Contractor Questions Government Responses.pdf

Questions/Responses Solicitation 36C78626R50070

Fort Bayard National Cemetery - Grounds Maintenance Services,

1) Question: The Deliverable Schedule applies nearly identical draft/final/update timing language to both the Quality Control Plan (QCP) and the Grounds Management Plan (GMP). However, the PWS only establishes the draft/final/update structure for the QCP. The GMP is described in the PWS as due within 30 workdays after award, without the same draft/update framework. This appears to be copy-and-paste language and creates ambiguity as to whether the GMP is a proposal-evaluated document or strictly a post-award deliverable.

Response: The PWS has been revised, QCP and GMP are required at proposal. The QCP and GMP will not be part of the evaluation. The winning offeror will be required to provide a finalized copy by required date with any cemetery input.

2) Question: Pesticide Applicator Licensing – Timing Conflict-Licensing is treated in three diƯerent ways across the solicitation:

Required at proposal submission (evaluation sub-factor), Required at time of award (PWS), Listed as a deliverable upon award/option exercise (Deliverable Schedule).

For an LPTA procurement, this distinction is material. Clarifying whether licensure must be active at proposal, at award, or before performing pesticide application would eliminate inconsistent interpretation.

Response: The PWS has been updated. The licensing/certification are required with proposal.

3. Question: The provision states that the OƯeror must provide documentation showing it “has or will have by the contract start date” a minimum of four (4) employees and the required vehicle. That language allows for future capability by the start of performance.

However, the clause then requires that the documentation “identify the four (4) employees by name and position.” Requiring identification by name at proposal submission presumes the employees are already hired and known at the time of proposal.

If the intent is to allow an Offeror to “will have” the employees by contract start, then requiring named individuals at proposal submission appears inconsistent. An Offeror planning to hire upon award would not yet have specific employees to identify.

Response: Sub-factor 3 has been revised. Offeror must provide a Work Plan describing their general approach to performing services required under the PWS. The Work Plan should outline the Offeror’s operational approach, staffing plan, schedule of work, list of subcontractors, and the work they will perform, and a list of equipment/vehicles that will be used to perform the work. The contractor must have a safe vehicle, equipped with casket rollers, to remove the casket and or urn from the committal shelter and transport the remains to burial section. The Work Plan is intended to demonstrate the Offeror’s understanding of the requirement and operational approach and does not need to address every individual task in the PWS.

To be rated technically acceptable, the WP must address the required elements, including the Offeror’s operational approach, staffing plan, subcontractor use, work schedule, and proposed equipment.