JL-16_Questions_and_Answers.pdf

Solicitation No. N62742-13-R-1150 Guam Base Operations Support Services for the Joint Region Marianas (JRM)

JL-16 Questions and Answers

Ques. # Reference (page #, section #, etc.) Question Government Response

QUESTION IN REFERENCE TO: File - Exhibit A-L ELIN Guam (11July2013)

RFP SECTION: Amend 0004 Page 4-10 Section: File Solicitation N62742-13-R-1150

Schedule B denotes calculations for a Base Fee (Profit), all other forms indicated that base fee is not applicable, please clarify if Base Fee (Profit) is supposed to be put on the cost? If yes are we to add a column in JB-1 for the allocation of Base Fee.

See response in Amendment 0019, Attachment JL-12, question 87.

QUESTION IN REFERENCE TO: RFP Attachment JL-13 Questions & Answers, # 160 (Amend 20) and J-1502000-05 Workload Data Submission (Amend 20)

RFP SECTION: _ J____ PAGE:___35 of 68 SECTION: _ JL-13_____

A comparison of the Government provided regular hours (138,245 hours) and OT hours (6,791) associated with Service Calls in 2014 at Q&A #160 on the JL-13 (Amend 20) against the # of Service Calls (6,897) on J-1502000-05 projected for AOY4, for workload on services calls in 2014 would indicate that each service call (on average) takes roughly 20+ hours of billable time to complete. This seems abnormally high.

1. Please verify that 20+ hours average service call billable time is what you intend as the average time to complete a service order.

2. If a bidder proposes an average time per service call that is less than the Government average depicted by data above, would the resultant price be evaluated as “unrealistic? ”

3. Can bidders provide a minimum (floor) set of hours for service calls in light of the workload published in Q&A #160?

Q1 RESPONSE: The required time to complete a service call is dependent upon the categorization of the service (i.e., emergency, or urgent and routine). Please refer to performance standard 1 and 2 in spec item 3.1.1 for the response and resolution times for emergency service calls.

Please refer to performance standard 1 and 2 for the response and resolution times for urgent and routine service calls.

Q2 RESPONSE: Offerors should propose timeframes that meet the PWS requirements of responding to and resolving emergency, and urgent and routine service calls. Offerors should also include any supporting rationale for the estimates.

Q3 RESPONSE: Offerors should provide hours for service calls that meet the PWS requirements of responding to and resolving emergency, and urgent and routine service calls, taking into consideration the 2014 projected workload data provided in the J attachments.

QUESTION IN REFERENCE TO: Missing folders from Amendment 020 / 021 RFP SECTION: Amendment 20 and 21, Docs in Response to Tech Questions PAGE: N/A SECTION:

N/A

In the zip folder, “Docs in Response to Tech Questions” two sub-folders were missing the attachments in Amendment 020:

Sub-folder “Ques 19, 62, 65, 68, 88, 188 NI ICS CA dtd 26Apr2011” missing copy of Navy Installation ICS & Common Architecture, dated 26 April 2011 is provided in Amendment 0020.

Sub-folder “Ques 246 NAVFACINST 11010.45 NOSSA 8020.22” missing copy of NAVFACINST

11010.45 and NOSSAINST 8020.22 In amendment 021, the folder “Ques 10 NAVFAC P458 VOL II7” was also empty.

Will the Government please issue those three items?

Documents were uploaded via Amendment 0022.

N62742-13-R-1150 Amendment 0024

JL-16 Questions and Answers

Ques. # Reference (page #, section #, etc.) Question Government Response

QUESTION IN REFERENCE TO: Amendment 19, Attachment JL-12 Questions and Answers

RFP SECTION: Amendment 19, Attachment JL-12 PAGE: Page 4 of 47 SECTION: Question #12

Question #12 in Attachment JL-12 asks, “Are offerors required to address other annexes (0100, 0200, …) in the response to Factor D?” The answer states, “Offerors are to address all annexes in response to Factor D.”

Annex 0100000 provides general information about the contract and the contract location and does not contain any specific requirements for offerors to respond to. As specified in Section L, “Offerors shall clearly demonstrate their understanding of, and approach to, accomplishing the complexity and magnitude of the requirements set forth in the performance objectives/standards contained within the PWS.” Annex 0100000 does not contain performance objectives/standards to describe. Because this annex does not contain specific requirements, including performance objectives/standards for offerors to address, will the government please reconsider its response to Question #12 that all annexes must be addressed in Factor D and exclude Annex 0100000 from this requirement?

Similarly, Annex 0200000 Management and Administration also does not contain any performance objectives/standards. Additionally, many of these Spec Items are not written as requirements for the offeror to accomplish, but continue to provide general or prescriptive information about the offeror’s role on the contract. While some of these spec items can be addressed in the proposal, because these spec items do not contain performance objectives/standards it is not clear how the government will evaluate an offeror’s approach if written to. Will the government please reconsider its response to Question #12 and 1) either identify which spec items in Annex 0200000 it would like offerors to address in its proposal and provide a method for evaluating those spec items or 2) exclude Annex 0200000 from the Factor D requirement?

Specific requirements for the Contractor (i.e., "the Contractor shall") are contained within "Description" of the Annex 0100000 performance work statement. Measurable performance standards and specific requirements for the Contractor (i.e., "the Contractor shall") are contained within the "Description" of the Annex 0200000 performance work statement. Offerors shall describe the approach, methods and techniques in Factor D to achieve the requirements, performance objectives and standards contained within these performance work statements.

QUESTION IN REFERENCE TO: Amendment 1, Attachment JL-10 Questions and Answers

RFP SECTION: Amendment 1, Attachment JL-10 Questions and Answers PAGE: 4 of 12 SECTION:

Question 15

The answer to Question #15 states, “It is not the government's intent that Offerors revise existing graphics the Offeror desires to insert into its proposal in order to change the font to Arial. Offerors shall use Arial in all new graphics developed in response to the RFP.” If offerors had already started developing graphics for this proposal using a different font, such as Arial Narrow, as originally allowed, can they continue to do so?

Yes.

QUESTION IN REFERENCE TO: Attachment JL-3, Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ)

RFP SECTION: Section L, Factor A – Past Performance PAGE: 81 SECTION: a) Solicitation Submittal Requirements; PPQ (Attachment JL-3)

Per the Government’s response to Questions 6 and 107 in “JL-12 Questions and Answers,” PPQ evaluations must be counted as part of the overall Volume II Technical Proposal page limit. Can the Government please clarify if the PPQ cover page (page 1), titled “Attachment JL-3” and containing the instructions for completion and submittal of the PPQ, must be counted or can offerors exclude this from the submission?

The title page of the PPQ, RFP Attachment JL-3 will not be included in the 551 page count for Volume II - Technical Proposal.

JL-16 Questions and Answers

Ques. # Reference (page #, section #, etc.) Question Government Response

QUESTION IN REFERENCE TO: Defense Base Act

RFP SECTION: I, Clause 52.228-3 PAGE: 39 of 102 SECTION: I

The Government incorporated Clause 52.228-3 Worker’s Compensation Insurance (Defense Base Act) APR 1984 into the Guam BOS solicitation via Amendment 0019. Our insurance broker informs us that Guam has a waiver relative to Defense Base Act coverage that went into effect in 1982. The U.S.

Department of Labor informs us the waiver is still in effect.

Can the Government please remove the clause from the solicitation or clarify its applicability to ensure accurate price proposal submissions?

It was brought to the Government's attention that the Territory of Guam has an exemption from the Defense Base Act since April 1982, therefore FAR Clause 52.228-3 is no longer applicable and has been removed in Amendment 0024.