B08 - Attachment 0038- Ft. Cavazos Q&A responses round 4.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 36 KB Posted
- Attached to
- EAGLE Fort Cavazos, TX W519TC-23-R-0102
- Solicitation number
- W519TC23R0102
About this file
This document contains a series of questions and answers related to a federal contract opportunity for maintenance, supply, and transportation services at Fort Cavazos, TX. The solicitation number is W519TC23R0102, and it is being issued by the Department of the Army Materiel Command Contracting Command Rock Island Arsenal.
The key details include: the government confirmed the Notice to Proceed (NTP) date remains February 7, 2025; the rail staffing positions are not listed as Department of Labor recognized categories and are not on published lists of Service Contract Act labor categories; the government indicated contractors should assume a May 31, 2024 NTP date for evaluation and proposal purposes only, but the actual NTP date remains February 7, 2025; the government stated all files should be resubmitted with "Rev#" in the file name to indicate revisions; and the government confirmed that capped indirect rates will no longer be acceptable and will not be considered for award.
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 | |
| ATT 0023 TD-02 | |||||
| ATT 0037, Q&A Round 3 Reponses | 5568 Hrs | Did the Government intend to move the NTP from Feb 7, 2025 to imn the past; May 31 2024 with Amend-07? The solicitation and all prior Amendments didn't change the Feb 7, 2025 NTP, but Amend-07 changes it from Feb 14, 2024 to May 31 2024. Is this correct now to not sue Feb 7, 2025, but instead May 31, 2024? | Correction made, NTP remains 7 February 2025. | ||
| ATT 0037, Q&A Round 3 Reponses | Attachment 0023 TD-02 Workload Data and Density List V-8 202408 |
Tab: Transportation, cells D30-D34
Attachment 0037 Ft Cavazos Q&A Round 3, Lines 2, 3, and 4
Due to requested updates within AMD 0007 offerors are to make all necessary revisions as applicable. The alternate naming convention should utilize "Rev#" to clearly identify the revised files. Comment: The workload data for CLIN 0005GA Rail Operations was revised in Amendment 0006 and annotates 5568 Estimated Productive Hours, which equates to three rail positions.
| Question: It is responses to Round 3 Questions in Amendment 0007, Lines 2, 3, and 4 state that there are two rail positions; however, the TD-02 estimated productive hours equate to three rail positions. Would the Government please clarify this discrepancy? | The USG Locomotive Operator/Engineer and Brake/Switch man perform the same tasks as those in the civilian sector on a rail crew. The reference provided in the PWS describe and provide guidance. These labor catagories are not listed in the SCA 5th adition. The USG Estimated Productive hours equals 5,568 for the rail crew. | ||||
| ATT 0037, Q&A Round 3 Reponses | Attachment 0037 Ft Cavazos Q&A Round 3, Line 6 | Due to requested updates/revisions on Amendment 0007 offerors are to make all necessary revisions as applicable | Comment: In its response to Q&A Round 3, Line 6, the Government indicated an alternate naming convention utilizing Rev#. | ||
| Question: As an example, to ensure compliance and clarity, would Company_Vol_2_SMP_Rev1 be specifically what the Government is looking for, when offerors resubmit revised files? | Updated revised proposals shall contain Rev#, it is permitted to abbreviate the Name of the Company field within the file name. | ||||
| Attachment 0037 Ft Cavazos Q&A Round 3, Line 11 | Amendment 0007 Q&A response #1 states: "The two rail positions are not listed as DOL recognized categories and are not on published lists of SCA labor Categories." | Comment: There were several questions for clarity in this question but the Government gave a generalized answer with no specifics. | |||
| Question: If a file does not require revising, would the Government like offerors to at least update the submission date and rename with the Rev# filename, or just leave the file as is, without the new submission date and not renamed with the Rev# filename, when offerors resubmit all files for all Volumes? | Please update submission date and rename all file names utilizng Rev# | ||||
| Amendment 0007 L.5.4.2.13(a)(1)(2); RFP L.2.8; B08 0037 Q&A Responses Round 3 | Amendment 0007 Q&A response #1 states: "The two rail positions are not listed as DOL recognized categories and are not on published lists of SCA labor Categories." | REQUEST: Since the rail positions are Government labor categories and are not listed as DOL recognized categories, we request the Government provide (redacted) copies of these job descriptions. | The USG Locomotive Operator/Engineer and Brake/Switch man perform the same tasks as those in the civilian sector on a rail crew. The reference provided in the PWS describe and provide guidance. These labor catagories are not listed in the SCA 5th adition. | ||
| Amendment 0007 L.5.4.2.13(a)(1)(2); RFP L.2.8; B08 0037 Q&A Responses Round 3 | Amendment 0007 Q&A response #1 states: "The two rail positions are not listed as DOL recognized categories and are not on published lists of SCA labor Categories." | QUESTION: Are the current rail staffing positions filled by Government or Contractor personnel? | The positions for the solicitation are to fill a third rail crew by contractor. | ||
| Amendment 0007 L.5.4.2.13(a)(1)(2); RFP L.2.8; B08 0037 Q&A Responses Round 3 | Amendment 0007 L.4.2.13(a)(1)(2) states: "For evaluation and proposal submittal purposes only, Offerors should assume a 31 May 2024 NTP date." |
RFP L.2.8 states: "For the purpose of proposal preparation and evaluation only, the Offeror shall use 07 February 2025 as the Notice to Proceed (NTP) date."
