YUMA Proving Ground Solicitation QA-W5168W-23-R-0004- 05JAN2024-Final.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 102 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W5168W23R0004
- Issued by
-
Department of the Army
About this file
This solicitation is for base operations support services at Yuma Proving Ground in Arizona. The Army seeks a contractor to provide non-personal services including facilities maintenance, grounds maintenance, pest management, and solid waste management. The period of performance is a 60-day phase-in followed by a one-year base period and four one-year options, for a total of five years if all options are exercised. The contract type is firm fixed price. The source selection will evaluate price and past performance to determine the lowest price technically acceptable offeror. The anticipated value is between $25-50 million. Offers are due by October 27, 2023.
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 131 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| QUESTION AND ANSWERS FOR SOLICITATION W5168W23R0004 | ||||
| Date: 05 Jan 2024 | ||||
| RFP File | Paragraph | Page | Question | Response/Resolution |
| Solicitation | Attachment H - YUMA Annex J CLS 420 Facilities Maintenance Horizontal 11-23-21 | PWS 1.2.2, 1.3.3 and 2.3 Test Support sections. Section 3.0 Work Capability Levels | In the referenced CLS 420 PWS section, there are work tasks associated with heavy equipment, however in the Section 3.0 Capability table, there is no reference to pricing work associated with Shop (V) 1009 H EQUPT. |
| Should the historical workload supplied in the TE 02 documents under the Shop (V) 1009 H EQUPT columns be included in the x012 SLINs? | Refer to updated TE #2 | ||||
| Solicitation | Attachment B - YUMA Annex B CLS 400 Facilities Maintenance Instructions | PWS 4.1 DMO | The PWS states “Tasking for work that is solely new work exceeding the prescribed labor limit of thirty-two (32) onsite work hours or material cost exceeding $25,000 will be issued only by PWOs as scheduled work.” This DMO material amount of up to $25,000 far exceeds the Federal standard range of $2,000 to $7,500 that BOS contractors are accustomed to on DoD contracts. Please confirm this is the intent. | Refer to updated PWS and Annex B | |
| Attachment G, Yuma Annex H CLS 411 FM Vertical | 2.32.5.2 | 35 | Annex H, paragraph 2.32.5.2 requires preventive maintenance of the stormwater collection system; however, there is no inventory listed in the technical exhibits. Would the Government please provide an asset listing including asset counts and area measurements for the components that comprise the stormwater collection system? | Refer to added TE #51 | |
| Attachment B, Yuma Annex B CLS 400 Facilities Maintenance Instruction | 3.1.1 | 6-7 | The description for PMO states…"The Contractor shall include fixed prices for each of the Government identified PMOs with a summary of the work scope for each and description of the schedule for their performance." Section B and the pricing matrix appear to indicate that billing for this CLIN is a monthly fixed unit rate, therefore, there is no fixced price for each PMO. Would the Government please clarify this inconsistency? | Offerors shall provide a monthly firm fixed pricing for the total number of PMO that the offeror expect to perform on a monthly basis. Refer to updated TE #2 for supporting workload data. | |
| Solicitation | RFP Section B | “Targed” is noted throughout most CLINS. Can the Government please confirm that this should be “target”? | Term will be updatded from "targed" to "target". | ||
| Pricing Matrix | CLIN x005 | N/A | In Section B, CLIN x005 requires a PWO mark-up rate to be proposed; however, the pricing matrix has no place for a PWO mark-up rate to be proposed. Will the Government please update the pricing matrix? | See updated Section B, CLIN x0005 | |
| If submitting as a Joint Venture, is the JV agreement required to be submitted in our proposal? If so, in what Volume and in what section should this be provided? | For Joint Ventures, submit a Joint Venture Agreement in Section III instead of a Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letter. | ||||
| Attachment M, Collective Bargaining Agreement | Article XXIII | 23 | The following non-exempt labor categories are listed in TE #22 but not listed in the Attachment M CBA: Budget Clerk, Work Control Clerk, Computer Technician, Purchasing Clerk, Material Expeditor, Accounting Clerk IV, General Laborer, Grounds Maintenance Laborer, Crane Operator, Boiler Mechanic. Is there a more recent Article XXIII list of labor categories and rates for the TE #22 non-exempt labor categories that are not in the current CBA? | For labor categories not coverered by the latest CBA and/or Wage Determinations the awarddee will have to file a Davis-Bacon Act or Service Contract Act conformance reuqest. The awardee must initiate the conformane request using Standard Form (SF) 1444, Request for Authorization of Additional Calssifications and Rate, at the time of employement of the unlisted classification. The Contracting Agency must review the request before the agency submits it to the Department of Labor. | |
| Attachment K Staffing Matrix | Roll-Up Tab | N/A | The Government's staffing requirements are unclear. The first item on the Attachment K Roll-Up is CLS 400 Program Management, the second tab in the workbook is titled Staffing Admin, and the Pricing matrix calls it CLIN X001 Program Management with no CLS number. Would the Government confirm that all of these requirements are the same, just with a different title? | Refer to updated Staffing Matrix. | |
| Attachment K Staffing Matrix | All Tabs | N/A | The Government's staffing requirements are unclear. Under which tab and roll-up line are offerors to staff the ATEC Property Management requirements? | Refer to updated Staffing Matrix. | |
| Section L | Per Section L the Labor Dispute Contingency Plan must follow PWS 2.5.6.4. However, Attachment A PWS section 2.5.6.4 refers to mold abatement. However, PWS 2.5.7.4 refers to the Labor Dispute Contingency Plan. | PWS 2.5.6.4, Attachment A PWS section 2.5.6.4, PWS 2.5.7.4 | Can the Government please confirm the correct PWS section the Labor Dispute Contingency Plan should follow is PWS 2.5.7.4? | PWS 2.5.7.4 is the correct section regarding Labor Dispute. RFP Section L is updated. | |
