Amendment_No._2_-Questions_and_Responses.pdf

Request for Proposal (RFP) No. NIHOD2015062 Amendment No. 2 – Questions, Responses, and Updated FAR Clauses

1. Does the NIH plan to make changes to the current valet/stacked operations that would require a scheduling increase or decrease from the current staffing levels?

Response: The solicitation states the evaluation criteria that offerors’ proposals shall be evaluated against for award selection, and also the requirements with which the awardee must comply for contract performance. An offeror’s staffing levels depend, in part, on the offeror’s performance approach. Consequently, NIH has no comment as to whether the solicitation represents an increase or decrease in staffing levels.

2. The RFP lists a pass/fail evaluation on the Capability to Valet-park and Stack-park at the

NIH campus. Please provide, by day, the total number of valet cars ACTUALLY attendant parked and the number of cars ACTUALLY attendant stacked for each day from July 1, 2014 to July 31, 2015.

It is standard industry practice to use past data to forecast staffing needs. It is also standard industry practice for any parking management company to make this information available to the client upon request. It should take no longer than 24 hours for a professional parking operator to provide the client with this information because sequential tickets are issued in both circumstances.

Response: The evaluation factor description for Capability to Valet-park and Stack-park states the following.

Under this evaluation factor, the proposal shall make sufficient representations to show that the contractor can, at the NIH main campus in Bethesda, MD, effectively direct motorists and stack-park up to 1,200 cars daily, with most of the activity occurring during a two-hour period that coincides with the morning rush hour. This activity shall occur simultaneously at and around multiple lots and garages. Further, the proposal must adequately show that throughout the day and during the evening rush hour, the Contractor will be able to consistently return automobiles to their respective drivers with two (2) minutes of being handed a parking valet ticket.

Consequently, 1,200 cars daily is the number that proposals shall be evaluated against.

3. What justification does the NIH have for basing the pass/fail on the capability to valet/stack at 1,200 cars daily? More than 30 visits to the NIH campus over the past 5 years (many during the 2 hour rush hour) have revealed that although 1,200 spaces are available for stacking, far fewer cars are actually moved/stacked by attendants.

Response: NIH has the requirement and need on any business day for the contractor to be ready to stack park to the full capacity based on the normal business and special events that occur on the NIH Campus. NIH Master Plan calls for the increase of 3,000 employees to the campus and additional construction projects will have increased demand for parking as well as potentially reduce surface parking on the campus.

4. Will the NIH evaluate pass/fail based on historic data of ACTUAL valet parked/stacked car figures?

Response: As the evaluation criterion description states, “the proposal shall make sufficient representations to show that the contractor can, at the NIH main campus in Bethesda, MD, effectively direct motorists and stack-park up to 1,200 cars daily . . . .”

5. Section M1(3) (page 67) does not address all aspects of an offeror’s past performance history. In order to get a more complete and accurate assessment of an offeror’s true capabilities, will the NIH consider the experience of sister affiliate companies that are under the same ownership, same management, shared staff and operate in conjunction with the prime contractor?

Response: Past performance shall be evaluated as described in Section M of the solicitation.

6. The language in M1(3), referred to above, appears to be in direct conflict with the language in a.2. on page 60 of the RFP. a.2. defines the term “small business concern” as “a concern including its affiliates…” What is the reconciliation?

Response: The solicitation-stated past performance criterion is only looking at the past performance of the offeror. Accordingly, which entity is considered the proposal offeror for the purpose of evaluating past performance shall be according to the solicitation-stated past performance criterion.

The past performance evaluation is not a determination as to whether a supposed small business concern actually counts as a small business under the small business regulations.

Do not conflate which entity is the offeror for the past performance evaluation with whether the offeror is a small business concern.

7. In the Government’s LPTA evaluation of Past Performance, would a contract without both stack and valet parking pass or fail the evaluation? Is past performance even relevant to this procurement?

Response: The facets of the past performance evaluation are described in the solicitation. As part of the evaluation factor description, NIH seeks an “example of a contract which is similar to the work to be performed under this solicitation.” However, even if the work is not significantly similar, that does not necessarily mean that it shall result in a “fail” rating. FAR Part 15 requires NIH to consider past performance.

