B08-Attachment 0035- Ft. Cavazos Q&A Responses_10JUN2024.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 64 KB Posted
- Attached to
- EAGLE Fort Cavazos, TX W519TC-23-R-0102
- Solicitation number
- W519TC23R0102
About this file
This document contains questions and answers related to a federal contract opportunity for maintenance, supply, and transportation services at Fort Cavazos, Texas.
The key details are:
- The contract opportunity is for Solicitation Number W519TC23R0102, titled "EAGLE Fort Cavazos, TX W519TC-23-R-0102".
- The requiring agency is the Department of the Army Materiel Command Contracting Command Rock Island Arsenal.
- The contract will provide maintenance, supply, and transportation services at Fort Cavazos, TX.
- The performance work statement and workload details are provided in Attachment 0001 (PWS) and Attachment 0023 (TD-02 Workload Data and Density List).
- The contract will have a base period of performance of 12 months with four 12-month option periods, for a total evaluated period of 5 years.
- This is an unrestricted procurement, not a small business set-aside.
- Offerors must submit proposals in response to the solicitation requirements outlined in Section L of the RFP.
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 0005 | PWS Section 3.5.2, p. 36 | ||||
| RFP L.5.4.2.6, p. 59 | PWS Section 3.5.2 states: "3.5.2 The Government will furnish equipment repair parts and materials by granting the contractor access to Government supply systems in accordance with AR 710-2." RFP L.5.4.2.6 states that ODCs are Government-provided surrogate numbers; however, B08 Attachment 0005 Cost Price Matrix, Allocation Tab 1b requires the offeror to provide the ODC amounts. | Will the Government please provide ODC plug values referenced in PWS Section 3.5.2 and RFP Section 5.4.2.6 and confirm as soon as possible via an Amendment and revised Attachment 0005 so that offerors will know they should not estimate and price ODCs? | A revised Attachment 0005 Cost Price Matrix, dated 03JUN2024 has been incorporated into Amendment 0001 . | ||
| Attachment 0002 and Attachment 0023 | Staffing and Labor Mix 7MAR24 and | ||||
| TD-02 Workload Data and Density List (ASC and Non-ASC Customers) V-4 | These attachments have CLIN 0004BA - Phantom Supply Support. While the PWS describes in detail the requirements for the Retail Supply section, it does not describe the requirements to perform this tasks associated with the Phantom SSA. Also, it is unclear if Phantom Support means bidders should treat this as an augmentation requirement. | Will the Government please provide a PWS requirement for this section? | Appendices have been provided | ||
| Attachment 0002 and Attachment 0023 | Staffing and Labor Mix 7MAR24 and | ||||
| TD-02 Workload Data and Density List (ASC and Non-ASC Customers) V-4 | The Supply Tab of Attachment 0023 has workload for Non-ASC 1CD SSA Red Hat. The PWS and RFP do not explain the offeror's role and responsibility for this section. | Will the Government please provide a PWS requirement for this section? | Appendices have been provided | ||
| Attachment 0023 | TD-02 Workload Data and Density List (ASC and Non-ASC Customers) V-4 | The Excel Tab "MAINT Indirect" provides workload for MDRS 1CD Maintenance Support - CLIN3HA (Non-ASC). One of the workload drivers for this CLIN is "# Work Orders Closed (Equipment Repaired)." The equipment density tab associated with this workload cannot be found. It is unclear to bidders what type of equipment is being repaired for this task. | Will the Government please provide an equipment density listing associated with Work Orders Closed for bidders to ensure the correct labor titles are being used to properly maintain this equipment? | TD-02 Workload Data and Density list has been revised. | |
| Attachment 0023 | TD-02 Workload Data and Density List (ASC and Non-ASC Customers) V-4 | The Supply Tab of Attachment 0023 has two CLINs (0004KA and 0004PA) for FSR support, with a couple of workload drivers, mostly maintenance related. The Supply and Services section of the PWS does not describe FSR responsibilities, nor is there an Appendix associated to this task. | Will the Government please provide a PWS narrative for FSR support to ensure bidders are selecting the best labor category for these tasks? | Appendices have been provided | |
| Attachment 0023 | TD-02 Workload Data and Density List (ASC and Non-ASC Customers) V-4 | The Supply Tab of Attachment 0023, III Corps FSR GCSS_A CLIN4KA (Non-ASC), has a workload driver "Analysis Maintenance Problem." The Supply and Services section of the PWS does not describe FSR responsibilities, nor is there an Appendix associated to this task. | Will the Government please share with bidders the types of vehicles supported under this CLIN, and ensure bidders are proposing correct labor categories and skill sets? | Appendices have been provided | |
| Attachment 0023 | TD-02 Workload Data and Density List (ASC and Non-ASC Customers) V-4 | The Supply Tab of Attachment 0023, 1CD FSR GCSS_A CLIN4PA (Non-ASC) has a workload driver "Analysis Maintenance Problem." The PWS does not define the type of equipment or type of maintenance problems associated with this requirement. | Will the Government define the types of vehicles supported and maintenance support requirements under this CLIN to ensure bidders are proposing correct labor categories and skill sets? | Appendices have been provided | |
| Attachment 0023 | TD-02 Workload Data and Density List (ASC and Non-ASC Customers) V-4 | The Supply Tab of Attachment 0023, 1CD FSR GCSS_A CLIN4PA (Non-ASC) has a workload driver "Analysis Maintenance Problem." The PWS is unclear on what analysis is required. | Will the Government clarify if it seeks advanced maintenance analysis requiring FSR-skilled personnel, or if GCSS-A data analysis is desired? | Appendices have been provided | |
| Attachment 0023 | TD-02 Workload Data and Density List (ASC and Non-ASC Customers) V-4 | The Supply Tab of Attachment 0023, III Corps FSR GCSS_A CLIN4KA (Non-ASC), has a workload driver "Travel to Field Locations." The PWS does not define the duration or average distance of travel or number of sites requiring simultaneous support to ensure that bidders properly estimate and price this task. | Will the Government please provide additional PWS requirements for bidders to fully understand this requirement? | Appendices have been provided | |
| Attachment 0023 | TD-02 Workload Data and Density List (ASC and Non-ASC Customers) V-4 | The Supply Tab of Attachment 0023, 1CD FSR GCSS_A CLIN4PA (Non-ASC), has a workload driver "Travel to Field Locations." The PWS does not define the duration or average distance of travel or number of sites requiring simultaneous support for bidders to properly estimate and price this task. | Will the Government please provide additional PWS requirements for bidders to fully understand this requirement? | Appendices have been provided | |
| Attachment 0023 | TD-02 Workload Data and Density List (ASC and Non-ASC Customers) V-4 | The Supply Tab of Attachment 0023, III Corps FSR GCSS_A CLIN4KA (Non-ASC), and 1CD FSR GCSS_A CLIN4PA (Non-ASC) have a workload driver "Travel to Field Locations." | Will the Government be providing Government Furnished Vehicles or allow Bidders to use Motor Pool vehicles for this task? | Vehicles have been identified. | |
| Attachment 0023 | TD-02 Workload Data and Density List (ASC and Non-ASC Customers) V-4 | The Supply Tab of Attachment 0023 has workload for III Corps PAATS CLIN4LA (Non-ASC). The PWS and RFP do not explain the offeror's role and responsibility for this section. | Will the Government please provide a PWS requirement for this section? | Appendices have been provided | |
| Attachment 0023 | TD-02 Workload Data and Density List (ASC and Non-ASC Customers) V-4 | The Supply Tab of Attachment 0023 reflects workload for what looks to be two fully functional SSAs, ASC Retail Supply and ASC Phantom Supply Support. Additionally, Attachment 0023 has workload for what appears to be a retail Supply operation within MRDS and two satellite or remote operations, with turn-in only workload for the PAAT and SSA Red Hat. | Where are these satellite locations (MDRS, PAAT, and SSA Red Hat) supported by Retail Supply CLIN 0004AA or Phantom Supply Support 0004BA, and will the Government provide a map of these locations? | USG believes the information provided should allow offerors to identify the locations. | |
| Attachment 0023 | TD-02 Workload Data and Density List (ASC and Non-ASC Customers) V-4 | The Supply Tab of Attachment 0023 reflects workload for what looks to be two fully functional SSAs, ASC Retail Supply and ASC Phantom Supply Support. Additionally, Attachment 0023 has workload for what appears to be a retail Supply operation within MRDS and two satellite or remote operations, with turn-in only workload for the PAAT and SSA Red Hat. | Where are these ASCs, and will the Government provide a map of these locations? | USG believes the information provided should allow offerors to identify the locations. | |
| Attachment 0001 and Attachment 0026 | PWS and GFF | Paragraph 5.4.3.1 of the PWS reads in part, "contractor shall operate and maintain paint booths." While reviewing TD-07 Government Furnished Facilities, no paint booths seem to be listed as Government furnished. | Are bidders correct in assuming that paint booth structures will not be provided and that bidders are responsible for providing these facilities? | USG facility will be available. | |
| Attachment 0023 | TD-02 Workload Data and Density List (ASC and Non-ASC Customers) V-4 | In the Supply Tab of Attachment 0023, the workload drivers for III Corps FSR GCSS_A CLIN4KA (Non-ASC) rows 135–138, III Corps PAATS CLIN4LA (Non-ASC) rows 140–143, and 1CD FSR GCSS_A CLIN4PA (Non-ASC) rows 158–161 all have the exact same quantities, with differing estimated productive hours in Column D. | Will the Government please confirm workloads for these sections are correct? | TD-02 Workload Data and Density list has been revised. | |
| Attachment 0023 | TD-02 Workload Data and Density List (ASC and Non-ASC Customers) V-4 | In the Supply Tab of Attachment 0023, workload and associated "Estimated Productive Hours" are listed in rows 1–162. There also appears to be additional workload for HMCP and Red Hats SSA in rows 203–260, without any "Estimated Productive Hours" disconnected from the rest of the workload. The Government's intent is unclear as to what workload is listed in rows 203–260 and what offerors should be bidding against. | Will the Government please clarify the supply workload and make the appropriate corrections? | TD-02 Workload Data and Density list has been revised. | |
| Attachment 0023 | TD-02 Workload Data and Density List (ASC and Non-ASC Customers) V-4 | In the Supply Tab of Attachment 0023, the workload driver(s) for Turn-in Operations for Retail Supply/SSA-CLIN 0004AA, Phantom SSA - CLIN 0004BA are inconsistent with the workload drivers listed in III Corps PAATS CLIN4LA (Non-ASC), 1CD Red Hat CLIN4NA (Non-ASC), where the workload was identified by customers supported and number of transactions per class of supply. For example, in Retail Supply/SSA-CLIN 0004AA, the workload driver "Customers for Class 2, 4, 7 & 9 turn-ins" has a transaction-per-year quantity of 25,016 customers, with no breakout of transaction per class of supply. | Will the Government please define what the quantity 25,016 represents (e.g., transitions, number of customers, appointments, number of items turned in)? | TD-02 Workload Data and Density list has been revised. | |
| Attachment 0023 | TD-02 Workload Data and Density List (ASC and Non-ASC Customers) V-4 | In the Supply Tab of Attachment 0023, row 134 has a workload driver that states "# Organic Supply SSA," with a transaction quantity of 8628. The Task description of "# Organic Supply SSA" is unclear in relation to the quantity provided. | Will the Government please clarify what 8628 represents, and provide more detail for this task? | TD-02 Workload Data and Density list has been revised. | |
| RFP Section L.5.1.9, p. 50 and PWS Section 5.22 | The PWS includes requirements for bidders to provide Ammunition Supply Services. Historically, EAGLE Task Orders have required a corresponding Ammunition Safety Plan. The current RFP [Section L.5.1.9] does not include this requirement. | We request the Government confirm that bidders are not required to provide an Ammunition Safety Plan. | Updated Section L to incorporate L.5.1.9. Offerors are required to provide and Ammunition Safety Plan. | ||
