W9115125RA004 RFI Answers as of 20251001 part 3 of 3.pdf

Question Answer In reviewing TE D (Combined Areas and Acreage, No Airfields, April 2025) and the corresponding Maps, the acreage is inconsistent in at least 20 of the Areas. (For example, Area 9, Clear Creek Entrance Area lists 52.73 acres of Common Area, but the Map only shows approximately 38 Acres. GM 14 (spray area) lists acreage as 12.68 acres. The map shows only 10.53 acres.

Please clarify. Further discrepancies exist such as failure to list Area YD-012. Again, please clarify. In addition some areas shown on maps are not shown on TE D.

Reference Amendment 0001 documents:

TE B1 Mowing Areas Common Viz (Amendment 1 Revision) TE B2 Mowing Areas High Viz (Amendment 1 Revision) TE C Chemical Sterilant Map Book (Amendment 1 Revision) Attachment 5 (Amendment 1 Revision) Attachment 5 Summary of Changes

1. The solicitation references approximately 3,700 acres of grounds to be maintained, while the total acreage listed in the pricing sheet appears to be 3,139.77 acres. Could the Government clarify the source of the acreage difference?

The Government acknowledges the discrepancy between the 3,700 acres referenced in the solicitation and the 3,139.77 acres listed in the pricing sheet.

Vendors shall price the arcreage on Attachment 5 (Amendment 1 Revision)

2. Could the Government provide historical data for 2024 and 2025 regarding mowing frequency orders? Specifically:

How many times were common areas mowed?

How many times were high-visibility areas mowed?

How many special events occurred in each of the past two years? Approximately 75 special cuts were performed over the last two years. Acers per cut ranged between 1.3 acres to 90.14

Was mowing and trimming regularly performed during the winter months when grass growth is dormant?

Mowing and Trimming was conducted as required by the IMCOM standard for the current contract. The IMCOM standard for the current contract is different frome the follow-on contract.

3. During the site visit, will the majority of the areas inspected be considered in “standard” condition as defined by the solicitation?

The current IMCOM standards are not the same as the IMCOM standards for the follow-on contract.

4. Will there be sufficient parking space on-site for contractor vehicles, and may contractor crews keep vehicles and trucks parked overnight in the designated parking areas at their own risk?

No, the contractors yard is not for overnight parking all POV's will not be left in or around the contractors yard.

5. The solicitation notes a decrease in mowing, trimming, edging, and chemical sterilant application during preceding months prior to award. Could the Government clarify the reason for this reduction?

The government acknowledges that mow areas may not be in 100% compliance at the time of contract award.

6. For key personnel qualifications, would a four-year Bachelor’s degree in Landscape Management be accepted as an equivalent to the Certified Grounds Manager (CGM) certificate?

Refer to section 1.10.6 in the PWS.

In the Instructions to Offerors, the Volume II subfactors are defined as follows:

•Subfactor 1: Equipment and Staffing Plan [52.212-1 B. 3.b.2.a)] •Subfactor 2: Grounds Maintenance Service Execution Plan

[52.212-1 B. 3.b.2.b)] oThis subfactor includes the requirement to provide a

ii. Quality Control Plan

iii. Phase-In

•Subfactor 3: Capital Investment [52.212-1 B. 3.b.2.c)]

In the Evaluation Criteria, the Volume II subfactors are defined as follows:

•Subfactor 1: Equipment and Staffing Plan [52.212-2 B. 1.a.] •Subfactor 2: Quality Control Plan [52.212-2 B. 1.b.] •Subfactor 3: Phase-In Plan [52.212-2 B. 1.c.]

See Amendment 0001, changes highlighted in yellow.

The current contract is not an order driven contract, that information does not exist.

The following questions referred to section TE-P PRS Grounds Maintenance of the solicitation:

Under the column titled Performance Objective, it lists specific paragraphs which can be found in the PWS. i.e. Mowing and Trimming, High Visibility Areas (Paragraph 5.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3). In looking at the PWS 5.1 it is titled General, 5.2.2 is titled Service High Visibility Areas, and 5.2.3 Mowing. As the performance objectives has not called out other individual sections in the PWS other than 5.2.3 Mowing are they not a performance objective? i.e.