| B08 0037 Q&A Response states: "NTP date has not changed at this time" | QUESTION: If Government personnel are providing rail operations support, will the Government provide the Government Service (GS) schedule and/or wage grade and step assigned to these positions? | The USG Locomotive operator and Brake/Switch man perform the same tasks as those in the civilian sector on a rail crew. The reference provided in the PWS describe and provide guidance. These labor catagories are not listed in the SCA 5th adition. | |||
| Amendment 0007 L.5.4.2.13(a)(1)(2); RFP L.2.8; B08 0037 Q&A Responses Round 3 | Amendment 0007 Q&A responses 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 13 state: "Due to requested updates/revisions on amendment 0007 offerors are to make all necessary revisions as applicable." | QUESTION: For proposal purposes, should the offeror assume a 07 February 2024 NTP date or a 31 May 2024 NTP date? | Correction made, NTP remains 7 February 2025. | ||
| Amendment 0007 L.5.4.2.13(a)(1)(2); RFP L.2.8; B08 0037 Q&A Responses Round 3 | Amendment 0007 Q&A responses 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 13 state: "Due to requested updates/revisions on amendment 0007 offerors are to make all necessary revisions as applicable." | QUESTION: Are bidders correct in assuming that the submission of only revised files is considered adequate to satisfy the "Make all necessary revisions" requirement? | All file names shall be renamed utilizng Rev# | ||
| Amendment 0007 L.5.4.2.13(a)(1)(2); RFP L.2.8; B08 0037 Q&A Responses Round 3 | Amendment 0007 Q&A response #7 states: "Tracked changes are not requested." | QUESTION: Are bidders correct in assuming that the resubmission of unchanged files is not required? | All files shall be resubmitted. | ||
| Amendment 0007 L.5.4.2.13(a)(1)(2); RFP L.2.8; B08 0037 Q&A Responses Round 3 | PWS Section L.3.4 states: "Filenames must be 40 characters or less and must not contain single quotes, spaces and pound or percent signs." |
Amendment 0007 Q&A response #6 states: "The alternate naming convention should utilize "Rev#" to clearly identify the revised files."
| REQUEST: We request the Government confirm that revised narrative and Excel changes need not be highlighted or otherwise identified in files being resubmitted. | Not required | ||||
| Cavazos PWS !W519TC23R0102 | |||||
| Amendment 0007 L.5.4.2.13(a)(1)(2); RFP L.2.8; B08 0037 Q&A Responses Round 3 | QUESTION: Are bidders correct in assuming that file titles may exceed the 40-character limit to allow for the addition of the required "Rev#"? | Updated revised proposals shall contain Rev#, it is permitted to abbreviate the Name of the Company field within the file name. | |||
| Cavazos PWS !W519TC23R0102 | |||||
| Amendment 0006 and 0007 | Amendment 0007 states: "4. The due date for proposal submissions is extended from 1:00PM CT on 27 August 2024 to 1:00PM CT on 13 September 2024." | QUESTION: Would the Government please confirm that proposal revisions are limited to administrative and Amendment 0006 and 0007 changes relating to rail staffing? | Offerors may make any changes they believe are necessary to their proposal | ||
| W519TC23R0102-0007 Amendment 0007 | REQUEST: To allow bidders adequate time to respond to proposal Amendments and Q&A responses, we request the Government extend the submission date to one (1) week after the final set of Q&A responses have been released. | Proposal submission due date remains unchanged. | |||
| Attachment 0037 Government Response to Industry Question: Would the Government please confirm that the NTP date remains 07 February 2025, or provide a revised date?: "NTP date has not changed at this time." |
Conformed RFP from Amendment 0003: "L.5.4.2.13(a)(1) When proposing Indirect Expense Rates, compliance with the Service Contract Act (SCA) (Attachment 0007, Wage Determination) is required. For evaluation and proposal submission purposes only, Offerors should assume a 07 February 2025 NTP date. Offerors (including Subcontractors) shall use the fringe benefit(s) included with the solicitation (Attachment 0007, Wage Determination) and shall not include any escalation for the entire period of performance."
Amendment 0007: Both "FROM:" and "TO" updates captured in Section L have two different NTP dates of "14 February 2024" and "31 May 2024", which are not the current NTP date found within the conformed solicitation W519TC-23-R-0102. Question 1: Given the Government confirmed the NTP date does, in fact, remain at 07 February 2025 in the Government response within Attachment 0037, can the Government please correct the two different NTP dates included in Amendment 0007?
