B08 Attachment 0038 - FHAZ Q and A Responses Round 2.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 24 KB Posted
- Attached to
- EAGLE Fort Huachuca, AZ W519TC-24-R-0027
- Solicitation number
- W519TC24R0027
About this file
This is a Questions and Answers document (Round 2) for the EAGLE Fort Huachuca maintenance, supply, and transportation services solicitation. The document contains 21 questions and government responses addressing various aspects of the solicitation including clarifications about the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) wage rates, Service Contract Act (SCA) wage determinations, CLIN structures, ODC requirements, and transportation workload data.
Key clarifications include: the proposal due date has been extended to January 30, 2025; troop lift support is conducted with 40PAX buses; there are no ODC requirements for ISEC and EPG customers based on historical data; and SCA WD 15-5719 REV 24 has been incorporated via Amendment 0004. The government maintained that offerors must follow solicitation instructions regarding CBA/SCA wage considerations, and confirmed that proposed FLC1 FTEs must meet or exceed the estimated hours in TD-02 Workload Data, though innovations and efficiencies may be proposed to achieve requirements with fewer hours.
View the file
Other files
Show all 45
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
Round 1
| Round 2 Question # | Question Reference (RFP #, PWS #, etc.) | Question | Response |
| 1 | Attachment 0005 | The Government has hidden rows in Attachment 0005 that could cause inaccurate entries. There are four CLIN 0003BAs with two different descriptions and CLIN 0003EA with no description. Additionally, there are four links to other documents that appear to have nothing to do with the Huachuca solicitation. Will the Government correct the document to resolve these issues? | Attachment 0005 was corrected on amendment 0003. |
| 2 | Attachment 0005 | The ODC CLINs descriptions appear out of sequence with the associated labor CLIN and and do not follow the naming convention of same. Will the Government update the document to resolve the inconsistnecy? | ODC Titles have been revised. Please see revised Attachment 0005 provided with Amendment 0004. |
| 3 | Attachment 0005 | The Government has provided ODC CLINs for Non ASC IMCOM Defuel Supply and Non ASC 111th MI BDE but did not provide ODC CLINs for Non ASC EPG or Non ASC ISEC. Is this an oversite or does the Government anticipate that there will be no requirement for ODCs for these customers? | Historically there has been no ODC requirement for ISEC and EPG in over three years and none are projected based on current TD-02 Workload Data and Density Listing. |
| 4 | Attachment 0036 H3 HUA CBA | FY23 Wage table wages are the same as the CBA 2021 table. It appears the employees on this contract have not received a pay increase since 2021. Can the Government confirm that the FY23 wages are current? | These are the most current CBA adjustment documents the USG has received. |
| 5 | Attachment 0016 - CBA/SCA Crosswalk | Majority of the CBA rates are below the current SCA rates. Does the CBA have a current wage table that reflects union employees making wages at least equal to the SCA WD rates? | These are the most current CBA adjustment documents the USG has received. |
| 6 | Attachment 0037, Q&A Round 1, Line 57; |
Attachment 0026, TD-02 Workload Data and Density List, Transportation Tab, Line 6;
Attachment 0019, Transportation PRS, 5.29.4;
| Attachment 0001, PWS, page 60, para 5.29.4 | As a follow-up to the question on Line 57 of Attachment 0037, Q&A Round 1, the Government responded, "The PWS is written to the level of all and any type of transportation movement or passenger support according to regulation, policy or other mission guidance. The TD-02 Workload is the USG best projected identification of the Workload Data and Density List for this requirement." The PWS specifically states that the contractor "will use the minimum size vehicle suitable for a particular mission IAW AR 58-1." The TD-02, Transportation Tab, Line 6, simply annotates "Troop Lift Support" with Estimated Annual Hours of 40,604, without distinguishing historical workload for Bus Driver versus Driver-Light (other non-tactical vehicles) support, data only the incumbent would know. The incumbent provides reports and statistical data for transportation services in accordance with CDRL ITD-01. Would the Government please provide the appropriate and more specific workload data for troop lift support which would assist offerors, other than the incumbent, in staffing the appropriate drivers for the minimum size vehicles for these missions? | Currently all troop lift support is conducted with the 40PAX bus as listed in the TD-08 Scheduled Government Furnished Equipment and level of effort is as proscibed in the TD-02 Workload Data and Density Listing. | ||
