Attachment 0035- Ft. Cavazos Q&A Responses Round 2.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 35 KB Posted
- Attached to
- EAGLE Fort Cavazos, TX W519TC-23-R-0102
- Solicitation number
- W519TC23R0102
About this file
This document contains a set of questions and answers related to a solicitation for the EAGLE Fort Cavazos, TX contract, Solicitation Number W519TC23R0102. The solicitation is for maintenance, supply, and transportation services at Fort Cavazos, TX, issued by the Department of the Army Materiel Command Contracting Command Rock Island Arsenal.
Key details include:
- The solicitation has been amended, with the offers due date extended to July 10, 2024.
- Attachments have been revised, including the TD-02 Workload Data and Density List, to address industry questions.
- The government clarified that the average annual dollar value (AADV) for qualifying past performance is only a minimum bid qualification, and is not related to the independent government cost estimate (IGCE).
- The government updated Sections L and M of the solicitation regarding small business subcontracting goals, pre-award safety, and other details.
The document does not contain a Performance Work Statement or Statement of Objectives, but rather provides clarification on the solicitation requirements in response to industry questions.
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 55 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
Master List RFP W519TC23R0102
| # in Attach 00XX | Question Reference (RFP #, PWS #, etc.) | RFP Text | Question | Response |
| Attachment 0011 | Attachment 0011 - Contract References Spreadsheet_FCTX | Cells in Column J, "Contract period of performance END DATE ..." do not allow dates to be entered that are beyond the year 2025. There is an error message that states, "This value doesn't match the data validation restrictions defined for this cell" when we tried to enter a contract end date that occurs after 2025. | Revised Attachment 0011, dated 18JUN24 has been provided. | |
| Section A | SF30 Amendment 0001 Section A | Amendment 0001 identifies the extended date as 10 July 2024 on both SF30 Section 11 and Section A, however SAM.gov General Information identifies the "Updated Date Offers Due" as 11 July 2024. | Please confirm if the SAM.gov date is listed in error and that the required submission date is correctly identified in the Solicitation Amendment 0001 as 10 July 2024. | The extended date is July 10th 2024. SAM.gov has been updated to reflect this. |
| Amendment 0001 | Amendment 0001 Q&A | Referencing Amendment 0001 Q&A, row 174: |
| • | A bidder referenced: In the 9 June 2021 EAGLE ASC/ACC-RI Virtual Industry Engagement and Outreach Event, the Government communicated the Government’s average annual dollar value (AADV) for a qualifying past performance reference is “correlated to a forecasted annual value based on the IGCE [independent government cost estimate]". |
| • | The bidder’s question was: Will the Government please confirm it anticipates Ft. Cavazos's forecasted annual contract value to be approximately $14.6M? |
| • | The Government response was “confirmed.” |
We are concerned newer bidders will interpret the Government’s answer to mean the Government’s IGCE for the 5- year POP would be $73.0M ($14.6M x 5 years).
In contrast, the current spend visible in FPDS is $130M with a full contract year left in the POP.
The bidder is likely unaware that the AADV is meant to be a minimum qualification of the ability to bid, and that the AADV is not to be related to the IGCE.
We are concerned that bidders will use the $73M as a starting point for bidding, and go down from there. Given the actual work on contract, this would lead to an almost 50% reduction in a bid relative to actual requirements and performance to date. While we understand this is a cost reimbursable contract, this bidder misunderstanding would likely result in initial harm to the program and inability to execute should a contractor win with this unrealistic price. That contractor would likely be unable to staff the quantity of FTEs needed to perform in a timely manner.
| Will the Government please revise its response to explain to newer bidders that the AADV is only a qualification to bid, and has no relationship to the IGCE, which would be significantly higher given more than double the growth in hours from the prior RFP to the current RFP in TD-02? | The AADV is based soley on past performance. The IGE is a Government document and has no relationship with the AADV. | |
| FCTX W519TC-23-R-0102 Conformed Copy | FCTX W519TC-23-R-0102 Conformed Copy, M.5.1.2 and M.1.2(c)(1) | The Government removed the following language from RFP section M.5.1.2: |
• "In accordance with L.5.2.1.1(b) an Offeror choosing to utilize innovative and efficient methodologies (e.g., cross utilization of specific labor categories, dual hatted positions, etc.) to adequately demonstrate its approach, must have it clearly stated within the SMP and will be evaluated for realism and feasibility. Failure to clearly capture the full requirement and subsequent workload under these methodologies will fail to meet the definition of Acceptable."
The Government also removed the following language from RFP section M.5.1.2(c)(1):
• "… as supported by either:
- M.5.1.2(c)(1)(i) Proposing all FLC1 hours equal to or greater than the estimated hours of each functional area as provided in Attachment 0024 - TD-02 Workload Data and Density List. Note: Offerors proposing hours less than the estimated hours will be found Unacceptable, unless the Government determines the innovations or efficiencies, detailed in the SMP narrative, to be realistic and feasible to accomplish the mission.
- or
| - M.5.1.2(c)(1)(ii) Providing a detailed narrative of the innovations and efficiencies used, within the specific areas of the Attachment 0024 - TD-02 Workload Data and Density List for which the Offeror fails to propose IAW M.5.1.2(c)(1)(i), that will allow the Offeror to accomplish the mission. Note: Staffing approaches utilizing innovative and efficient methodologies will be evaluated on the reasonableness of the innovation or efficiency of the approach and the feasibility that the approach will allow for accomplishment of the mission. Additionally, innovations or efficiencies (e.g., cross utilization of specific labor categories, dual hatted positions, etc.) not IAW L.5.2.1.1(c)(6)(iii) and confirmed within the SMP will fail to meet the definition of Acceptable.” | The Government seems to have removed this language from Section M in error. Since language similar to the above was not removed from Section L, will the Government please explain why this language was removed from Section M or reinsert it? | Section M and L have been updated. | |||
| Attachment 0023 | Attachment 0023 - TD02 Workload Data and Density List 10JUN2024 - SUPPLY TAB | Referencing SUPPLY TAB, III Corps FSR GCSS_A CLIN4KA (Non-ASC) and 1CD FSR GCSS_A CLIN4PA (Non-ASC): | Both workload references contain the same workload descriptions and annual transaction counts yet the ESTIMATED PRODUCTIVE Hrs for CLIN4KA is 2.5 times greater than those for CLIN4PA. Will the Government please address this? | TD-02 Workload Data and Density list has been revised, dated 24JUN2024 | |
| Attachment 0023 | Attachment 0023 - TD02 Workload Data and Density List 10JUN2024 - SUPPLY TAB | Referencing SUPPLY TAB, ISR 301 Transportation Motor Pool - CLIN 0004EA AFSBn Cavazos Fuel Delivery (ASC): | The Government's workload calculations in the notes column show 390 hours annually for fuel receipts, the ESTIMATED PRODUCTIVE Hrs for CLIN4KA is over 3 times greater than those for CLIN4PA. Will the Government please address this? | TD-02 Workload Data and Density list has been revised, dated 24JUN2024 | |
| Section L | RFP Section L.5.4.2.13(b)(1)(i) | RFP Section L.5.4.2.13(b)(1)(i) states "The Offeror shall provide budgetary rate data for 2023 through 2028 depending upon availability for itself and all Subcontractor(s) who do not submit a proposal directly to the Government." | With the 07 February 2025 NTP date, will the Government please clarify if the budgetary data is needed to cover the potential contract performance periods through the Government fiscal year 2030? | Section L.5.4.2.13(b)(1)(i) has been updated | |
| Attachment 0023 | B08 Attachment 0035 Ft. Cavazos Q&A Response 10JUN2024 - Regarding Attachment 0023 TD-02 | Q&A Line 250: Question: The Maint - Indirect tab, MDRS III Corps Maintenance Support - CLIN3JA (Non-ASC) Column B Transactions per year is provide as provided rounded to the nearest 2 decimal point and seems to be hours instead of transactions. The sum of column B row 104 thru row 121 is 53,024.16 which is very close to the Estimated Productive hours of 47,492. Will the government review the information provided and make any necessary adjustments? |
| Government's Response: TD-02 Workload Data and Density list has been revised. | It appears TD-02 Workload Data and Density List 10JUN2024 Amendment 0001 was not revised, the question is still valid. Will the Government please address this? | TD-02 Workload Data and Density list has been revised, dated 24JUN2024 | |
| Attachment 0023 | B08 Attachment 0035 Ft. Cavazos Q&A Response 10JUN2024 - Regarding Attachment 0023 TD-02 | Q&A Line 251: The Maint - Indirect tab, MDRS III Corps Maintenance Support - CLIN3JA (Non-ASC) has no associated tab for the equipment density. Will the government review the provided data and determine if there is equipment density associated with MDRS III Corps Maintenance Support - CLIN3JA and provide to industry? |
Government's Response: TD-02 Workload Data and Density list has been revised.
| Attachment TD-02 Workload Data and Density List 10JUN2024 was updated, however the density list is the same listing that is provided for CLIN3GA and CLIN3HA. How should Offerors allocate the support requirements for the same assets across three (3) different CLINs? | The similarity is based on the two commands having like equipment with the best possible projection of equipment that could be inducted into MDRS. | ||||
| Attachment 0023 | Q&A Gov't responses and TD-03 | Attachment 0023 and Gov't Response to Q&A | Q: How many Army owned locomotives are at Fort Cavazos and associated with the requirements of PWS 5.34.1? A: FCTX has 6 locomotives. The gov't also updated Attachment 0023 TD-02 to show "operate and perform Field Level Locomotive maintenance 45 annual transactions . question: Are there any government operators of the locomotives at FCTX? | This requirement is separate from other government locomotive operations. | |
| Attachment 0023 | Attachment 0023 TD-02 Transportation Tab CLINN 0005GA Rail Operations | The government revised TD-02 to add 45 annual transactions EA to operate an perform Field Level locomotive maintenance, 22 Rail services ordered, rails loaded 3060 (individual rail cars), rails unloaded 2428 (individual rail cars) and railcars moved 5954 (individual rail cars). Question: Are the rail loaded and rail unloaded transactions indicating the contractor is responsible for loading and loading equipment onto and off of over 5400 rail cars, or are these task only indicating this part of the task captured in rail cars moved? | These tasks are associated with rail cars moved. | ||
| Attachment 0023 | Attachment 0023 TD-02 Transportation Tab CLINN 0005GA Rail Operations | The government revised TD-02 provides an estimated productive hours of 5,568 to accomplish the PWS requirements and the transactions listed in column B. Will the government review the annual transaction per year verses the estimated productive hours and determine if more productive hours are needed? | Transactional data is provided based on the tasks identifed and estimated productive hours for those transactions. | ||
| Attachment 0023 | Attachment 0023 TD-02 MAINT - Indirect Tab CLINN 3KA | 1CD PASSBACK Maintenance Support - CLIN3KA (Non-ASC) provides a total of 93 transactions per year and an estimated productive hrs. of 62,176 which is about 34 FTE. The estimated productive hrs. seem much to great to support the 93 transactions per year as this would equal 668.55 hours per transactions. | Will the government reevaluate the data provided for CLINN 3KA to determine if an adjustment is needed? | Transactional data is provided based on the tasks identifed and estimated productive hours for those transactions. | |
| Attachment 0025 | Attachment 0025 TD-04 Ammunition Delivery Service | Standard Hours of Operation are Mon-Friday, excluding Federal Holidays; The Ammunition Delivery Service, M-F (Shifts-0500,0700,0730,0900) and the from and to is from 0730 to 1600 with the note stating all shifts are 8 hours. There is a conflict between the hours of operation from 0730 to 1600 and the stated 4 Eight hour shifts. For example if a shift started at 0900 than the end time of that shift would be 1730 (8 hour day -30 meal period and breaks). | Will the government evaluate the Ammunition Delivery Service hours and determine if the 4 Eight Hour shifts are needed and how these shifts will impact the to and from times of 0730 and 1630? | USG projects shift times for potential Ammunition delivery outside core hours. | |
| Section M | Attachment 0035, Amend 0001 Q&A Line 65; | ||||
| RFP M.5.4.3 and M.5.4.3.2.2.1(b) | In its response to Round 1 Q&A, Line 65, the Governments responded that M.5.4.3.2.2.1(b) was updated and to use an SDB goal of 5%, which is also indicated on page 5, 19., for Amendment 0001 changes in the RFP Conformed Copy. However, on pages 80 and 81, paragraphs M.5.4.3, M.5.4.3.2.2.1(b), and M.5.4.3.2.3(b), the RFP still stipulates 7%. In the Amendment 0001 document, the percentage was updated to 5% on page 38 but still shows 7% on page 39, para M.5.4.3.2.3(b). | Would the Government please clarify this percentage to ensure offerors are using the appropriate small business goals? | Updated Section M.5.4.3.2.3(b) to state 5% please use 5% as the SBA goal. | ||
| Attachment 0023 | Attachment 0035, Amend 0001 Q&A Line 243; | ||||
| Attachment 0023 - TD-02 Workload Data and Density List | In its response to Round 1 Q&A, Line 243, regarding identical density lists for MAINT CLINs 3KA, 3LA, 3NA, and 3PA, the Government indicated that it revised the TD-02. With this revised TD-02, it appears the Government inadvertently removed the building numbers where maintenance is performed for CLINs 3KA and 3LA. In the original TD-02, Building 88030 was listed for these CLINs. | Would the Government please clarify that Building 88030 is still where maintenance is performed for CLINs 3KA and 3LA? | TD-02 Workload Data and Density list has been revised, dated 24JUN2024 | ||
| Attachment 0023 | Attachment 0035, Amend 0001 Q&A Line 243; | ||||
| Attachment 0023 - TD-02 Workload Data and Density List | In its response to Round 1 Q&A, Line 243, regarding identical density lists for MAINT CLINs 3KA, 3LA, 3NA, and 3PA, the Government indicated that it revised the TD-02. However, it appears that the density lists for these four CLINs are still the same. | Would the Government please provide clarification? | TD-02 Workload Data and Density list has been revised, dated 24JUN2024 | ||
| Attachment 0023 | Attachment 0035, Amend 0001 Q&A Line 141; | ||||
| Attachment 0023 - TD-02 Workload Data and Density List | In its response to Round 1 Q&As, the Government provided an updated TD-02 after its review. With this revised TD-02, it appears the Government inadvertently left of the building number where maintenance is performed for CLIN 3CA, North FCTX Maintenance. | Would the Government please clarify the building where maintenance for CLIN 3CA is performed? | North FCTX faciltiy is BLDG 56508 | ||
| Attachment 0023 | Attachment 0035, Amend 0001 Q&A Lines 15, 52, 93, and 114; | ||||
| Appendix A, Cavazos MDRS; Attachment 0001, PWS | In its response to Round 1 Q&As, the Government provided responses to questions regarding MDRS Supply and PAAT. In Appendix A, Cavazos MDRS, paragraph 5.38.4 references PWS paragraph 5.18, which is refers to as PAAT but is CIPBO in PWS Attachment 0001 and that paragraph is RESERVED. Appendix A, paragraph 5.38.11, also outlines requirements in Asset Management. | Would the Government please provide clarity on the reference to PWS paragraph 5.18, which is RESERVED, and the requirements as outlined in Appendix A, paragraph 5.38.11, Asset Management? | Appendix A speaks to MDRS specific tasks not covered in the PWS. | ||
| Attachment 0023 | Attachment 0035, Amend 0001 Q&A Line 17; | ||||
| Attachment 0023 - TD-02 Workload Data and Density List | In its response to Round 1 Q&A, Line 17, regarding identical workload but different productive hours for CLINs 4KA, 4LA, and 4NA, the Government indicated that it revised the TD-02. However, the workload for 4LA remained the same; the Government just added five of the lines together and put a total for those five lines. 4KA and 4LA remained exactly the same but each has different productive hours, 9280 vs 3712. | Would the Government please provide additional clarification and another revised TD-02? | TD-02 Workload Data and Density list has been revised, dated 24JUN2024 | ||
| Attachment 0023 | Attachment 0035, Amend 0001 Q&A Line 236; | ||||
| Attachment 0023 - TD-02 Workload Data and Density List | In its response to Round 1 Q&A, Line 236, the Government indicated that it revised the TD-02. However, the workload for CLINs 4BA and 4NA is exactly the same, with the exception of IARs, 1 vs 10, but the productive hours are vastly different, 68,671 vs 81,664. | Would the Government please provide additional clarification and another revised TD-02? | TD-02 Workload Data and Density list has been revised, dated 24JUN2024 | ||
| Section L | Section L, L.5.1.6.1 (a) Pg 49 | Section L.5.1.6.1 (a) states that the naming convention for the Bidder's accounting systems shall be "Offeror's_Name_Vol_1_AcctSys" |
The Independent Audit Report provided by our DCAA Branch Office contained Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) and was marked accordingly. Executive Order 13556, 32 Code of Federal Regulations, and Part 2002, and DoD Instruction 5200.48 all require that files containing CUI contain a CUI banner marking. Additionally the National Archives and Record Administration (NARA) recommends that the file name indicate the presence of CUI.
| Are bidders correct in assuming that files containing CUI material may append "(CUI)" to the file title? | That is correct | ||
| Section M | |||
| RFP L.5.1.9; M.1.1.3 | In its response to Round 1 Q&A, Line 21, the Government updated Section L to incorporate L.5.1.9, Pre-Award Safety; however, M.1.1.3 is still reserved, which is the evaluation for Pre-Award Safety Responsibility. | Would the Government please update M.1.1.3 to include the evaluation for Pre-Award Safety? | Updated Section M.1.1.3 to include the evaluation for Pre-Award Safety |
| Section L | L.5.3.5 (c)(1), L.5.3.1.4(a)(1), and L.5.3.5.3 | L.5.3.5.3 states that "The Offeror shall include the contracts identified in Attachment 0003, including continuation pages of Attachment 0003, in Attachment 0011." |
| L.5.3.1.4(a)(1) provides file naming conventions for the Offeror and subcontractors for Attachment 0011 Contract References Spreadsheet. | Are we to include our subcontractor's past performance references within Vol_3_Att0003 (Performance Questionnaire) as well as in the Offeror's Vol_3_Att0011 or should our subs submit their own Vol_3_Att0011 that includes their references? | The sub is required to submit their own Vol_3_Att0011 if they are expected to perform more than 20% of the work | |||
| Section L | RFP, Paragraph L.5.4.2.13(b)(1)(i) page 69 | The solicitation requests budgetary rate data for 2023 through 2028. | Since the NTP date is 2025, should the budgetary rate data be for 2025 through 2030? | Section L.5.4.2.12(b)(1) has been updated to 2024-2030 | |
| Section L | L.5.4.2.13(b)(4) page 70 | The solicitation requests budgetary sales volume data for 2023 through 2028. | Since the NTP date is 2025, should the budgetary sales volume data be for 2025 through 2030? | Section L.5.4.2.12(b)(1) has been updated to 2024-2030 | |
| SF30 Block 11 | SF30 Block 11 | Will the government consider a two week extension? | There is no extension at this time |
Ready to be Posted Question # Question Reference (RFP #, PWS #, etc.) Question Answer
Duplicates Question # Company & POC Name Question Reference (RFP #, PWS #, etc.) Question Response
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .