Questions and Answer Document - 7 February 2020.pdf

Question and Answer Document – 7 February 2020

Page and Paragraph

Offeror’s Questions Governments Response

P. 246,

c. Vol IV, Factor 2 Past Performance

The criteria sets “recency” as the performance within 24 of the last 36 months “from the date established for submission of proposals.” It’s somewhat ambiguous whether this means from the date of submission of original proposals or revised proposals.

The date of submission of proposals would be from the revision date.

P. 262, C. Eval Approach, 1.b.(3)ii Factor 2 Past Performance

The RFP states that “The KO reserves the right to down grade the performance confidence assessment of any offeror based on lack of relevant performance information.” This is not permissible under FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv).

For the meaning and context of the referenced statement, please see Page 176, 52.212-2, paragraph C.1.b.(3)(ii), which states, “The KO reserves the right to down grade the performance confidence assessment of any offeror based on lack of relevant performance information. Offeror’s may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past or present performance effort that is rated less than satisfactory overall or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system.”

P. 263, C. Eval Approach, 1.b.(3)ii(c) Factor 2 Past Performance

The RFP states that “In order to be considered for award, the offeror must receive an ‘acceptable’ in all non-price factors.”

Offerors should only require an acceptable rating on technical approach and small business participation since there is no “acceptable” rating for past performance factor.

The government revised this area in this Amendment (0006) to state, “In order to be considered for award, the offeror must receive an ‘acceptable’ in all non-price factors except past performance.”

P. 264, C. Eval Approach, 1.b.(3)ii(d)(e) Factor 4 Small Business Participation Proposal and Small Business Subcontracting Plan

Small Business Participation Proposal and Small Business Subcontracting Plan are both acceptable/unacceptable eval criteria. Per 13 CFR 125.3(g)(3), the Agency is required to assign a small business offeror the maximum rating on these factors without having to submit any information. See 13 CFR 125.3(g)(i) & (g)(3). The RFP indicates otherwise.

Also, Small Businesses cannot be required to submit or be evaluated on a Small Business Subcontracting Plan, so it should be clear that a small business is automatically acceptable on this factor.

The government is aware of 13 CFR 125.3(g)(i) & (g)(3) requirements. For the small business participation proposal, all offerors must submit a proposal;

however, for the small business subcontracting plan, it does not state that a small business must submit a plan.

Volume VII, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, paragraph (1) states, “If the offeror is other than a small business, the offeror shall submit an Individual, Master or

Pages 240-242, Volume 1

Proposal 3 Content begins with Volume II. There is no Proposal information regarding Volume I - Small Business Concerns other than the information found in Table 1.k - Proposal Organization on page 241. Will the Government please provide the Proposal Content information required in more detail than what is provided in the table?

The information that is required for this volume starts on page 240, paragraph c.

Complete reference for this information is at Addendum 52.212-1, D. Proposal Submission. 1. c.

Page 250, (2) Required goals are: Small Business (55% of total contract value)

Should this be restated as: Required goals are: Small Business (55% of total subcontract value), and not total contract value?

Current DoD SBA total goals are 32% for SB subcontracts

No, it is stated as the government intends. The DoD SBA goals are 32%, however, our agency goals for this requirement have been set at 55%.

Page 2;

Amendment 4, 2.e

2.e states “The subject solicitation has been re-opened to allow ALL offerors the opportunity to submit a proposal based on the solicitation’s new source selection method. Offerors that submitted a proposal on 24 June 2019 may submit a new proposal utilizing the new source selection method. Will the Government please clarify if this means only organization’s that submitted a proposal on the original due date are considered “Offerors”? Per FAR 15.206,(c), “Amendments issued after the established time and date for receipt of proposals shall be issued to all offerors that have not been eliminated from the competition.” Or is the Government opening this solicitation up to all potential bidders, even those that have not submitted a bid on 24 June 2019?

The government is opening this solicitation up to all potential bidders as well as informing offerors that submitted a proposal on 24 June 2019 that may submit a new proposal based on the new source selection method.

Page 16, Section B; Page; Page 247, d. Volume V, Factor 3, Price (3)(b), Attachment 3 Price Matrix- 24_Apr_19

Section B, refers to CLIN 0027 as the CLIN for Phase In. On page 247, Volume V, Factor 3 – Price instructions, (3) (b) references CLIN 0028. There is no CLIN 0028 in Section B, and in the Price Attachment 3 dated 24_Apr_19 the Price Summary references Phase-In as CLIN 0027 and Deliverables as CLIN 0028. The Section B ends with CLIN 0025. Will the Government please clarify and/or correct these discrepancies?

This has been corrected with this Amendment (0006) to change CLIN 0028 to CLIN 0027 on page 247, d.

Volume V, Factor 3, Price (3)(b)and to correct Attachment 3. CLINs 0026, 1026, 2026, 3026 and 4026 are on the summary page since it is ‘Not Separately Priced’.

Page 16, Section B, CLINs 0023 & 0024 for base and each option year.

Section B CLIN 0023 is for Linen ISR Services and references PWS Section 5.15 and Exhibit H. CLIN 0024 is for Linen Services and also references PWS Section 5.15 and Exhibit F.

Will the Government please provide additional information as to what the difference is for these two CLINs?

CLIN 0023 (Linen ISR Services) is for Bldg. 3611, Institute of Surgical Research and CLIN 0024 (Linen Services) is for all other buildings. The linen services are funded by different appropriations.

Page 9, Section B; Attachment 3 Price Matrix- 24_Apr_19

Section B CLIN 0012 references BLDG. 3600 BAMC. On Attachment 3, Price Matrix 24_Apr_19, CLIN 0012, building states it is for BLDG 2600. Will the

This was corrected to reflect Bldg. 3600 with this Amendment (0006).

Page 16, Section

B, CLIN 0027,

Phase In

The phase-in CLIN description says “contractor shall perform phase-in services from 1 December 2019 through 31 January 2020”. Will the Government please correct this and provide the anticipated phase-in dates?

This phase-in dates were corrected with this Amendment (0006) to state, 1 Sep 2020 through 31 October 2020.