| 7 | Attachment 0016 - CBA-SCA Crosswalk V2 | |||
| Attachment 0036 CBA - H3.HUA CBA WAGE List FY23 | Revised Attachment 0016 v2 lists EVT Mechanic Level 2, while Attachment 0036 lists this position as EVT Mechanic Level 2 Lead. Would the Government please clarify which title is correct and update the appropriate document? | ATT0016 has been revised. Please see Amendment 0004. | ||
| 8 | RFP, page 1, block 9 | Given that Amendment 0003 had several revised and new attachments, and taking into consideration the time spent waiting for Government responses to follow-up questions and updated attachments/documents important to proposal development, would the Government please extend the proposal due date at least ten (10) working days following its responses to Round 2 (Amend 0003 follow-up) questions? | The solicitation closing date has been extended until 30 January 2025, please see amendment 0004. | |
| 9 | Attachment 0007 | SCA WD 2015-5719 Rev 24 was published 12/23/2024. Will the Government incorporate this latest version into the solicitation? | Attachment 0007 Wage Determination has been updated, please see amendment 0004. | |
| 10 | Attachment 0037, Q&A Round 1, Line 61; |
RFP L.5.4.2.12(a)(2)
As a follow-up to the question on Line 61 of Attachment 0037, Q&A Round 1, "The disclaimer in Attachment 0016 appears to be in direct conflict with L.5.4.12(a)(2) of the RFP and Article 1 of the CBA. Will the Government remove the language from Attachment 0016, which essentially removes the obligation to utilize the CBA and makes it strictly the offerors decision to chose between using the CBA or SCA when proposing positions?" The Government's response to this question was "The USG has provided additional CBA documents and revised applicable documents." The Government's response does not address the question to remove the language in Attachment 0016 that conflicts with language in L.5.4.12(a)(2). Will the Government answer the question as asked? The USG will not remove or adjust the language in ATT0016.
Offerors should ensure to follow the solicitation instructions.
| 11 | Attachment 0036 | Attachment 0036 does not appear to be attached or part of any MOA provided by the Government. It is an arbitrary table with no appropriate headers, etc., as was the case with the Appendix A - Wage Rates / H&W Rate incorporated with the originally released CBA in Attachment 0008. Will Government include the MOA that addresses the apparent changes to the position titles, deletion of the Mechanic Lead position, and addition of EVT Mech. Level 1 and EVT Mech. Level 2 Lead? | USG has provided the negotiated CBA documents as the USG was provided. | |
| 12 | Attachment 0036 | The document provided as Attachment 0036 was created by Selene Romero the Chief Union Steward on 7/12/2023, one month after the effective date of the MOA in Attachment 0035. Is there another MOA that incorporates the table in Attachment 0036? | USG has provided the negotiated CBA documents as the USG was provided. | |
| 13 | Attachment 0037, Q&A Round 1, Line 63; | |||
| RFP M.5.3.6 | As a follow-up to the question on Line 63 of Attachment 0037, Q&A Round 1, "As the CBA provided with the solicitation documents only contains wages through May 2022, and no MOU or other document has been provided with more current rates, several labor categories in the CBA have wages lower than those in SCA WD. Will the Government confirm that proposal evaluations will ensure compliance with Article 13 of the CBA as stated in M.5.3.6, and that all offerors have complied with the language in the CBA?" the Government responded, "The USG has provided additional CBA documents and revised applicable documents." | |||
| The Government's response that it has provided additional CBA documents does not address the question if the Government will confirm that proposal evaluations will ensure compliance with Article 13 of the CBA as stated in M.5.3.6, and that all offerors have complied with the language in the CBA. Will the Government please answer the question as asked? | The USG will evaluate proposals in accordance with RFP M.5.3.6. | |||
| 14 | Attachment 0005 | The Government has hidden rows in Attachment 0005 that could cause inaccurate entries. There are four CLIN 0003BAs with two different descriptions and CLIN 0003EA with no description. Additionally, there are four links to other documents that appear to have nothing to do with the Huachuca solicitation. Will the Government correct the document to resolve these issues? | Attachment 0005 was corrected on amendment 0003. | |
| 15 | Attachment 0005 | The ODC CLINs descriptions appear out of sequence with the associated labor CLIN and do not follow the naming convention of same. Will the Government update the document to resolve the inconsistency? | ODC Titles have been revised. Please see revised Attachment 0005 provided with Amendment 0004. | |
| 16 | Attachment 0005 | The Government has provided ODC CLINs for Non ASC IMCOM Defuel Supply and Non ASC 111th MI BDE but did not provide ODC CLINs for Non ASC EPG or Non ASC ISEC. Is this an oversite or does the Government anticipate that there will be no requirement for ODCs for these customers? | Historically there has been no ODC requirement for ISEC and EPG in over three years and none are projected based on current TD-02 Workload Data and Density Listing. | |
| 17 | Amendment 0003 |
Attachment 0035 (BA H2 MOA)
| Government Q&A | Amendment 0003's Attachment 0035 specifies Service Contract Act (SCA) wages are to be paid if higher than Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)-negotiated wages after incorporated via contract modification. The current Wage Determination (WD), if modified into the contract, has seven (7) labor categories that fall into this situation. Will the Government please provide the last SCA WD incorporated into the contract so offerors can and must propose correct wages? | SCA WD 15-5719 REV 24 is provided with Amendment 0004. |
| 18 | Attachment 0008 | |
| Attachment 0016 | Attachment 0016 continues to state, "Offerors are not obligated to utilize the CBA positions identified on this SCA/CBA Crosswalk document. It is strictly the offerors’ decision on how to bid and what positions to bid in order to meet the requirements of the subject solicitation", however, the CBA clearly states in Article II, paragraph 2.2 that the CBA applies to all contractor "successors and/or assignees" which legally binds any successor to the CBA. Will the Government please remove the Attachment 0016 language that may lead some offerors to not propose directly applicable CBA labor categories and wages, or in the alternative, clarify to all offerors that it is acceptable to ignore the CBA wages and benefits entirely? | The USG will not remove or adjust the language in ATT0016. |
Offerors should ensure to follow the solicitation instructions as identified in L.5.2.1.1(b).
19 Request for Proposal (RFP); Page 39; Paragaph L.5.2.1.1(c)(6)(v) RFP; Page 37; Paragraph L.5.2.1.1(b) Attachment 0001 Attachment 0026 L.5.2.1.1(c)(6)(v) states, "Proposed FLC1 FTEs, when multiplied by the associated annual hours per year by employee type proposed for the option periods, shall be equal to or greater than the estimated hours of each functional area as provided in Attachment 0026 - TD-02 Workload Data and Density List." Will the Government please confirm that this instruction mandates that the functional area Functional Labor Category-1 (FLC-1) hours proposed on the Attachment 0002 must be at or above those "estimated" in the TD-02 to be compliant or if different, such as subject to reasonably less from L.5.2.1.1(b) innovations and efficiencies, clarify the requirement? Yes, as the solicitation L.5.2.1.1(c)(6)(v) states, "Proposed FLC1 FTEs, when multiplied by the associated annual hours per year by employee type proposed for the option periods, shall be equal to or greater than the estimated hours of each functional area as provided in Attachment 0026 - TD-02 Workload Data and Density List."
The offeror has the opportunity to propose innovations and efficiencies to meet the requirement utilizing less annual hours of effort than is identified or described in the solicitation documents.
| 20 | Attachment 0005 | The ODC CLINs descriptions appear out of sequence with the associated labor CLIN and do not follow the naming convention of same. Will the Government update the document to resolve the inconsistency? | ODC Titles have been revised. Please see revised Attachment 0005 provided with Amendment 0004. | |
| 21 | Attachment 0016 - CBA-SCA Crosswalk V2 | |||
| Attachment 0036 CBA - H3.HUA CBA WAGE List FY23 | In Attachment 0016, the Level 2 EVT mechanic position is titled "EVT Mechanic Level 2," while in Attachment 0036, a similar position is titled "EVT Mechanic Level 2 Lead." We are assuming these refer to the same role. Could the government please clarify which title is the correct one according to the CBA for this position? | ATT0016 has been revised. Please see Amendment 0004. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .