The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
QUESTION AND ANSWER TEMPLATE
Offerors who determine that the technical requirements of this RFP require clarifications in order to permit submittal of a responsive proposal may submit all questions in writing up to 14 calendar days prior to full proposal submission date located in block 8 of the SF 1449. These questions shall be directed to the KO. The Government will issue RFP Questions and answers on www.fbo.gov, and amend the RFP if necessary to clarify RFP requirements.
| Page and Paragraph |
| Offeror’s Questions |
| Governments Response |
| Page 180 Para C (1) |
| Para states requirement for 24 of the prior 36 months to qualify as “recent & relevan”. |
We request the government modify this in the final Solicitation to 18 of the prior 36 months.
The government will not modify the requirement as it is the minimum standard.
| Page 196-197 Para C. 1 b.(2) “Relevancy” table and Page 199-200 Para 3 b. 1 (Past Performance Evaluation Ratings) |
| These tables appear to combine to make a significant impact on each bidders submission. Can the government please advise the “weighting” for each “score” in these table towards the final offeror’s ranking in the award analysis? |
| There are no “weights” or “scores” to be assigned to each offeror, only the ratings outlined in the Addendum to 52.212-2, B.3.b.1). Furthermore, in accordance with the Addendum to 52.212-2, Paragraph A, “this is a competitive best value source selection in which the offeror’s past performance history will be evaluated on a basis of being slightly more important than price”. |
| N/A |
| As part of the RFP documentation there is a registration form for what appears to be a site visit form. However, there is no date for the site visit in the RFP. Will the Government please indicate the date and time of the site visit, and when the registration is due? |
| The notice details contain the date and time of the site visit, as well as when the registration is due. Please review the information at the following link: https://www.fbo.gov/spg/USA/MEDCOM/DADA10/W81K0419R0030/listing.html |
Attachment 5, Paragraph 1 sates, Offerors who determine that the technical requirements of this RFP require clarifications in order to permit submittal of a responsive proposal may submit all questions in writing up to 14 calendar days prior to full proposal submission date located in block 8 of the SF 1449.
Solicitation Synopsis description released on October 3, 2019 states, Please submit questions regarding this solicitation in writing not later than 11 OCTOBER 2019 to Ms. Lizete Greene at lizete.m.greene.civ@mail.mil.
Please clarify the deadline for submitting questions pertaining to this solicitation.
The deadline for questions is as stated in Attachment 5, “14 calendar days prior to full proposal submission…”. The date of 11 October 2019 was the suspense for questions to be submitted to be addressed at the Pre-proposal Conference/Site Visit.
| Page 3, CLIN 0001 and Page 26, CLIN 0001 |
| Page 3, CLIN 0001 Ordering Period states "15 March 2020 through 14 March 2025" but Page 26, CLIN 0001 states "POP 31 Oct 2020 to 31 Oct 2025. Request clarification of discrepancy between the period of performances for CLIN 0001. |
| The ordering period depicts the time periods in which the CMR should cover and this is listed in the CLIN desription. The POP states the due dates (31 Oct) of the CMR report each year and this is listed in the delivery schedule. |
| Page 29, CLIN 0044 |
| CLIN 0044 (Phase-In) POP states "15 Mar 2020 to 30 April 2025," but should be "15 Mar 2020 to 30 April 2020" (45 days). |
| The government will correct via an amendment. |
| Page 31 |
| According to FAR 4.1202(b), "The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.204-19, Incorporation by Reference of Representations and Certifications, in solicitations and contracts." Could Government please confirm if clause 52.204-19 is applicable? |
| No, 52.204-19 is not applicable due to the inclusion of 52.204-7. |
| Page 31, FAR Clause 52.204-18 |
| The solicitation included FAR Clauase 52.204-18; however, according to FAR Subpart 4.1804(c) "Insert the clause at 52.204-18 Commercial and Government Entity Code Maintenance, in all solicitations and contracts when the solicitation contains the provision 52.204-16, Commercial and Government Entity Code Reporting" but did not include Clauses/provisions FAR 52.204-7 (System Award Management), FAR 52.204-13 (System Award Management Maintenance) FAR 52.204-16 or FAR 52.204-17. Could Government please confirm if referenced clauses are applicable? |
| FAR Clauses 52.204-18, 52.204-16, and FAR 52.204-7 are already included in the solicitation. FAR Clauses 52.204-13 and 52.204-17 will be incorporated into the solicitation via an amendment. |
| Page 61, DFAR Clause 252.216-7006, Ordering |
| In reference to paragraph (a), the solicitation states, "Such orders may be issued from 15 March 2020 through 14 March 2026; If FAR Clause 52.217-8 is exercised, orders may be issued through 14 September 2026." However, the contract expires 14 March 2025 and orders could not be issued unless FAR 52.217-8 is exercised which then orders could be issued through 14 September 2025. Could Government please clarify ordering period to include exercise of FAR 52.217-8? |
| The government will correct via an amendment. |
| Page 90, PWS 3.4.3 and Page 129, Exhibit E |
| PWS 3.4.3 states, "The Government will provide scales in the clean linen room, soiled linen room and the RMW storage room." However, Exhibit E does not include scales. |
| The government will correct via an amendment. |
| Page 90, PWS 3.4.3 and Page 129, Exhibit E |
| PWS 3.5.2.3 states, "The Government will furnish access keys for areas where work is to be performed." However, Exhibit E does not include keys. |
| The government will correct via an amendment. |
| Page 95, PWS 5.5.1.6, 5.11.6 and Exhibit D |
| Type VI Services includes dining rooms; Exhibit D did not identify "dining room" for WAMC Building 4-2817. Could Government please identify "dining room" requirements for Building 4-2817? |
| The government will correct via an amendment. |
| Page 134, Paragraph 5, WAMC MTF Normal Operating Hours |
| Solicitation did not include WAMC MTF Normal Operating Hours for Dining Room. Could Government please provide normal operating hours for dining room(s)? |
| The government will correct via an amendment. |
| Page 175, Table 1.k - Proposal Organization (Page Limit) and Page Limitations and Page 177, Paragraph (b)(3). |
| Solicitation indicates "49***" as the page limitation for Factor 1 - Technical Approach; specifically, "25" pages for Section C, Specific Task Requirements, PWS Section 5. Is it the Government's expectation that the offeror's Section C (specific processes and procedures for Section 5) include narratives/ descriptions of each process/procedure for Types I - VI from the offeror's Supplemental C-1 (Sample Healthcare Environmental Cleaning Procedures Manual)? If so, may offeror's provide a cross-reference matrix due to the redundancy of incorporating processes and procedures that are detailed in the offeror's Sample Healthcare Environmental Cleaning Procedures Manual? |
| In accordance with the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, paragraph D.2.b.(3), "All technical proposal information shall be confined to the appropriate volume and section. For example, only information included in the section labeled “Section A - General Requirements, PWS Section 1” will be evaluated for General Requirements, PWS Section 1.6. – 1.6.6., 1.9. – 1.9.4., and 1.13. – 1.13.5.. If General Requirements, PWS Section 1.6. – 1.6.6., 1.9. – 1.9.4., and 1.13. – 1.13.5. information is included elsewhere in the proposal (e.g., different volume or section), it will not be evaluated as part of the Section A – General |
Requirements, PWS Section 1.6. – 1.6.6., 1.9. – 1.9.4., and 1.13. – 1.13.5.. The government will not adapt their evaluation to comply with an offeror’s proposal submission or otherwise go in search of information that an offeror omitted or failed adequately to present. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked". The government's expection for Section C is listed in the Addendum to 52.212-1, paragraph D.2.b.(6)(c), which states, "The offeror shall provide specific narrative details and/or descriptions of its technical approach with actual methods, processes, and procedures that demonstrate the offeror's compliance and understanding of specific task requirements (PWS Section 5). The technical approach shall demonstrate how the offeror intends to meet each of the specific task requirements in PWS Section 5".
