Soliciation_Question_Set_2_28_Sept.pdf

1. ADDENDUM TO 52.212‐1, INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS, Section 4a, contains a general prohibition of company identifying information except on the SF 1449.

QUESTION: Will the GOV change this general prohibition to include only Volume II?

Answer: The solicitation has been amended to only require Volume II to remove company identifying information.

2. PWS Paragraph 1.5 .2 Mobilization Plan, Page 59, contains the requirement for item h. Obtaining required equipment. This requirement is not present in ADDENDUM TO 52.212‐1, INSTRUCTIONS TO

OFFERORS, Section Sb. Volume II: Technical Factor, i. Subfactor 1: Mobilization Plan, Page 124, nor in

ADDENDUM TO 52.212‐2, Section 3. EVALUATION CRITERIA, b. Volume II: Technical Factor, iv. Subfactor

1: Mobilization Plan, Page 132.

QUESTION: Is this an oversight or is this requirement not valid for our Technical Proposal?

Answer: This was not an oversight. Addendums to 52.212‐1 and 52.212‐2 are as intended.

3. PWS Paragraph 4.3, Equipment, states Contractor owned EDD explosive training aids shall be stored at the local German police station.

QUESTION: We currently store explosive sent kits IAW German Law and not at the local German Police, which is not a legal requirement. Will this be acceptable?

Answer: This will be acceptable, PWS 4.3a changed to reflect.

4. PWS Paragraph 3.4.d states All training will be conducted on US. controlled property with oversight by U.S. Government EDD personnel and at locations specified by the COR or the designated

U.S. Government Kennel Master.

QUESTION: We currently train with German Army K9 on German Military posts as well as local/federal

German police handlers off‐post to accomplish the Home‐Made Explosive (HNE) familiarization training.

Will this be acceptable?

Answer: This is acceptable. PWS 3.4d has been modified to reflect that training on US controlled property will be under the oversight of US government EDD personnel…

5. Paragraph 1.15.5 .2.d.(l) Procedures regarding the Physical Agility Test states that after a physician clears an individual with a temporary medical restriction to return to duty and take the PAT, the individual shall have (90) days to pass the PAT.

QUESTION: Does this mean that if a physician clears an individual to return to duty, and perform the essential functions of the position according to Appendix C of AE 190‐56, but not immediately take the

PAT, that the individual may return to work without any time limit to take the PAT, and that first when a physician clears the individual to take the PAT, the individual has the (90) days to pass the PAT?

Or does this mean that when a physician clears the individual to return to duty and perform the essential functions of the position, that the individual must also be cleared to attempt, and must pass, the PAT within (90) days of returning to duty?

Answer: The second interpretation is the intent.

6. PWS Paragraph 5.2.3.c requires one day of STX training per quarter during two non‐consecutive quarters per year. We interpret this requirement to be one (8) hour day.

QUESTION: Is this correct?

Answer: This is correct, one eight (8) hour day

7. In reference to the Penalty and Remediation Table TE #5 second factor, "Five percent or more of guard force not current on training within 60 days. "

QUESTION: How will employees on vacation, long term sick, or pregnant be calculated into this formula?

Answer: Those employees on extended leave would not be counted in the guard force. For more information refer to PWS 5.2.3.2. Training after extended absences.

8. During the Site Visit, the GOV stated it would update Attachment 4, Workload Data.

QUESTION: Will contractors be afforded an opportunity to ask questions when this update is released?

Answer: An additional period for questions and answers will not be provided.

9. In Line 4 of the Pricing Template there appears to be an error in the sum up field for the monthly and yearly charge. Not all cells are included in the total.

QUESTION: Will the GOV provide a correction to the template?

Answer: Yes

10. PWS Paragraph 1.6.6.g includes USAG Benelux, Site Bremerhaven. At this facility they utilize radiation source equipment (x‐ray).

QUESTION: Will the GOV include a Radiation Safety Officer, IAW German Law, to the requirements for training and inspections?

Answer: X‐Ray capabilities would be considered in scope of this contract. In the near future, this requirement may be added to Bremerhaven.

11. The PWS identifies several annual training and document submittal requirements. The PAT in

PWS Section 1.15.5, Semi Annual Weapons Qualification in PWS Section 5.2.3.b, First Aid in PWS Section

5.2.3.1. The Doctors Statement, the GCC, OPSEC, iWATCH, AT Level 1, etc. We currently schedule these qualifications on the anniversary of the previous certification and not contract award.

QUESTION: Will this practice be acceptable in the new contract and our current employee's certifications accepted at contract award?

Answer: Yes to both

12. As the incumbent, we are aware of gate design problems that require a higher staffing of certain

ACPs than the Workload Data would. Our competitors are not aware of these deficiencies and will not be able to accurately staff to fully meet the requirements of PWS Paragraph 5.1.4 which states the contractor will ensure manning standards and shift relief do not create security vulnerabilities.

QUESTION: Will these deficiencies be identified to all parties or will this be taken into account when evaluating the proposals? Another option would be to issue a sample task order to use when completing the Staffing Plan required in ADDENDUM TO 52.212‐1, INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS, Section 5b.