| Solicitation | RFP Section D | The RFP does not include Section D. |
| Can the Government please provide? | Section D is not applicable to this action. | ||
| Solicitation | TE #06 Deliverables | There are several references to “Period of Performance” with regard to due date for various deliverables. |
| Please clarify if the Period of Performance starts on contract award date, Day 1 of the transition, or Day 1 of full performance. | Contract Award Effective Date is different from the Period of Performance. The Period of Performance is identified by CLIN. | ||||
| RFP | 100 | Under paragraph 5.1.1, requirements for a cover page include the following: “A statement that the Offeror grants to the AGENCY and its authorized representatives the right to examine, for purposes of verifying the information submitted, those books, records, documents, and other supporting data that will permit adequate evaluation.” As this statement is broad and non-specific, we request clarification. | The statement indicates that the contractor provides the Goverment permission to review and gather information as it pertains to the evaluation. | ||
| Pricing Matrix | CLIN x007 and CLIN x012 | N/A | The target award bands and DMO quantities for each line are clearly understood but the pricing sheet also lists capabilities and color-coding. How do the capabilities and color-coding relate to proposal evaluation or contract execution? | As stated in Section M of the Solicitation, all CLIN and banding pricies proposed will be evaluated for Price Reasonablnes an Blanace. The Government will award at the target bands identified in the Pricing Matrix for the Base Period and subsequent options. The Government may move to a different band prior to the exericise of an annual option. Once a band is selected that band will be used for the remainder of the Period of Performance. | |
| Pricing Matrix | CLIN x007 and CLIN x012 | N/A | The target award bands and DMO quantities for each line are clearly understood but the pricing sheet also lists capabilities. There are several lines that are shaded blue and listed a Capability 1, but only one of these is a target award band. What is the significance of capabilities listing and the color-coding? | The capablities levels identified on the banding correspond to the Work Capablity Level Table for the Annex related to the CLIN. This table identifies the levels of services for each capablity. The level of service decreases from Capabilty 1 to 2 and again from 2 to 3. The target band is the level at which the contract will be awarded and the government will use to determine the total contract value. | |
| Yuma Pricing Matrix | Reference: 2. X005 CLS 408 Pavement Clearance (Sand Removal): Pavement Clearance will be negotiated as Firm Fixed Price OWO on an as needed basis during contract performance. The annual amounts shown on X005 is the Government's estimated-not-to-exceed amounts. Offerors shall use the estimated amount provided above for proposal submittals. | Question: CLIN X005 does not contain a value provided. Is the government going to update the Yuma Pricing Matrix to include this NTE amount? | Refer to updated pricing matrix. | ||
| Solicitation | RFP Section I and Section K | We note that the Representations and Certifications were not broken out and are found in Section I. |
| As Section K is a separate part of the submission, will the cited Representations and Certifications be broken out in a conformed solicitation? | Referred to updated RFP. | |||||
| Attachment W Questions and Answers Draft RFP | Question 187 | N/A | Question 187 indicates there will be no transition if the incumbent is the awardee. This appears to provide preference to the incumbent which puts other offerors at a disadvantage. Shouldn't all awardees be held to the same set of requirements, whether or not they are the incumbent contractor? | The Phase-In does not apply to the incumbent contractor. The phase-in period does not provide preferential treatment to the incumbent contractor. | ||
| Pricing Matrix | CLIN X005 | Pavement Clearance CLS 408 | In the revised CLIN structure, the NTE amount has been removed. Q&A #265 states, "Contractor will not be required to price CLS 408." Please provide the NTE amount or clarify is the contract shall price the CLIN X005 CLS 408? | Refer to updated pricing matrix. | ||
| Pricing Matrix | CLIN x010 | N/A | CLIN x010 appears to have two instances of Band 1, one for 540 DMOs and one for 790 DMOs. Would the Government please update the pricing matrix to show four bands for CLIN x010 or otherwise clarify two Band 1s? | See updated Pricing Matrix | ||
| CLIN X010 | CLIN X010 contains two “Band 1” SubCLINs, one for DMO up to 540 & one for DMO up to 790. Please adjust the numbering of the CLIN X010 bands. | See updated Pricing Matrix | ||||
| Attachment W | There are some inconsistencies between the Final RFP and the Answers provided in Attachment W | Can the Government also confirm which takes precedence in matters of inconsistency, the published answers in Attachment W or the Final RFP? | The Final amended RFP takes precedence. | |||
| Pricing Matrix | CLINs x013 and x014 | N/A | In the pricing matrix, CLINs x013 and x014 have the months and unit prices blacked-out; however, Section B indicates these CLINs are monthly. Would the Government please confirm that CLIN x013 and x014 pricing and billing are indeed monthly and update the pricing matrix? | Refer to updated SF 30. | ||
| Pricing Matrix | CLINs x008 and x009 | N/A | In the pricing matrix, CLINs x008 and x009 have the months and unit prices blacked-out; however, Section B indicates these CLINs are monthly. Would the Government please confirm that CLIN x008 and x009 pricing and billing are indeed monthly and update the pricing matrix? | Refer to updated SF 30. | ||
| Section L | The Standard Form 33 lists the solicitation due date as 27 Oct 2023 at 12pm. However, in Section L, 4.0 the due date is listed as 16 Oct 2023 at 2pm CST. | Can the Government update Section L to reflect the same due date as SF33 for this solicitation? | Refer to the updated SF 30 for the solicitation closing date. | |||
| Q&A # 136 | • | Q&A # 136 states we may use single spacing, but Section L, para 2.1.1 still states 1.5 line spacing. Can the Government confirm which spacing we may use. | See updated Section L. | |||