5.2.4 Edging is not listed as a standard evaluation criterion.

We have the same question as stated above for all sections under the Performance Objective column.

Under the column titled Acceptable Quality Level (AQL) it listed several sections at 96%. Our question is 96% of what as this can be interpreted as acreage, contract job, compliance… It is requested that clarity be provided on what the 96% is referring to and how it is measured.

Please clarify the language at the bottom of this section: “Monthly Payment deductions will be made for acreage not in compliance with PWS mowing standards.” How will these deductions be calculated and based on what criteria?

Vendor is assessed to the Performance Standard described in the PRS. See Amendment 0001, PWS and PRS.

AQL is based on the Mow Area identified on task order.

Payment deductions are calculated based on acreage not in compliance with relevant standard. Also reference Liquidated Damages 52.211-11.

Paragraph 5.2.13 of the PWS (Remove Debris, Leaves and Litter) references INCOM standards. However the INCOM standards provided in this solicitation do not address the standards for “Debris, Leaves and Litter”. Please clarify.

Leaf removal is not a requirement of this contract. Any debris located in any mow area is required to be picked up at the time of cutting any particular mow area. References to Leaf removal have been removed from PWS in Amendment 0001

Paragraph 1.10.5 of the PWS states that Key Personnel must be reported to the KO, however Paragraph 8.2 (and other areas in the solicitation) requires the Key Personnel to only be reported to the COR. Please clarify.

Reference PWS Amendment 0001. COR added in addition to KO.

The Liquidated Damages Clause (52.211-11) has damages listed as “TBD”. This is inconsistent with contract law and the FAR and must be clarified. By definition, Liquidated Damages must be stated at the onset of a contract and must be a result of indeterminant actual damages, and a close approximation or estimate of actual damages. The designation of “TBD” is inconsistent with this principle and makes it impossible to accurately bid.

Liquidated Damages will be assessed prior to contract award. The dollar amount will depend on the specific area/standard out of compliance and will be on a per-acre standard, reflecting the cost for the Government to execute the service to standard.

TE E1 IMCOM Capability Standards list cut intervals based on the later of time (up to 21 days), or height of grass. (emphasis added) with “safety and security” stated as the criteria. In the event the contract standards do NOT yield sufficient safety and security, will a “one-time” cut be ordered from the IDIQ on areas which are in contract compliance?

Contractor is responsible for maintaining areas to standards outlined in TE-E1 and/or TE-E2. Specialty cuts can be ordered in addition to regular maintenance.

In reviewing the Solicitation, it is unclear if the contract is an IDIQ contract or a Firm Fixed Price Contract (as defined in the Federal Acquisition Regulation). Reference SF 1449, Items 0001-0012 which states the contract is both a Firm Fixed Price Contract and IDIQ on each line item. Please clarify.

The contract type is Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) with Firm Fixed Price (FFP) pricing methods.

PWS 5.2.30 This section states that erosion control shall be the predominant ground maintenance work in this area. Will the government please provide a list of tasks that erosion control is to include?

In section 5.2.33 that contains the erosion control statement will have to be an administative modification. Erosion control is not the predominate work performed in common areas. This verbiage is removed from PWS in Amendment 0001.

2. The Performance Work Statement says that the period of performance will be "for five (5) 12 month ordering periods, including a 30-day phase-in, and 30-day phase-out." Are the ordering periods optional, in that the Army may or may not choose to continue to use the contractor based on performance? Or, is this contract good for 5 year regardless of any issues that may arise with the contractor?

Ordering periods allow the Government to cut task orders as funding is available. The intent is for the Government to procure services for the entire five year period.

Do the soldiers do the ground maintenance for the barracks and also do the ones living on base take care of their own yards.

Mow areas are outlined in TE-B1 and TE-B2 (Amendment 1 Revisions), additional context provided in TE-A1 and TE-A2.

Last is how payment is done, is it every two weeks or every month? Reference WAWF clause 252.232-7006