| RFP Section L.5.1.10, p. 50 | Historically, EAGLE Task Orders have required bidders provide a Mission Essential Contractor Services (MECS) Plan based on a Mission Essential Services Statement. The current RFP [Section L.5.1.10] does not include this requirement. | We request the Government confirm that bidders are not required to provide a MECS Plan. | Confirm; Offerors are not required to provide MECS Plan for this requirement | ||
| Attachment 0023 | TD-02 Workload Data and Density List (ASC and Non-ASC Customers) V-4. | The TRANSPORTATION sheet does not have CLIN 0005FA listed. | Please provide an updated workload and density list that includes the Transactions and estimated productive hours for CLIN 0005FA. | TD-02 Workload Data and Density list has been revised. | |
| Attachment 0005 | Cost Price Matrix-Cavazos and Section L.5.4.2.6. | Will the Government provide an updated Cost Price Matrix sheet with the ODC CLIN amounts populated? | A revised Attachment 0005 Cost Price Matrix, dated 03JUN2024 has been incorporated into Amendment 0001 . | ||
| Reference W519TC23R0102.pdf solicitation document, Section A.3. | SAM is reporting this opportunity as a Total Small Business Set-Aside, but this is contradictory with this solicitation document reference, which states it is unrestricted. Please clarify. | SAM was updated and no longer has a set aside listed. https://sam.gov/opp/6c0b08b3ebda4324992d1e46255bc8be/view | |||
| Attachment 0005 | |||||
| Attachment 0023 | Cost Price Matrix and TD-02 | Attachment 0005 has Transportation CLIN 0005FA MDRS; however, Attachment 0023's Transportation Tab has no corresponding Density List workload data. Will the Government please provide this workload data, or if none exists for purposes of the proposal, please confirm the same? | TD-02 Workload Data and Density list has been revised. | ||
| Attachment 0023 | TD-02 (Transportation) | Transportation workload TMP CLIN 0005AA lists a total of 28,596 unit of measure "Hours" for the first two (2) workload line items and 1,130 unit of measure "Each" for the third workload line item. However, the grand total "Estimated Productive Hours" for all three (3) workload line items is stated at 16,426 hours. Since it is impossible to have significantly less overall estimated hours for all three (3) line items than just the first two (2) themselves, will the Government please clarify the requirement workload? | TD-02 Workload Data and Density list has been revised. | ||
| Attachment 0023 | TD-02 (Transportation) | Transportation workload TMP CLIN 0005AA lists five (5) sub-tasks under Fleet Management, totaling 1,234 "Transactions;" however, the total for the sum of all listed is only 1,130. Will the Government please clarify the requirement? | TD-02 Workload Data and Density list has been revised. | ||
| Attachment 0023 | TD-02 (Transportation) | Transportation workload CLIN 0005CA Driver Support lists 504 and 928 "Transactions" per year, respectively, in the first two (2) of four (4) workload line items. Will the Government please provide further detail on these "transactions" for driver support in terms of miles per average transaction, hours per average transaction, or other information in order for offerors to determine the scope of a driving support "transaction?" | TD-02 Workload Data and Density list has been revised. | ||
| Attachment 0023 | TD-02 (Transportation) | Transportation workload CLIN 0005CA Driver Support lists 504 "Transactions" per year for Mob/De-Mob "Flights." Will the Government please provide further detail with the location traveled to, the average distance traveled, and/or the average time taken per transaction for this driver support in order to determine the scope of a driving support "transaction?" | TD-02 Workload Data and Density list has been revised. | ||
| Attachment 0023 | TD-02 (Transportation) | Transportation workload CLIN 0005EA (SRU) specifies both 5,110 and 10,208 hours of support. Will the Government please clarify the requirement? | TD-02 Workload Data and Density list has been revised. | ||
| Attachment 0023 | TD-02 (Supply) | Supply CLIN 0004HA Ammo Pick-Up From Ranges has 29.563 tons listed for workload. Is this accurate or is there a typo with a period instead of a comma? | TD-02 Workload Data and Density list has been revised. | ||
| Attachment 0001 and Attachment 0023 | PWS and TD-02 (Transportation) | (PWS); Page 61; Paragraphs 5.34.1 and 5.34.2 | PWS Paragraph 5.34 states: "The contractor shall operate and perform crew level field maintenance tasks on locomotives" as well as "assist with the preparation, update, and distribution of the rail loading plan;" however, Attachment 0023 doesn't provide any workload for these requirements. Further, Attachment 0023 provides workload data for the movement of railcars which is not in the PWS. Will the Government please de-conflict and clarify this requirement between the PWS and Attachment 0023? | TD-02 Workload Data and Density list has been revised. | |
| Attachment 0025 | TD-04 | Attachment 0025 lists TMP hours from 00:00 to 23:59; however, the caption above all hours reads: "Monday through Friday (excluding Federal Holidays." Is staffing at the TMP also required 24/7 on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, or any other required hours of operation on weekends, and if so, will the Government please clarify? | TD-04 Hours of Operation have been revised. | ||
| Attachment 0001 and Attachment 0023 | PWS and TD-02 | (PWS); Page 55; Paragraph 5.20.1 | PWS Paragraph 5.20.1 and corresponding Attachment 0023 workload require "turn-in" tasks, but the PWS also specifically mentions "ship and dispose" and "redistribution" tasks. Do the PWS tasks merely involve shipping preparation tasks and/or also include a requirement for driver support capabilities? | Delivery support for CLIN 0004HA | |
| Attachment 0001 and Attachment 0023 | PWS and TD-02 | Supply III CORPS PAATS and 1CD Red Hat support requires turn-in tasks and processing. Does this requirement merely involve shipping preparation tasks and/or also include a requirement for driver support capabilities? | Delivery support for CLIN 0004HA | ||
| Attachment 0001 and Attachment 0023 | PWS and TD-02 | (PWS); Page 57; Paragraph 5.22 | Supply Ammunition Residue Yard has a requirement for both "lines shipped" and "tons shipped." Does this supply requirement merely involve shipping preparation tasks and/or also include a requirement for driver support capabilities? | Delivery support for CLIN 0004HA | |
| Attachment 0001 | PWS | (PWS); Page 56; Paragraph 5.21.2 | PWS Paragraph 5.21.2 references TD-11 which is not included in the solicitation documents. Will the Government please provide the TD-11? | PWS has been revised | |
| Attachment 0001 | PWS | (PWS); Page 56; Paragraph 5.21 | Is the PWS Paragraph 5.21 requirement, or any part of it, seasonal or part-time? If so, will the Government please identify which requirements are seasonal or part-time? | The requirement is not provided as seasonal or part-time. | |
| Attachment 0023 | TD-02 | The Supply workload has an additional, different set of data for HAZ 0004MA and Red Hat SSA 0004NA (see Rows 207 through 263). Will the Government please clarify that these data sets are or are not the actual workload to be used for proposal purposes and confirm which is? | TD-02 Workload Data and Density list has been revised. | ||
| Attachment 0005, Attachment 0022 and Attachment 0023 | Cost Price Matrix, Appendix A, and TD-02 | Attachment 0005 has CLIN 0003HA - 1st CD MDRS. Attachment 0023's Maintenance Indirect Tab has workload for this customer; however, there is no corresponding Materiel Maintenance workload in Attachment 0023. Further, Appendix A specifically states that no Non-ASC MDRS will be performed unless it is both funded and there is associated Attachment 0023 Materiel Maintenance workload. Will the Government please clarify if Materiel Maintenance and/or indirect support Maintenance is to be proposed and/or performed? If so, would the Government please clarify and/or provide the complete associated workload for this customer's MDRS proposal requirement? | TD-02 Workload Data and Density list has been revised. Annex A requirements are as provided in the RFP. | ||
| Attachment 0005 and Attachment 0023 | Cost Price Matrix and TD-02 | Attachment 0005 has CLIN 0003JA - III CORPS MDRS. Attachment 0023's Maintenance Indirect Tab has workload for this customer; however, there is no corresponding Materiel Maintenance workload in Attachment 0023. Further, Appendix A specifically states that no Non-ASC MDRS will be performed unless it is both funded and there is associated Attachment 0023 Materiel Maintenance workload. Will the Government please clarify if Materiel Maintenance and/or indirect support Maintenance is to be proposed and/or performed? If so, would the Government please clarify and/or provide the complete associated workload for this customer's MDRS proposal requirement? | TD-02 Workload Data and Density list has been revised. | ||
| Attachment 0005 and Attachment 0023 | Cost Price Matrix and TD-02 | Is Attachment 0023 Maintenance Indirect workload for CLIN 3HA (Non-ASC 1st CD MDRS) to be proposed even though there is no corresponding Attachment 0023 Materiel Maintenance workload? | TD-02 Workload Data and Density list has been revised. | ||
| Attachment 0005 and Attachment 0023 | Cost Price Matrix and TD-02 | Is Attachment 0023 Maintenance Indirect workload for CLIN 3JA (Non-ASC III CORPS MDRS) to be proposed even though there is no corresponding Attachment 0023 Materiel Maintenance workload? | TD-02 Workload Data and Density list has been revised. | ||
| Attachment 0023 | TD-02 | Attachment 0023 Maintenance Indirect workload "Estimated Productive Hours" totals well over 200 FTE. This is unclear as the Materiel Maintenance total workload is significantly less. Will the Government please clarify the maintenance workloads? | TD-02 Workload Data and Density list has been revised. | ||
| Attachment 0023 | TD-02 | Attachment 0023 Maintenance Indirect workload lists a total of eight (8) tool rooms with different workload across the multiple CLINs. Will the Government please clarify which tool rooms are to be staffed full- or part-time by the contractor versus the customer? | All information in the RFP is part of the requirement. | ||
| Attachment 0023 | TD-02 | Attachment 0023 Maintenance Indirect workload lists a total of eight (8) tool rooms with different workload across the multiple CLINs. Will the Government please provide the respective hours of operation for each tool room? | All information in the RFP is part of the requirement. | ||
| Attachment 0002 and Attachment 0005 | Staffing and Labor Mix and Cost Price Matrix | Attachment 0005 lists PMO breakout post-award and a single 0002 line item to be entered per period of performance; however, Attachment 0002 requires all PMO positions to be broken out fractionally across CLINs. Will the Government please clarify the requirement? | Attachment 0002 and 0005 are formatted specifically and require offeror to provide their information based on the RFP instructions. | ||
| Attachment 0001 and Attachment 0023 | PWS and TD-02 | (PWS); Page 47; Paragraph 5.4.3 | PWS Paragraph 5.4.3 requires maintenance painting tasks; however, there isn't any Attachment 0023 workload to support offerors staffing assessment of this requirement. Will the Government please provide Attachment 0023 workload and/or clarify this requirement? | No workload currently projected, but is a capability at this location. | |
| Attachment 0005 and Attachment 0023 | Cost Price Matrix and TD-02 | Attachment 0005 lists CLIN 3DA as ASC; however, Attachment 0023 states it is non-ASC. Will the Government please clarify the requirement? | TD-02 Workload Data and Density list has been revised. | ||
| Attachment 0022 and Attachment 0023 | Appendix A and TD-02 | Is the contractor mission for the Attachment 0023 Maintenance MDRS (3GA) workload: |
a) scheduled maintenance
b) unscheduled maintenance
c) technical inspection for a) and/or b) as applicable
d) technical inspection for MDRS induction?
| (Please answer by including all that are and are not included in the requirement.) | TD-02 Workload Data and Density list has been revised. Annex A requirements are as provided in the RFP. | ||||
| Attachment 0023 | TD-02 MDRS | Attachment 0023 Supply ASC MDRS (4JA) workload seems very large to support as compared to the corresponding Maintenance ASC MDRS (4GA) workload. Will the Government please confirm both sets of workload? | TD-02 Workload Data and Density list has been revised. | ||
| Attachment 0023 | TD-02 Transportation | The Transportation workload is both incomplete and conflicting, especially in 5CA and somewhat in 5AA, in order to make any reasonable level of effort determination. Will the Government please consider providing more defined workload for these Transportation efforts? | TD-02 Workload Data and Density list has been revised. | ||
| Attachment 0005 | Cost Price Matrix | Attachment 0005 does not have the LOCATION, ST (XXXX) information for Fort Cavazos at the top of the spreadsheet. Will the Government please update Attachment 0005 to include this information? | A revised Attachment 0005 Cost Price Matrix, dated 03JUN2024 has been incorporated into Amendment 0001 . | ||
| Attachment 0005 | Cost Price Matrix | The "Allocation Tab 1b" of Attachment 0005 does not include plug-in ODC values and appears to require the Offeror to fill in ODCs for each CLIN by period of performance. Does the Government require offerors to propose ODC value or will the Government update Attachment 0005 to include Government-provided values? | A revised Attachment 0005 Cost Price Matrix, dated 03JUN2024 has been incorporated into Amendment 0001 . | ||
| RFP Sections L.5.4.2.9, L.5.4.2.12, L.5.4.2.13, L.5.4.2.14 | RFP Section L.5.4.2.9 provides requirements for pricing detail or detailed cost element details for subcontractors based on the type of subcontract they will be under. For FFP subcontracts, detailed cost element detail is not required. | ||||
| RFP Sections L.5.4.2.12, L.5.4.2.13, and L.5.4.2.14 provide detailed instructions for subcontractors to submit direct rate data, indirect rate data, and crosswalks. It is unclear whether this requirement is applicable to all subcontractors. | QUESTION: Would the Government please clarify whether this requirement | ||||
| applies to all subcontractors or only to those subcontractors over 20% of proposed labor price? | The solicitation under L.5.2.11 states, if the subcontractor is submitting a Cost/Price Proposal directly to the Government, then the subcontractor shall also provide the rate date. | ||||
| RFP Sections L.5.4.2.9, L.5.4.2.12, L.5.4.2.13, L.5.4.2.14 | RFP Section L.5.4.2.9 provides requirements for pricing detail or detailed cost element details for subcontractors based on the type of subcontract they will be under. For FFP subcontracts, detailed cost element detail is not required. |
RFP Sections L.5.4.2.12, L.5.4.2.13, and L.5.4.2.14 provide detailed instructions for subcontractors to submit direct rate data, indirect rate data, and crosswalks. It is unclear whether this requirement is applicable to all subcontractors.
| QUESTION: Would the Government please confirm that this requirement applies only to CPFF subcontractors and that FFP subcontractors are not required to provide cost element detail (including data identified in L.5.4.2.12, L.5.4.2.13, and L.5.4.2.14) in accordance with L.5.4.2.9.a? | The solicitation under L.5.2.11 states, If the subcontractor is submitting a Cost/Price Proposal directly to the Government, then the subcontractor shall also provide the rate date. | |||
| RFP Section L.5.4.2 | RFP Section L.5.4.2 includes 14 subsections of Cost/Price detail required. Many of these subsections specifically call out that the data is also required of subcontractors submitting directly to the Government; however, there is no mention of data required of subcontractors that are submitting within the Prime offeror's proposal. | |||
| QUESTION: Would the Government please confirm that subcontractors submitting within the Prime proposal are only required to provide data associated with subsections L.5.4.2.9 Cost Proposal (based on FFP or CPFF requirements), and that the subcontractor data associated with subsections L.5.4.2.1 TOC, L.5.4.2.2 Macro Instructions, L.5.4.2.3 Attachment 0005, L.5.4.2.4 Assumptions, L.5.4.2.5 DCAA/DCMA POC, L.5.4.2.6 ODCs, L.5.4.2.7 Transition In, L.5.4.2.8 PMO, L.5.4.2.10 Attachment 0015, L.5.4.2.11 Subcontractor Compliance, L.5.4.2.12 DLRD, L.5.4.2.13 IERD, and L.5.4.2.14 Crosswalk are not required within the Prime submittal? | The solicitation under L.5.2.11 states, If the subcontractor is submitting a Cost/Price Proposal directly to the Government, then the subcontractor shall also provide the rate date. | |||
| RFP Section L.5.4.2 and RFP Section L.17(b)(1) | RFP Section L.17(b)(1) states that certified cost or pricing data, other than cost or pricing data, and supporting attachments shall be provided in Excel format. RFP Section L.5.4.2 includes 14 subsections describing the types of cost or pricing data, other than cost or pricing data, and supporting data required and, identifies each piece of information by format type (Excel, Word, or PDF). | QUESTION: Would the Government please confirm that Section L.5.4.2 takes precedence over Section L.17(b)(1) regarding format of data to be provided in the Cost/Price volume? | There is no L.17(b)(1) within this RFP. Please use L.5.4.2 as guidance regarding format of data to be provided in the Cost/Price volume | |
| RFP Section L.5.2.1.1(b) | Section L.5.2.1.1(b) states: "Rationale for innovations and efficiencies must be clearly identified, by placing under a separate header, in the SMP and confirmed within the Attachment 0024 - TD-02 Workload Data and Density List. The Government will NOT accept methodologies previously utilized under a different EAGLE Task Order or any other similar service contract, Government or otherwise, as supporting rationale for this requirement. The methodology shall be independent to this RFP only." |
| QUESTION: We request the Government clarify what is meant by the phrase, "The methodology shall be independent to this RFP only." | Offeror's should focus on the specifics for this location only and not to incorporate terminology related to previous locations. | |
| RFP Section L.5.2.1.1(b) | Section L.5.2.1.1(b) states: "Rationale for innovations and efficiencies must be clearly identified, by placing under a separate header, in the SMP and confirmed within the Attachment 0024 - TD-02 Workload Data and Density List. The Government will NOT accept methodologies previously utilized under a different EAGLE Task Order or any other similar service contract, Government or otherwise, as supporting rationale for this requirement. The methodology shall be independent to this RFP only." |
The restriction in L.5.2.1.1(b) that forbids offerors from using efficient methodologies to perform the work on EAGLE Fort Cavazos appears to be unsound, as this restriction prevents bidders from applying previous approaches that have been proven successful on other EAGLE, LOGCAP, and standalone contracts. Preventing bidders from applying mature efficiencies and innovations will likely result in more-expensive and higher-risk bids and punishes contractors that have been invested in the deployment of these cost-/labor-saving approaches.
| QUESTION: We request the Government provide its rationale for the intentional exclusion of proven innovations and efficiencies applied or proposed on other contracts on the Fort Cavazos bid. | Offeror's should focus on the specifics for this location only and not to incorporate terminology related to previous locations. | |
| RFP Section L.5.2.1.1(b) | Section L.5.2.1.1(b) states: "Rationale for innovations and efficiencies must be clearly identified, by placing under a separate header, in the SMP and confirmed within the Attachment 0024 - TD-02 Workload Data and Density List. The Government will NOT accept methodologies previously utilized under a different EAGLE Task Order or any other similar service contract, Government or otherwise, as supporting rationale for this requirement. The methodology shall be independent to this RFP only." |
The restriction in L.5.2.1.1(b) appears to allow the incumbent to apply innovations and efficiencies on the current contract, while unfairly discriminating all other bidders from applying innovations and efficiencies developed for different EAGLE Task Orders and other similar service contracts.
| QUESTION: We request that the Government provide equal opportunity to all bidders in the application of innovations and efficiencies. | Offeror's should focus on the specifics for this location only and not to incorporate terminology related to previous locations. | |
| RFP Section L.5.2.1.1(b) | Section L.5.2.1.1(b) states: "Rationale for innovations and efficiencies must be clearly identified, by placing under a separate header, in the SMP and confirmed within the Attachment 0024 - TD-02 Workload Data and Density List. The Government will NOT accept methodologies previously utilized under a different EAGLE Task Order or any other similar service contract, Government or otherwise, as supporting rationale for this requirement. The methodology shall be independent to this RFP only." |
| QUESTION: Are bidders correct in assuming that the application of historical data is allowed when performing workload analysis? | Offeror's should focus on the specifics for this location only and not to incorporate terminology related to previous locations. | |
| RFP Section L.5.2.1.1(b) | Section L.5.2.1.1(b) states: "Rationale for innovations and efficiencies must be clearly identified, by placing under a separate header, in the SMP and confirmed within the Attachment 0024 - TD-02 Workload Data and Density List. The Government will NOT accept methodologies previously utilized under a different EAGLE Task Order or any other similar service contract, Government or otherwise, as supporting rationale for this requirement. The methodology shall be independent to this RFP only." This restriction is new to the EAGLE Program. |
| QUESTION: Can bidders anticipate the same Section L.5.2.1.1(b) restriction on future EAGLE Task Orders? | Confirm, Section L.5.2.1.1(b) language will be incorporated in future EAGLE Task Orders moving forward | ||||
| RFP M.5.4.3 and M.5.4.3.2.2.1(b) | section M.5.4.3 on page 72 and RFP section M.5.4.3.2.2.1(b) on page 73, the Small Disadvantage Business (SDB) | ||||
| section M.5.4.3 on page 74 and RFP section M.5.4.3.2.2.1(b) on page 74 | In RFP section M.5.4.3 on page 72 and RFP section M.5.4.3.2.2.1(b) on page 73, the Small Disadvantage Business (SDB) goal is 5%. However, in RFP section M.5.4.3 on page 74 and RFP section M.5.4.3.2.2.1(b) on page 74 the SDB goal is 7%. Will the Government please address this discrepancy? | Section M.5.4.3.2.2.1(b) has been updated .. Please use the SDB goal of 5% | |||
| RFP M.3.2.1 | In RFP section M.3.2.1 the Government states "Any Offeror's proposal determined non-compliant per the terms noted in Section L or determined non-compliant per paragraph M.3.2.1.1 through M.3.2.1.2(c) below, will not be evaluated and will not be further considered for award." | In RFP section M.3.2.1 the Government states "Any Offeror's proposal determined non-compliant per the terms noted in Section L or determined non-compliant per paragraph M.3.2.1.1 through M.3.2.1.2(c) below, will not be evaluated and will not be further considered for award." However, RFP section M.3.2.1.2 is marked as 'RESERVED'. Will the Government please address this discrepancy? | M.3.2.1.2 is not relevant to this requirement therefore it is not to be included. Section M.3.2.1 states M.3.2.1.1 THROUGH M.3.2.1.2(c) please only refer to M.3.2.1.1 | ||
| RFP M.4.1 and M.5.4 | In RFP section M.4.1 the Government states "This is a competitive best value source selection in which competing Offerors will be evaluated against three evaluation factors: Technical, Past Performance, and Cost/Price." However, in RFP section M.5.4 the Government states "THIS REQUIREMENT APPLIES TO OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESS OFFERORS ONLY. SMALL BUSINESS OFFERORS WILL BE GIVEN AN ACCEPTABLE RATING FOR SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION." | On previous full & open EAGLE task order responses the Government has stated "Award will be made to the responsible Offeror with the lowest evaluated (fair and reasonable) priced proposal that is determined Technically Acceptable with Substantial Confidence in Past Performance and an Acceptable rating in Small Business Participation." Will the Government please provide a revised RFP that clarifies small business Offerors will be evaluated against three factors and large business Offerors will be evaluated against four factors? | Updated Section M.4.1 |
As stated in M.5.4 Small Business Offerors will be given an Acceptable rating for Small Business Participation. Therefore both Small Business Offerors and Large Business Offerors are being evaluated against four factors (Technical, Past Performance, Small Business Participation, and Cost/Price)
| Attachment 0013 | Attachment 0013 (Mission Essential Services) | The RFP does not include DFARS 252.237-7024 NOTICE OF CONTINUATION OF ESSENTIAL CONTRACTOR SERVICES in the RFP and Attachment 0013 is 'NOT APPLICABLE'. Since Offerors are not required to submit an MECS file, will the Government please confirm there are no mission essential services for this task order? | There are no mission essential services for this requirement |
| Attachment 0026 | GFF | The Government has provided Attachment 0026 that provides a listing of GFF. A description is not identified for office space or facility for Project Management Office. Is the Project Management Office staff space included within the facilities identified on Attachment 0026? | Yes it is part of 0026 GFF |
| Attachment 0025 | Hours of Operation | The Government has provided Attachment 0025 that provides hours of operations. The heading indicates standard hours are Monday through Friday. Does the identified "From" and "To" columns reflect M-F hours of operations? | Standard hours of operation or M-F, excluding holidays. From (start) - to (end) time for those hours identified. |
| RFP L.5 and M.5 | The Government provided TD-02 Workload Data and Density List is Attachment 0023. However, the TD-02 Workload Data and Density List is referenced as Attachment 0023 and Attachment 0024 in RFP sections L.5 and M.5. Will the Government please address this? | Revised Section L and M to show TD-02 as Attachment 0023 |
| Attachment 0023 | TD-02 Supply | Will the Government please confirm the workload counts provided represents the Transactions Per Year, and no cases the monthly count? | They are identified as transactions per year. | ||
| Attachment 0023 | TD-02 Transportation | Will the Government please confirm the workload counts provided represents the Transactions Per Year, and no cases the monthly count? | TD-02 Workload Data and Density list has been revised. | ||
| PWS | PWS 1.1.2, page 6 | PWS para 1.1.2 states, "ITD provides Personal Property Shipping Office Operations (PPSO), personnel movement support, cargo shipping and receiving, including bulk cargo, rail and linehaul operations and fleet management operations for the Installation." PWS para 5.27 Personal Property Operations, para 5.28 Passenger Movement, and para 5.31 Cargo Movement state RESERVED. | Would the Government please clarify the services that ITD provides in para 1.1.2 and/or 5.27, 5.28, and 5.31? | PWS has been revised | |
| Attachment 0002; Attachment 0005 | Staffing and Labor Mix and Cost Price Matrix | Attachment 0005 indicates PMO allocation will be applied at award by the Government, while Attachment 0002 requires offerors to populate the CLIN structure. | Would the Government revise Attachment 0002 to correlate with Attachment 0005? | Attachment 0002 and 0005 are formatted specifically and require offeror to provide their information based on the RFP instructions. | |
| RFP, L.5.4.2.6; Attachment 0005 | RFP, L.5.4.2.6; Cost Price Matrix | L.5.4.2.6 indicates a Government provided ODC plug number; however, Attachment 5, Allocation Tab 1b, does not have ODCs populated. | Would the Government please revise Attachment 0005 to include ODC plug numbers? | A revised Attachment 0005 Cost Price Matrix, dated 03JUN2024 has been incorporated into Amendment 0001 . | |
| RFP, L.5.4.2.14 | RFP, L.5.4.2.14 | It appears there might be an incomplete sentence in section L.5.4.2.14 regarding the cross-walk of proposed labor categories subject to the Service Contract Act (SCA). The section references "either the Attachment 0007, Wage Determination - Department of Labor Wage Determinations (DOL WD)" but does not specify the alternative option to 'either.' | Would the Government kindly clarify what the second option or reference point is for the cross-walk comparison? | Revised Section L.5.4.2.14 to only Attachment 0007 as there is no CBA with this requirement | |
| RFP, Page 29, I-73 252.223-7999 Ensuring Adequate COVID-19 Safety Protocols for Federal Contractors Oct/2021 (Deviation 2021-00009) | RFP, Page 29, I-73 252.223-7999 Ensuring Adequate COVID-19 Safety Protocols | ||||
| for Federal Contractors Oct/2021 (Deviation 2021-00009) | This clause implements Executive Order 14042 and it has been revoked. Would the Government remove this DFARs Clause from the Solicitation? | This Clause has been removed from the solicitation | |||
| RFP, L.5.1.5 | RFP, L.5.1.5 | With respect to Volume 1 POCs, in the event the Government decides to conduct discussions, does the Government see a need to include POCs for any proposed subcontractors in the event these subcontractors need to respond to Evaluation Notices which could include proprietary information? | If the subcontractor is submitting a separate proposal then Volume 1 POC will be required. | ||
| RFP, L.5.5.3.5 | RFP, L.5.5.3.5 | L.5.5.3.5 indicates Attachment 0014 must be submitted in MS Word format. All other proposal files, with the exception of MS Excel files, have the option of MS Word or Adobe PDF. | Would the Government include the Adobe PDF format option for Attachment 0014? | Please propose as solicited | |
| RFP, page 1, block 9 | RFP, page 1, block 9 | Upon receiving answers to questions and any other revised solicitation documents, would the Government please allow offerors to have at a minimum three (3) full weeks, taking any holidays into consideration, to review and incorporate all Amendment changes by way of an extension to the proposal submission date? | Confirm. If the Government provides an extension, an amendment will be sent out with the revised due date for proposals. | ||
| RFP, L.5.2.1.1(a)(3) | RFP, L.5.2.1.1(a)(3) | Due to the magnitude and complexity of this unrestricted task order, would the government please consider increasing the 15-page limit on the SMP to allow offerors to include required detailed narratives for its staffing methodology, adequately describe its surge approach, and depict a comprehensive organizational overview with its Organizational Diagrams, as well as all other SMP requirements? | Please propose as solicited | ||
| RFP, Section C | Statement of Work, paragraph 2, page 6 | Section C states, "Reporting inputs will be for the labor executed during the period of performance during each Government fiscal year (FY), which runs October 1 through September 30. While inputs may be reported any time during the FY, all data shall be reported no later than October 31 of each calendar year, beginning with 2022." | Would the Government please revise the reporting beginning year from 2022 | ||
| to 2025? | Revised Section to C to reflect 2025 | ||||
| Attachment 0002 | Staffing and Labor Mix | The PMO lists two (2) CLINs each for ASC Maintenance (ASC Maint 131 and ASC Maint 115), ASC Supply (ASC Supply 131 and ASC Supply 121), and ASC Trans (ASC Trans 131 and ASC Trans 423). | Would the Government please clarify the numbering for these CLINs, explain why there are two ASC CLINs for each of the functional areas, and what falls under each ASC CLIN? | It is an ASC internal tracking system attached to different SAGs. | |
| RFP, Section L | RFP, Section L | Several paragraphs in the RFP reference the TD-02 as Attachment 0024, which is actually the TD-03 Supported Organizations | Would the Government please update all references to the TD-02 to Attachment 0023? | Revised Section L and M to reflect TD-02 as Attachment 0023 |
RFP, L.5.2.1.1(b)(1)(ii);
PWS 1.4.3.1;
| Attachment 0023 | TD-02 | L.5.2.1.1(b)(1)(ii) requires offerors to describes its capability to implement a Surge Option. Offerors described this capability in their Technical Capability Statement in Step 2 and it was noted that "This section will be incorporated into subsequent Step Three EAGLE Task Order contracts; however, if a Step Three EAGLE Task Order has more specific requirements relating to surges in effort, the Task Order RFP will address those requirements and a proposed approach submitted in response thereto will take precedence." There are no specific requirements outlined in the Cavazos Task Order RFP. PWS 1.4.3.1 and the TD-02 do not outline specific workload requirements for a Surge. | Would the Government please clarify the specific workload requirements to address in this Step 3 Task Order or remove the L.5.2.1.1(b)(1)(ii) requirement from Section L and use offerors' Step 2 TCS? | Please refer to L.5.2.1.1(b)(1)(ii), and PWS 1.4.3.1 that is referenced. | |
| RFP, M.4.1 | RFP, M.4.1 | M.4.1 states there are three evaluation factors; however, there is a Small Business Participation Factor included with this RFP. | Would the Government please revise M.4.1 to include the SB Participation Factor? | Section M.4.1 has been updated to incorporate SB Participation Factor | |
| RFP, M.4.1 | STEP 2 | STEP 2 is missing the SB Participation Factor Evaluation. | Would the Government please revise M.4.1 STEP 2 to include the third evaluation factor? | Section M.4.1 has been updated to incorporate SB Participation Factor | |
| RFP, M.4.1.c. | RFP, M.4.1.c. | M.4.1.c states "NOT APPLICABLE" but that is the SB Participation Factor and it is applicable. | Would the Government please revise M.4.1.c? | Section M.4.1 has been updated to incorporate SB Participation Factor | |
| RFP, M.4.1.d., M.4.1.e., | |||||
| M.4.1.f. | RFP, M.4.1.d., M.4.1.e., M.4.1.f. | M.4.1.d, M.4.1.e, and M.4.1.f. are missing SB Participation rating evaluation references. | Would the Government please revise M.4.1.d., M.4.1.e. and M.4.1.f? | Section M.4.1 has been updated to incorporate SB Participation Factor | |
| RFP, M.4.1 | STEP 3 | STEP 3 does not include the SB Participation rating for award determination. | Would the Government please revise M.4.1 STEP 3 to include SB Participation? | Section M.4.1 has been updated to incorporate SB Participation Factor | |
| Attachment 0024, |
Attachment 0023, Attachment 0005,
| Attachment 0002, | TD-03 Supported Organizations, TD-02, Cost Price Matrix and Staffing and Labor Mix | The 3rd SFAB, Heavy Brigade Combat Team, and DFMWR Fuel Delivery are listed in Attachment 0023, TD-02; Attachment 0005, Cost Price Matrix; and Attachment 0002, Staffing and Labor Mix but are not listed on the TD-03. | Would the Government please update Attachment 0024, TD-03, and/or reconcile these files to ensure offerors have a good understanding of all supported organizations, to include but not limited to those referenced in this question? | TD-03 has been revised | |
| RFP, Appendices | RFP, Appendices | The RFP includes Appendix A, MDRS PWS, as supplement to Attachment 0001, PWS so offerors understand MDRS work requirements. It appears as though there are numerous missing Appendices to describe the requirements for Non-ASC supported units, to include, but not limited to, AIDPMO, PM HBCT, AMCOM, 120th INF, 20th CBRE, 3rd SFAB, III Corps GCSS-A FSR, III Corps PAAT, 1CD SSA Red Hat, 1 CD GCSS-A FSR, Garrison, Soldier Recovery Unit. As an example, the Government provided sixteen (16) Appendices, Appendices A - P, in the EAGLE Fort Eisenhower solicitation to describe Non-ASC unit work/task requirements and standards. | Would the Government please provide Appendices for Non-ASC supported units so offerors have a full understanding of the performance work requirements and standards associated with any transactional workload data provided in the TD-02? | Appendices have been provided | |
| Exhibit B | |||||
| Attachment 0001 | CDRL Listing and PWS | Exhibit B annotates CDRL PM-07 as due 30 days after NTP. PWS 3.1.1 states CDRL PM-07 is due at least 30 days after award. | Would the government please clarify the date of first submission for this CDRL and correct the appropriate reference? | PWS has been revised | |
| Attachment 0001 | PWS, 1.2.5 | PWS 1.2.5 references workload provided in the TD-01. | Will the Government please provide the TD-01 or correct or remove this reference in the PWS? | PWS has been revised | |
| Attachment 0001 | PWS, 1.5.5.3 | PWS 1.5.5.3 has a comment noted stating, "Ensure this is a valid requirement. If it is, ensure hours are captured in the workload." | There are no hours captured in the workload. Is this a valid requirement? | PWS has been revised | |
| RFP, Section J; | |||||
| Attachment 0001 | PWS, 1.10.5 | PWS 1.10.5 references mail distribution as identified in TD-05, Mail Distribution Locations. There is no TD-05 listed in Section J as an attachment with this solicitation. | Would the Government please provide the TD-05 or remove this requirement from the PWS? | PWS has been revised | |
| Attachment 0014 | Small Business Participation Plan | Attachment 0014 Small Business Participation Plan has a DRAFT watermark | Is this the FINAL version for this attachment? | This is the final version of this attachment | |
| RFP L.5.3.1.1(c); L.5.3.1.2 | RFP L.5.3.1.1(c); L.5.3.1.2 | IAW L.5.3.1.1(c), the definition of a Subcontractor for the Past Performance Factor states, "Subcontractor(s), as used in the Past Performance factor, means those who are expected to perform 20% or more of the Offeror's total estimated dollar value as found in column F of the Offerors Cost Price Matrix (Attachment 0005, Tab 2-Teaming Matrix)." | Using this definition, to ensure compliance with L.5.3.1.2 and L.5.3.1.2 (d), should offerors only provide a Letter of Consent, Attachment 0004, for those subcontractors performing 20% or more of the Offeror's total estimated dollar value or should offerors provide a Letter of Consent for all subcontractors, regardless of their work percentage? | All offerors shall provide a letter of consent for all subcontractors performing 20% or more. |
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 .