| Yuma Pricing Matrix CLIN Structure as of 21 Jun 23 | CLIN X010 includes two (2) Band 1’s. | Will the Government please confirm if this is depicted correctly or revise the file to reflect the Government’s intent? | Refer to update pricing matrix. | |||
| Q&A | Reference: A DD-254 is not required in this requirement. | 20 | Question: If a DD 254 is not required for this contract, why are Security Clearances required for some employees? | This is not a classified contract and therefore a DD-254 is not required. Refer to updated PWS. | ||
| Solicitation | Attachment A - YUMA PWS Annex A 08 AUG 2023 | PWS 2.5.7.4 | The PWS states in part “The Contractor shall submit a Labor Contingency Plan NLT contract start date.” Does the contract start date the start of transition or the start of full performance after transition ends? | The contract start date is the start of Phase-in for new contractors or the start of full performance for the incumbent contractor. | ||
| Solicitation | RFP Section L | paragraph 2.1.8.5 | The instructions state, “Each volume of the electronic proposal shall be in its own subdirectory subdirectory, sequentially labeled Volume I through Volume IV.” |
| Would the Government please clarify whether this still applies given the delivery method of e-mail or via PIEE? | Refer to updated Section L. | ||||
| Solicitation | L.5.1.6 | 101 | Tab D requires a Labor Dispute Contingency Plan in accordance with PWS 2.5.7.4 to be submitted with the proposal. RFP M.3.1 indicates that the Government will evaluate the labor dispute contingency plan. However, PWS 2.5.7.4 states that the labor dispute contingency plan is due not later than contract start date. TE-06 states that the labor dispute contingency plan is due not later than 45 days after start of the PoP. Would the Government please clarify when the labor dispute contingency plan is to be submitted and update L.5.1.6 and M.3.1 if necessary? | The Labor Dispute Contingency Plan is due with offerors proposal. | |
| RFP | 96 | In paragraph 2.1.1, it states that text lines shall have 1.5 line spacing. However, several responses in the Q&A document with the solicitation state that line spacing is revised to single line spacing. Please confirm our understanding that the requirement is single line spacing. | Single line spacing, the Final RFP takes precedence. | ||
| Solicitation | RFP Section L | paragraph 2.1.1 | Several of the Q&A responses in Attachment W indicated that the requirement for line spacing would be changed to single line spacing. Section L is unchanged. |
| Would the Government please confirm that offerors are permitted to use single (1.0) line spacing, rather than 1.5? | Single line spacing is permitted. | ||||
| Pricing Matrix | CLIN x005 | N/A | The CLIN x005 description and Note 2 in the pricing matrix indicate that Offerors shall use the not to exceed (NTE) amounts provided; however, no NTE amounts were provided in the pricing matrix. What is the NTE amount for CLIN x005 each year? | Refer ot updated Pricing Matrix. | |
| Attachment G, Yuma Annex H CLS 411 FM Vertical | 3.0 | 40 | Annex H, paragraph 3.0 Work Capabilities table depicts how capability level 2 and 3 do not include the last three PMO line items. Without knowing the Annex H items that are excluded from capability levels 2 and 3 accurate estimates and prices for CLS 411 bands 1-4 cannot be formed. Would the Government please define the Annex H items (PWS paragraphs or technical exhibits) that are excluded from capability levels 2 and 3? | Refer to the Capability Table in Annex H, paragraph 3.0 for routine tasks and services. | |
| Solicitation | Attachment C - YUMA Annex C CLS 200 Unaccompanied Management 11-23-21 | PWS 2.3.13 | Are Customer Service hours for PWS 2.3.13 the same as the hours of operation in PWS 2.3.12? If not, please provide the customer service hours desired since the PWS appears to be silent. | Refer to updated PWS. The UPH has been removed. | |
| Attachment+W+- |
+YPG+Site+Visit+ Question+and+An swer+W5168W- 23-R-0004- 15JUNE2023.xlsx and Attachment+AYUMA+ PWS+Ann ex+A+08+AUG+20 23, Section
2.2.4.1, PMO
Program Attachment W, Question #332 indicates that the contractor will be responsible for implementing a PMO program in GFEBS and that there are 5,426 assets to be entered in the PMO program.
Attachment A, Section 2.2.4.1, PMO Program requires the contractor to verify and update the equipment listed in TE #5 for the buildings listed in TE #1. It also states, “The PMO program shall be completed and fully operational in GFEBS no later than ninety (90) days after contract start date.”
Equipment inventory validation and updates are traditionally performed throughout the base year of the contract as preventive maintenance (PM) inspections are performed during the initial year of contract performance. Requiring the contractor to validate the equipment asset inventory to establish the PMO program within 90 days of the contract start date is inefficient because it requires duplicate work. This requires the contractor to perform a complete asset inventory during the first 90 days, then return to each asset to perform PM inspections. In the interest of cost effectiveness, will the Government permit the equipment validation and the PMO program to be finalized and entered into GFEBS within 30 days of the conclusion of the base contract
| year? Please confirm. | No. | ||
| Solicitation | Attachment C - YUMA Annex C CLS 200 Unaccompanied Management 11-23-21 | Please provide historical workload for CLS 200 to include: | |
| • | Number of annual furniture storage, and movement transactions | ||
| • | Number of annual furniture repairs | ||
| • | Number of line items of furniture in the current inventory | ||
| • | Number of annual assignments and terminations (A&T) | ||
| • | Number of annual pre-termination inspections | Refer to updated PWS. The UPH has been removed. | |
| Solicitation | Attachment E - YUMA Annex F CLS 404 Grounds 11-23-21 | PWS para. 3.0 Work Capability Levels, Task - Improved Grounds: Grass Cutting instructs the Contractor to set mower height 3”, although Capability 1 shows “grass height minimum 4.” |
How is a 4” minimum maintained if the mower height is set a 3”? The same question applies for Capabilities 2 and 3.
Should the criteria be updated to “maximum” rather than “minimum?
| These height conflicts also apply to Semi-Improved, Fire Breaks and Ranges, and Unimproved Grounds. | Refer to updated capability table. | ||||
| 2.2.4.1 PMO Program | TE#5 | Visiting and verifying all equipment in TE#5, assessing incumbent CMMS data, translating incumbent data to useable data in GFEBS and building a PMO with PM scheduler is a labor intensive and time-consuming exercise. Since this process is to be completed within 90 days after contract start (not during phase-in) and will likely involve a separate team so that current staff can continue to perform daily work on site, we suggest a separate 90 day PWO implementation line item in the pricing file, otherwise the cost of work associated with building a GFEBS PMO Plan will be loaded into CLIN X006 in the base year which could make this CLIN appear unbalanced compared to the option years? | CLIN x006 is the appropriate CLIN for such costs to be applied to. | ||
| Attachment A | Reference: 2.1.11.1.1 Project Manager | 9 | Question: There may be applicants who may not meet exactly the educational requirements, but who, in fact, may be demonstrably well qualified to perform the work because of exceptional experience. Will the Government allow more years of experience in lieu of a baccalaureate degree for the Project Manager position, or a reference from a Contracting Authority for where an individual performed base support management on a contract similar in scope and breadth? | No. Refer to the requirements identified in the PWS. | |
| General | For the purpose of estimating will the Arizona Transactional Privilege Tax be included in this contract? | The Arizona Transactional Privilege Tax does apply. | |||
| 2.2.4.1 PMO Program | When building a PMO plan, equipment history, previous PMO plans, schedules and work instructions are crucial to developing comprehensive and appropriate preventive maintenance schedules and actions. Based on the answer to question 445 of the draft questions, we assume the incumbent has tracked and collected this data in their own CMMS. Normally the data in these files is government owned and turned over to the Government and new contractor at phase-out/Phase-in. Will the Government provide this data to the new contractor during phase-in? | The Government will provide the data to the incoming contractor. | |||
| Attachment G, Yuma Annex H CLS 411 FM Vertical | 2.39 | 39 | Annex H, paragraph 2.39 states that the landfill must be operated in accordance with requirements set forth in the Arizona Landfill Permit. Without the permit, offerors cannot propose an acceptable technical approach. Would the Government please provide the Arizona Landfill Permit for YPG BASOPS? | Landfill permit will be added as TE #50 |
| (Q1) Is there a cap to the amount of DMO's a contractor is liable for (Annually and/or Contract Lifetime); as the $25,000 material cap can be a costly expense over the life of the contract if it occurs multiple times each performance period. | No, the contractor is responsible for all material costs at $15,000 and below. | |||
| • | May we have a 2-page Executive Summary included in Volume I or II? If so, may it be excluded from the page count? | Refer to Table 3.1.1 - Proposal Organization for page limtes per volume content per volume. | ||
| Section L, para 7.1.2 | • | Reference: Section L, para 7.1.2 Early Past Performance. Can the Government confirm we are to submit electronically per PIEE or by email to the Contracting Officer. Or - Do we submit early via COR and again via PIEE CCM. | If it is being submitted with the prosposal, submit via PIEE. If it is being provided by the COR or the Contractring Officer, they can provide it via email. | |
| Solicitation | Attachment T3, Specific Relevant Contracts Reference Sheet | Are completed Attachment T3 forms subject to the same formatting (font type, font size) requirements as the rest of the proposal? | Yes | |
| Solicitation | Attachment T3, Specific Relevant Contracts Reference Sheet | Are offerors permitted to adjust the formatting of the Attachment T3 form so long as the same information is provided in our narratives? | No. | |
| Solicitation | Attachment T3, Specific Relevant Contracts Reference Sheet | Are offerors permitted to delete the instructions on page 1 of Attachment T3 in our response? | No. | |
| Solicitation | RFP Section B | Are offerors to complete and return RFP pages 2-44 with their proposal? Should Section B be included in Volume I or Volume IV? | Yes, offerors must complete and return pages 2-44 in Volume I. Section B should be included in Volume I. | |
| Reference Table under 3.1.1: | Can the Government clarify if Staffing Matrix should be Tab D, not Tab C in 3.1.1 or a subset of Tab C. | The Staffing Matrix should be in Tab C. | ||
| Attachment J - |
Yuma Pricing Matrix CLIN Structure as of 06-21-2023 Row 16, X006, CLS 411 Preventative Maintenance Row 17 X007, CLS 411 Facilities Maintenance Vertical Both rows are for vertical preventive maintenance, which is priced independently and summed in the total cost in the pricing matrix. This may result in redundant pricing. Can the government clarify the purpose of CLIN X006 if the same is
| also priced in CLIN X007? | CLIN X006 is (PMO) preventative maintenance and CLIN X007 is (DMO) maintence Demand Orders. |
| Attachment J - |
Yuma Pricing Matrix CLIN Structure as of 06-21-2023 Row 36, X011, CLS 420 Preventative Maintenance Row 37 X012, CLS 4420 Facilities Maintenance Horizontal Both rows are for horizontal preventive maintenance, which is priced independently and summed in the total cost in the pricing matrix. This may result in redundant pricing. Can the government clarify the purpose of CLIN X011 if the same is
| also priced in CLIN X012? | CLIN X011 is (PMO) preventative maintenance and CLIN X012 is (DMO) maintence Demand Orders. | ||||
| Section L, | There are two Tab Cs noted in the Proposal Organization Chart, one for Subfactor 3 and one for the Staffing Matrix. | L.3.1.1 | Can the Government please clarify if there should be two Tab Cs or should the Staffing Matrix belong to Tab D? | The Staffing Matrix should be in Tab C. | |
| Solicitation | Question and Answer W5168W-23-R-0004-15JUNE2023 – Q&A #477 | In its response the Q&A #477 it appears the Government responded with the question: “Please confirm that the List of Tables and Drawings is excluded from the volume page limitation.” Please address. | List of Tables and Drawings have been excluded from the volume page limittaions. | ||