| Page 196, A. Basis for Award |
| Solicitation states, "Acquisition will use Performance-Price Trade-Off (PPT) Source Selection Procedures." However, DoD Source Selection Procedures (2016) and Army Source Selection Supplement (AFARS Appendix AA, 2017) do not include PPT Source Selection Procedures. Could Government please provide the regulatory reference for PPT Source Selection Procedures? |
| The DoD Source Selection Procedures and Federal Acquisition Regulation 15.101 allows an agency to abtain best value in negoitated acquisition by using any one or or a combination of source selection approaches. |
| Page 196, A. Basis for Award |
| Solicitation states, "Best Value is defined as those most advantageous offers, performance and other factors considered, that are consistent with the government's stated evaluation criteria, in order of importance." If Factor 1 - Technical Approach is most important, then why is it rated as "acceptable/unacceptable" in a trade-off scenario? |
| Acquisition will use Performance-Price Trade-Off (PPT) Source Selection procedures to make a best value decision |
in accordance with FAR 15.101-1, as supplemented, to make a best value award decision. Best Value is defined as those most advantageous offers, performance and other factors considered, that are consistent with the government’s stated evaluation criteria, in order of importance. This is a competitive best value source selection in which an offeror’s past performance history will be evaluated on a basis of being slightly more important than price. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements. All technically acceptable offers shall be treated equally except for their prices and performance records. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable. This may result in an award being made to a higher-rated, higher-priced offeror, where the KO determines that the benefits of past and present performance offered by the offeror outweigh the cost difference.
| Page 196, A. Basis for Award |
| According to DoD Source Selection Guide, Paragraph 3.1, "The SSEB shall conduct an in-depth review of each proposal against the factors and subfactors established in the solicitation, and assign evaluation ratings (see FAR 15.305). The standardized rating tables and rating definitions detailed in this document are required to be used for adjectival ratings. For any technical factors and factors/subfactors evaluated on other than an “acceptable/unacceptable” basis, including risk, the ratings in this section shall be utilized. When any factors/subfactors are not discriminating factors in the source selection and evaluated on an “acceptable/unacceptable” basis, the ratings set forth in Appendix C, Table C-1 shall be utilized. " If the Government is using "acceptable/unacceptable" basis for Technical, then it would not be a discriminating factor in the source selection trade-off scenario and Technical should be evaluated in such manner as a compliance matrix or checklist. Could Government please clarify the use of descriptive, narrative processes and procedures as described in Pages 178 - 180, Factor 1 - Technical Approach, if Technical is a non-discriminating factor. |
| Technical is not being traded-off. The government will evaluate technical proposals on an acceptable/unacceptable (pass/fail) basis to determine technical acceptability. Each technical proposal will receive a rating of acceptable or unacceptable. Only those offerors whose technical proposal has been determined to be technically acceptable will receive further |
consideration for award.
| Page 197, Paragraph (2) Relevancy and Exhibit C |
| The solicitation states "Very relevant performance carries more weight than relevant or somewhat relevant. To qualify a very relevant the past/present performance effort must have involved providing healthcare environmental cleaning services in a military treatment facility or civilian hospital with at least 1.3M SF, in Types I - VI Services..." However, Exhibit C does not identify any military treatment facility at WAMC that meets the 1.3M SF; the largest MTF is Building 4-2817 at 820,263SF. Could Government please clarify if "military treatment facility" is the aggregate of all MTFs for the requirement or a single MTF? |
| The total SF for the MTFs in the HSA of WAMC is 1.3M IAW Exhibit C. The 1.3M SF is not for a single building. Furthermore, in accordance with the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, paragraph D.2.c.(1), "Recent and relevant past performance information for this solicitation is past performance for a total of 24 months of the previous 36 months (from the date established for submission of proposals) in a medical |
facility same or similar to WAMC performing services similar in scope and complexity this solicitation requires. The word “contract” is defined as a single contract or a single task order on an Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite- Quantity (IDIQ) contract. The word “contract”, as defined herein, does not mean basic IDIQ contract, for the purpose of past performance submissions under this solicitation".