8. The last paragraph of M.1. on page 68 of the RFP appears to indicate that if an offeror has no past performance history its proposal will receive pass/acceptable rating under this evaluation factor. Please explain this counter intuitive clause?

Response: As a matter of procurement law, if an offeror has no past performance, NIH cannot assign a “fail” rating to the offeror. However, the sought past performance example could be from a contract with a commercial concern, so it highly unlikely that an offeror will have no past performance.

9. Should pricing backup/detail be included with the pricing sheets?

Response: Pricing backup/detail is not necessary to include with pricing sheets.

10. Are separate pricing sheets needed for subcontractor participation?

Response: Provide the pricing information as requested by the solicitation.

11. In the previous, aborted procurement (NIHOD2014012), after award to MidAtlantic, its price was provided to other bidders in debriefing, and then, in the protest that led to NIH aborting the procurement, MidAtlantic’s winning price was made part of the public record

[not redacted in the public protest document]. Will NIH provide a remedy to level the playing field, as only one potential offeror’s pricing strategy was made public? This could be accomplished by disclosure of all offers or by some other means.

Response: The NIH will not be disclosing prices submitted under canceled Solicitation

No. NIHOD2014012. The Procurement Integrity Act and other applicable law prevents

NIH from doing so. On the other hand, when an agency makes an award, it is required to publicly disclose the awardee and the price. Unfortunately, this sometimes can result in a situation like the present where, if source selection is re-run pursuant to agency corrective action, the previous presumptive awardee’s price is known. However, that is a risk a contractor assumes when competing for a government contract.

12. Will NIH consider the following modifications to H-3 and to FAR 52-217-9? “NIH agrees to use best efforts to obtain funding from appropriations and other lawful sources to pay for each of the option years, and agrees that, if it obtains such funding, it will exercise each year’s renewal option”.

Response: The language in Article H.3 and FAR 52.217-9 will not be changed.

13. Where is Lot 10E? How far from the drop off/pick up location is this parking area?

Response: The 10E Lot is located North/West Corner of the NIH Campus is approximately 400 yards from the main entrance of the Clinical Center.

14. The parking capacity lists 61 "self-park" spaces in the valet lot. Is this lot dedicated to valet and secured to prevent self-parking?

Response: The patient valet lot is dedicated to Patient Valet Parking. However, it is not a secured parking lot. It will be the responsibility of the Contractor to secure the lot during operational hours.

15. What is the fee for valet parking?

Response: Valet services are free.

16. What equipment (booths, podiums, awnings, etc.) are currently in place? Will it remain or is it property of the current contractor?

Response: All parking booths, gate arms and computer equipment are the property of the NIH and will remain in place.

17. Can you provide vehicle counts from the past year showing demand for this service? If not, what are the average daily, weekly, and monthly volumes?

Response: The evaluation factor description for Capability to Valet-park and Stack-park state the following.

Under this evaluation factor, the proposal shall make sufficient representations to show that the contractor can, at the NIH main campus in Bethesda, MD, effectively direct motorists and stack-park up to 1,200 cars daily, with most of the activity occurring during a two-hour period that coincides with the morning rush hour. This activity shall occur simultaneously at and around multiple lots and garages. Further, the proposal must adequately show that throughout the day and during the evening rush hour, the Contractor will be able to consistently return automobiles to their respective drivers within two (2) minutes of being handed a parking valet ticket.

Consequently, 1200 cars daily is the number that proposals shall be evaluated against.

18. How many parking attendants are assigned to this part of the operation?

Response: It is expected that contractor will purpose an adequate staffing plan to meet the requirements of the NIH Parking Contract.

19. For garages listed, is stack parking expected on all levels? If not, how many levels in each garage are required?

Response: Yes, stack parking is expected on all levels.

20. What signage is currently in place? Will it remain or is it property of the current contractor? Are the current signs sufficient in quantity and adequate in purpose?