| Solicitation | L.3.1.1 | 98 | In Table 3.1.1 for Volume I, the RFP has no tab for Section B Supplies and Services. Where shall Offerors place Section B in their proposals? | Section B should be in TAB B, right after the completed SF 33 form. | |
| Solicitation | RFP Section L | paragraph 7.2.1.6.2 | In the paragraph on Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letters, the third bullet states, “Each applicable proposal element shall be clearly and specifically identified.” |
| Would the Government please define “proposal element” in this context or list the specific proposal elements being referred to? | Specifiy the specific areas within the contract where the entity will commit to help the contractor. | ||||
| Solicitation | RFP Section L | paragraph L.2.1.2 and Table 3.1.1 | Is the cross-reference matrix to include information on Volume II, Mission Capability only, or should it cover all volumes? | Only required for Volume II. | |
| Solicitation | Section J | 91 | None of the Yuma Annexes appear to cover ATEC Property Maintenance requirements associated with CLIN X010. Would the Government please provide the Annex covering ATEC requirements? | Technical Exhibits #47 and 48 address ATEC Mission Non-Real Property and Non-Real Property Workload History. | |
| Pricing Matrix | Note 6 | N/A | Note 6 on the pricing matrix requires offerors to align their staffing with the estimated contract value column. Will the Government clarify that this requirement applies to all estimated contract values except those with a not to exceed (NTE) ceiling value (e.g. CLINs x005, x016, and x017)? | Staffing should be aligned with all estimated contract values. | |
| Solicitation | L.2.1.1 | 96 | Paragraph states text must have 1.5 line spacing; however, Attachment W, answers to questions 38, 40, and 268 state that single line spacing is required. Would the Government please clarify the line spacing required in offeror proposals? | As per Attachment W, responses to questions from the draft RFP, single line spacing is required. | |
| W5168W23R0004- |
23+AUG+2023-
Solicitation- YPG.pdf, Section L.6.3.3 This paragraph states, “The Staffing Matrix is not included in the total page count. In addition, Offerors shall clearly identify and explain their methodology for accommodating fluctuating workloads and explain any proposed cross-utilization of personnel.” Please confirm that the narrative describing our methodology for accommodating fluctuating workloads and explanation for crossutilized is excluded from the total
| page count. | This information is included in the 100 page limit. | ||||
| Solicitation | RFP, SF33, block 9; | ||||
| Section L, paragraph 4.0 | Please confirm that the proposal closing date is 27 October as identified on the SF33 and on SAM.gov, rather than 16 October as listed in Section L, paragraph 4.0. | Refer latest SF-30 for updated closing date. | |||
| RFP | 100 | Proposal Volume I requires completed Section K to be included at Tab C. Section K does not appear in the RFP. Please advise. | This is referring to Section K of the SF-33 (Representation and Certifications). See updated SF-30 | ||
| Attachment A | Reference: 2.5.1.8 Personnel security requirements are set forth in Department of Defense Form (DD Form) 254 Department of Defense Contract Security Classification Specifications, as (Attachment-5). | 21 | Question: Can the government provide the DD 254 referenced as Attachment – 5? | This is not a classified contract, DD-254 is not required. See updated PWS | |
| 7.2.1.6 | Reference: 7.2.1.6 Affiliate Past Performance – If applicable, Offeror’s may provide the experience or past performance of a parent or affiliated or predecessor company to an Offeror (including Joint Venture prime partner companies and/or a parent or affiliated company that is being otherwise proposed as a subcontractor on this effort) where the firm’s proposal demonstrates that the resources of the parent or affiliate or predecessor will affect the performance of the Offeror. | 103 | Question: We request the Government clarify the intent of the phrase “affiliated company that is being otherwise proposed as a subcontractor on this effort.” May an offeror utilize the experience or past performance of an affiliated company where the affiliate is not proposed as a subcontractor, assuming that meaningful involvement is shown, or must the affiliate also be proposed as a subcontractor? | Contractor must provide a meaningful commitment letter that explain affiliate relationship and the role the afficiate will play in the contract. | |
| RFP Section L.5.1 | Reference: The instructions for the completion of Section B indicate that "All final monetary extensions shall be in whole dollars ONLY (to include unit prices)." As the unit prices within the Attachment J Pricing Matrix CLIN Structure are unrounded, the total pricing from Section B will differ slightly from the total pricing from Attachment J. | 99 | Question: Would the Government please confirm that it is acceptable for the total pricing from Section B to differ slightly from the total pricing from Attachment J due to rounding? | Pricing provided in pricing matrix should not defer from what is provided in section B. | |
| Attachment J Pricing Matrix CLIN Structure | Reference: The formula in cells S38-S41 for calculating the extended price for Option Year 4 for CLIN X012 is not pulling the fixed monthly rate in column Q. | Question: Would the Government provide a revised Attachment J Pricing Matrix CLIN Structure with these formulas corrected? | Refer to updated pricing matrix. | ||
| Attachment J Pricing Matrix CLIN Structure | Reference: The notes within this attachment for CLIN X005 CLS 408 Pavement Clearance (Sand Removal) state the following, "The annual amounts shown on X005 is the Government's estimated-not-to-exceed amounts. Offerors shall use the estimated amount provided above for proposal submittals." | Question: Would the Government provide an updated Attachment J to include not-to-exceed amounts for CLIN X005? | Refer to updated pricing matrix. | ||
| RFP Section 8.2 | Reference: A DOL Wage Determination (WD) is not provided with the RFP. | 105 | Question: Would the Government provide the applicable WD for this RFP? | CBA and DBA are included in Attachments M-Q | |
| Attachment W Questions and Answers Draft RFP | Questions 69 and 207 | N/A | Questions 69 and 207 indicate that the Government will not accept a current CPARS in lieu of the Attachment T PPQ, which would be understandable if the Government required PPQ questions on topics that were unique to the specific scope of work being solicited. Attachment T contains generic topics (T1-T11) that are in no way specific and unique to the YPG BASOPS procurement. Several agencies have a standing policy that CPARS is the one and only authorized method to rate contractor performance. Would the Government please consider allowing offerors to submit CPARS in lieu of Attachment T? | No. | |