| Page 100, 5.13.8.2 and Page 136, Attachment 1, Paragraph 6, "Exterior Glass" |
| The referenced paragraph 5.13.8.2 says, in part, that all exterior windows will be cleaned a minimum of twice annually. Attachment 1 only lists exterior glass for the first floor of selected buildings. Can the Government please clarify the exterior window cleaning requirement? |
| The window cleaning requirement is for all exterior windows to be cleaned at a minimum of twice annually IAW PWS 5.13.8.2. Attachment 1 lists the windows for all the Floors because the government tracking system doesn’t distinguish between floor levels. |
| Pages 94-104 PWS, Section 5 |
| Is escalator cleaning part of the requirement? |
| No, facilities cleans the escalator. |
| Page 136, Attachment 1 - Dispenser Statistics |
| Can the Government please provide the exact types of paper towel, toilet paper, hand sanitizer and soap dispensers in use? Since batteries are contractor-furnished can the Government please indicate how many of the 16,462 dispensers listed in the four catagories are battery operated? |
| The government will update Attachment 1 with the paper towel, toilet paper, and soap dispenser model numbers. The government does not track the hand sanitizer model #'s or how many are battery operated. |
| Page 134, Attachment 1, Paragraph 2 |
| What is represented by "Veterinary Health Clinic", "WAMC/VA" and "Blood Donor Center"? Are the numbers for the fiscal years annual visits? Every 24 hours? |
| The government will correct the building names via an amendment. The information in Attachment 1 corresponds with Exhibit C's list of buildings. Attachment 1 healthcare statistics are annual. |
| Page 134, Attachment 1, Paragraph 2 |
| With reference to " Annual Pathology Procedures (included blood draw", can the Government please clarify and verify the quantities listed? |
| The Government verified and the numbers listed for Annual Pathology Procedures is correct. |
| Page 179, Paragraph C |
| FAR 52.212-1, (c) Section C (Page 179), the solicitation states, “The technical approach shall clearly demonstrate how the offeror intends to meet each of the specific task requirements in PWS Section 5. The offeror shall submit the following supplements to support the offeror’s technical approach for specific task requirements (PWS Section 5).” As the solicitation includes the submission of Supplement C-1, Sample Healthcare Environmental Cleaning Procedures Manual, which supports (demonstrates each cleaning procedures) an offeror’s technical approach to the specific task requirements in Section 5, please clarify if cleaning procedures must be included in technical approach if already included in Supplement C-1? If so, what is the purpose of the Supplement C-1 if duplicated in technical approach? |
| In accordance with the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, paragraph D.2.b.(3), "All technical proposal information shall be confined to the appropriate volume and section. For example, only information included in the section labeled “Section A - General Requirements, PWS Section 1” will be evaluated for General Requirements, PWS Section 1.6. – 1.6.6., 1.9. – 1.9.4., and 1.13. – 1.13.5.. If General Requirements, PWS Section 1.6. – 1.6.6., 1.9. – 1.9.4., and 1.13. – 1.13.5. information is included elsewhere in the proposal (e.g., different volume or section), it will not be evaluated as part of the Section A – General Requirements, PWS Section 1.6. – 1.6.6., 1.9. – 1.9.4., and 1.13. – 1.13.5.. The government will not adapt their evaluation to comply with an offeror’s proposal submission or otherwise go in search of information that an offeror omitted or failed adequately to present. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked". The government's expection for Section C is listed in the Addendum to 52.212-1, paragraph D.2.b.(6)(c), which states, "The offeror shall provide specific narrative details and/or descriptions of its technical approach with actual methods, processes, and procedures that demonstrate the offeror's compliance and understanding of specific task requirements (PWS Section 5). The technical approach shall demonstrate how the offeror intends to meet each of the specific task requirements in PWS Section 5". |
| Page 179, Paragraph B |
| Please provide clarification regarding FAR 52.212-1, (b) Section B (Page 179), “The offeror shall submit Supplement B-1, Supply and Equipment List, to support the offeror’s technical approach for contractor-furnished supplies/property requirements to PWS Section 4.3.3 and 4.3.14” The Page Count is “5” pages for Supplement B-1, is this correct? |
| Yes. |
| Page 178, Paragraph 6 (a) (1) |
| Does the CIMS certification of one of the joint venture partners qualify the entire joint venture as CIMS certified? |
| No, in accordance with the Addendum to 52.212-1, paragraph D.2.b.(6)(a)(1), which states, "A team member or major subcontractor’s ISSA CIMS-GB certification may not be used to satisfy the ISSA CIMSGB |
certification for a prospective prime contractor". The Joint Venture would have to either be certified as one, or the prime contractor in the Joint Venture would have to be certified to meet this requirement.
Department of the Army Medical Command