Volume II: Technical Factor, ii. Subfactor 2, Staffing Plan, Page 124.

Answer: The deficiencies have been identified and updated in the workload data

13. PWS Paragraph 1.6.3 states that work shall be performed on local Host Nation holidays occurring during the normal workweek.

QUESTION: Does this mean that work will not be performed on Host Nation holidays falling on the weekend?

Answer: PWS 1.6.3 has been amended to simply state that work shall be performed on all U.S. holidays and on local Host Nation holidays.

14. The GOV provided Special Guard Orders in the Attachment 1 that contains the staffing for the posts identified.

QUESTION: Which shall take precedence on staffing? The Workload Data, Special Orders, or local policies?

Answer: As we transition from an hours based contract to a performance based contract, Special Guard

Orders will be amended to reflect only those duties performed at the post (and not necessarily any numbers).

15. PWS Paragraph 4.4.b requires shirttails on the protective vest. It also requires the vest to allow unrestricted movement.

This appears to contradict itself. Will the GOV accept a vest without shirttails?

Answer: The Government will accept a vest that meets National Institute of Justice (NIJ) standards for body armor that provides Level 3A protection, shall meet "Ballistic Resistance of Body Armor NIJ

Standard ‐ 0101.06"

16. PWS Paragraph 1.8, Key Control, states when the replacement of locks or rekeying is performed by the Government, the total cost of re‐keying or the replacement of the lock or locks shall be deducted from the monthly payment due the Contractor.

QUESTION: This is covered and paid for by our insurance policy, why the deduction?

Answer: There is no requirement in solicitation to have an insurance policy that covers this situation.

The deduction is to reimburse the Gov. for cost of re‐keying.

17. PWS Paragraphs 1.15.1, 1.15.2 and 1.15.3 identify AT Level 1, OPSEC and iWATCH training but no time requirement.

QUESTION: Could you specify the time requirements for these training topics?

Answer: The three topics together take approximately eight (8) hours of training.

18. PWS Paragraph 1.15.4 identifies Information Assurance Training.

QUESTION: Is this a requirement for all IACS users or just the Desk Clerks in Miesau?

Answer: This requirement is only for those personnel requiring access to Government information systems that require a common access card. This is not a requirement for IACS users.

19. PWS Paragraph 1.13.b requires us to issue employees a pistol belt and PR‐24 Side Handle Baton.

QUESTION: We are attempting to reduce the weight of equipment placed on the employees lower backs. Will the issuance of an equipment vest be acceptable? Would ASPs be acceptable?

Answer: This is acceptable

20. PWS Paragraph 1.19.2 a "Pre‐employment screening. For initial testing, urine test samples are required within fourteen (14) days of contract award date."

QUESTION: As the employees are providing samples IAW the contract already, will current employees in the USAREUR guard contract be exempt from the 14 day requirement?

Answer: No

21. PWS Paragraph 1.19 .2 b "After initial pre‐employment screening of each employee, unannounced and random testing of 10 percent of the work force will be conducted monthly."

QUESTION: If the testing is truly random it is likely that some employees will be selected for testing several times in a year while others are not tested at all. Is it also the Government's intention for all employees to be drug tested at least once a year?

Answer: No, random testing is the intent.

PWS Paragraph 1.7.4 addresses Background Checks: a. NCTC

QUESTION: If a U.S. Citizen has not been in Germany for 12 consecutive months, will a favorable NCIC check be accepted to allow hiring the individual until the LNSP can be processed?

Answer: No, even with a favorable NCIC‐III check, an LNSP check must be submitted before the individual may work on the contract.

d. European Police Good Conduct Certificates (EPGCC)

QUESTION 1: The EPGCC is only available for European citizens. If the new hire or employee is not a

European citizen, will the government accept the normal German PGCC?

Answer: Yes

QUESTION 2: The paragraph states that the EPGCC shall not be older than 90 days from contract award date. If a new hire is hired after the award date, is it acceptable that the document in not older than 90 days from submission of the initial NCIC or LNSP documents? If not, what is the requirement for a new hire after the award date?

Answer: Yes, the PWS has been amended to reflect this.

22. Paragraph 5.1 Security Services (a‐m) seems to allow the special guard orders, local procedures, and changes based on unforeseen requirements or threat conditions to affect staffing levels. This would eventually increase the cost of the contract without any control of the contractor.

QUESTION 1: Will changes to the staffing related to these circumstances be covered through requests for special events hours or will the government allow price adjustments due to the changes to the

Workload Data affecting staffing?

Answer: When unforeseen exigent circumstances do occur, the most likely scenario is the closing of some or many access control points and shift guards to the open access control points.

QUESTION 2: Will the government allow price adjustment negotiations in order to facilitate necessary staffing changes based on modifications to the ACP structures or increases in the workload through increases in troops, family members, or influx of government employees at the individual installations or

ACPs?

Answer: The intent of this contract is to provide FFP for guard services at the locations throughout

Germany. Any foreseeable (meaning currently approved by the US ARMY) increases would not significantly impact the workload at a given location over 6‐12 month time frame. Minor changes to ACP structure, e.g. gate closure, minor increases and decreases to traffic flow, short term exercises, etc… should be included in each monthly price.