| Q&A 181 | Reference: Q&A 181 states warranty plan is due 30 days after award but is also a plan that is provided in Volume I Tab D (See Section L 5.1.6). Can Government clarify when it is due. | The Warranty Plan is due with proposal. | |||
| Table under 3.1.1 | Table under 3.1.1 States nothing is excluded from Page Limitation (Last Column). Can the Government clarify the contents of the table. As many of the items (TOC, Cross Reference Matrix, Glossary, etc) limit the Contractor in providing detailed information. | The Government will only review information that is provided within the scope of the specified page limitations. | |||
| Pricing Matrix | CLIN x004 | N/A | The CLIN x004 descriptions do not define the quantity of OWOs for each band of Grounds Maintenance. Would the Government please update the pricing matrix to define the number of OWOs for bands 1, 2, and 3? | Refer to Attachment E-CLS 404 Grounds | |
| SF 33 and on page 99 | The Due Date on the SF 33 and on page 99 of the Solicitation differ. Would the Government please confirm if the due date is 27 October or 16 October? | The due date will be provided on the most recent solicitation amendment. | |||
| Attachment T Past Performance Questionnaire | S1 and S2 | 4 | The Government appears to have included a large business full and open competition PPQ format for Attachment T because it requests that customers rate offerors on small business utilization (S1 and S2) but this is a small business set-aside with only small business prime offerors. Would the Government confirm that the PPQ format is correct for this small business set-aside competition? | Questions S1 and S2 are not applicable to this action. | |
| Attachment T Past Performance Questionnaire | Section 4 | 3 | The Government appears to have included a PPQ format for Attachment T that does not enable the Government to conduct a performance assessment in accordance with RFP M.2.2.5. The PPQ’s top score in Section 4 is “Satisfactory” which is essentially “Acceptable;” however, evaluation criteria calls for trade off on this factor and the confidence assessment has a top score of “Substantial Confidence” which is one rating above “Satisfactory.” Would the Government confirm that the PPQ format is correct for this past performance trade-off competition? | The PPQ is just one of the various sources that the Goverment utilizes to determine offerors confidence level. | |
| Attachment K Staffing Matrix | Roll-Up Tab | N/A | The Government's staffing requirements are unclear. The first item on the Attachment K Roll-Up is CLS 400 Program Management. RFP Attachment B - YUMA Annex B CLS 400 Facilities Maintenance Instructions appears to be a general set of instructions for the conduct of maintenance on YPG BASOPS. Shall offerors staff the Attachment A-YUMA PWS Annex A requirements on the CLS 400 Program Management line? | Yes. | |
| RFP Section M | M.2.1 | 109 | The L.6.3.3 submission requirements for Tab C, Subfactor 3 Organization and Staffing do not enable an objective determination that a proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation as stated in M.2.1 because neither organization nor staffing are tied to solicitation requirements. The only means of determining "Acceptable" is a subjective judgement based on an evaluator's opinion. FAR 15.101-2(c) states that LPTA source selection process should only be used when "(3) The agency believes the technical proposals will require no, or minimal, subjective judgment by the source selection authority as to the desirability of one offeror's proposal versus a competing proposal." Organization and staffing are significant in that they comprise one third of the Mission Capability factor and the majority of pricing. Would the Government please either explain how it will objectively evaluate staffing or change the award criteria to a best value trade-off source selection? | This is not a LPTA requirement. | |
| RFP Section M | M.2.1 | 109 | The L.6.3.3 submission requirements for Tab C, Subfactor 3 Organization and Staffing do not enable an objective determination that a proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation as stated in M.2.1 with respect to adequate staffing. The concern is that L.6.3.3 simply requires offerors to propose staffing labor categories and FTE quantities per CLS. There is no tie between the solicitation requirements and staffing to let the Government objectively quantify and determine "Acceptable" rating. The only means of determining "Acceptable" is a subjective judgement based on an evaluator's opinion that is not tied to the stated solicitation requirements. DoD Source Selection Manual, paragraph C.1 directs that for LPTA source selection processes "When standards of performance and quality are subjective, or the Government places value on higher quality or performance, another approach should be used." Because staffing numbers are the most important driver of prices, would the Government please either explain how it will objectively evaluate staffing or change the award criteria to a best value trade-off source selection? | This is not a LPTA requirement. | |
| Attachment A, Yuma Annex A BASOPS PWS | 4.0 | 33 | The last column of the PRS lists a deduction schedule. Services associated with many of these items cross multiple CLINs. From which CLIN will the Government make deductions for PRS violations? | The Government will make the deduction from the CLIN that the violation of the work order applies to. | |
| Pricing Matrix | CLIN x006 | N/A | The purpose of CLIN x006 is unclear, since CLIN x007 appears to includes all PMOs. In the draft RFP, this CLIN was for preventive maintenance and the capability bands did not include PMOs. What is to be priced in CLIN x006? | CLIN x006 is for PMO and CLIN x007 is for DMOs. | |
| Pricing Matrix | CLIN x011 | N/A | The purpose of CLIN x011 is unclear, since CLIN x012 appears to includes all PMOs. In the draft RFP, this CLIN was for preventive maintenance and the capability bands did not include PMOs. What is to be priced in CLIN x011? | CLIN x011 is for PMO and CLIN x012 is for DMOs. | |
| PWS | Attachment A - YUMA PWS Annex A 08 AUG 2023 | PWS 2.1.11.1.1 Project Manager (PM) | The PWS states in part “The PM performing work under this contract shall have and maintain a (Tier 3, Secret) clearance at time of the contract start date and for the life of the contract.” There is no DD 254 provided with the solicitation. Please clarify this discrepancy and/or provide the DD 254. | This is not a classified contract therefore DD-254 is not required for this action. Refer to updated PWS. | |
| 2.1.11.1 Key Personnel | The PWS states the name of the Project Manager (PM) and GFEBS PM Coordinator Lead shall be provided to the KO/COR. Is this required upon contract award and before contract start only? | The contractor is required to provide the name of the PM up contract award and during the proposal. | |||
| Solicitation | Section I | 54 | The RFP includes FAR 52.228-11 that requires offerors to secure a performance bond prior to commencing work on an awarded contract. The services the Government is soliciting for do not appear to meet any of the requirements stated in FAR 52.228-11(b)(1), (2), or (3). Given that this RFP is a small business set aside, this clause may restrict competition and preclude potential offerors from submitting a proposal should they lack the resources to secure a bond of this size. Would the Government please consider removing FAR 52.228-11 from Section I of the RFP? | No, as per FAR 28.103-2(a)(1), the Government requires a performance bond because the acquisition is expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold and GFP will be provided to the contractor. | |
| Solicitation | Section I | 75 | The RFP includes FAR 52.228-13 that requires offerors to secure alternative payment protection covering 100% of the contract value. The Government is soliciting a services contract that does not appear to meet the FAR 28.102-3 requirement to include FAR 52.228-13 in the solicitation. Given that this RFP is a small business set aside, this clause may restrict competition and preclude potential offerors from submitting a proposal should they lack the resources to secure a bond of this size. Would the Government please consider removing FAR 52.228-13 from Section I of the RFP? | Clause has been removed. | |
| Solicitation | Section I | 54 | The RFP includes FAR 52.229-3 governing adminstration, declination, reimbursement, and exemption of Federal, State, and Local Taxes but excludes FAR 52-229-1 that allows a contractor to seek reimbursement for State and Local Taxes not included in the contract price or provide evidence necesary for the contractor to sustain an exemption. Would the Government please consider adding FAR 52.229-1 to Section I to the RFP? | No, as per FAR 29.401-3, clause 52.229-3 is to be inserted if a contract is performed in the US, a fixed-price contract is cotemplated, and the contract is expected to exceed the simplified threshold. This contract meets the requirements and thus has been applied to this acquisition. Clause 52.229-1 is to be utilized when a fixed price IDIQ is contemplated, such is not contemplated with this contract, if the contract is to be performed in the US, which it is, and if the place/places of delivery are not known at the time of contracting, the place is known. Therefore, we cannot utilize clause 52.229-1. | |
| Solicitation | L.5.1.1 | 99 | The RFP requires Offerors to list name, address, and other information for subcontractors. Especially since this requirements is limited to one page, would the Government confirm that this is only required for major subcontractors performing 10% or greater of the proposed effort? | L.5.1.1(c )- As it pertains to addresses, the addresses are only required for persons authorized to sign the offer and negotiate on behalf of the Offeror in connection with this solicitation, not for all subcontractors. | |
| Solicitation | L.5.1.5 | 100 | The RFP requires Offerors to submit a completed Section K. However, Section M.3.1 indicates that the Government intends to evaluate offerors' on-line representations and certifications. Must Offeror's submit a completed Section K with the proposal or are on-line representations and certifications sufficient? | Refer to recent solicitation amendment. | |
| Solicitation | L.5.1.5 | 100 | The RFP requires Offerors to submit a completed Section K. Section K is not marked in the RFP but it appears to start at the bottom of page 113 and and it is located before Section J out of sequence. Would the Government please issue a new version of the RFP with Section K marked and properly located? | Refer to recent solicitation amendment. | |
| Solicitation | Section J | 91 | The Yuma Annexes skip alphabetical identifiers. Annexes D, I, K, and L have not been posted with the solicitation. Would the Government please provide the missing annexes? | Typically, Annex I is for CLS 414 Facility Maintenance AFH, Annex L is for CLS 503 Wastewater Services. On the Attachments list, Annex L is listed as reserved because these services will not be procured. Facilities Maintenance is addressed in Annexes B, H, and J. Annex D and K do not exist. | |
| Solicitation | Section H | N/A | There was no Section H furnished with the RFP. Did the Government intentionally omit Section H? | Section H is for special contract requirements. There are no special requirements at this time. FAR 14.201-1 (table 14-1) | |
| Solicitation | L.1.1 | 94 | This paragraph has no deadline for question submission. The SAM synopsis states that questions are due by 15 Sept 2023 1200 CDT. It is unclear if offerors will have an opportunity to request clarifications on the Government's responses to offeror questions. Will the Government confirm the due date and time for questions? | As per section L.1.1, draft solicitation questions were due by 2 Feb 2023. As per the solicitation posting on sam.gov, the solicitation questions were due on 15 Sep 2023. | |
| Solicitation | L.4.1 | 99 | This paragraph states that proposal must be submitted by 16 Oct 2023 at 1400 CST but SF 33 Block 9 states a due date of 27 Oct 2023 at 1200L. What is the due date and time for proposal submission? | Proposal due date will be provided on the most recent solicitation amendment. | |
| W5168W23R0004- |
23 AUG 2023-
Solicitation-YPG Page 4 of 113 CLIN 0006, CLS 411 Preventative Maintenance Vert, Preventative Maintenance Vertical in accordance with Annex
H, CLS 411
CLIN 0007, CLS 411 Facilities Maintenance Vertical Both of these CLINs are for vertical preventive maintenance,
| priced independently, and totaled on the pricing sheet. | What is the difference between CLIN | |
| 0006 and 0007? Please clarify. | CLIN 0006 is for PMO only, CLIN 0007 is for DMO only. | |
| W5168W23R0004- |
23 AUG 2023-
Solicitation-YPG Page 7 of 113 CLIN 0011, CLS 420 Preventative Maintenance, Preventative Maintenance in accordance with Annex J, CLS 420 Facilities Maintenance Horizontal.
CLIN 0012, CLS 420 Facilities Maintenance Horiz.