Question 2: Can the Government please confirm the numbering in the Updated "TO" Section of "L.5.4.2.13 - L.5.4.2.13(a)(5)" inadvertently contains the old and new numbering (i.e. "L.5.4.2.13(a)(1)(2)" should actually read "L.5.4.2.13(a)(1)(2)"). This is important as offerors will reference such solicitation paragraphs within their proposals. Question 1: Only applicable "To" line NTP dates have been updated. Previous "From" lanugage is no longer applicable. NTP date has been corrected to reflect 7 February 2025.
Question 2: Updated Conformed RFP from Amendment 0003: "L.5.4.2.13(b)(1)(i) The Offeror shall provide budgetary rate data for 2024 through 2030..."
Amendment 0007: Both "FROM:" and "TO" updates captured in Section L have different budgetary rate data ranges (2023 through 2028 and 2024 through 2029, respectively) neither of which match the dates in the conformed RFP. Question: Given the Government did not indicate any changes would occur to the budgetary rate data (2024 through 2030) in Amendment 0007 or within the Government responses in Attachment 0037, can the Government please correct the different data provided in Amendment 0007 (2024 through 2029) to align with the conformed RFP? Changing this data at this point would create much rework for offerors.
| Corrected | |||
| In response the Offeror’s question regarding file submission requirements in the Q&A, the Government responded, “Due to requested updates/revisions on amendment 0007 offerors are to make all necessary revisions as applicable.” | Will the Government please confirm that the Offeror is required to submit all proposal files or only such proposal files that have updated? | All the files are to be submitted. | |
| Reference: |
From: L.5.4.2.13(a)(1) When proposing Indirect Expense Rates, compliance with the Service Contract Act (SCA) (Attachment 0007, Wage Determination) is required. For evaluation and proposal submission purposes only, Offerors should assume a 14 February 2024 NTP date. Offerors (including Subcontractors) shall use the fringe benefit(s) included with the solicitation (Attachment 0007, Wage Determination) and shall not include any escalation for the entire period of performance.
| To: L.5.4.2.13(a)(1)(2) When proposing Indirect Expense Rates, compliance with the Service Contract Act (SCA) (Attachment 0007, Wage Determination) is required. For evaluation and proposal submission purposes only, Offerors should assume a 31 May 2024 NTP date. Offerors (including Subcontractors) shall use the fringe benefit(s) included with the solicitation (Attachment 0007, Wage Determination) and shall not include any escalation for the entire period of performance. | Question: Can the government confirm that the NTP date that should be used is 07 February 2025 which is the date that has been identified in prior amendments and the original solicitation and not the 14 February 2024 NTP date identified in the From section or the 31 May 2024 NTP date in the To section since those are both prior to the anticipated award date? | Correction made, NTP remains 7 February 2025. | ||
| Amendment 7, pages 3 & 4 | Based on the USG's A-narrative regarding the changes made in Amendment 7, it appears that the Government is attempting to show changes in C-5 Cost/Price Contract Execution on pages 3-4. However, this is no revised language provided under the “TO” heading for INDIRECT RATES. Please confirm the Government will under no circumstances cap indirect rates for either the Prime or the SubK. | Correct, this language has been removed from the RFP. | ||
| Amendment 7, pages 3 & 4 | Based on the USG's A-narrative regarding the changes made in Amendment 7, it appears that the Government is attempting to show changes in C-5 Cost/Price Contract Execution on pages 3-4. However, the revised language provided under the “FEE RATE (s):” heading appears to be identical between FROM and TO. Please explain what has changed. | Correct, no changes have been made to the Fee Rate(s) section within section C.5. | ||
| Amendment 7, General | With the removal of Indirect Rate capping, is it the Government's intent to utilize MPC analysis techniques when evaluating Offerors price proposals that do not appear to have fully supported indirect rate basis/rationale? If so, please confirm bids may be “plused-up” (i.e., unilaterally adjusted) by the Government for evaluation purposes in Step 2. | The Government will evaulate an award IAW the instructions to Offerors and evaluation criteria identified in Sections L and M of the RFP. | ||
| Amendment 7, General | The latest amendment states “Offerors proposing capped or discounted indirect rates will not be evaluated and will not be further considered for award”. Since this has been an acceptable practice on EAGLE task orders in the past, please explain the basis for this change. | The basis of the change is that capped rates will no longer be acceptable and will no longer be considered for award. | ||
| Amendment 7, General | Will the Government please provide a conformed copy of the RFP through Amendment 7? | Yes. | ||
| Amendment 7, General | Will the Government provide relief to both Primes and SubK who have current EAGLE task orders in which capped indirect rates in place? | This question is not relevant to this RFP. | ||
| Amendment 7, General | Please explain how the Government plans to utilize the indirect rate supporting documentation now required from each JV member during the evaluation process. | The Government will utilize the supporting documentation to verify indirect rates are supported. |
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 .