontractors to obtain work beyond mandatory labor categories. By utilizing this approach the Government, working together with the Committee for Purchase, NISH and AbilityOne subcontractors have clarified labor categories applicable (including all burdens) to each mess hall on the Procurement List, and provided additional time to develop agreements regarding scope of work and levels of effort relative to the AbilityOne work.

Question #2: Attachment J-22 issued with the 24 March amendments lists four (4) mandatory labor categories applicable to AbilityOne mess halls: Food Sanitation Specialist II (may also be called Mess Attendant or Food Service Worker), Cashiers (may also be called Meal Verification personnel), Assistant Store Clerks and Assistant Mess Hall Managers (may also be called Supervisor). Previously issued J-20 listed only Food Sanitation Specialist II and Assistant Mess Hall Managers as belonging to AbilityOne. This discrepancy raises the following concerns:

a) The “mandatory labor categories” furnished in J-22 are inconsistent with categories published in the CBA/WDs. For example, the Quantico CBA cites “Storeroom Clerk” but does not cite the mandatory category “Assistant Store Clerk”. The Cherry Point CBA cites “Store Room Clerk” but does not cite the mandatory category “Assistant Store Clerk”. The Camp Pendleton CBA cites “Food Sanitation Specialist and Food Sanitation Specialist Leader, but does not differentiate between categories “I” or “II” and cites “Store Room” and MCFMIS/STORES Clerk”, but does not cite the mandatory category “Assistant Store Clerk.” These are just a few examples; every CBA furnished by the Government contains one or more disparities that prevent use without clarification. Please clarify.

Government Response: (a) If a particular position does not currently exist, the prospective contractor should request to conform the position labor category with the union using Department of Labor processes.

b) The CBA provided for Cherry Point within Amendment 0015 does not cite a MCFMIS Clerk classification or applicable wage rate. MCMFIS Clerks are usually prime-contractor provided employees in M&MA mess halls. Does the Cherry Point facility not have a requirement for this labor classification? Please clarify.

Government Response: (b) The information to support this labor classification for MCMFIS Clerk (Operator) is $13.65 direct labor rate.

c) The Procurement List posted on AbilityOne website lists, for example on the East Coast, three locations categorized as “Food Service Attendant” and the remaining four locations are categorized as “Food Service.” Please verify if all labor categories as listed in J-22 (March 24, 2010) are correct for all locations.

Government Response: (c) Labor categories listed in Attachment J-22 represent an agreement between the Committee For Purchase and the Marine Corps to clarify labor categories under the current East and West Coast solicitations. The labor categories are correct and apply uniformly to ALL mess halls on the Procurement List.

d) Are we to interpret the J-22 mandatory labor classifications as notice that Ability One NPAs are confined to pricing only the work in AbilityOne Procurement List designated mess hall facilities consistent with the mandatory labor classifications and associated tasks announced in J-22? Please Verify.

Government Response: (d) See response to Question 1.

e) The East Coast Amendments issued 24 March 2010 and 25 March 2010 did not include a WD or a CBA for the following locations (1) Marine Barracks DC, (2) Norfolk VA and (3) Beaufort SC. Please provide as stated in Block 14 Number 6, SF 30, Amendment 14 dated 24 March 2010.

Government Response: (e) There is no Union representation at these East Coast facilities:

· Marine Barracks, DC

· Norfolk, VA WD

· Beaufort, SC WD

f) The West Coast Amendments issued 24 March 2010 and 25 March 2010 did not include a WD or a CBA for the following location: MCRD San Diego, CA. Please provide as stated in Block 14 Number 6, SF 30, Amendment 13 dated 24 March 2010.

Government Response: (f) There is no Union representation at this West Coast facility:

MCRD San Diego, CA To access the current WD rates which are posted on the Department of Labor Wage Determination web site:

Go to: www.wdol.gov

1. Select SCA WDs

2. Select State and county where the services are to be performed.

3. Select YES to the question, “Were these services previously performed at this locality under an SCA-Covered contract?

4. Select NO to the question, “Are any of the employees performing work subject to a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)? WDOL User’s Guide: Sec. B.5.b

5. Select Food and Lodging Services

Question #3: Attachment J-13 Instructions provides, in pertinent part, that offerors “Utilize the mandatory labor categories for all AbilityOne Mess Halls listed in Attachment J-22, entitled West (and East) Coast AbilityOne Mandatory Labor Categories. Level of effort associated with AbilityOne Mess Halls should be proposed by the offeror with direct rates provided in Attachment J-21, entitled Collective Bargaining Agreement/Wage Determinations (CBA/WD) West (and East ) Coast. Offeror should obtain the indirect rates from the NISH representative, Mr. Mike Kanady, as listed in the solicitation. A Fixed-Overhead rate of 14.35% shall be applied to the overall labor cost at the AbilityOne Mess halls (West Coast and 13.35% East Coast.)”

The J-13 Instructions appear contradictory to the process discussed in Section C.3.4, which requires that offerors must establish some form of a relationship with NISH with the objective of securing the pricing details required to incorporate “the NISH effort” into the J-13 templates to complete the offerors pricing of its proposal. By contrast, the J-13 Instructions appear to suggest that the offeror should develop the “Level of effort associated with AbilityOne Mess Halls…proposed by the offeror with direct rates provided in Attachment J-21…” and complete such offeror proposed level of NISH effort by obtaining NISH indirect rates from Mr. Kanady and applying the Fixed-Overhead rates furnished in the Instructions. The implications of the J-13 Instructions suggests placing an offeror in a position of presuming to know what the Nish Level of effort should be and using NISH input only to the extent needed to determine each individual NPAs indirect costs or rates to compile the “NISH effort”. Will the Government please clarify its intent?

Government Response: See response to question number 1.

Question #4: Question #2 in the March 24 Amendments referred to inconsistent and unclear guidance regarding the use of different versions of certain Marine Orders containing recipe index and recipe cards. The government response removed the reference to the 2003 version and referenced the 1999 version instead.

We are concerned with the government’s response to this question. The specific issue being: which version of the recipe card index to use, 1999 or 2003, when developing the 21 day cyclic menus. To change our cyclic menus from the newer (and still current) 2003 version to the older and outdated 1999 version has significant impact. The whole process of developing the menus for the proposal is only for the purpose of the proposal and the agency to validate our menu plan. Once awarded the contract, the cyclic menu approved will still have to be programmed into the Marine Corps Food Management Information System (MCFMIS). MCFMIS already has the 2003 version of the military recipe card service, not the 1999 version. The caloric and fat content as well as other dietary information is already in MCFMIS for each recipe. It is logical to use the most current information in our programmed 21 day cyclic menu. The entire 2003 version military recipe card service is publicly available via the internet.

Our primary recommendation to this issue is to use the newest version recipe card service or to ensure a level playing field, simply have the offeror state which recipe index version was used to develop the cyclic menus. Please clarify this requirement and reasoning behind removing the 2003 version.

Government Response: Armed Forces Recipe Cards are not mandatory. If offeror chooses to use them, they can be provided as a .pdf file vs. a template using the 1999 version.

Question #5: Question #5 in the March 24, 2010 amendments addresses the size of paper to use in preparing the proposal. However this raises the following concern:

Although this issue regards paper size allowed, we are concerned with the offeror’s reference in their question regarding printing the entire recipe book and submitting that in Volume III. If an offeror was under the impression, that recipe templates were only required for any menu item that was not already available in the recipe card service and/or MCFMIS, they would only provide recipes on the worksheets provided for those recipes NOT in the recipe card service. The response above would have them react by printing ALL recipes. Our concern is for what purpose? The intent as we understand it is for the offeror to provide in their menu plan, the 21 day cyclic and other menus complete with the nutritional information called for in J-12. For the offerors to replicate ALL recipes called for in their cyclic menu by retyping the recipes onto the excel spreadsheet template in J-12, then printing all those recipes (i.e.: 580 recipes) and placing them into Volume III, they are providing recipes far beyond what is needed to validate the adequacy of the menu plan. That is further compounded when those recipes templates are based on the older 1999 index to recipes, especially when the offeror awarded the contract will have to begin the menu cycle process by inputting their cyclic menu into the MCFMIS that already has the 2003 version of recipe card services installed. Please clarify this requirement.

Government Response: All recipes must be provided. If Armed Forces Recipe Cards are used, they may be provided as a .pdf file rather than a template. Please be advised that MCFMIS uses the 1999 version.

Question #6: Although J-20 is not currently applicable to the Solicitation, considering the four mandatory labor classifications cited in J-22 that are not in the WD/CBAs applicable to AbilityOne designated facilities (Section C.3.4, Table 4) raises the question, where did AbilityOne obtain the mandatory labor classifications “Assistant Mess Hall Manager” and “Food Sanitation Specialist II” used to build the plug pricing published in J-20? Please Respond

Government Response: Assistant Mess Hall Manager is an exempt position. All non-exempt labor classifications for Food Sanitation Specialist II were obtained from the Dept. of Labor Wage Determinations and the Collective Bargaining Agreements.

Question #7: The J-20 (Amendments 0007 and 0006 issued February 26, 2010) furnished plug pricing built upon two of the mandatory labor classifications (Assistant Mess Hall Manager and Food Sanitation Specialist II) cited in J-22 (Amendments 0013 and 0014, issued 24 March 2010). Does J-22 represent an expansion of duties and responsibilities not originally contemplated when the affected Mess Halls were placed on the Procurement List? Please Respond.

Government Response: See response to question number 1.

Question #8: The “Assistant Mess Hall Manager” classification does not appear in any of the furnished WD/CBAs covering AbilityOne facilities and also does not appear in those facilities not affected by the AbilityOne Procurement List. Is this mandatory labor category as identified in J-22 considered to be wage and hour labor category?

Government Response: Assistant Mess Hall Manager is an exempt position, and therefore, is not covered by a CBA/WD.

Question #9: The classification “Food Sanitation Specialist” appears in the Camp Pendleton, WD/CBA, but does not specify whether category “I” or “II” applies. FAR 22-1019(b) explains that within a job classification family, for example: Computer Operators, level I, II and III, level I is the entry and lowest skill level. Therefore, it is imperative that the level (I or II or both) be identified in the WD/CBA. Please Clarify.

Government Response: The CBA explains that the Food Sanitation Specialist I is an entry-level training position to be employed for no more than the first 30 days of employment, after which the Food Sanitation Specialist II rate applies.

Question #10: Are any of the “mandatory labor classifications” furnished in Attachment J-22 the result of the conformance procedure contemplated by FAR 22-1019? Please Respond.

Government Response: Of the four classifications listed in Attachment J-22, one is exempt, Assistant Manager and the remaining three are covered under the existing CBA/WD.

Attachment J-2

Amendment 14

March 24, 2010 Review of Attachment J-2, Amendment 14, released on March 24, 2010 identifies several mess halls operating hours and schedule changes from the previous released attachments. Will the government please verify operational hours and seasonal schedules at the following mess halls?

Question #11: Contradiction in schedules: Mid Oct – Mid April has a Monday – Sunday schedule, yet the document also has a Sunday & Holiday all year schedule that contradicts the hrs in the Mid Oct – Mid April schedule

Government Response: Amended Attachment J-2 Parris Island Mess hall 410 to read Monday – Saturday Question #12: Parris Island Mess hall 590: – Mid April – Mid Oct only has an hour and half for feeding lunch rather than the standard two hours

Government Response: Validated

Question # 13: Parris Island Mess hall 740: – Sunday has been deleted from the Recruits dinner feeding schedule

Government Response: Amended Attachment J-2 Parris Island Mess hall 740 adding Sunday/Holiday all year

The “plug pricing” concept was introduced in Amendment 6, issued on 26 Feb 10. This “plug pricing” was an effort to address the uncertainty associated with the required sourcing through the NPAs and create a common baseline for these services against which all Prime Offerors could propose. The “plug pricing” concept was removed because it created a perception that the Government was providing a per-determined, fixed price for a significant portion of every offerors’ staffing requirement and that it further prevented offerors’ from proposing company-specific organizational staffing models that matched their concept of operations.

PAGE