Response: All signage currently used is property of NIH and will remain in place. At this time signage is adequate, however the government reserves the right to change or add signage to meet the program needs as outlined in the PWS. New signage shall be paid for out of collected parking fees.

21. What "keyed security locks" are currently used? Is it individual lock boxes for each vehicle or a larger key lock box for multiple sets of keys?

Response: A cylinder key lock for ignition keys is currently used and there are multiple key lock boxes in each level of all garages.

22. Will the "keyed security locks" remain or are they property of the current contractor?

Response: The cylinder key lock for ignition keys will not remain and the key lock boxes will remain.

23. MLP-10 and MLP-11 are not listed for stacked parking. What services need to be provided at the garages?

Response: No attendant assist parking is provided in MLP-10 and MLP-11. Both are Visitor Garages.

24. Which parking areas require revenue collection? How many collection points are at each parking area?

Response: The following areas require revenue Collection: MLP-11, P1 Garage, 4A Visitor’s Lot, 103 Parking Meters, and Parking Office (Validation Stamps and Parking Permits).

25. What equipment (booth, cash register, credit card terminal, access gates, etc.) is currently installed? Will it remain or is it property of the current contractor? Is it in good working order or are some repairs/replacement needed? What equipment is at each location?

Response: Currently installed at all locations and will remain are parking booths, cash registers, credit card terminals, gate arms, and at this time are in good operational condition.

26. Are there automated Parking & Revenue Control Systems (PARCS) installed? If so, at which locations? What make & model?

Response: The Parking & Revenue Control System used at NIH is WPS, Barcode Readable Tickets and Proximity Read Key Cards at all visitor locations. The make and models vary on each of the locations based on installation dates.

27. What utilities (electricity, telephone, internet, etc.) are available at each parking area entrance/exit?

Response: Utilities are available and provided by NIH.

28. Is Attachment 6 required if there are no lobbying activities to be reported?

Response: If there are no lobbying activities to be reported, please state so on the document.

29. Is Attachment 8 required if all representations & certifications are in SAM?

Response: Complete Attachment 8.

30. Is Attachment 5 (WD 05-2103 (Rev. -15)), as provided, the current WD that should be used for this contract or should we use the recently released (Rev. -16)?

Response: Use most current Wage Determination, Revision No. 16. It is attached.

31. The wage determination included was the revision from 12/22/2014, however, there is a more recent revision that came out 07/08/2015. Can you update that?

Response: Use most current Wage Determination, Revision No. 16. It is attached.

32. On the pricing for base years plus options (pages 3-5), do you need us to add line 15-special event contingency & 16-award fee payment to the amounts we entered in lines 1-14 to the estimated total?

Response: Add lines 15 and 16 in your estimated total for the base year and each option year.

33. Our insurance carrier is working up a cost for the hazard insurance on the parking equipment. Can you give us an itemized list of that equipment?

Response: NIH has approximately the following equipment but is not limited to:

Parking Booth – 32 Gate Arms – 6 Cash Registers – 3 Ticket Spitters - 3

Proximity Readers - 6

WPS Readers - 3

Network Readers - 3

To be clear, this is not an exhaustive list.

34. The following FAR Clauses in Article F.2. of the solicitation are updated below:

FAR CLAUSE NO. TITLE AND DATE

52.203-5 Covenant Against Contingent Fees (May 2014)

52.203-12 Limitation on Payments to Influence Certain Federal Transactions

(Oct 2010)

52.203-7 Anti-Kickback Procedures (May 2014)

52.208-9 Contractor Use of Mandatory Sources of Supply or Services

(May 2014)

52.209-6 Protecting the Government's Interests When Subcontracting With

Contractors Debarred, Suspended, or Proposed for Debarment

(Aug 2013)

52.227-1 Authorization and Consent (Dec 2007)

52.232-17 Interest (May 2014)

52.232-38 Submission of Electronic Funds Transfer Information with Offer

(Jul 2013)

52.245-1 Government Property, Alternate I (Apr 2012)

35. Correction: Article I.2., FAR Clause 52.222-41 should be titled Service Contract Labor Standards (May 2014). Please refer to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) for updated language.