Both of these CLINs are for horizontal preventive maintenance,
| priced independently, and totaled on the pricing sheet. | What is the difference between CLIN | ||
| 0011 and 0012? Please clarify. | CLIN 0011 is for PMO only, CLIN 0012 is for DMO only. | ||
| Annex H, CLS 411 and Attachment G, which is Annex H | What is the differentiator between X006 & X007 (CLS 411) or are they duplicate? |
a. CLIN X006 References Annex H, CLS 411. The language herein does not reference the “pricing matrix.” Please clarify if this should be priced.
| b. CLIN X007 also references Attachment G, which is Annex H, is this a duplicate of CLIN X006 or a replacement of CLIN X006. Please clarify. | CLIN 0006 is for PMO only, CLIN 0007 is for DMO only. | |
| Annex J, CLS 420 and Attachment H, which is Annex J | What is the differentiator between X011 & X012 (CLS 420) or are they duplicate? |
a. CLIN X011 References Annex J, CLS 420, which is Attachment H. The language herein does not reference the “pricing matrix.” Please clarify if this should be priced. Please clarify.
| b. CLIN X012 also references Attachment H, which is Annex J, is this a duplicate of CLIN X011 or a replacement of CLIN X011. Please clarify. | CLIN 0011 is for PMO only, CLIN 0012 is for DMO only. | ||
| Solicitation | RFP Section B | Would the Government please clarify the inconsistency of Section B and the CLIN Structure provided in Attachment J? Please see below: CLIN |
Section B CLIN Structure X008 States 10 Months for Base Year/12 for Option Years Blacked out to be a lump sum value X009 States 10 Months for Base Year/12 for Option Years Blacked out to be a lump sum value X013 States 10 Months for Base Year/12 for Option Years
| Blacked out to be a lump sum value | Refer to latest solicitation amendment | ||||
| Solicitation | RFP Section L | paragraph 5.1 | Would the Government please clarify whether Section B is to be included in Volume I, as several references have been removed, but it is still listed in paragraph 5.1. | Section B is to be included in Volume I only. | |
| Solicitation | RFP Section L | paragraphs 2.1.2 and 2.1.8.6; and Table 3.1.1 | Would the Government please clarify whether the Table of Contents is to be included in each Volume (as indicated in paragraph 2.1.2 and Table 3.1.1) or as a separate Proposal Table of Contents file (as indicated in paragraph 2.1.8.6)? | Volume I to III will contain a Table of Content. | |
| Solicitation | RFP Section L | paragraphs 7.2.1.6 and 7.2.1.6.1 and Table 3.1.1 | Would the Government please confirm that the narratives in response to the paragraphs on Affiliate Past Performance and Meaningful Relationship are to be provided in the same section as the Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letters, which in accordance with Table 3.1.1 is not page limited? | Affiliate Past Performance shall be in caputured in the Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letter. | |
| Solicitation | RFP Section L | paragraph 5.1.1 and Table 3.1.1 | Would the Government please confirm that the Volume I Cover Page is not included in the volume page limitations? | Volume 1 Cover Page is included in the volume page limitations. | |
| Solicitation | Section L | Page 99 | Would the government please confirm the due date for proposals is 12:00PM 27 October 2023 per the SF33. |
There is a different date listed in Section L page 99 and below.
4.0 PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL AND COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING THIS SOLICITATION
| 4.1 Offeror shall submit proposal via email or the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) Contracting Communication Module (CCM) to Samuel J. Colton (Contracting Officer) and Melanie D. Palmas (Contract Specialist). The link to access PIEE is https://piee.eb.mil/. The Offerors will be required to have WAWF Vendor access in PIEE, therefore should ensure that access is granted prior to the closing date and time of the solicitation. Attachment W- PIEE CCM Vendor Training, contain training information on creating a message and attaching documents in CCM. The Offerors e-mail submission or submission through the CCM must be made no later than (NLT) the closing date and time specified in the solicitation, 2:00 pm, CST on 16 October 2023. You will need the following information: | Refer to latest solicitation amendment | |
| X013 & X014 CLIN | X013 & X014 CLIN Series: are these duplicates in that they refer to CLIN 011 banding? |
a. CLIN X013 states “This CLIN will cover up to 50 additional workload performed under CLS420 that exceed the targeted award band.,” which is in reference to CLIN 011. Please clarify.
| b. CLIN X014 states “This CLIN will cover up to 50 additional workload above the optional amount provided for in CLIN X011 for work performed under CLS 420 that exceed the targeted award band. Please clarify. | Refer to latest solicitation amendment | |||||
| Solicitation | RFP Section 5.1.6 | The RFP states in part “Labor Dispute Contingency Plan, Offerors shall submit the plan IAW PWS 2.5.6.4.” This PWS reference should be 2.5.7.4 | Refer to updated Section L. | |||
| Attachment O DB Building | Reference: The Government provided General Decision Number: AZ20230035 dated 01/06/2023 for Building construction. The most recent DB for building construction in Yuma County, AZ is General Decision Number: AZ20230042 dated 09/01/2023. | Question: Will the Government update the DB Building to the latest number and revision? | Refer to latest solicitation amendment | |||
| Attachment P DB Highway | Reference: The Government provided General Decision Number: AZ20230008 dated 01/06/2023 for Highway construction. The most recent revision for this DB is dated 09/01/2023. | Question: Will the Government update the DB Highway to the latest revision? | Refer to latest solicitation amendment | |||
| Attachment Q DB Residential | Reference: The Government provided General Decision Number: AZ20230011 dated 01/06/2023 for Residential construction. The most recent revision for this DB is dated 09/01/2023. | Question: Will the Government update the DB Residential to the latest revision? | Refer to latest solicitation amendment | |||
| Attachment N DB Heavy Dams | Reference: The Government provided General Decision Number: AZ20230006 dated 01/06/2023 for Dam construction. We believe this should be General Decision Number: AZ20230021 dated 09/01/2023 for heavy construction. | Question: Would the Government confirm which DB Heavy applies to this solicitation? | Refer to latest solicitation amendment | |||
| Solicitation | RFP Section L | paragraph 2.1.8.5 | Would the Government please confirm how the requirement for subdirectory applies to this electronic upload submission? | Reference to subdirectory in section 2.1.8.5 has been removed. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .